Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • 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.

  • Paying People to See EXPELLED

    Given the advance publicity, and now reviews from some friends who have seen the movie, I have almost entirely negative expectations. That is not surprising, considering that I’ve sold out to the Darwinist ConspiracyTM, and no longer believe in God.* :-;

    However, it seems that the upright and theologically correct** folks who produced the movie, have even less faith in it than I do. They apparently feel the need to pay people to see it (HT: Austringer and Glen D. at AtBC.)

    They are especially interested in getting middle and high school students to see the movie, which demonstrates yet again how much more anxious they are to bring their message before the uninitiated than to bring it before people who are qualified to critique it.

    I eagerly await exaggerated claims of ticket sales based on this particular strategy. The ID folks have taken a step down from “truth is determined by popular vote” to “truth is determined by those who can pay for it.”

    *I eagerly await the first time this is quoted by some humor-challenged individual to prove I really, truly am an atheist.

    **Political correctness is a relative newcomer on the correctness scene. Theologians just didn’t have such a catchy name for it. For centuries in many places one could get burned at the stake for not being theologically correct, rather than just expelled from a university, for example. Both ideas are, of course, destructive of freedom. That’s why, of all the epithets rained upon me, I prefer “Henry the Heretic.” It’s good to be a heretic!

  • Bypass the Electoral College?

    Wayward Fundamentalist Christian has a post about a movement by some states to bypass the Electoral College. This would be accomplished by a simple expedient that I had never thought of–state laws awarding their electoral college delegates to the winner of the national popular vote. (Here’s a NYT reference for those who may prefer that source to the WorldNetDaily.)

    I hate to imagine the legal activity that would take place were enough states to vote this particular change, especially if we had a candidate who won the college, while another candidate won the popular vote. The Supreme Court would be stuck deciding who would be the next president.

    I am a great fan of the electoral college, as it was intended to function and as it functioned–once, if I recall correctly. After that it has deteriorated. The original purpose, in part, was this, according to Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist #68:

    It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.[Source: Alexander Hamilton Defends the Electoral College in Federalist No. 68]

    There was also the intent of blunting somewhat the power of very populous states and increasing the power of less populous states. The framers of the constitution were not much in love with popular majority. They wanted a government with a basis in the people, but they also included limits on the power of a simple majority of the people.

    At this point, the idea of the electoral college as a deliberative body that chooses a well-qualified president is dead. With delegates committed to particular candidates by the popular vote in their states, the only chance there would be for the electoral college to actually do its job would be if nobody got a majority. They could do some negotiating to see if they could keep from sending the election to congress.

    As for the route of bypassing, I’ll have to say I’m against this approach. I think it could easily put the presidency in a dangerous state of uncertainty in a future election. It would be much better–I think nearly essential–to change the electoral college through the appropriate means of amending the constitution. Personally, I fail to see the need and wouldn’t support such a change, but if it was done by constitutional amendment, at least there would be no conflict following an election under those rules.

  • Freedom Not to Invite

    I think the Nevada Supreme Court got this one right. Freedom of the press must include full freedom to invite or not to invite. I often support candidates with very low ratings at the polls, but there is no legal basis to force their inclusion in any televised debate.