blog feedback for CEB Matthew

CommonEnglishBibleLogoNow that the CEB Matthew sampler is available for download, feel free to comment upon what you find in the CEB translation of the Gospel of Matthew. Please remember to follow our blog posting guidelines.

Here’s something to start with, if you wish: I consider “the Human One” to be a courageous translation for ho huios tou anthropou in Matt. 9:6 (and elsewhere in the book). That communicates far better to almost all English speakers than does the traditional translation of “Son of Man.” What do you think?

And here is my reaction to two verses earlier, CEB Matt. 9:4:

But Jesus knew what they were thinking and said, “Why do you think evil things in your hearts?”

“In your hearts” is not the English translation equivalent of the underlying Greek which represents the Hebraic view of the bodily organ of thinking, the heart. (The author of Matthew was steeped in the Hebraic worldview, even though he, or someone later, wrote his gospel in Greek.) In English the heart is the metaphorical organ for emotions. In Biblical Hebrew (and presumably in Aramaic which Jesus usually spoke) it was the metaphorical organ for thinking and volition. English speakers consider the brain to be the organ for thinking. But, in English we do not normally name an organ when we refer to thinking. So, IMO, a better, more accurate (for English speakers), translation of Matt. 9:4 would be:

But Jesus knew what they were thinking and said, “Why are you thinking evil things?”

Notice that I also have suggested a revision from the (IMO) stilted “do you think” to the more natural “are you thinking”? I’m not sure if “evil things” is the most natural way to express the last part of this verse. Perhaps “Why are you thinking in an evil way?” is better English. But that might change the meaning slightly, which should not be done in translation, if it can be avoided.

41 thoughts on “blog feedback for CEB Matthew

  1. Esteban Vázquez says:

    I find both “Human One” and the use of contractions jarring. I also noticed a few oddities: for instance, Joseph is engaged to Mary (rather than betrothed), but he takes her as his wife (rather than marries her). And then there’s 26:31: “Tonight you’ll all fall away because of me.” But I just finished reading the CEB’s Matthew; I’ll print it tomorrow and look at it more closely then.

  2. Will Fitzgerald says:

    I see that some people have addressed the contractions in a previous post. I was/am worried that the use of contractions helped their readability scores. A quick check on Mt 5:17-20 from the CEB with and without contractions results indicates a lower “Flesh Reading Ease” score with the contractions (as measured in Microsoft Word for the Mac). But readability software is the roughest of guides for measuring ease of understanding.

    I think this is more than my intuition: in text, contractions are used best in reported speech in which a contraction occurs in the original (English) speech, indicating an elision in the original (English) speech. Because this is a translation, there can be no such elision, therefore contractions are not generally warranted.

  3. Paul Franklyn says:

    Contractions have nothing to do with reading grade level scores. They are neither a positive nor a negative. While CEB translators are encouraged to use the readability tool in Microsoft Word, some translators may desire further information about how the publisher measures readability with the Dale-Chall method. This method is more reliable than other formulas because it measures vocabulary and syntax. The method in MS Word (Fleish Kinkaid) is often shown to be 2 grade levels off of the actual level, sometimes high and sometimes low. The Dale-Chall readability formula computes a raw score, called the Reading Grade Score (RGS), which rates text on a U.S. grade-school level based on the average sentence length and the number of unfamiliar words, using the list of 3,000 words commonly known by 4th grade students. The publisher worked with the software vendor for Dale-Chall and upgraded this formula with a vocabulary assessment that includes a list of words commonly known by 8th grade students. (Proper nouns are tagged so that they are not factored.)

    The formula for the Reading Grade Score is:
    RGS = (0.1579 x DS) + (0.0496 x ASL) + 3.6365
    where:
    RGS : Reading Grade Score
    DS : Dale Score, or % of words not on the Dale-Chall list of 3,000 common words

    ASL : average sentence length (the number of words divided by the number of sentences)
    Then, use a mapping table to convert the raw score, Reading Grade Score (RGS), to its corresponding grade level: a Reading Score of 6.0 to 6.9 is a 7th grade reading level.

    We measured every paragraph on 1st draft and last draft, and informed translators/editors. Matthew in the CEB computes to a 5th grade reading level, whereas the full CEB is averaging 7th grade through 80% of the translation, including the difficult Apocrypha, the poetry, and the legal materials.

