Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Tools: A Reader’s Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament

    I have blogged previously just a little bit about the A Reader’s Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament, and also made some negative comments about the use of interlinears, especially for Greek or Hebrew students.

    I recommend this lexicon for use in reading rapidly in order to encounter a large body of text in Biblical Hebrew. It does have a small portion of the problems of an interlinear. It presents you with a gloss that is likely appropriate, according to the authors, for the passage in question. It’s easy to bypass the context in that case, and just accept their gloss as it is. That is something you should avoid.

    I used this in doing some reading in Isaiah today myself. It has been a couple of years since I last used it. It is very convenient, because it does not include those words used 50 or more times in the Hebrew Bible, and then lists all other vocabulary items by verse. I found that the selected gloss was a good starting point. I’m not going to be making a habit of it, however, because generally if I find a word that I don’t know I want more information than that before I go on. But I can read text in this fashion if I want to.

    I’m spoiled a bit by Logos, because there I can have my keylink hooked up to HALOT, and thus get a much more substantial rundown on any particular word. In addition, I have the invaluable lemma report which allows me to see how that word is used throughout the Hebrew scriptures. But in the absence of such tools, fast reading could be facilitated by use of the Reader’s Lexicon.

    Some people question the value of such reading. Here’s why I recommend it as part, not all, of your reading in Biblical languages. There are at least two levels of “knowing” a vocabulary item from a language other than your native one. First, you may know a gloss, or a set of glosses that might be applied based on context. This is what is provided by normal vocabulary memorization, provided you memorize alternate options. You will build that type of vocabulary best by taking time to carefully study each word. The second is when you come to feel the range of a word’s meaning in it’s own language, because you have seen or heard it many times in many contexts, and you can select the range of meaning for the current context almost automatically.

    When you deal with translation and exegesis, both are useful. You will only develop the second by reading large quantities of text or hearing large amounts of the language spoken. With a dead language, hearing is difficult, and you must substitute reading. Then when you encounter a word, you will remember having seen it in many contexts. This is one of the major values of rapid reading.

    But there

  • Updating my Bible Version Info

    I still have my Bible version selection tool active, and I’ve just added a directory of recent blog entries on the various versions to my Bible version detail pages. This substantially expands the amount of information available on each version page.

  • Making the World Make Itself

    PamBG quotes a letter that using some wonderful phraseology with regard to the process of creation, but also related to theodicy. I can’t access the letter itself due to a subscription requirement, but the part Pam quotes is quite good.

    I like these two sentences particularly well:

    Suppose instead that he made the world make itself.

    . . .

    Be the incarnation suggests that, in Jesus, God knew by experience, not just observation, what it was to be rejected, and hunted down; . . .

    Yes!

  • For Us to Fulfill All Righteouness

    I noticed something in my reading time this morning that has presumably been staring me in the face through many readings of the passage. In fact, this is the 14th morning in a row that I’ve read this as part of this week’s lectionary, so I’ve had plenty of opportunity. The passage is Matthew 3:13-17, and specifically verse 15.

    But suddenly as I was thinking about just why it was that Jesus should get baptized it occurred to me first that if it was his Father’s will that he get baptized, even though he had no sin in need of forgiveness, and then didn’t get baptized, well, obviously that would have been sin. But I thought that was just a tricky way of stating what was obvious from the start.

    Then I thought. “appropriate for us.” Who is “us?” John and Jesus? Jesus and the crowd around who didn’t participate? What about everybody, us, including me? In the sense that we are all called to be baptized, surely that’s true. But then it occurred to me that Jesus is here identifying himself with us in our baptism. When we are then baptized, we identify with him in ours. He’s so much a part of us that he does everything that we’re doing.

    It struck me that one of the difficulties I see in intercessory prayer on behalf of a congregation is that often our 21st century psyches don’t really identify with the congregation. We do “identificational repentance” without really identifying with the ones we pray for. When Daniel prays for Israel in Daniel 9, it is clear that he is part of Israel, and repents for sins for which he feels the guilt as part of his people. When we pray for our churches or nations, it is often with a sense of praying for their sins, because we haven’t (in our view) contributed.

    It was there all the time, but this morning I received a new blessing of feeling just how much Jesus identifies with us lowly folk way down here. At the same time I was challenged to identify more with my brothers and sisters in prayer, thought, and action.

  • Nelson Study Bible Note Problems

    I’m not going to link to a specific edition on this, because there is no ISBN in the edition from which I’m working. It appears to be a match for this item on Amazon.com, and to be essentially the same notes as this item, though I cannot be absolutely certain. If you have a similar version, you can simply check your notes to see if they say the same thing as mine.

    First, of course, I’m a bit prejudiced because I think the NKJV is one of the less useful translations. It is literal, but less readable than the ESV or the HCSB. I don’t call any of the major modern versions bad Bibles, but the NKJV is fairly low on my list.

