A KJVO pastor emailed me and asked me the following:
Is Matthew 5:18 in the ESV true? ‘…not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law…’ – I ask this because it’s my understanding that punctuation (dots) where not around at the time of this statement. (Be consitent bro with your ideal about author’s original intent). I know you’re
not used to such questions. I got plenty more sir.
He says I am not used to such questions, but anyone who knows anything about me or has even scrolled through the dozens of videos I have in my KJVO playlist knows that I am no stranger to such questions and I do not hide from them. Perhaps this pastor doesn’t know that the reason my channel was started in order to address difficult questions from the people that I pastor or teach. Obviously, I am no stranger to confrontation and I certainly do not shy away from it.
This pastor also doesn’t seem to be aware that while I believe the ESV is a faithful translation and reads buttery smooth, I don’t actually use it other than as a complimentary resource and for translation comparisons. I have preached only from the KJV, NKJV, LSB, and I did use the CSB once because my audience exclusively used it in their FCA group for consistency. Don’t get me wrong, I would absolutely preach from the ESV without hesitation— even though it doesn’t have the long ending of Mark. And if you didn’t know, there is a Gideon’s ESV that contains all of the disputed passages. I wish I could buy one of those in a nice large print. There are a couple translations in the ESV that I don’t particularly like, but it is still a faithful translation. But Matthew 5:18 is certainly not one that should be in dispute. It is entirely acceptable and a faithful translation of the underlying Greek text.
The question is, is “dot” an unfaithful or errant translation? As this pastor correctly alluded, I do emphasize authorial intent as being critical to understanding the text. So when Matthew recorded Jesus’ words in Greek, what was Jesus intending to convey? In order to understand what a “jot” or “tittle” in the KJV, or “iota” or “dot” in the ESV mean, we need to see what Matthew actually wrote. The word for “jot” or “iota” is “ἰῶτα”. It refers to the smallest letter of the Greek alphabet, or more literally the equivalent “י (yod)” in Hebrew. The Greek word that is translated as “tittle” or “dot” is “κεραία (keraraia)”. The keraia in Matthew 5:18 refers to small strokes in Hebrew, such as the “yod”, the distinguishing strokes between similar letters like the “dalet” and “resh”, or even the “tagin” (decorative crowns) in Torah scrolls. These tiny details highlight the precision and care with which God’s Word was written and preserved. Though an English “dot” did not exist in the first century AD, neither did a “tittle”. But it accurately represents a serif or hook or decorative part of a character. Thus, “dot” is an accurate and faithful translation of the original language.
It should be noted that the KJV also makes use of interpretive language that communicates the intent of the reader in the language of the reader. This is evident in Acts 12:4 where the KJV uses “Easter”. See my video on this subject for details. The phrase, “God forbid” in Romans 6:2 when the literal translation is “may it never be”. Another example is in Genesis 1:21 when the KJV uses the word “whales” when the Hebrew word “tanninim” means “sea creatures”. There are many other examples in the KJV where the translators chose not to use a literal interpretation, but chose rather to provide a more dynamic translation while still conveying the meaning and intent of the author.
The example this pastor brought up is a distinction without a difference and is nothing more than grasping at straws in order to try to defend the exclusive use of the King James Version. Ironically, this argument has opened the door to the inconvenient truth that this verse actually defends the preservation of scripture in the original languages. Jesus was making this statement about the Jewish scriptures which were in Hebrew and a little Aramaic. Translations in Greek existed for at least significant portions of the Tanakh by this time. Therefore, Jesus is defending the scriptures in the Biblical languages that this pastor discounts by asserting that the KJV renders the original languages moot. The KJV is a faithful somewhat formal, somewhat dynamic translation just like the ESV. This is why the KJV translators defended the use of multiple versions and so should this pastor.
No responses yet