Luke 16:17 -- One Tittle
"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass,
than one tittle of the law to fail"
Dr. Thomas M. Strouse
Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary
INTRODUCTION
The movement which "ministers" questions about the doctrine of
Scripture (cf. I Tim. 1:4) began in the Garden by the subtle enemy of God,
the serpent (Gen. 3:1-5), and continues to this very day. This satanic
subtlety pervades Christianity to the extent that even some fundamental
Baptists are beguiled by it. For instance, the clear and precise promise
of the Lord Jesus Christ, "till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Mt.
5:18), has been obfuscated and blunted in such a way that leaders in
fundamentalism are not sure what He meant. The editorial committee members
of God's Word in Our Hands, after a promising exegetical study on
this verse, make the ambiguous statement:
Returning now to the question, "Is our Lord here guaranteeing the
preservation of all the written words of Scripture?" the answer is an
emphatic "yes." Although, as has been shown, preservation is not His
main point, it is nevertheless the point He chooses to contribute to the
way in which He makes that main point (that all the Law would be
fulfilled). What He does not do, however, is give even so much as a hint
as to how or where preservation will take place. Answers
to these questions are simply beyond the scope of what is revealed in
this passage. The conclusion one must reach is that this passage does
not teach that those words are preserved in one particular manuscript or
lineage of manuscripts alone. Neither does this passage guarantee that
all the words will be always available at all times.
These men make at least three denials about this verse and the biblical
doctrine of preservation. 1) They deny the "how" of preservation. 2) They
deny the "where" of preservation. 3) They deny the "availability" of
preservation. Actually this passage teaches all three truths, which truths
are corroborated elsewhere in Scripture. The Lord Jesus Christ referred to
the jots and tittles of the law. In Scripture the law refers to both the
Mosaic Law and the whole Old Testament (OT). The answer to the second
question, "where," is in the OT Hebrew text, which the Lord declared had
been preserved up until His day (Mt. 4:4). The answer to the first
question, "how," is implied through the agency of God and necessitated
through the agency of the Jews. The Lord, of course, is the One Who has
promised verbal plenary preservation through the agency of His people, the
Jews (vide Ps. 12:6-7; Rom. 3:2). The answer to their third denial
is as follows. First, the "unavailable preservation" view is a non
sequitur. If something is preserved it is available. If it is not
preserved it is not available. Second, the Scriptures make it very clear
about the agency God has raised up to preserve the Bible, both the OT and
New Testament (NT) Scriptures--the local, NT immersionist church (Mt.
28:19-20; I Tim. 3:15). The Lord commanded His baptized disciples to
disciple the nations and then baptize them, and instruct their converts in
the Scriptures, and as they obeyed Him, His ecclesiological presence would
be with them (Mt. 18:15-20; Rev. 1:13). The Scriptures guarantee the
presence of the Lord in His churches with His truth in every generation
from the first until now, and history cannot disprove this divine promise.
In addition to these aforementioned truths, Mt. 5:18 and Lk. 16:17
claim that the very consonants and vowels of the inspired Hebrew text
would be preserved. This additional truth causes another conundrum for
those with a non-biblical view of the doctrine of preservation. Since jots
and tittles, which are Hebrew consonants and vowels and consequently
Hebrew words, will be preserved, at least two corollaries follow. 1) There
is absolutely no warrant to look to penultimate authorities, such as the
LXX or Dead Sea Scrolls, to correct the Hebrew text. 2) The Hebrew
text that has been preserved by the Jews and approved of by the Lord's
churches has been the venerable Masoretic Hebrew text. These corollaries
in turn eliminate the necessity to utilize the science of Textual
Criticism "to restore" the OT and NT texts, and also repudiate the notion
that God has promised merely to preserve His "word" or "concept," or
"message."