    What I want to comment on today, however, is the notes, part of Nelson’s Complete Study System. I used this Bible today for my lectionary reading. Each morning I read both the current week’s lectionary passages and the next week’s, thus giving me 14 opportunities to meditate on them. I use different Bible versions and also read the notes if I’m using an edition that has notes.

    In my reading on Isaiah 42:1-9 today, I noticed this note in a “wordfocus” block:

    . . .While ‘ebed can mean slave (Gen. 43:18), slavery in Israel was different than in most places in the ancient Middle East. Slavery was regulated by the Law of Moses, which prohibited indefinite slavery and required that slaves be freed on the Sabbath (seventh) year (Ex. 21:2)–and the Year of Jubilee–the fiftieth year (Lev. 25:25-28). . . .

    Now there is certainly value in pointing out the slavery laws in Israel, and comparing them to those in the ancient near east. Notice, however, that if one reads on in Leviticus 25, there is something that is not mentioned in this little note, and it is significant.

    44But as for your male slave or your female slave who are yours, from among the nations who are around you you may acquire both male slave and female slave. 45And also from among those who are [foreigners] living in your land and from those who are sojourning among you you may acquire them and from their clan that is with them which they bring forth in your land, and they will be your possession, 46and you may leave them to your sons after you to possess; they may enslave them permanently. Only with your brethren, the children of Israel, each person must not make his brother labor harshly.

    The problem here is that the note implies that somehow Israel’s form of slavery was entirely benign, without mentioning the exception to the rule. Anyone from the nations around or from foreigners who were in their land could be bought and possessed permanently.

    This is important because there are two ways of handling slavery passages in the Bible. The first is to try to deny the similarity between the slavery practices in the Bible and that in other countries or in more recent times, such as slavery in the United States. The second is to view the rules of slavery as a cultural accommodation, i.e. slavery was not good, but was not yet forbidden.

    I take the second approach. My point about this note is that that the editors of these notes presumably take the opposite one, but that they gloss over a substantial element of the Israelite rules for slavery. This is one of the ways in which study notes can be deceptive, even unintentionally.

    The second note comes on Psalm 40:1, in which it discusses the words translated “waited patiently” in the NKJV:

    The Hebrew translated I waited patiently is literally “waiting I waited.” The emphasis of this phrase is not really on patience but on the fact that David waited solely on the Lord. . . .

    I have to wonder where they got this interpretation. The phrase “waiting I waited” is simply not good English. It is formally equivalent to the Hebrew, but this is one of those cases where the literal translation does not suggest the right set of options to English ears. It is a Hebrew idiom of intensification. I WAITED! Now you may think of a few options, such as the intensity of the expectation, or the length of the wait, but the verbal structure itself does not specify who is waited on, or anything about how this person is the sole person on whom the Psalmist waits.

    The context suggests that YHWH was the sole one in whom the Psalmist placed his hope, but the verb form suggests only the intensity of the experience. For modern American English, I don’t even like the word “waited” here, though the REB and the NRSV both use “waited patiently.” I would prefer the JPS Tanakh’s “I put my hope in the LORD.” They lose the intensification, but I think they catch the essence of the verb more clearly.

    What I would hope to show from these examples is the danger of depending on notes, along with the value of looking at more than one translation. Looking at more than one set of notes is also a valuable hedge against incomplete or misleading notes.

  • Praying for your Enemies

    Rev. John Shuck of First Presbyterian Church of Elizabethton, TN, would like people to stop praying for him.

    That should be a provocative enough opening line! What’s more, I think a few of those people at least should do just that. More importantly, they should quit talking about praying for him.

    I’m guessing that they start from something like this:

    But I say to you, “Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.” — Matthew 5:44

    OK, so what am I, a Bible teacher, doing telling people not to do something Jesus commanded them to do. I obviously must not be a REAL CHRISTIANTM.* Well, not so fast. Let’s take this just a little bit further before we consider it settled.

    (more…)

  • Emotions, Momentum Shifts, and Margins of Error

    This CQPolitics article is a good read on New Hampshire, I think. Along with emotions, one needs to remember that polls come with margins of error [Wikipedia], and that even those are within a certain confidence percentage.

  • Scientists Use Random Design Principles

    . . . or so it appears to me, to design a more efficient plant–for their purposes. Check out this MSNBC article to see how it was done.

  • RUSETAI in 2 Corinthians 1:10

    This is not a seriously doubtful textual issue, but I wanted to make a brief summary and comment on it, because it can help illustrate the interaction between internal and external evidence in a case where the two point in the same direction. For a very brief outline of textual criticism, see Textual Criticism-Briefly. In addition, this is discussed briefly in the Anchor Bible commentary on 2 Corinthians I’m currently reading, so I’m doing something to fulfill my promise to blog my reading.