    Several textbooks on the market point to Dale-Chall as the best method out of more than 100 that have been proposed.

  4. Paul Franklyn says:

    Cindy Westfall drafted our policy on contractions:
    Natural English syntax and “accurate” grammar should be consistent with the level of formality of language in English usage. Formal and written academic genres typically avoid using contractions. Comparable biblical contexts that might avoid contractions would include formal contexts or statements, such as a) trials or royal interviews (socially formal situations), b) divine discourse (Hosea 11:9, Exodus 24:12), c) poetic, liturgical discourse (such as liturgical Psalms), and d) emphatic statements where avoiding a contraction contributes to the force of the statement.

    However, interpersonal language and language used in informal contexts (including letters) are typically characterized by the occurrence of contractions. The use of contractions makes language warmer, less stiff, easier to read, and heightens the general impact. Dialogue is interpersonal (though not always informal), but the use of contractions in the translation of instances of reported dialogue or speech should be nuanced. Translators are neither required nor encouraged to utilize contractions in every possible case. This would not reflect normal English usage and could be counterproductive particularly when translating abbreviated dialogues. Rather, the use of contractions in any given case should be considered with the same intentionality given to other vocabulary selections. The use of contractions should similarly be considered where a native English speaker would tend to use them in other cases of direct speech, informal narrative, personal letters, and homiletic literature.

    In everyday spoken English forms of the verb “to be” and other auxiliary verbs are usually contracted. According to M.A.K. Halliday, n’t is the default negation, and “not” is marked. The contractions of “not” should occur in a higher ratio than most of the others contractions (with exceptions noted), and prioritized over other contractions: “I won’t forsake you” is more natural/idiomatic than “I’ll not forsake you.”

    The pronoun contractions are natural in spoken and informal written English. The contractions of “is” are natural in dialogue and informal written English. Perhaps to a lesser extent, the “has” contractions are natural.

    With the exceptions of “is” and “have” contractions, the contractions with nouns (along with the sub-category of contractions of compound nouns) and the contractions with questions do not read well, even in reported speech. Even though they are common in spoken English, if we utilize them in the biblical dialogues, they would be perceived as a vulgar dialect.

  5. Mike Aubrey says:

    According to M.A.K. Halliday, n’t is the default negation, and “not” is marked.

    Only when there’s phonological stress on the “not” is the latter Focused and we don’t mark stress in text, so it’s not terrible relevant.

    I’m also rather cynical about the validity of Reading Level methods generally.

  6. Will Fitzgerald says:

    Paul Franklyn,

    Thank you so much for providing the reading score information and the information on contractions. (I’d recommend that you open up these policies and metrics on the CEB site somewhere.) I used the “Flesch Reading Ease” score because it was at hand, not because I thought the translators were using it.

    I found the contraction policy especially well thought out.

    Some specifics on the contractions used in 5:17-20, each of which seems a bit jarring to me.

    “Don’t even begin to think I have come to do away…” Why is “I have” not contracted, then? It seems to signal a register shift, especially after the “even begin to” (which to me is an informal, almost colloquial expression).

    “I haven’t come to do away with them, but …” Since Jesus is emphasizing the contrast, it seems that a ‘marked’ not makes sense. I think this is also true for v 17. If a contraction is used, I’d recommend: “Do not think I’ve come to do away…” “I’ve not come to do away with them, but …”

    “You’ll never enter the kingdom of heaven.” If there is any time to use a ‘marked’ contraction, it is when someone is warning you that you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus isn’t being “warm” here; on the contrary, it’s a pretty serious warning.

    Again, thanks for posting the metric and the contraction policy; and thanks for a peek at the translation.

  7. Wayne Leman says:

    I have been skim reading the sampler and I find the CEB usage of contractions to sound natural, so far. Contractions are especially appropriate in dialog as someone else pointed out. Not using them today in dialog makes English compositions sound stilted.

    I believe that the ISV uses contractions only in dialog. I’m not convinced that contractions are universally accepted as natural and appropriate in non-dialogue text yet, but it is (that is how I typed it, naturally, then I wondered if I should have typed “it’s) quite possible that standard dialects of English are moving in that direction.

