NIV 2011 translation-philosophy and abortion-logic

M'man Professor Jim Hamilton has a terrific post on the decision by the NIV 2011 translators to take Selah from the printed text, and move it to footnotes. Jim makes a characteristically thorough and solid case that this is a bad and insupportable decision, and should be reversed.

Well, good luck with that. The entire NIV "family" of versions have made a number of bad and insupportable decisions, and not reversed them. It is doubtful that they will reverse this.

But I just want you to focus on the enormity of what they have done. They taken a part of the text which has unimpeachable textual support, and sidelined it. In other words, there is no objective doubt that Selah was part of the canonical text of Psalms, the Bible that our Lord affirmed as God's Word. But because the word is mysterious, and for whatever other corollary reasons, the translators simply decide that its value is up for re-evaluation, and they demote it.

One more time:

1. This is undoubtedly part of the canonical text
2. But we estimate its value to be less than the rest of the text; therefore
3. We are free to demote it

Now, do you see the connection between this apparent reasoning and our discussion of abortion the other day? There, the reasoning we opposed went like this:

1. This is undoubtedly a baby
2. But we estimate its value to be less than other babies; therefore
3. We are free to contract for its termination

In both cases, I see the problem as insufficient fear of God, an issue I develop a little bit at Pyro today, and at great length in the Proverbs book. This is the text of Scripture, the very word of God... yet I feel free to demote part of it. This is a baby, created in God's image and posing no imminent physical threat to the mother's life... yet I feel free to have him killed.

Note too the slope in either case.

In the case of abortion-for-a-parent's-crime, advocates have granted the proposition that we are free to define human value for convenience's sake (emotional convenience, in this case).

In the case of Selah, translators have granted the proposition that a part of the sacred text can be demoted for... cultural or other sake.

In the former case, then in principle all babies' lives (and all children's lives) are in principle forfeit and negotiable.

In the latter case, then in principle all texts (and all text's importance) are in principle forfeit and negotiable.

In the former, you have "it is a baby, and yet..."

In the latter, you have "it is the text of Scripture, and yet..."

Where could it lead? Given the clear yearning on the part of at least some NIV minds to be liked by folks who hate Biblical teaching concerning women, is there any in-principle reason why a future "edition" of the NIV should not similarly decide that 1 Timothy 2:8-15 was not, like Selah, a cultural fixture for which we no longer have any need, and that it should not be read aloud in church, and so it should be relegated to a footnote?

Think about it.

More thoughts about the use and non-use of "Yahweh" in English translations

You may be familiar with my undisciplined rant about the use of God's personal name in the Old Testament. Now to some thoughts a bit more disciplined, and a bit less "ranty," on the same subject.

Over at the BibleWorks user forums, there was a post about new resources available for BW.

In it, I brought up the new ISV translation, to which a commenter named ISalzman remarked that it looked to be a good translation, moving me to this response:

Yeah, but (first glance)

1. Gender neutering. Pah!
2. Perpetuating the LORD superstition. Pah twice! When will some translation finally shake OFF those chains?

This moved a commenter named Dr. Dale A. Brueggemann to pursue my remarks about "Yahweh," even as far as distinguishing the meta to this post (mentioned earlier) with his own thoughts. You can see his comment there, in defense of using "Lord" instead of "Yahweh" when translating the Old Testament. He observed (correctly) that the Greek translation of the OT (Septuagint, or LXX) used kurios ("Lord"), not "Yahweh"; and the NT had preserved this practice. Further, that use helps the reader see passages where Jesus is called Yahweh by inference from OT passage citation.

In response, I said this:

But why should we be bound to echo the LXX tradition? It's an odd text of uneven value, and we certainly don't feel bound to echo it in other ways (i.e. dropping verses from Proverbs, adding other verses, etc.).

Of course I wouldn't insert "Yahweh" into the NT, because it isn't in the text. But it is in the given text of the OT, over 6800 times. The simple and, I think, undeniable fact is that God the Holy Spirit saw fit to move the writers to use Yahweh well over 6800 times.

