Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Of Cowboy Hats and Graduations

    Well, I am fully aware of the irony of my posting this right after I write a post about getting more substantive, but I really can’t resist. Besides, the tip of my (floppy) hat goes to Eddie Arthur, so it’s really all his fault.

    It seems that Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary wants to wear different headgear during graduation. (Guess! Don’t look up at the title!)

    Instead of just saying, “That’s what we want to do, so there!” which would have made great sense to me, they had to provide a history lesson and relate the graduation hats and robes to the Catholic church. Deep and serious theology there, eh?

    Oh well!

    PS: Tomorrow I’ll write something more substantive, really I will!

  • Belarus Jails Cartoon Publisher

    MSNBC has the story of a 3 year sentence in Belarus for publishing the Mohammed cartoons. There seems to be a lot of support for the notion that people have the right not to be offended. I’d suggest they grow up instead.

  • Quoting the Old Testament in the New – Psalm 40:6

    Note: I will be using the English verse numbering throughout. Hebrew verse numbers are one greater in this chapter, thus this is Psalm 40:7 in Hebrew.

    In reading Psalm 40 several times, since it’s the lectionary passage for this week, I noticed a few things that I would have missed in just one pass. One of these is Psalm 40:6-8, which is quoted in Hebrews 10:5-7. There is a difference in the Hebrew of Psalm 40:6 and the quoted text of Hebres 10:5, however, which illustrates an interesting translation issue. The question is whether New Testament quotations of the Old Testament should be accommodated to the Old Testament translation in the same version.

    The book of Hebrews provides a good laboratory for discussing this issue. I’ve used the illustration of Hebrews 2:7 quoting Psalm 8:5 before. The NIV accommodates the translation by using “a little lower” in Hebrews 2:7, rather than “for a little while” which is a better translation of the Greek there. (I discussed this a bit more here.)

    It’s interesting, however, that while the NIV provides notes in all cases, they do not accommodate the translation in Hebrews 10:5. There we read in part:

    but a body you prepared for me;

    The text in Psalm 40:6 reads:

    but my ears you have pierced;

    I’m not sure why one was accommodated, but not the other, but the issues involved would likely highlight the difficulty one has in deciding this sort of issue. It’s not that I want to criticize them for their choice, though my choice would be to translate the text in front of me. It is always possible that they felt that there was more possibility for the alternative meaning in Hebrews 2:7 (where it is indeed possible, though not best, in my view), but did not see the same possibility in Hebrews 10:5.

    This raises some issues of inspiration. In certain views of inspiration, one would prefer to have a single text which was entirely consistent. The idea of New Testament writers using varying texts can be disconcerting to someone who would prefer a very rigid standard.

    I find this kind of thing very enlightening. The New Testament writers lived with differing manuscripts just like we do, even though they had not developed textual criticism in the same way. Extracting theology from scripture is much more an art than a science.

  • Translating Psalm 40:7-8

    Aside from numbering problems, Psalm 40:7-8 appears to be quite straightforward on first reading in Hebrew (where it is verse 8-9). The numbering problems include chapter numbering (39 in the LXX), and verse numbering (8-9 in Hebrew, 7-8 in English). Of course, we all know that verse numbering is not inspired; it is often positively uninspiring.

    The reason I wanted to bring it up, however, is to show how our approaches to interpretation might change what we see as a translation problem. Few of the English versions I consulted see any obscurity in this passage at all. The NRSV translates it thus:

    7Then I said, “Here I am;
    in the scroll of the book it is written of me.
    8I delight to do your will, O my God;
    your law is within my heart.”

    There is a footnote that tells us, “Meaning of Heb uncertain” but does not provide any alternatives or any discussion. A number of English versions, including the http://books.energion.com/bibles/enebvdetail.php?version=REB”>REB and the http://books.energion.com/bibles/enebvdetail.php?version=NLT”>NLT mention no difficulty at all. The http://books.energion.com/bibles/enebvdetail.php?version=NASB”>NASB provides the note “Or, prescribed for,” with is actually quite helpful. Yet in general if you read this book from the various English versions done mostly by Christian translators, you won’t get a sense that there is any translation issue here. Even the LXX translates it pretty much the same way.

    This is one reason I enjoy reading both the New JPS translation and the notes in The Jewish Study Bible. First, they provided a clearly marked footnote on this, and then the notes provide a good explanation of the issue.

    7Then I said,
    b- “See, I will bring a scroll recounting what befell me.” -b
    8To do what pleases You, my God, is my desire;
    Your teaching is in my inmost parts.

    Note b reads: “Meaning of Heb. uncertain.” The notes however tell us that the NJPS translation is interpreting this as “the psalmist’s hymn or a record of his experience.” Alternatives include the Torah (which fits with verse 9 in Hebrew very well), or the book of life, in which case the psalmist is thankful that his name is written there.