  8. Michael Nicholls says:

    Hi Paul,

    First, congratulations on getting Matthew finished and published! I’m working on a translation project in Tanzania where we’ve just published Luke 1 & 2 (it’s actually on the way to the printers right now), the first scripture to be published in these languages, so I understand a little the trepidation and nervous excitement, and also the ridiculous amounts of work that go into the first batches (it’s taken us a year to do these 2 chapters!). So good luck, and God bless. It’s highly likely that we’ll try to provide the CEB to our national translators as a resource when they’re doing translation, since ESLs usually do a lot better with natural/common English translations than some other not so natural translations. Now if we can just get a parallel CEB-Swahili version….. 😉

    I really liked Cindy’s policy on contractions. It’s great that you’re acknowledging the differences in language register.

    Since everyone’s talking about contractions first, here’s one that I noticed that sounded strange:

    5:13-14 “You’re the salt of the earth … You’re the light of the world.” (CEB) (<- in accordance with CEB's copyright stipulations :))

    It sounds more natural to me to hear "You are the salt of the earth … You are the light of the world."

    I haven't read through the whole book, but chapter 3 read pretty well. I liked John's speech. The only 2 things there that stood out as 'uncommon' are:

    3:3 He was the one of whom Isaiah the prophet spoke when he said:
    The voice of one shouting in the desert,
    (CEB)

    “He was the one of whom Isaiah the prophet spoke when he said” sounds a bit ESVish. I would think common English would be, “He’s the one the prophet Isaiah spoke about when he said”. Perhaps you could even say, “He’s the one the prophet Isaiah referred to as”.

    In the second part, “The voice of one shouting in the desert,” it isn’t clear to me (from the CEB) whether this is supposed to be a vocative phrase, or something else. I think English could do with a predicate, like “He is” or “A voice is” or something like that.

    The second thing that stood out was Jesus’ response to John in v.15: “Allow it.” This one’s just plain tricky because common English would probably deviate a lot more to try to get the same meaning across, e.g., “It’s ok,” or “Don’t worry about it” or “It has to be this way.” The GNV has “Let it be for now” which is ok, not great though.

    Also, can you change verse 16 to say, “When Jesus was baptized, he immediately shook the water off his head”? j/k… 🙂

    Btw, there’s a typo in the introduction, paragraph 3: One hundred fifteen biblical scholars.

    I’d also look at rewording paragraph 2: The diversity of experience … presents the English translation … with an uncommon relevance that is freer from sectarian bias than most previous Bible translations. I think the use of the word presents there throws me off a bit, but maybe I’m just not reading it right. Then in the next line: …represent the women and men who worship in English speaking congregations. Should that be without the article before women?

    Also, in the 3rd to last paragraph: A readability editor (with expertise in education and curriculum), proposed style improvements… That comma probably shouldn’t be there.

    Sorry, you probably weren’t asking for editing help on the Introduction, but at least you know that someone actually read it. 🙂 I’m a little jealous of your Reviewers groups. We have to drive out to the villages and try to scrounge up 10 or 15 people who’ll sit and listen to us for a day.

    Keep up the good work, and thanks for listening.

  9. Michael Nicholls says:

    2:8 “When you’ve found him, report to me so that I too may go and honor him.” (CEB)

    I’d expect in common English to hear can instead of may, e.g., “report to me so that I can go and honor him as well.”

    2:9 …they went; and look, the star that they had seen… (CEB)

    I don’t know if we really use “and look” like this in English. It’s a tough one, but perhaps English has another discourse marker that we could use here to effect the same thing. At the very least I’d expect “and look! the star that they had seen…”

    2:11 falling to their knees, they honored him. (CEB)

    This seems to be taken almost word for word from the Greek. Even the NASB has “they fell to the ground and worshiped Him,” and the KJV “and fell down, and worshipped him.” Perhaps: “they fell to their knees and honored him” would be better than the participle construction.

    Also in v. 11: Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts… (CEB)

    “Opened their treasures” sounds a bit strange to me. The NLT has “they opened their treasure chests” which makes more sense. Not a deal breaker though…

    2:23 He settled in a city called Nazareth… (CEB)

    Just a question: was Nazareth a well known city? If so, I’d expect “the city of Nazareth.” If not, then this is fine. Just wondering if that was considered at all (‘city of X’ is still a normal English use of the genitive construction in English, even though ‘table of wood’ isn’t).

    Ok, back to work.