For me to (A) know that and (B) lay out a rationale why I shouldn't honor the text, is to oppose my wisdom over God's. It amounts to saying "I have a better idea about how to honor God and Christ than God had." To go that way is to head off into Pharisaical/Roman Catholic human tradition.

For the Lord/Yahweh passages applied to Christ, it's enough to translate Moses and Isaiah faithfully to Moses and Isaiah (and the others), and Paul and Peter faithfully to Paul and Peter, respecting the text. They either (A) the reader can look up the original and note that Yahweh is used, or (B) pastors can bring it out in sermons, or (C) a note could be inserted marginally, to wit: "The OT text has 'Yahweh.'"

It's using "LORD" that misleads the readers and dulls the ears, since "Yahweh" does not possibly mean "Lord," for which there are at least two other Hebrew words.

Briefly and in sum: respect the text. It's the submissively believing thing to do. God knew what He was doing, and He's really good at communication.

In another post started on the same subject by Dr. Brueggemann (isn't that a great name? seriously), I posed these questions, which I now commend to you as well (slightly edited), in the hopes that they would help clarify folks' thinking:

1. Is there anyone who thinks that Yahweh, in any sense, actually means "Lord"?
2. Are there any other cases where we would insist on using a translation that we know with certainty absolutely cannot possibly be accurate?
3. Do we know that "Yahweh" is meant by God to be a proper name, while "Lord" is a title?
4. Do we know for certain why the LXX substituted "Lord" for "Yahweh"?
5. Is it wise to chain ourselves to a practice whose rationale that we cannot even explain with certainty? Isn't that the very definition of superstition?
6. For that matter, can we conceive or a rationale that would excuse our saying "No" to God when He tells us to call on His name, and never rescinds that command?
7. Does the NT ever suggest that its adoption of LXX passages inserting kurios instead of Yahweh is meant retroactively to overrule and effectively erase the Hebrew text in its own context?
8. If God, in moving men to write "Yahweh" over 6800 times, was not thereby indicating that He meant that Name to be used, then what more could He have said to indicate that intent?
9. Do we have an objective, positive reason sufficient to overrule God's own employment of "Yahweh" over 6800 times, to excuse our own refusal to employ it as fully and robustly as He does?

Good men = good views? Yes, and not necessarily... respectively

This starts with m'man Andy Naselli noting that Dr. Thomas Schreiner has evidently gone from amill to premill.

Well, that's great. I'm happy for Schreiner, he should be premill. Everybody should be premill. You have to understand, to me, that's a bit like saying that someone has gone from thinking the world is flat to thinking it's more of a spherical sort of thing: that's great, I'm happy for you, welcome aboard... er, what took you?

I've been listening to Schreiner's sermon.
In it, Dr. Schreiner makes the point that "good Christians have different views on the millennium" — and that will be my focus.

The professor is absolutely right. I'll go one better: excellent Christians, some of the very best Christians ever, hold different views on the millennium.

I'll be more expansive still — and anyone who's heard me much, has heard me say this.

• Some of the very best Christians who ever lived think that attaching spiritual significance to sprinkling water on babies makes any kind of New Covenant sense, and further think that it has some relation to what the Bible calls "baptism."
• Some of the very best Christians who ever lived think churches should be run by majority-vote.
• Some of the very best Christians who ever lived think the Christian Church is Israel, and that all of the OT prophecies of judgment on Israel are literal and apply to ethnic Israel, while all of the OT prophecies of blessing are spiritual and apply to the post-Pentecost church.

Anyone who knows me knows I don't say these things to "sound gracious," or to "sound humble." To me, those statements are duh-statements, on the level of saying that water is "powerful wet stuff." I mean, good heavens — Machen? Calvin? Knox? the Hodges? Warfield? Dabney? E. J. Young? John Owen? Hel-lo? You're kidding me, right?

Here's the problem. The implication some people would draw from this statement is, "...so these other views are good views, too."


Well no, they're really not, to my mind. At least not equally.