This essay, focusing primarily on Lk. 16:17, will demonstrate that the
Lord not only promised the preservation of every consonant of the Hebrew
text, but also every vowel. Consonants and vowels make up words, and since
the Lord promised to preserve His words, He has in fact preserved the
constituent parts of words--jots and tittles. The word "tittle" (keraia),
both in English and Greek, refers to the Hebrew vowel chireq, which
is the dot (kerai,a = qr,yxi). This biblical
interpretation is exegetically and linguistically sound, inherently
harmonious with other Scripture, and it readily dispatches of the
fallacious theory of "concept preservation."
CONTEXT
The Lord, in emphasizing that the purpose of His ministry was to
fulfill the law, rebuked the Pharisees with the comparative statement,
"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law
to fail" (Lk. 16:17). He used two illustrations of extremes within His
observable creation for emphasis. Heaven and earth comprise the largest
realms of the Lord's created physical work (cf. Gen. 1:2-19). The smallest
thing in God's observable creation is the dot or chireq in the
Hebrew OT that constitutes a vowel. The Lord Jesus Christ's statement
declared that before the smallest observable thing He created fails (parelthein),
it would be easier for the largest thing He created to pass (pesein)
first! It would be difficult to miss His point: the minutia of the OT law
will not fail but will be preserved until He completely fulfills it. The
OT law was made up of statements, warnings and predictions that were made
up of words that had consonants and vowels. The Lord promised that the
Hebrew text would be preserved perfectly, as He had previously stated (Lk.
4:4), so that it could be fulfilled perfectly by Him, down to the very
words of the law.
The tittle (keraia) is the smallest thing of the Hebrew text. It
is not a consonant, such as a jot or yodh (y),
the Hebrew equivalent to the English "j" or "y" or "i," which He alluded
to in Mt. 5:18. It is not the overhang (i.e., serif) on a consonant (d
versus r) since He did not refer to a consonant in
this passage, and serifs do not make up words. Since the Lord was talking
about the smallest thing in the Hebrew text of the law, He was referring
to the Hebrew vowel chireq, and not to any other vowels such as the
kametz, pathach, segol, cholem, qibbutz, shureq, tzere, qametz chatuph,
chataph qametz, or shewa. The chireq is a mere dot, like
a period in an English sentence, and is the basis for several other
vowels.
Commentators and lexicographers are very tentative about the precise
identification of the Greek word keraia. For instance, R. T. France
suggests that "the dot (keraia, 'horn') may be either the similar
letter waw (which is equally optional), or the 'serif' which
distinguishes some similar Hebrew letters." Colin Brown, after rejecting
Manson's interpretation that the keraia refers to "scribal
ornaments," postulates the following speculation:
Another possibility for the keraia is that it denotes the
"hook" (letter), i.e., Waw (w) which was also sometimes
dispensed with…The Waw, when placed in front of a word means
"and." Both letters could also be used as vowels (Yod = y;
Waw = u, or = o), but unlike other vowels they
would be written in the unpointed text (i.e., the normal text of the
time which was written with consonants only). How such a text is read
(i.e., whatever vowels are read into the text) obviously can make a
considerable difference to the meaning. Whatever particular ideas may
lie behind these terms, Manson would seem to be wrong in his
interpretation…
MEANING OF KERAIA
The English Word "Tittle"
The Oxford English Dictionary traces the history of the occurrence of
the word tittle to Wycliff's translation of the Bible in 1382. He rendered
the Latin apex, for "point or tip," in Mt. 5:18 and Lk. 16:17 as
titel. Other English translations followed this rendering, including
Tyndale's translation (1526), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible
(1560), the Rheims NT (1582), and the AV (1611). Why did these early
translators employ the noun tittle, and not another word such as "serif,"
which means an overhang on a letter? The English word tittle comes from
the old German word titteldjen meaning "tittle, dot." Since Hebrew
was the original language, all languages including German derive words
from the original consonants. For instance, it is well known in
linguistics to realize that dental consonants such as "d" and "t," are
interchangeable. In fact, tittle or tit comes from dot since the d's and
t's substitute for one another. The English word tit, meaning small, comes
from dot that in turn comes from "dod" (tit = tot = dod = dot). The Hebrew
dad (dD;) means breasts or teats and is so
translated in Prov. 5:19 and Ezk. 23:8, and Ezk. 23:3 and 23:21,
respectively. Tittle is the specifically accurate English word for a dot,
coming through the German from the Hebrew for dot or teat. Interestingly,
the English Standard Version (2001) translates keraia
literally as "dot" in Mt. 5:18, stating "For truly, I say to you, until
heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from
the Law until all is accomplished" (so also the RSV).