  10. Dru says:

    I haven’t had a chance to look at the text yet, but I’d disagree with something you said Wayne about the metaphorical ‘heart’.

    I agree that in English the normal understanding is that thinking is in the head and emotions are in the heart. But in my general experience, English speakers are not always all that precise about this unless they are actually trying to draw out a distinction between the two. More importantly, though, I also think most people probably locate volition in the heart. So I’d say “Why do you think evil things in your hearts?” has got more force than the shorter, “Why are you thinking evil things?”.

    I don’t have the knowledge to say whether Koine required ‘think’ to be followed by ‘in …. ‘, or whether it could stand on its own. But Jesus’s version does convey better his accusation that they’ve got evil thoughts hidden inside them, wrapped round the core of their beings.

  11. Michael Nicholls says:

    In chapter 6 there’s a section heading, Worry about necessities. It sounds almost like a command. Perhaps Worrying about necessities would be clearer. The headings before and after it use gerunds, so I wouldn’t think there’d be a consistency problem.

  12. Tim Chesterton says:

    I’ve just read chapters one and two. A couple of initial thoughts.

    For the most part this translation is very easy to read. I must say that it reads a lot more ‘Good News Bible’ than ‘New International Version’, and I suspect that’s mainly to do with the very short sentences. The publicity so far has compared its reading level to the NIV; I think people who go to it expecting something like the NIV are in for a surprise.

    Second, I was a bit surprised that the translators opted to go for the title ‘the Christ’ rather than ‘the Messiah’. In my experience most modern people – even church people – don’t know that ‘Christ’ is a title rather than a name, and find the formula ‘the Christ’ even more confusing (have you noticed how frequently people who read the Bible out loud will inadvertently reverse PAul’s construction ‘Christ Jesus’ and say ‘Jesus Christ’?

    So I’d prefer ‘the Messiah’ to ‘the Christ’. Mind you, I’d be even happier if the word was translated into English! ‘The anointed one’ probably wouldn’t convey very much, but how about something like ‘the promised king’?

  13. T.C. R says:

    Wayne, thanks for the heads up on this.

    I’m not too fond of its rendering of Matthew 3:2 and 4:17, getting rid of “repent”: “Change your hearts and lives, because the kingdom of God has come near.”

    While I prefer this rendering of the Greek over the present English texts, I’m still struggling to accept it fully.

    My problem is with “hearts.” Isn’t there a better way of capturing the idea of “changing their thinking” without being too wordy?

  14. Pingback: - newleaven.com -
  15. Stephen C. Carlson says:

    In CEB’s attempt to make the rather different marriage customs to present day usage, it makes Matt 1:18-19 fairly incoherent:

    “18 … When Mary his mother was engaged to Joseph, before they were married, she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit. 19 Joseph her husband was a righteous man. Because he didn’t want to humiliate her, he decided to call off the engagement quietly.”

    If Mary and Joseph were still engaged, how can be called “her husband”? Better is to use fiancé or husband-to-be.

  16. Mark Wutka says:

    I’m way out of my element here, but I am wondering if my definition of “natural English” is a little too picky. For example, in the phrase “Where is the one who is born king of the Jews, we’ve come to honor him”, the first part sounds pretty formal so it seems a little odd to use the contraction in the second part.

    In “Go and search carefully for the child”, do people still use “go and” instead of just “go”?

    Using “for” as “because” sounds a little unnatural to me, as well. As in “In Bethlehem of Judea, for this is what the prophet wrote” or “for Herod will soon search”.

    “Happy are people” sounds a little off, too. Trying to say it out loud I feel like there are too many p sounds. “Happy are those” seems to flow better.

    The contraction in “It’s written” sounds like a mix of formal and informal.

  17. Mark Wutka says:

    Tim, thank you. I don’t hear enough British English (although if I had remembered my Monty Python, there’s a “go and” that sticks in my mind). After further reflection, I can think of some times when “go and” still sounds natural to me, such “go and get me some whatever” or “go and tell Jimmy that …”. It’s just that “go and search”, “go and report to John”, and “go and learn” sounded a little unnatural to me.

  18. Clay Knick says:

    I’ve read a good amount of the CEB Gospel of Matthew today and yesterday. I’m looking forward to reading the sampler, nothing like holding a book in my hands. From what I’ve seen so far I do not see anything that will move me away from continuing to use the NRSV/TNIV/NIV or recommending these to members of the parish I serve. I don’t see the CEB moving many of them away from these either. But let me say this: it is early, very early, in the process and the NT is not out until next year. So my evaluation will continue.