For instance, that baby-sprinkling thing. It is not a good view. It is a bad view held by good (excellent!) men. I have heard it explained by men of whom I seriously think very highly... and it just gets more and more absurd with each telling.

Or take the "spiritual Israel" thing. Splendid men hold that view. But it's not a good view. It's a bad view held by good men. E. J. Young was one of the most wonderful OT scholars ever to put words on paper. But when he explains that Isaiah 2 is all about the Christian church's missionary efforts, but Isaiah 4 is about literal judgment on ethnic Israel, that isn't the text talking. It's a good man expressing a bad view.

I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept. I've been in countless discussions where, "Well, ____ holds that view" is adduced as if it were an argument. As if I'm going to say, "What? Carson? You mean D. A. Carson? Great howling potato bugs, I'm changing my view!"

Insofar as the point is "It isn't as it only pinheads believe X; after all, A B and C are hardly pinheads, and they believe X," I grant the point. Just don't try to make more of it than it is. Great men can be wrong. In fact, great men are always wrong about something.

And the greatest of the greats would be the first to admit it.

This comes up afresh in some connection with today's Pyro post. Unless I've pre-emptively headed them off, I'll be very surprised if someone doesn't say, "But Dr. FamousEvangelical loves the TNIV, Professor Calvinhead was on the committee, and Pastor BelovedPreacher thinks pluralizing singles wins more souls than Whitefield ever did."

And I'll say, "What a great guy. What a bad idea."

The fear of man lays a snare,
but whoever trusts in the LORD is safe
(Proverbs 29:25)

POSTSCRIPT: isn't this awfully arrogant of me? Since arrogance is a sin, and I'm woefully vulnerable to any sin, that's a strong possibility. All I can tell you is that, in these cases, my honest thought is that the data is really strong and clear, and my honest feeling is along the lines of "Good heavens, if even a pinhead like me can see that...."

Showing respect for Yahweh by... not saying His name?

There are so many things wrong with this article from Christianity Astray that it's difficult to know where to start. So let's do one of my favorite things - a list!

First, the Vatican instructs underlings to remove "Yahweh" from songs and prayers. This is funny all in itself. The Vatican can't do anything about Roman Catholic senators and congressmen who are pro-aborts; but it can tell people to stop saying or singing "Yahweh."

As usual for the Vatican, the rationale is impenetrable. The Vatican intones that it "was held to be unpronounceable and hence was replaced during the reading of sacred Scripture by means of the use of an alternate name: Adonai, which means 'Lord.'" Uh, yeah.

"Was held to be"? By whom? Certainly not by the actual writers of God-breathed Scripture, who employed the name well over 6800 times. No, the prophets and Moses give no sign that believers should do anything other than revere, respect, trust, flee to, and take sacred oaths by that name.

By whom, then? Well, like everything else for Rome - by tradition. So there.

But wait. It gets worse.

Because second, we're then told that

Protestants should be following their lead, said Carol Bechtel, professor of Old Testament at Western Theological Seminary in Holland, Michigan. "It's always left me baffled and perplexed and embarrassed that we sprinkle our hymns with that name," she said. "Whether or not there are Jewish brothers and sisters in earshot, the most obvious reason to avoid using the proper and more personal name of God in the Old Testament is simply respect for God."

Okay, so this lady is "professor" of a book that boldly uses the Name over 6800 times - but she has "always" been "baffled and perplexed and embarrassed that we sprinkle our hymns with that name"? Really? Baffled?

Well, I don't know. I'll just take a stab at it here, a shot in the dark, but - is it maybe because it's all over the Bible? Is that perhaps the explanation?

But she's concerned about "Jewish brothers and sisters"? What does she mean - Jewish Christians? Then they should be well-liberated from the traditions of the elders now, set free with the liberty of the sons of God, their consciences captive to the Word alone. Right?

But if she's concerned about offending unbelieving Jews? How far is she going to go with that concern of hers? God says His name 6800+ times, and she says "Shush!" So... what about this whole "Jesus is Lord" thing, then? That really offends unbelievers. What about "Messiah atoned for sin on the Cross"? Really, really offensive. Shall we drop that, too?