The Greek Word Keraia
When the Lord employed the Greek work keraia He was giving the
Greek equivalent to the Hebrew chireq (kra = chrq).
The Greek kappa is equivalent to the Hebrew cheth. The Greek
rho is equivalent to the Hebrew resh. The Greek alpha
replaces the Hebrew qoth. This assertion will be established
through several lines of argument.
Linguistic Argument
Linguistically, it is common for consonants in words to be dropped off
or silenced as they pass from language to language or from generation to
generation. In English, several examples of the consonant "h" being
silenced are found in the words "hour" and "heir." Even hard guttural
consonants are sometimes softened or even silenced with regard to some
words. For instance, Bryson states in his best seller,
There were other changes as well--most notably the loss of the Old
English sound x, the throat-clearing sound of the ch in the
Scottish loch or the German ach. The loss of this sound
from English meant that others rushed to fill the vacuum, as in the Old
English word burh (place) which became variously burgh as
in Edinburgh, borough as in Gainsborough, brough as in
Middlesbrough, and bury as in Canterbury.
As Bryson asseverates in his illustrations for English, similarly one
should recognize that in other languages such as Hebrew the "q" (qoth)
in chireq could be softened or omitted as it goes into the Greek.
But it will be demonstrated that this change was not only a possibility
but also an actuality.
Theological Argument
Theologically, the Bible predicts the preservation of words, or
vocalized consonants, that is, consonants with vowels. Although it is
popular to argue that since modern Israeli newspapers and the ancient Dead
Sea Scrolls are un-pointed, or lack vowels, and therefore the original
Hebrew text had no points, this theory is fallacious for at least two
reasons. 1) Neither ancient nor modern Jewish practices dictate the truth
of Scripture (Rom. 3:3). 2) The NT writers, under inspiration, read points
in their Hebrew text and translated them as such.
When the Lord God renewed His covenant with Israel, He used Moses to
write the very same words that were on the initial tablets (Ex. 34:1 ff.).
The Lord said to Moses, "Write thou these words: for after the tenor of
these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel" (v. 27).
The expression "after the tenor of these word" (`al piy
hadevariym ha'elleh) could be translated literally "on [the basis of]
the mouth of these words." The only way Moses could have written the
Lord's spoken words was to hear the vowels in the consonants (i.e.,
vocalization) and then to write the words with the vowels intact. The
Mosaic Law, then, constituted the very written words of Jehovah, including
the consonants and vowels. Furthermore, the Jews were to obey the Mosaic
Law in minute detail, not adding to nor diminishing from it (cf. Dt. 4:2).
They were to keep or preserve (shammar) the Law and not forget the
things they had seen and which were written down in it, and then to teach
their children the Mosaic Law (vv. 6, 9, 10; 6:7; 32:46). Jehovah promised
Isaiah that the words which He put in the prophet's mouth (peh)
would be accompanied by the Lord's Spirit, and these words would not
depart out of Isaiah's mouth, or Isaiah's seed's mouth, or Isaiah's seeds'
seed's mouth, from then forever on (Isa. 59:21). Obviously, these words of
the book of Isaiah would be preserved intact through the Lord's remnant
(Israel and the local churches) forever. The Lord told Jeremiah to write
all the words which He had spoken to Jeremiah in a scroll (Jer. 36:2). God
gave him vocalized consonants, that is words, which Jeremiah in turn gave
to Baruch who wrote down the words (v. 4). These passages conclusively
argue against any notion that the vowel sounds were merely given to Moses
who passed on the oral tradition of the pronunciation until the Masoretes
invented a system to approximate the vowels. Elias Levitas' speculation
that the Masoretes invented the points has nothing to commend it but has
all scriptural authority to condemn it.
