Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Raymond Brown on Ambiguities and Literal Translation

    After my comments earlier about Piper and the ESV, I found this comment by Raymond Brown in An Introduction to the New Testament:

    For the purpose of careful reading or study, which concerns us here, one must recognize that sometimes the biblical authors did not write clearly, so that the original texts contain certain phrases that are ambiguous or difficult to understand. In some instances translators have to guess at the meaning. They must choose either to render literally and preserve the ambiguity of the original, or to render freely and resolve the ambiguity. . . .

    Brown continues by describing such a freer translation as a commentary built into the translated text.

    I have enormous respect for Dr. Raymond Brown, but I have to disagree with him here. The best explanation I can think of for his making this comment is that he overestimates the ability of the average reader to discover to range of possible meanings that the translated text might carry. In almost all cases I would regard it as more appropriate for the lay person to use multiple translations, reading of footnotes, and careful attention to the context to resolve ambiguity. The English text does not tend to suggest the same range of possible meanings as does the Greek or Hebrew text, in my experience.

    Most questions I’ve gotten on this result from the consistent translation of the Greek genitive with English “of” + some noun. English readers frequently find this ambiguous, and possibly more frequently they find it meaningless.

    I’m going to begin collecting ambiguous renderings from formal equivalence translations into English, where the ambiguity of the English text does not match the ambiguity of the source text. I’d be interested in any specific suggestions. I will post results here in a later blog post.

  • Once we faced Lions . . .

    Now we’re afraid our neighbors might think we’re weird. A Christian ministry founder says he believes American Christians are not ready for persecution. I wonder what was his first clue? [HT: Dispatches]

  • New Christian Carnival

    . . . is at Ancient Hebrew Poetry, including one post from Threads!

  • Miniposts

    I first saw these on Pursuing Holiness, and tried them on Participatory Bible Study and Jevlir, but now I want them here. They are just too convenient for those links and one-liners.

  • Blogroll: Geocreationism.com

    Having decided to blog a couple of times per week about my blogroll, I’m going to start with a site I just added, Geocreationism.com. If you’ve been following this blog for any period of time, you will have noticed occasional comments from Geocreationist, and this is his blog.

    I have a couple of reasons for including it. First, he disagree with a number of positions I take, but is open to dialog. That’s an excellent start. Second, his position on creation and evolution illustrates one of my key contentions: This is not a black and white issue in which there are only two sides. One of the defining features of the moderate position, as I see it, is refusing to be held to a choice of extremes. That’s why moderates are frequently very annoying to extremists–we refuse to get stuck with only two options. Sometimes even if you give us A, B, C, and D, we want E-none of the above.

    Before I go to a particular post, let me look at Geocreationism’s subtitle: Geocreationism – Showing harmony between mainstream science and scripture. It’s very easy to forget that when we look at the interaction between science and scripture that both sides can vary. One can differ on a view of science or of a particular scientific theory, or one can differ on the interpretation of scripture. Any type of reconciliation or harmony involves both. This subtitle is one I would not use, for example, because I don’t think there is any need for harmony simply because I don’t believe science and scripture address the same questions. There are occasional overlaps, but these are incidental, I think. This is one of the issues for Christians. Just what is scripture trying to address, and in what way does it address it?

    We’ll see some of this in action in a recent post, “Evidence for Creation” (Review) – Ground Rules for the Review. Geocreationist is reviewing Tom DeRosa’s book Evidence for Creation – Intelligent Answers for Open Minds. In laying out his own ground rules he distinguishes what he calls “Darwinian evolution” and “Theistic Evolution.” He defines Darwinian evolution as largely equivalent to atheistic evolution, though he sees little difference between that and the various deistic views.

    He contrasts theistic evolution, in which he says that God not only starts everything, but “He started every wave of Evolution as well.” In his view, God is still distant in this view of theistic evolution, and thus he presents his own third view: geocreationism, or geocreationist theistic evolution. In this case, God is continually present and concerned. I’ll have to read more to see how this impacts the process along the way.