And Bible-believers should follow Rome's lead? I'll retire to Bedlam.

There are more bobbles and semi-bobbles of less significance, but the end-note is: John Witvliet, director of the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship, says, "Some people said using Yahweh emphasized for them the transcendence of God, which you might say is precisely the goal of not saying the term."

Can anyone make any sense of that? And that, from the Calvin institute?

Against it, this:

To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of [Yahweh] (Genesis 4:26)

It is [Yahweh] your God you shall fear. Him you shall serve and by his name you shall swear (Deuteronomy 6:13)

You shall fear the LORD your God. You shall serve him and hold fast to him, and by his name you shall swear (Deuteronomy 10:20)

Pour out your anger on the nations that do not know you, and on the kingdoms that do not call upon your name! (Psalm 79:6)

Then we shall not turn back from you; give us life, and we will call upon your name (Psalm 80:18)

Oh give thanks to [Yahweh]; call upon his name; make known his deeds among the peoples! (Psalm 105:1)

I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of [Yahweh] (Psalm 116:13)

I will offer to you the sacrifice of thanksgiving and call on the name of [Yahweh] (Psalm 116:17)

And you will say in that day: "Give thanks to [Yahweh], call upon his name, make known his deeds among the peoples, proclaim that his name is exalted (Isaiah 12:4)

But none of that has any place in this. It's all "I feel/don't feel," "they will feel," "it has been done"....

I don't know, call me a contrarian. But I think the actual text of the Bible should have some bearing on how we worship of the God who wrote it.

Interview with Ed Blum about the CSB

Matt Gumm pointed me to this interview with Dr. Ed Blum, the General Editor for the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

I won't rehash the interview, which I commend to you. I was particularly interested in the information detailing the relatively fresh nature of the CSB, as opposed to other versions which are in the KJV-revision line. I also found the statistical and specific comparisons to the ESV and NIV enlightening, along with some facts dispelling common misconceptions about the version.

What I learned highlights both what I like, and what I find frustrating, about the CSB. Some of what he says, I could have said. (You'll particularly think this when Blum riffs on Yahweh, and on the marvelous yet occasionally infuriating Dr. Waltke.) He's absolutely right about μονογενὴς and δοῦλος ("only-begotten" [unique] and "bondservant" [slave]), and a number of other renderings.

I like the CSB's willingness to be independent. I've run into a number of passages that I'd studied pretty deeply, and come up with translations found in no other formal translation -- but now they're in the CSB!

But then there's the frustrating. For instance, sometimes the CSB renders Χριστός as "Christ," and sometimes as "Messiah." They state a rationale, but I find it utterly unconvincing. As a result, you'll have both words right by each other, as in Romans 15:5-8 --

Now may the God of endurance and encouragement grant you agreement with one another, according to Christ Jesus, 6 so that you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ with a united mind and voice. 7 Therefore accept one another, just as the Messiah also accepted you, to the glory of God. 8 Now I say that Christ has become a servant of the circumcised on behalf of the truth of God, to confirm the promises to the fathers....

They really should use one or the other. Not both.

Likewise "Yahweh." My thoughts on this are pretty well-known. To its credit, the CSB does use "Yahweh" 75 times. And Dr. Blum says that the 2009 revision will raise that to around 400 times.

Which is good... but still about 6400 short.

Yahweh / LORD — ay, yi yi

Background: I've both written and ranted about this nutty, indefensible tradition of English translations using the codewords LORD or GOD (in caps) when the Hebrew text has YHWH, most likely pronounced "Yahweh."

Foreground: one modern translation, the Christian Standard Bible, at least sometimes (about 75 times, out of over 6000 occurrences of Yahweh) uses the actual name God gave Himself (Exodus 3:13-16).