The initial Psalm addresses the blessed man and his responsibility to
delight in and meditate on the law of the Lord, stating: "But his
delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and
night" (Ps. 1:2). The word "meditate" comes from hagah that
means, "to mutter" and suggests the deliberate pronunciation of the words
of Scripture. It is impossible to recite meaningfully consonants without
vowels and it is equally impossible to delight (chaphatz) in
consonants with non-authoritative vowels. Again, the fallacious view that
man invented the Hebrew vowel points has nothing to commend it. Is there
any reason that Bible believers must countenance the speculative view that
the Lord God, the Creator of language, disdains vowels, at least to the
extent that He would not preserve them in written form (Ps. 12:6-7; Mt.
24:35)? After all, has not the Lord Jesus Christ referred to Himself as
the Alpha and Omega (Rev. 1:8; 21:6), the first and last
vowels of the Greek language?
The speculation that the vowels were not inspired is ludicrous in light
of the complexity of the Hebrew language. Biblical Hebrew demands the
linguistic necessity for distinguishing Hebrew verbs and nouns. Hebrew
verbs are made up of seven stems, of which are the Qal stem and six
derived stems, including the Niphal, Piel, Pual, Hithpael, Hiphil,
and Hophal. These stems apply equally to both the strong and weak
verbs. The differentiation of some of these stems is based on complex
vowel pointing, without which tremendous confusion abounds. The Piel
and Pual differ from each and the Qal stem only by
vowels and diacritical marks. The Niphal perfect 3ms (3rd
person, masculine, singular), Niphal imperfect 1cp (1st
person, common, plural), and Niphal participle ms differ by vowel
points alone, and may be confused with the Qal imperfect 1cp except
for the points. The imperfect forms for all of the stems except the
Hiphil and Hithpael are identical without points and consequent
confusion would abound with the divinely preserved vowel points. If the
stems are significant, which they must be, then their respective vowel
differences are significant, and must be carefully maintained to make
sense of any given passage.
For example, in Gen. 1:26, Scripture uses the first of several Qal
imperfect 1cp verbs (na`eseh) for God to express "let us make" man.
However, without authoritatively inspired vowels this verb could be "he
was made" (Niphal [passive] perfect 3ms) or "we will be made" (Niphal
imperfect 1cp). Furthermore, the Niphal participle masculine
singular without the pointing would be the same consonants and mean "being
made." Although some might say that the context would always show which
conjugation and tense was divinely inspired, in this case the context
would probably eliminate only the participle. Did Jehovah say "let us
make" man, or man "he was made," or "we [i.e., the Godhead] will be made"
man?
Another example should suffice for this point. In response to Isaac's
query about the animal sacrifice, Abraham answered "God will provide
(yire'eh) himself a lamb" (Gen. 22:8). Is the verb Qal
imperfect 3ms and therefore active (God will provide for Himself
the lamb) or Niphal imperfect 3ms and therefore reflexive (God will
provide Himself for the lamb)? The Masoretic text has the former
reading and therefore the answer is that God, and no one else, including
Abraham, will provide the lamb. Without authoritative pointing, the
precise theology required here and elsewhere is forfeited.