  19. Rich S says:

    Wayne, when you mentioned: “I have been skim reading the sampler and I find the CEB usage of contractions to sound natural, so far.“ I wonder if that reflects silent reading as opposed to oral reading. One of my complaints about GW is the use of contractions. When reading orally (worship or Bible study), contractions seem unnatural, and I generally find myself ignoring the contractions. When reading in my study or in personal devotional reading, then the contractions don’t bother me. Some of the other comments seem to reflect the difference as well.

  20. Joel H. says:

    5:13-14 “You’re the salt of the earth & You’re the light of the world.” (CEB) (<- in accordance with CEB's copyright stipulations 🙂 )

    It sounds more natural to me to hear "You are the salt of the earth & You are the light of the world."

    I wonder if that doesn’t have more to do with the general rhythm of the lines than with the contracted forms:

    “YOU are the SALT of the EARTH” and “YOU are the LIGHT of the WORLD” are nicely dactylic.

    Compare:

    “You’re the earth’s salt” and “you’re the world’s light,” which, I think, sound better than “you are the earth’s salt” and “you are the world’s light.”

  21. Dru says:

    Now I’ve begun to look at the text, some of my thoughts from the first three chapters.

    1:23, “Look! A virgin will become pregnant…”. Is ‘Look’ the best choice? This may be a dialect issue, but to me,’look’ conveys a touch of aggression, a milder form of ‘look here’.

    2:6(a) “You Bethlehem, land of Judah, you aren’t at all least among the rulers of Judah;”.

    Does any of this sentence make sense in spoken English, yet alone would anyone say it? I accept that the ‘in’ that most translations insert here is not in the Greek, which means that the first half just might not mean how it is normally translated, but is ‘aren’t at all least’ normal English?

    2:16 Is ‘very angry’ strong enough?

    3:2 If one isn’t going to use ‘repent’, is ‘change’ strong enough. Would it be better to use a construction that had more of an element of ‘turn your life around’.

    3:5-6 Again this might be a dialect issue, but to me, inverting River and Jordan sounds odd. It would either be the ‘River Jordan’ or just the ‘Jordan’.

    3:15. “Jesus answered, ‘Allow it. This is necessary to fulfill all righteousness’.” Would anyone say this? Without checking other translations, what would you understand this to mean?

    3:17 I accept the more familiar “well pleased” is biblish, but I can’t help finding “I am very pleased with him” a bit bland.

  22. Nick Mackison says:

    Can anyone tell me if there will be an anglicised text edition of the CEB?

    Also, it’ll be interesting to see how the CEB translators deal with the Greek term sarx in Paul’s letters.

  23. Gary Simmons says:

    “Y’all will all fall away from me” is, without a doubt, too informal for a solemn declaration (26:31). I am from Texas; I know when this word should or should not be used.

    In 5:13, perhaps it would be less awkward to say that salt is good for nothing but to be “trampled by human feet.”

    I do like the section heading “Seeing and Serving” for 6:22-24. The section itself will always be cryptic in English, though. It’s wonderful to note the obvious triad of “showy religion,” “showy prayer,” and “showy fasting,” but perhaps the better word would be “insincere.”

    “You’ll never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Will Fitzgerald made a great comment on this above.

    In the Great Commission: “The kingdom of heaven has come near.” Mmm… probably better to take this statively and render it as a present tense verb.

    10:5b… should we translate this as “freely” or “for free?” I think this is one of those plenary instances where both ideas are in view, but we can only translate one way.

    Also in 10:10, “For workers deserve to be fed.” If the translators will say this, then I hope the Deuteronomy passage will read the workers/those who work “deserve to be paid.” Hopefully the deliberate change on Jesus’ part will be clear.

    10:19 “Whenever they hand you over, don’t worry about how to speak or what you’ll say, because what you can say will be given to you at that moment.” I’m not sure about using “can” here.

    I like 10:20: “You aren’t doing the talking, but the Spirit of my Father is doing the talking through you.” Alternatively, “You’re not…”

    “Those who love father or mother more than me are not worthy of me.” While correct English, the first meaning that comes to mind for worth is intrinsic value. What better word would you suggest?