    The text, very literally translated, reads thus:

    He who from such a death [peril of death] saved us (aorist of ruomai), and will save (future of ruomai), [that is] the one on whom we have hoped, will also yet save (future of ruomai) us.

    Now let me present the ESV, which is very literal, but a bit more readable:

    He delivered us from such a deadly peril, and he will deliver us. On him we have set our hope that he will deliver us again.

    You can probably see a number of translation issues, such as where in the translation does “on him we have set our hope” belong. It can equally be translated with the final “rusetai” as with the second one. These three repetitions of the same word have created a bit of a textual jumble, but in this case we have good external attestation for a single reading, and the internal evidence backs it up.

    One key textual rule is that the more difficult text, if one can make any sense of it, is to be preferred. Why is this? Well, scribes tended to correct in order to clarify. On the other hand, the rule is not absolute, because scribes would make errors that created nonsense. So everything has to be used with care.

    Furnish (AB) simply comments that “[t]he text translated has the best attestation, however (P46 [aleph] B C et al.), and the variants doubtless originated as attempts to deal with the fact that the kai rysetai appears twice, . . .” (pp. 114-115)

    Metzger makes a similar note, but points out further that a number of slightly later manuscripts (A D* [psi] itd,61 syrp ethpp) simply omit it, and some even later ones correct the second instance of ruomai to the present tense.

    I’m not going to try to cite all this external evidence in detail. The external evidence seems pretty convincing to me, even though Metzger’s textual commentary only rates the reading a C. (I’m working from the companion to the 3rd edition, not the current one to which I linked.) The internal evidence is strong, however. The later readings are simply explained by the earlier.

    1. There is no reason why a scribe who encountered the verse with only two repetitions would add another.
    2. There is no reason to alter the second instance to present, unless one is making a sequence of aorist, present, future.
    3. There is every reason to make either alteration if one is presented with all three together, including two repetitions of the future.

    Thus the internal evidence seems compelling to me combined with the good external evidence.

  • The New Interpreter’s Study Bible

    I have my stable of study Bibles that I regularly consult and recommend to students. Three key ones are The Learning Bible (CEV) [TLB], the Oxford Study Bible (REB), and the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV). Though I don’t use it regularly (there have to be some books I don’t read!), the HarperCollins Study Bible (NRSV) is also excellent.

    Recently, however, I used a Christmas gift card at Barnes and Noble to pick up a copy of the New Interpreter’s Study Bible [NISB]. It has been around for some time (2003 copyright), but I’ve only glanced briefly at it in libraries. Now that I have a copy of my own, I’d like to comment on it.

    It is 2298 pages, not including maps. The majority of that is a combined Bible text with notes. The notes are more extensive than either the Oxford Study Bible or the New Oxford Annotated Bible. In general they are a little bit more readable, so this Bible will be useful for people with less Biblical background. It is still not a “simple” study Bible, and doesn’t encroach on the audience of TLB. That is due both to the notes themselves, in which the NISB uses a heavier vocabulary and style, and the translation on which it is based (NRSV for the NISB). It does not take space with illustrations as does TLB either. The information is much more densely packed on the page.

    There are some major positive points, however. If you find something like TLB a bit basic for you, these notes dig deeper into scholarly and critical issues. I am extremely impressed with the introductions to Biblical books, which seem balanced and complete. The notes themselves are extensive and clear, and yet manage to avoid simply telling you what the text means. They give an overview of why as well. The excurses are also excellent and provide valuable information. For example, one excursus in Isaiah 42 provides an introduction to the servant passages.

    In terms of total size, I think the fairest comparison would be to the Oxford Study Bible [OSB], which is 1597 pages, also excluding maps. Its print also appears slightly larger. It has a total of 199 pages of general articles, compared to NISB’s 36 pages. The OSB also spends a greater amount of time on critical theories in the passages I have studied thus far. That point should not be overemphasized. Both discuss the issue, and I have not read all of the book introductions.

    Another advantage of NISB is incorporating fairly recent scholarship. That is, of course, the hazard of aging books–new research is done, new commentaries are published, and theories fade and are replaced by new ones. On that, the NISB is nice just because it’s newer.

    This is not a devotional study Bible. I think that many preacher’s will find it valuable. It will provide you with background and with suggestions for understanding and interpretation. In fact, much of that 36 page section of general articles deals not with technical stuff (Hebrew poetry, literary forms, ancient near eastern cultures), but rather with inspiration and authority, and the ways in which we interpret. This all suggests a practical intention for the book.

    For me, NISB is not going to replace my trusty and severely word OSB, but I have added it to my primary shelf where I keep those materials I consult regularly in Bible study.