With respect to nouns, the endings on masculine nouns are necessary to
determine number, whether singular, dual, or plural. In Hebrew some nouns
are singular, some are dual, such as those in pairs like hands, feet,
eyes, ears, etc. The distinctive ending of a masculine dual noun is
pathach, yodh, chirek, and mem, in contrast to the distinctive
ending of a masculine plural noun: chirek, yodh, mem. The first
verse of the OT Scriptures is instructive. Scripture says, "In the
beginning God created the heaven and earth" (Gen. 1:1). Without
authoritative vowels, one would not know that the word "God" ('elohim)
is a masculine plural noun and that the word "heaven" (hashshamayim)
is a masculine dual noun. The Masoretic text teaches that the plural
Godhead created the two heavens (first and second). Or was it that the
dual God (i.e., yin yang) created a plurality of heavens?
Regarding proper nouns, the consonantal text provides several
interesting, but non-authoritative, alternatives to the Masoretic pointed
text. In Proverbs 30:1, did Agur address Ithiel and Ucal? Kidner asserts,
The Hebrew consonants of this phrase can be revocalized to read: 'I
have wearied myself, O God, I have wearied myself, O God, and come to an
end', which introduces the opening theme well. The ancient versions
likewise eliminate the proper names, but fail to agree in their
translations. It remains an open question.
If vowel points may be rearranged in proper nouns, what prevents the
interpreter from the thorough rearrangement of major sections of the
Hebrew text and thereby the creation of new and false doctrine?
Another example of the alleged need to revocalize the Masoretic text
brings consternation to those who maintain the integrity and originality
of the Hebrew vowel points. In the passage that deals with "the great
wall" of Aphek, the Scripture states "there a wall fell upon twenty and
seven thousand of the men that were left" (I Ki. 20:30). Kulus, in citing
Donald Wiseman's statement: "The 'thousand' ('eleph) might be
revocalized without change of consonants to 'officer' ('alluph) …
the number might represent twenty-seven officers killed," charges some who
"will not hear this number because it is too large!" In this context one
would not know if 27,000 men were killed or twenty-seven officers.
Not only does the complexity of the Hebrew verb system demand that the
vowels to have been written ab origine, but also so does the
necessity to distinguish different words with the same consonants. In
Psalm 119, the sin/shin stanza (vv. 161-168), displays an
illustration of the necessity for diacritical markings (i.e., tittles [Lk.
16:17]). The sibilant or "s" consonant designated sin looks like a
three-pronged comb with a dot over the left tooth (f).
The shin has the same consonantal form but has the diacritical dot
over the right tooth (v) and produces the "sh" sound
and spelling. The psalmist declared in v. 164 "Seven times a day do I
praise thee because of thy righteous judgments." Without the
diacritical dot over the right tooth of the first consonant in the noun
sheva` ("seven"), the word could be the perfect verb sava` ("he
is satisfied"). Therefore the Hebrew text could read "He is satisfied in
the day I do praise thee because of thy righteous judgments." The context
cannot render an authoritative solution and hence the text becomes as wax
ready to be twisted by every interpreter.
Moses punned on the nakedness of Adam and Eve and the subtlety of the
serpent, using two words with the same consonants, `arom and
`arum respectively. The only difference between these two adjectives,
other than the first is plural and the second is singular, is the vowel
pointing. What did Moses intend to say: the couple was naked and the
serpent was subtle, the couple was subtle and the serpent was subtle, the
couple was subtle and the serpent was naked, or the couple was naked and
the serpent was naked? At this stage in the development of Moses'
narrative, it would be impossible to know absolutely without the pointing.