  24. Michael Nicholls says:

    I don’t think anyone yet has commented on the use of ‘play-actors’ in the place of ‘hypocrites’. Although I realise that this is an etymological translation of ‘hypocrites’, I’m pretty sure the word in the 1st century meant ‘One who says one thing and does another’, much like we use the word ‘hypocrite’ today.

    The English word ‘hypocrite’ is still very well known and used. When I stop and think about ‘play-actor’, I’m not exactly sure what it means. An actor in a play? Someone who pretends to be an actor (which is acting to be an actor??)? I’m wondering what kind of feedback was given about this term, and how people interpreted it. I’d stick with the more common ‘hypocrites’ than the possibly confusing, and uncommon, ‘play-actors’.

  25. LeRoy says:

    It seem to read better this way:
    And knowing their recollection, Jesus says: Obstinacy ‘occurs to mind’ the evils in your hearts?
    καὶ ἰδὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὰς ἐνθυμήσεις αὐτῶν εἶπεν, ἱνατί ἐνθυμεῖσθε πονηρὰ ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν;

    So I would then translate it as:
    And knowing their recollection, Jesus says: Your obstinacy ‘imagines’ evils in the hearts.

    1760 ενθύμεσμαι memory, saved mental impression; memento, keepsake, souvenir Origin: C18: from Fr., from souvenir ‘remember’, from L. subvenire ‘occur to the mind’.

    1761 ενθυμησις keepsake, remembrance, memento, reminder, souvenir recollection

    2444 ινατι= γινατι obstinacy, pigheadedness

  26. Gary Simmons says:

    LeRoy: I’m confused. Are you using a modern Greek dictionary? γινατι is not a biblical word; and enthumeomai is primarily about thought, whether the thought is grounded in reality or imagination.

    Though modern Greek is interesting, it’s definitely not the same language. Nor is Attic, for that matter. I don’t think that translation even really makes sense. They were thinking something in the present, not remembering something from the past.

  27. LeRoy says:

    Thanks Gary Simmons, However:

    The word is actually translated “souvenir”
    1760 ενγυμεομαι enthumeomai en-thoo-meh’-om-ahee
    the Origin: C18: from Fr., from souvenir ‘remember’, from L. subvenire ‘occur to the mind’

    Mr Strong’s Concordance says: from a compound of 1722 and 2372; TDNT-3:172,339; v

    AV-think 3; 3 1) to bring to mind, revolve in mind,

    1761 ενθυμησις keepsake, remembrance, memento, reminder, souvenir recollection
    See:
    A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of
    Historical Research
    BY A. T. Robertson, M.A., D.D., LL.D., LITT.D.
    DYNAMIC (DEPONENT) MIDDLE.
    There is the utmost freedom in the matter in the N.T. Not all the “deponents” of mental action are middles in the aorist. Cf. βούλομαι, ἐνθυμέομαι, ἐπιμελέομαι, εὐλαβέομαι. These are commonly called passive deponents in the present as well as in the aorist and future, but the matter is not clear by any means

    ἱνατί (cf. Mt. 9:4; Lu. 13:7). It is common in LXX. It is not unknown in Attic Greek.
    W.-Sch., p. 240.
    Mullach MULLACH, F., Grammatik d. griech. Vulgarsprache (1856).
    Το γινάτι βγάζει μάτι -> cut off one’s nose to spite one’s face;