Now, I basically like the CSB. It is hard to get used to the contractions, but while I generally read the ESV, I appreciate that the CSB is occasionally willing to strike out with a fresh rendering that better captures the Hebrew or Greek text. For instance, years ago I very closely studied, and translated, the book of Colossians. In doing so, I had to part company with more standard translations here and there to represent the Greek text more accurately. Now I see some of those same renderings in the CSB.

So, back to this particular. My philosophy is, "Some is better than none." So I'm glad the CSB uses "Yahweh" at least some times.

However, their rationale just makes no sense, and it sometimes makes for zany nuttiness. The translators say that "The HCSB® uses Yahweh, the personal name of God in Hb, when a text emphasizes Yahweh as a name: His name is Yahweh (Ps 68:4)." So... why? How can you tell? God decided to use it some 6823 times in the Torah (according to BDB). How do you decide that almost 6750 of those times is not emphatic enough? This strikes me as yet another example of unintentionally trying to be smarter than God.

With that kind of wackiness, you end up with renderings like Exodus 15:3:

The LORD is a warrior;
Yahweh is His name.

Huh? Notice "LORD" in the first stich, "Yahweh" in the second. But in the Hebrew, the exact same word.

Okay, so... if "Yahweh is His name," then why don't we use it?

Same thing here:

5 The LORD came down in a cloud, stood with him there, and proclaimed His name Yahweh. 6 Then the LORD passed in front of him and proclaimed: Yahweh-- Yahweh is a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger and rich in faithful love and truth.... (Exodus 34:5-6)

"The LORD came down... and proclaimed His name Yahweh." His name Yahweh, that we won't use most of the time. I just can't see how that can do other than baffle an English reader who thinks about it at all.

Or again, here:

So Gideon built an altar to the LORD there and called it Yahweh Shalom. It is in Ophrah of the Abiezrites until today. (Judges 6:24)

Or here:

"Answer me, LORD! Answer me so that this people will know that You, Yahweh, are God and that You have turned their hearts back" (1 Kings 18:37)

Or here:

For I am the LORD your God who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar-- His name is Yahweh of Hosts (Isaiah 51:15; again, it's His name... but we mostly won't use it)

Or here:

So they called out to the LORD: "Please, Yahweh, don't let us perish because of this man's life, and don't charge us with innocent blood! For You, Yahweh, have done just as You pleased" (Jonah 1:14)

Or here:

At that time those who feared the LORD spoke to one another. The LORD took notice and listened. So a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who feared Yahweh and had high regard for His name (Malachi 3:16)

I defy anyone to make any sense of any of that.

So, unfortunately, that leaves only one modern translation that consistently uses the name—and it's Roman Catholic (New Jerusalem Bible). And one older (Rotherham). And some odd, fringey, cultish knockoffs. And as usual, when the church holds back on some Biblical truth, cults come in and make that one thing mean everything, and over-obsess. Nonetheless, it's hardly a badge of pride for "Protestant" translations that we continue to prop up this indefensible old relic.

I had one very well-known, very well-studied prof reprove me in seminary for regularly using "Yahweh" when I translated texts that used "Yahweh." He said it's what the liberals say. Really.

Well, I imagine liberals occasionally brush their teeth and comb their hair, too; and I'm not going to refrain from either simply because I fear false association with them.

Ay yi yi , the slavery of traditions. Not good.

TNIV: ill-begotten

After promising not to, the perpetrators of the New International Version have inflicted another paratranslation on the unsuspecting masses.

For some back-history, the best source is probably WORLD magazine. They did an early article on the feminist-izing of the NIV titled Femme fatale. Other follow-ups included The battle for the Bible, and Bailing Out of the Stealth Bible, among others. Now, the powers behind the Today's New International Version (TNIV) have gone back on agreements made earlier, as documented by WORLD in Beyond stealth.

Additionally, WORLD has started a blog on the TNIV, titled Stealth Bible: TNIV.

At its best, the NIV was disappointing. Now, we have to add "treacherous" and "fad-driven" to the approriate critical adjectives.

Not a happy birthday for a "new" "translation."

You know, what kills me about this is the Why?! issue. I picture a group of guys sitting around, brainstorming. Suddenly, one jolts up straight in his chair. "I know! I have it!" he cries.