    I think the problem here is not major issues such as whether there is some sort of Messianic prophecy or not. Rather, we’re used to hearing this more frequently from the quotation in Hebrews 10:5-7, which has its own variations. The quote begins with verse 6, for one thing, in which we have the word “body” (as in the best mss of the LXX) rather than “ears” as we have in the Hebrew (and some mss of the LXX). Nonetheless, in general the text doesn’t have to be specifically Messianic to be used by Jesus. At the same time its common use in quotation may blind us (or might I say blinded me?) to the alternative understandings.

    The use in Hebrews 10 suggests that the writing is about the person speaking. Thus Jesus is saying that it is written of him in the Tanakh. Yet we have seen three alternatives. It might be something written by the speaker about himself. It could be the instructions of the Torah itself, connected to his expressed desire to do God’s will (v. 8), or even yet the book of life. I do see this last as the least likely in connection with the theme of the Psalm.

    It is such little things that make me really enjoy reading both the NJPS translation and the notes in The Jewish Study Bible.

  • Which Theologian Am I?

    Always presuming, of course, that I’m not myself. I can’t resist these quizzes. This one is Peter Kirk’s fault.

    Which theologian are you?
    created with QuizFarm.com
    You scored as Paul Tillich

    Paul Tillich sought to express Christian truth in an existentialist way. Our primary problem is alienation from the ground of our being, so that our life is meaningless. Great for psychotherapy, but no longer very influential.

    Paul Tillich
    		67%

    Charles Finney
    		67%

    Friedrich Schleiermacher
    		60%

    Jürgen Moltmann
    		60%

    John Calvin
    		53%

    Martin Luther
    		33%

    Augustine
    		33%

    Karl Barth
    		33%

    Anselm
    		20%

    Jonathan Edwards
    		13%

    I’m not surprised by either Tillich or Finney. I’m surprised that I’m that high even for Augustine, Calvin, and Luther.

  • Apes, Lies, and Chick Tracts

    There’s a propaganda piece that has been showing up in Florida, possibly as part of the fight against evolution in new proposed educational standards. It comes from a site with which I’m fairly well acquainted–Chick Publications. One sickening piece of propaganda from that organization is titled Apes, Lies, and Ms. Henn.

    It is obvious that the intention of the publishers is that we see evolution, and particularly the idea that, as the tract says, people “come from monkeys,” but the real lie is in the tract itself. And as we will see, this is not the only such publication produced by this same organization.

    Dirty politicians could learn lessons from this material, though they would probably endanger their own careers if they used too many of these techniques. There’s a line beyond which politicians are seen as negative, and I’m afraid these would qualify.

    Look at these elements:

    We start with a substitute teacher. Did you notice that “Mrs. Tucker is replaced by “Ms. Henn.” In this way one sweeps various elements of modern life, such as women’s liberation, along with the teaching. Of course, Ms. Henn looks like everyone’s notion of a witch–demonic even–which is clearly not accidental. We’re supposed to see her as the embodiment of evil.

    There is no actual teaching of evolutionary theory portrayed, and all questioning is shut down. This is, of course, what a control freak like Ms. Henn would want to do, and is, of course connected to evolution. The tie-in is quite intentional, of course. Propaganda against the theory of evolution frequently suggests not merely that there is insufficient evidence, but rather that there is no evidence. In their view, the only reason people accept the theory of evolution is that they are desperate to find a way to avoid God. Scientists like Dr. Kenneth Miller or Dr. Francis Collins don’t fit into their universe. A Bible teacher who accepts the theory of evolution, such as myself, would certainly be beyond their grasp.

    There’s the standard misuse of the word “prove/proof” when Ms. Henn claims that “scientists have proven it.” She shouts this, of course. Now there’s little point in vetting this whole propaganda piece for facts–there really are none there. It’s not intended to convince anybody of such mundane things as facts; rather, its purpose is to smear those who teach evolution at the same time as one tries to scare people with the fires of hell.

    Yes, as you continue to read, this gets worse. As a Christian Bible teacher, I am appalled to see this go forward into what apparently is intended as a gospel message. Lie first, then threaten, then pretend to be preaching good news. Nobody with the slightest knowledge of the facts will actually be impacted by this kind of thing, except, perhaps, for some nausea. But people who are uncertain of what they believe will be threatened by the fires of hell, because, you see, people who believe in evolution are definitely going to hell. In fact, Susy informs her little classmate that “most people are going to hell.” You have to close your eyes and your mind, or you’re headed for the hot place.

    Frankly, I must tell you that the first part of this was standard. I grew up with jokes and smears about “evolutionists” who ignore God, ignore all facts and evidence, because they are just so determined to believe evolution. As I studied actual data, I found that this picture was completely false, so blatantly false that I have a hard time believing that people teach it honestly.
    But to tack onto that a supposed teaching of the Christian gospel message made it even worse. The intent is to impact young and impressionable minds with the idea that the vast majority of scientists, and even most Christians are part of an evil conspiracy, are lying to themselves and everyone else, and are therefore going to hell. Which is, of course, precisely what these people believe. It almost makes me wish I took hell a bit more literally myself. There would surely be a special level of hell for liars of this caliber.