  28. LeRoy says:

    I hope this is not to difficult for some to accept, however, The literal translation of Mt 28:19 “Therefore, going forth apprentice all Gentiles, christening them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: 20 teaching them….”
    Considering the mistranslation error of the CEB it could hardly be acceptable to baptize a nation, that would take a lot of water. Further, to “make disciples” is not portraying the correct meaning of the word μαθητευσατε, which is to be an apprentice or learner.
    CEB Mt 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
    KJV 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit:
    3100 μαθητευσατε μαθητεύω apprentice, learner, one to be A disciple one who imitates his example
    1484 εθνει/νων Gentiles
    So it is apparent that ‘in the name of’ has the meaning of ‘in the authority of’ or ‘with the authority of’, but ‘into the name of’ has a very narrow meaning, namely that the candidate ends up wearing that name as a christened family name. The candidate takes that name for himself as a kind of spiritual surname.
    The Greek preposition for ‘in’ is en, and it takes the dative tw onomati. The Greek preposition for ‘into’ is eiV and it takes the accusative to onoma
    Every single existing Greek Manuscript of the bible containing this verse (the Siniaticus, the Alexandrinus, The Vatican B, The Codex Rescriptus the Codex Bezae and all the relevant Papyri) has the Greek word ‘eiV’ meaning ‘into’ rather than the Greek word ‘en’ meaning ‘in’.
    For being baptised into someone’s name is gaining another surname which is ‘being christened spiritually’ which is the entering into a covenant. So now from one tiny word ‘into’ rather than the mistranslation ‘in’ we have related christening to the covenant. A christening is a spiritual baptism and cleansing for entrance into the covenant.
    And having heard they were christened into the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 19:5)
    In Acts 2 and Acts 8, the proselytes and the Samaritans respectively were baptised in water, not in spirit, so they were not baptised into the name of Jesus but actually into the name of John the baptist
    2 And he said to them: Did you receive holy spirit when you became believers? They said to him: Why we have never heard whether there is a holy spirit.
    3 And he said into what therefore (eiV ti oun) were you baptised. They said into the baptism of John.
    4 Paul said: John baptised with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is in Jesus.
    5 Having heard this, they were christened into the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 19).
    The point here is that Paul used words showing that the christening (baptism)is into a name. Paul merely conferred the gifts of the spirit upon them by laying his hands on them.
    For example, the sons of Israel who left Egypt were christened into the name of Moses:

    kai panteV eiV ton Mwushn ebaptisanto en th nefelh kai en th qalassh
    and all into the Moses they were christened in the cloud and in the sea (1 Corinthians 10:2).
    And this process, the christening, is a cleansing for entrance into the covenant mediated by the mediator whose name one is christened into.
    A Direct Quote from the Bible of William Tyndle

    1:14 I thank God that I christened none of you, but Crispus and Gaius,
    Faithfully translated by: William Tyndle and friends.

    translate.reference.com/translate?query=… βαπτίζω= christen
    English – Greek Technical Dictionary βαπτίζω= christen educate, train

    Christen Origin: OE crīstnian ‘make Christian’, from crīsten ‘Christian’, from L. Christianus, from Christus ‘Christ’

    Christian Origin: ME: from L. Christianus, from Christus ‘Christ’.

  29. Gary Simmons says:

    15:26f When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified and said, “it’s a ghost!” They were so frightened they screamed. Just then Jesus spoke to them, “Calm down. It’s me. Don’t be afraid.”

    This seems pretty comical to me. Also in verse thirty, Peter cries out “Lord, rescue me!” Generally we’d use the word “save” for that, right? Rescue is a bigger word than save, and unless we’re just trying to make sure that “save” is only used in soteriological contexts, I don’t see why “rescue” is used instead.

  30. LeRoy says:

    How is it that some might indicate walking on water to be a literal baptism or the splashing of water on them in the ship
    to be sufficient?
    “the Lord did not baptize.”

    “But behold,” say some, “the Lord came, and baptized not; for we read, ‘And yet He used not to baptize, nor His disciples!’ ” As if, in truth, John had preached that He would baptize with His own hands! But let not (the fact) that “He Himself baptized not”,
    Into who would he baptize?.. Into the Holy Spirit, who had not yet descended from the Father? Into a congregation, which His apostles had not founded? Let none think it was with some other, because no other exists, except that of Christ subsequently; which at that time, of course, could not be given by His disciples..”how, in accordance with that prescript, salvation is attainable by the apostles, whom–Paul excepted-we do not find baptized in the Lord?

    Either the peril of all the others who lack the water of Christ is prejudged, that the prescript may be maintained, or else the prescript is rescinded if salvation has been ordained even for the unbaptized.
    “Thy faith,” He would say, “hath saved thee;” and, “Thy sins shall be remitted thee,” on thy believing, of course, albeit thou be not yet baptized?
    Abraham pleased God without being baptized. “Baptism is not necessary for them to whom faith is sufficient; for withal, Abraham pleased God by a sacrament of no water, but of faith.”