Finally, a cursory glance at any elementary Hebrew grammar glossary
would show basic words differentiated only by pointing. For example, one
should consider the following: 'l ("God" or "to" or "no"), 'm
("mother" or "if"), 'ph ("nose" or "also"), 'th ("with" or
"you"), bn ("to perceive" or "between"), bqr ("cows" or
"morning"), gll ("to roll" or "on account of"), hw' ("he" or
"she"), hnh ("they" or "behold"), zcr ("male" or "to
remember"), chwh ("to bow" or "Eve"), lchm ("to fight" or
"bread"), mn ("from" or "manna"), ngs/ngsh ("to beat" or "to
draw near"), `d ("witness" or "unto"), `wr ("to arouse" or
"skin"), `m ("people" or "with"), prs/prsh ("to spread out"
or "horseman"), r` ("friend" or "evil"), and shm ("name" or
"there"). With these words, some verbs, some nouns, some adjectives, some
adverbs, and some pronouns, making up thousands of contextual
possibilities, it would be ludicrous to suggest vowels were not originally
inscripturated.
Biblical Argument
Biblically, there are examples of the qoph dropping off of words
as it is translated or replacing one of the Hebrew gutturals, such as the
cheth ("ch"), the caph ("c" or "k"), or the hey
("h"). For instance, the Hebrew word nahaq for the verb bray is
translated in English as "neigh." In this case the "n" (nun) and
the "h" (hey) transfer over but the "q" (qoph) drops out in
the translation. The Hebrew qoph is pronounced as a "k" or "q"
without the "u" sound. Over one hundred years ago biblical theologians
pronounced the qoph with the "k" sound. Govett stated, "I retain
the English letter Q to represent the Hebrew Koph or Quoph,
though I suppose it was generally pronounced K."
The NT writers, under inspiration, confirmed that the Hebrew qoph
was pronounced as the "k" in the Greek letter kappa. Several Hebrew
proper names beginning with qoph have been translated in the Greek
NT with the kappa used as the equivalent. The name Cain has had the
initial qoph translated with the kappa and the "C" in
English (Qain = Kain = Cain [!yIq; =
Ka,i?n = Cain]). Other examples include the names Cainan (Lk.
3:34), Cis (Acts 13:21), and Core (Jude 1:11). The point of all this is to
demonstrate that the qoph, under inspiration, was sounded and
spelled like the Hebrew gutturals cheth, caph and hey.
Furthermore, there are examples where the Hebrew guttural consonants,
with which the qoph is interchanged, are omitted and replaced with
vowels in Greek. The proper noun Abel in Hebrew is Hebel (lb,h,),
and the NT writers omitted the hey leaving the alpha or "A"
as the initial letter (e.g., Mt. 23:35), rendering his name "Abel. Another
example is the name Hosea. The Hebrew is hoshea` ([;veAh)
and Paul translated the prophet's name as Osee (VWshe) in
Rom. 9:25, omitting the hey and putting forth the vowel omega.
Again, the Apostle John rendered the expression "praise the Lord"
or halelu jah (Hy"-Wll.h;) from the Hebrew
(e.g., Ps. 115:18) as Alleluia (Vallhlou,i?a\) in Rev. 19:1. In
this case he omitted the guttural hey and retained the alpha
as the initial letter. Similarly, Paul rendered Hagar (rg"h')
as Agar (:Agar), giving the alpha the smooth breathing mark in Gal. 4:25.
These examples illustrate that the biblical writers omitted the Hebrew
guttural consonant hey and started the word with the Greek vowels
such as alpha or omega.
More specifically however, are the occasions the biblical writers
omitted the Hebrew guttural consonant cheth and allowed the
subsequent vowel to head up the word. The qoph ("q") is
interchangeable with the cheth ("ch") and both sound and are
spelled like the English "k." Some examples are put forth to demonstrate
that the hard "k" sound in Hebrew words is often softened or eliminated so
that the vowel sounds of the alpha or epsilon head up the
word. The Hebrew names Henoch (%Anx]) and
Chawwah (hW"x;) for Enoch and Eve are translated
respectively as Veno,c and Eu;a\, removing the hard guttural cheth
and retaining the corresponding vowel which is the Greek epsilon.
The names Anna (hN"x'), Annas (!n"x'),
and Ananias (hy"n>n:x]) all begin with the cheth
in the Hebrew OT, being derived from chan for "grace" (cf. Lk.