The others pull their pens out of their mouths and look up.

"There aren't nearly enough watered-down, cultural-agenda-driven Bible paraphrases on the market! Let's do one!"

The room erupts in cheers.

Yeah, but the truth is, somehow the NIV became a respected name among evangelicals. And so this is trading on that respected name, using it to sneak in an anti-Biblical agenda. That strikes me as particularly foul.

Sadly, it's what we get for being such an unreflecting, undemanding, lazy, Biblically-illiterate consumer populace.

UPDATE: you can read the TNIV explanation for why they went back on their word here.

Also, helpful (critical) links can be found here.

UPDATE II: Vern Poythress has a very fine article on TNIV's Altered Meanings.

UPDATE III: I'll tell you right up-front, it's depressing reading. The TNIV shills have put up a page of endorsements. Bespeckling that page, you'll see a lot of The Usual Suspects. There are "sinner-sensitive" church leaders like Bill Hybels, there's Christian-missionaries-to-Mormons backstabber Richard Mouw (of Fuller, natch), and the like. And although the phrase "female Christian pastor" is a contradiction in terms, there are quite a few wanna-be's cited as well. But John Stott? John Armstrong? Tremper Longman III? Sigh.

Undisciplined rant about "Yahweh/LORD"

Someday I am going to write a disciplined, organized, proof-read essay about the use of "LORD" in English translations, what a stupid idea it is, and how it has led to increasing sloppiness among writers.

This is not that essay. This is a rant.

Premise: the use of "LORD" in Christian, English translations is a stupid and indefensible tradition that should have been cast aside centuries ago.

Nearly 7000 times (6,823, if memory serves), God saw fit to move His prophets to use His personal name Yahweh in the Hebrew Old Testament. Now, it is often observed that the Name is actually YHWH, written without vowels, and so the pronunciation is uncertain. In itself, this is true.

What is not often mentioned in this connection is the fact that all of the OT is written in consonants, without vowels; and so the pronunciations of all names is somewhat speculative. But that has never yet prevented English translators from giving vocalized (and somewhat Anglicized) forms of names such as Abraham, Isaac, Isaiah, and so on.

What is different when it comes to YHWH is that the Jewish scribes developed an unbelieving superstition about the Name of God. Because God forbade using His name in vain (Exodus 20:7), they figured, with Pharisaical legalistic precision, that the safest way not to take it in vain would be never to say it at all. They would copy it, but put in the vowel points for the Hebrew words for "Lord" or (if YHWH followed the actual word for "Lord") "God." (This is why our English Bibles sometimes have "LORD God," and sometimes "Lord GOD.")

Now of course, we can see that this is just as foolish as the Sabbath laws that condemned our Lord for healing on a Saturday. Dumber, in fact, for it forbade obedience to the many calls to call on Yahweh's name, swear by it, trust in it, and the like.

Further, it required acting as if the reader was wiser and holier than Yahweh Himself. (I speak as a fool.) By this, I mean that while Yahweh saw fit to put His Name in the text, the reader, much wiser than Yahweh, would not read that Name. He'd substitute another: 'adonay, which is Hebrew for "Lord."

English translators held to this foolish, superstitious tradition. But to signal that there was some difference between some occurrences of "Lord" and other occurrences, they gave everyone a decoder ring, as it were. So when we read "Lord," all is well. But when we read "LORD" in caps, that is a signal to get out our decoder-rings, and mentally substitute "Yahweh."

Dumb, huh? Yes, very. I mean, I feel as if I've heard every rationalization in the book, and each one makes less sense than the previous one.

So to sum up this part of the rant: nearly 7000 times in the Hebrew OT we see YHWH. We have reason to believe that it was pronounced "Yahweh," but we are uncertain. But there is one fact about which we can have absolute statistical certainty: however it was to be pronounced, it could not possibly have been pronounced 'adonay; and so it cannot possibly mean "Lord"!

Having said that, I say this.