    The Lord said, “I have to be baptized with a baptism,” when He had been baptized already? (Writings of Tertullian, CHAPTER 11-16)

    Also Jesus instructed Jn 13:8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. 14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also must have to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

    So where do we get to immerse people in water and not wash one another’s feet as instructed by Jesus?
    Let’s use that gospel with respect and integrity. Who knows what might happen as a result? For the first time in 1500 years, we have the chance to see whether the gospel really does have the power to break into the lives of those who as yet have little or no knowledge of Jesus.

  31. LeRoy says:

    Christening βαπτισμοί are Levitical “cleansings” rites of purification was used to indicate the cleansing in symbolism done by the priest of the OT.’, ‘Baptismós as mere cleansing of instruments was equated with 4473 ράντισμα sprinkling (4473)(found only in Heb. 12:28; 1 Pet. 1:2),
    Heb 11:28 Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest He that destroyed the firstborn should touch them. 1 Pet. 1:2 Chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus
    Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.) (G907). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.

    Luke 24:47, Repentance and remission of sins must be preached into my name among all Gentiles.
    Rom. 7:10, says: Through sin the Law killeth. On the other hand, the Gospel brings consolation and remission not only in one way, but through the word and Sacraments, and the like, as we shall hear afterward in order that [thus] there is with the Lord plenteous redemption, as Ps. 130:7 says against the dreadful captivity of sin.
    Baptism is nothing else than the Word of God in the water, commanded by His institution, or, as Paul says, a washing in the Word.
    Baptism was seen as in some sense necessary for salvation, until Huldrych Zwingli His rejection of the sacraments as means of obtaining grace and as forms of intervention between the soul and God underlay the deepened conception of other Reformation leaders such as Bullinger. One of Erasmus’s most eager pupils was Huldrych Zwingli, an influential theologian and a dynamic political leader whose new Protestant religious doctrines, paralleling to some extent those of Martin Luther, fueled the Swiss Reformation…. Zwingli and John Calvin rejected the role of the sacraments in obtaining grace. For Zwingli the bread and the wine were symbols that merely represented the body and blood of Christ, and baptism was more a sign of a Covenant with God than a vehicle of grace.
    Cross, Frank Leslie; Elizabeth A. Livingstone (2005). “Baptism”. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 151–154.
    The English word “baptism” has been used in reference to any ceremony, trial, or experience by which one is initiated, purified, or given a name.
    ““Heavens!” said I, shocked at his impiety, “you have then forgot that Christ was baptised by St. John.” “Friend,” replies the mild Quaker once again, “swear not; Christ indeed was baptised by John, by He himself never baptised anyone. We are the disciples of Christ, not of John.” I pitied very much the sincerity of my worthy Quaker, and was absolutely for forcing him to get himself CHRISTENED.”
    “for we don’t condemn any person who uses it; but then we think that those who profess a religion of so holy, so spiritual a nature as that of Christ, ought to abstain to the utmost of their power from the Jewish ceremonies.”

    “O unaccountable!” said I: “what! baptism a Jewish ceremony?” “Yes, my friend,” says he, “so truly Jewish, that a great many Jews use the baptism of John to this day. Look into ancient authors, and thou wilt find that John only revived this practice; and that it had been used by the Hebrews, long before his time, in like manner as the Mahometans imitated the Ishmaelites in their pilgrimages to Mecca. Jesus indeed submitted to the baptism of John, as He had suffered Himself to be circumcised; but circumcision and the washing with water ought to be abolished by the baptism of Christ, that baptism of the Spirit, that ablution of the soul, which is the salvation of mankind.”

    “Likewise Paul, the great apostle of the Gentiles, writes as follows to the Corinthians, ‘Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the Gospel;’
    “But art thou circumcised?” added he. “I have not the honour to be so,” said I. “Well, friend,” continued the Quaker, “thou art a Christian without being circumcised, and I am one without being baptised.”
    Joseph P. Pickett, ed (2000). “baptism”. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth ed.). Boston:
    Houghton Mifflin
    Mt 11:2 Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples…

  32. Gary Simmons says:

    Putting aside my complementarian stance for a moment, “The Human One” still doesn’t quite work, since the ben-Adam or bar-Enosh is rather ambiguous. Yes, He may have been referring to Himself as Messiah. But oh, that could refer to any human being. As such, capitalization makes it lose the intentional ambiguity.

    It’s a cryptic term on purpose, so let it remain cryptic. At least, that’s my two cents.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s