Gleaner-Maiden & Grain-Lord

ESV Update, Scholarship, & Claude the Anglo-Saxon Poet

Dear Friends,

Some friends at Crossway publishing are understandably miffed with me for my Pipe & Dram yesterday about the new revisions to the ESV. For your edification, here is the translation committee’s explanation of their change to John 1:18.

This is very helpful. First, I am glad to learn and report to you that the committee is not doing what they initially appear to be doing: translating both textual variants in the same verse. Instead they are taking an idiosyncratic view that monogenēs means “only Son” instead of “only begotten.” Well, sort of, I should say. In this explanation they note that the “concept of descent” is an implication of the word, and that the idea of sonship is evoked by the word. I couldn’t agree more. But “implications” of a word and concepts “evoked” from a word are not the same as the meaning of the word. Of course “to beget” brings to mind a “father” and a “son.” It does not mean “father” or “son.” So gennaō surely brings to mind sonship, but it doesn’t mean “son” and in my opinion shouldn’t be translated that way, particularly if you are marketing the importance of “word for word” translation, and if you take the view that huios (son) is the mistaken variant! So I am happy for the explanation, remain dubious, and look forward to seeing how this bold move plays out in academic circles. I’ll say this respectfully: I tend to think an interpretation this niche should probably spend a lot more time trying to generate some really broad scholarly consensus before printing it in copies of the Bible.

If John 1:18 continues to interest you, I think this short video of Wesley Huff (of Joe Rogan fame!) explaining its intricacies is just fabulous—even if I take the opposite view of monogenēs! This guy is a treasure.

---

Speaking of scholars, I noticed the recent news of the passing of Kenneth A. Kitchen, a legendary scholar of antiquity. His On The Reliability of the Old Testament absolutely took my breath away twenty years ago. I couldn’t put that that thing down.

What I did not know is what an eccentric character he was! Do not miss Peter Williams’s entertaining and insightful obituary here. You’ll want to read it even if you don’t know anything about Ken Kitchen or Egyptology.

---

I am happy to report that Westminster Bookstore now has in stock the corrected version of The Future of Reformed Apologetics: Collected Essays on Applying Van Til’s Apologetic Method to a New Generation. It contains an essay from yours truly, but get it for so much more: Scott Oliphint, Chris Watkin, James Anderson, and others!

---

Today Tulsi Gabbard was confirmed by the Senate as the Director for National Intelligence, and I am in the camp that think this is a bad idea. Noah Rothman explains why here, but since there’s a paywall I will give you the gist of his argument:

During her hearing, Senator Mark Kelly pressed Gabbard to explain why she doubted the intelligence indicating that Assad deployed chemical weapons against civilians. She replied that it was her “fear” that the intelligence was “being used as a pretext” for a regime-change operation. In other words, she subordinated the overwhelming assessment of Western intelligence agencies because that assessment might justify a policy she didn’t like.

That is precisely why she is unfit for the role to which she has been nominated. Gabbard will determine what goes on and off the president’s daily intelligence briefing. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence itself was established to prevent “stove piping” — the failure to share intelligence based on interagency politics — but Gabbard cannot be trusted to perform that role. Based on her own admission, when her priors conflict with the intelligence, it’s the intelligence that has to go.

---

Let’s finish off the Quarter Inch with something deliciously fun! My daughter asked Claude if he would tell her the story of the Book of Ruth, only in the style of an Anglo-Saxon epic poem. The result is … well, you’ll see. But here’s the thing: this artificial creation is not just entertaining or fun or frivolous. Claude’s actual Anglo-Saxon poetry is astonishingly great. And do not miss the fact that Claude “understood” the story’s messianic implications.