I just got the long-awaited first volume of beleving OT uber-academic Bruce Waltke's commentary on Proverbs. Proverbs is a special love of mine. I did my Master's thesis on it, I've done seminars on it, I've studied and written on it, I've translated about half of it for myself.... It's a favorite.

And who better to do it than Bruce Waltke? Waltke is a believer, and he is a renowned scholar. I will never know one-fifth of what Bruce Waltke has forgotten. I am not worthy to move the place marker on his BHS (edition of the Hebrew Old Testament).

Further, we haven't had an in-depth, academic verse-by-verse commentary written by a Bible believer since Delitzsch's German commentary in the 1800's. It is long-overdue. And now Waltke, who is a marvelous and deep scholar, steps up to the plate.

I have not read it, and am not prepared to say much in depth about it. But one thing strikes me over the head as a blow with a baseball bat: the book's handling of YHWH is, well... insane.

I don't know whether that is Waltke's fault, the publisher's, or a combination. But let me 'splain.

First, Waltke gives one of the most bizarre rationalizations I've ever read from a Christian pen, for pretending that the text says "Lord" instead of Yahweh (p. xxiv). He actually sees the providential hand of God in our not knowing the pronunciation, as if it paved the way for identifying the Lord Jesus with Lord (decoder ring = Yahweh).

Now, it is true that Jesus is identified with Yahweh in the Bible. But Waltke does not mention that we don't know for sure how to pronounce "Abraham" or "Isaiah" either -- but that doesn't mean we should render the first by "garbage disposal" and the second by "balloon."

If we must take the Jews' superstitious refusal to honor God's commands to call on His name as binding on us, then Jesus should have equally been bound by their Sabbath traditions, and traditions about women and Samaritans. Which He wasn't. Nor should we be.

But it gets worse.

Having rationalized that we don't know for sure how to pronounce YHWH, Waltke later comments on the uses of the Name of God in Proverbs. In passing, he says, "The book refers to God almost exclusively by his name 'The LORD' (Yahweh), which occurs 87 times" (pp. 66, 67, emphasis added).

But wait -- didn't Waltke just explain to us that he refused to render YHWH as "Yahweh" because we're unsure of the pronunciation? (Even though he's willing to render Shlomoh as "Solomon" in 1:1 and elsewhere.) So shouldn't he have said, "...'The LORD' (which we have no idea how to pronounce)"? This little slip lets out the truth, in my opinion.

But it gets still worse.

I don't like it when someone refuses to honor God's decision to use his name, Yahweh. But at least let's be consistent. Surely that isn't too much to ask, is it?

But evidently it is too much to ask either of Waltke or his publisher, Eerdmans.

Take just one page to show something I've already seen a number of times in this book, p. 576. Here Waltke translates Proverbs 14:1ff. He renders v. 2 in part as "Whoever fears the Lord [sic]," even though the Hebrew text has Yahweh. So we aren't even warned to get out our decoder rings!

But then, in the footnote, Waltke says, "Pagans may walk uprightly, not knowing the LORD [sic], and the fear of the LORD [sic] tends to be the topic of this book...." Huh? If "LORD" is a secret wink-wink clue that the underlying Hebrew text really has YHWH -- then what is the underlying Hebrew text here? These are Waltke's own comments! Did he write them in Hebrew first, before translating them into English and then censoring his own use of YHWH?

And then again on p. 581 he twice uses "Lord" to render YHWH... but on the very next page uses "LORD"!

Now, I have no idea whether this is Waltke's fault, or his publisher's. If the latter, I can't understand why Waltke wouldn't correct the galley proofs, as it ends up making him look... well, not showing him to be the fine scholar I truly believe he is.

And I seem to see that sloppiness increasingly. John Piper's books quote the OT a lot, and I find that either he or his publisher aren't careful to preserve the translation's use of "LORD" in those quotations. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Well, I'm through with this rant. I will just say to the Christian, believing world of academics and translators, "Brothers, guys -- shake off the Pharisaical chains. God says His name is 'Yahweh,' let's us do the same."