    But let’s go forward. The folks at Chick are not satisfied merely to tell us that all those who accept the theory of evolution are going to hell. They’re careful to make sure that folks read just the right Bible. Notice at the end that you are advised to “read your Bible (KJV) every day.” They have a number of pages filled with misinformation in support of their position on the KJV. In fact, if you read this, you might get the idea that all those who use any other Bible version are preaching “another gospel.” Probably they’re all headed straight for hell too. (For more information on Bible versions, see the tract What’s in a Version? and my Bible Version Selection Tool.)

    Then we can try this tract in which a Catholic dies and finds out he’s in hell, because he wasn’t a real Christian, at least as defined by the folks at Chick publications. He’s part of “most people” who go to hell. Unfortunately for him, he believe his priest, and you know that won’t do. In fact, he is even depicted tearing up a Chick Tract. (One could almost suspect that’s the unpardonable sin!)

    We find out here that the American Bible Society is also corrupted because they produce the CEV, which, in the twisted logic that applies in the very special world of Chick Tracts, turns out to be much more favorable to the Catholic Church. So an organization of dedicated people who have spread the Bible far and wide are, in fact, not serving God at all, but that other guy.

    There are very few Christian ministries that I will attack outright as I have done here. I try simply to go for statements and not the group as a whole. Doubtless, even at Chick publications, there are people who sincerely believe they are defending the faith. But this type of publication is not a blessing to the church, it is not the right way to reach people for Jesus, and it is not sound doctrine. It needs to be exposed as precisely what it is.

    I do not permit the use of Chick tracts, even the less offensive ones, at any ministry event in which I am involved, and that will continue to be my policy. There is simply too much danger that someone will go further, and be turned aside in their spiritual journey by hate-filled propaganda. That would be a tragedy.

  • Ross Perot Disses McCain

    There may be something less significant than Perot’s opinion of McCain, but I can’t think what it would be. Still, I did give you a link to it! Such is the value of infamy.

  • Origen Censors Scripture Reading

    In the prologue to his commentary on the Song of Songs, Origen recommends that certain portions of scripture, in particular the Song of Songs, should not be read by people who are not sufficiently mature:

    “But solid food is for the mature” and requires such people as listeners who “have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.” [Hebrews 5:14-HN] Thus, if those we have called “little ones” come to these places in Scripture, it can happen that they receive no profit at all from this book or even that they are badly inured either by reading what has been written or by examining what has been said to interpret it. . . .For this reason I give warning and advice to everyone who is not yet free of the vexations of flesh and blood and who has not withdrawn from the desire for corporeal nature that he completely abstain from reading this book and what is said about it. . . . [Source: Ancient Commentary on Christian Scripture, New Testament X, Hebrews, p. 79]

    Now I have frequently thought that a number of passage might be restricted, though I’m uncertain just why the first chapters of Genesis are considered that way, unless the issue is the first couple naked in the garden. I’d wonder about Judges, especially starting with chapter 13, and even more especially with chapter 17. Ezekiel 16 might be a good candidate, along with Numbers 31.

    One might not want children to get too clear a picture of what goes on in those chapters. I suspect, however, that new believers will be a different matter, and that converts will be much less likely to submit to censorship of their reading of Christian scripture.

    In addition, this provides an interesting application of Hebrews 5:14, one I had never thought of before. I have considered that certain scriptures could be (and have been) dangerous in the wrong hands, but I’d never thought of treating it as a maturity issue.

    I’ve added a poll to the right sidebar. Consider answering it, and if you have any thoughts, leave a comment.

  • Factcheck.org Deconstructs the Democratic Debate

    This comes via Newsweek. I’m really enjoying Factcheck.org. I hope to spend some time checking up on them, but thus far they seem rather even-handed. I’ll keep watching. This is the type of journalism I would like to see on the presidential campaigns.

  • Ambiguity in 2 Corinthians 2:5

    This is a brief note expanding my query about ambiguous passages. I have discussed passage that are ambiguous in Greek, but where translating them ambiguously in English results in a different range of options from those a Greek reader would likely perceive.

    This passage seems to me to be a case in which one must make a choice, and the English provides no option for ambiguity. If one is required to reflect ambiguity, just how can one do it?

    The question is whether “apo merous” in 2 Corinthians 2:5 should be taken as referring to some of the Corinthians, as in “he grieved some of you” or it could mean that various Corinthians have been grieved to a different extent. Furnish attempts to reflect both:

    Now if some one has caused grief, he has caused it not to me but to some extent (I don’t want to exaggerate) to all of you. [p. 153]

    He comments:

    The tr. offered here (cf. NEB, NIV) permits either of these meanings, and Paul may indeed have intended to qualify his statement in both respects. [p. 155]

    I don’t hear the English statement in the same balance as it seems Furnish is stating it, and as I read the Greek text. I’d be interested in how you read or hear this, especially if you read Greek.