2:36; Jn. 18:13; Acts 5:1). The NT writers omitted the cheth in
their translation and let the underlying vowel rendered as an alpha
carry the word, producing Anna ( ;Anna), Annas ( ;Annaj), and Ananias
(Vanani,aj), respectively. Another example is that of the Aramaic place
name Aceldama (Acts 1:19). The Aramaic spelling is chaqaldema' (am'D>-lq;x]),
starting the noun off with the cheth, and reflected as such
in the 1899 Douay-Rheims Version's spelling "Haceldama." The biblical
writer Luke, under inspiration, spelled the word VAkeldama,, dropping off
the hard cheth letter and sound, and allowed the soft alpha
vowel to surface as the head letter.
These examples illustrate the NT biblical writers' proclivity in
translating Hebrew words to drop the hard "k" letters of Hebrew (cheth,
hey, caph, or qoph) and allow the subsequent corresponding
vowel to surface, whether the Greek epsilon, omega, or alpha.
The two references to tittle or keraia the Lord Jesus Christ
made (Mt. 5:18 and Lk. 16:17) manifest this omission of the corresponding
Greek letter for the Hebrew qoph in chireq. The Greek word
keraia is the equivalent to the Hebrew vowel chireq,
translating kappa for the cheth, rho for the resh,
and omitting the qoph and allowing the alpha to surface (ch
= k, r =r, q = 0 and a appears). When the Lord said "tittle," He was
referring to the dot that is the Hebrew vowel chireq. Accordingly,
He asserted, "Till heaven and earth pass, one consonant (jot =
yodh) or one vowel (dot = chireq) shall in no wise pass
from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Mt. 5:18). Likewise, He also
asserted "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one dot
(chireq) of the law to fail" (Lk. 16:17).
CONCLUSION
Surely it is a self-evident fact that words are vocalized consonants,
or consonants with vowels. This is true in most languages and the
Scriptures indicate that this indeed is true for the words of the biblical
languages. The OT Scriptures predicted that the Lord God would preserve
all of His inscripturated words, including the vowels with the consonants.
The Lord Jesus Christ confirmed these OT promises by referring to the jots
and tittles of the OT Hebrew words. He mentioned specifically the word
keraia for tittle, arguing for the preservation of the smallest vowel
of the Hebrew language, the chireq or dot, in Mt. 5:18 and Lk.
16:17. That the Greek word keraia is the equivalent to the Hebrew
vowel chireq is demanded along several lines of argument. First,
the translators of English Bibles, from Wycliff to the 2001 ESV,
understood the Greek word as referring to the dot and utilized the English
equivalent "tittle" or "dot." Second, the Greek keraia corresponds
to the Hebrew vowel for the point, the chireq, as the "k" and "r"
letters are transliterated and the "q" is dropped and replaced by its
underlying vowel. This linguistic phenomenon of softening or dropping the
hard "q" sound is common not only in English, but also in the biblical
languages, as numerous examples demonstrate.
Since the Lord confirmed His OT promises by referring to the
preservation of every consonant and every vowel, the Hebrew text He had
was perfectly preserved and is still perfectly preserved down to this very
moment. This truth eliminates the necessity then to emend the OT Hebrew
text with Textual Criticism and with the aid of the LXX, the
Vulgate and the Dead Sea Scrolls. If there is no necessity for OT Textual
Criticism, since God has indeed preserved all of His words, then there is
no necessity for NT Textual Criticism as well. Therefore the Hebrew and
Greek texts (Critical and Majority texts) produced by Textual Criticism
and the subsequent English versions from such texts are corrupt impostors
based on a fallacious and dangerous theory which denies the Bible.
Believers need to receive by faith the Jehovah God's promise of the
preservation of every OT Hebrew consonant and vowel since for the Lord
Jesus Christ "it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one
tittle of the law to fail" (Lk. 16:17).
|