    Now I must say that this terminology is somewhat surprising to me. For example, evolution occurring in waves with God starting each wave sounds very much like old earth creationism to me. Further, Geocreationist describes his view in this way: “Evolution would occur with our without the randomness, as long as God remains involved; remove God however, and the randomness would not be enough.” That latter view sounds somewhat like ID or “guided evolution” to me, depending on how one fills in the details.

    If I’m reading all of this correctly, I’m going to fall into the “Darwinian evolution” camp. My problem with being placed there is that I don’t think God is distant. For each and every law of nature I believe we can say it happens “because God.” In other words God wills gravity, and should he stop willing it, there would be no gravity. Not to worry, however, he’s pretty fond of gravity. God also wills variation and natural selection, and those produce certain types of order according to that law. Remove God and you remove everything.

    Now I know that there are some views that allow for indetectible divine intervention, but I’m not particularly interested at the moment in things that are even theoretically indetectible. I believe that God creates the laws, i.e. the system, which in turn produces everything that we see. God can intervene, but he would do so because he wants to, primarily because he wants to communicate with these weird creatures who have come into being.

    I have one further comment initial comment. Geocreationist appears to be looking for at least an historical outline in the Genesis accounts. I think this is doomed to be a disappointing search in the long run. I do not believe that the literature involved was written with the intent to provide a narrative history of anything, but rather to express God’s relationship to creation using the cosmology and symbolic language of the time. I will blog more on it as time goes on, but I have found that everything tends to fit quite nicely when read in that context.

  • Working the Blogroll

    One reason I enjoy the blogosphere is that it involves an exchange of ideas, often between people who differ a great deal on what they believe. I was pruning out my blogroll yesterday (I only removed defunct blogs), and it occurred to me that the blogroll really is not very meaningless. It contributes to someone’s scorecard on Technorati, perhaps, but often I have very little interaction with the blogs on my blogroll.

    So I’m going to try something for awhile. A couple of times each week I’m going to select a blog from my blogroll, look for an interesting post, read it, and respond here. The rules I’ve set for myself are these:

    1. First time through is pretty much random
    2. If there is no recent post with which to interact on the blog, I’ll go on to another and check it later.
    3. I won’t return to a blog until I’ve checked the rest of the roll. (Obviously this does not include ordinary blogging and linking.)
    4. After the first time through I’ll keep the order I worked the blogs through the first time.
    5. I won’t post just a link. I’ll respond in some way to the content of the post.
    6. This only includes posts in my blogroll, not the various larger blogrolls of which I’m a member. The Methodist blogroll is anchored at Methoblog.com, the Moderate Christian Blogroll is aggregated at ModerateChristian.com, and I’ll also be doing some linking from the Moderate Christian Blogroll Blog (there’s tongue twister).

    I have created a category Blogroll for these posts, so you can either avoid them or make sure you don’t miss any, as the case may be.

  • Another Interesting Lectionary Omission

    Since I’ve been attending a lectionary discussion group during Wednesday lunch, and therefore spending more time on the lectionary texts, I’ve been interested in the way the texts are selected. For this coming Sunday, Epiphany, one of the texts is Isaiah 60:1-6. “Now what could possibly be interesting about that?” you might ask.

    I’m glad you asked! In this case what’s interesting is the cut-off point. In general, this is a prophecy of restoration, given to Israel during the time of the exile, or perhaps afterward. (It would fall in trito-Isaiah, assuming one accepts that division.) More specifically it is a prophecy of Israel becoming a religious center, and other nations supporting them.

    I found it interesting that the Learning Bible (CEV), in its note on Isaiah 60:7 specifically says that the temple referenced there is the rebuilt temple, dedicated about 515 B.C. This suggests that in the view of those interpreters this passage was fulfilled with the restoration of Jerusalem and the temple following the Babylonian exile. Yet a brief reading of the chapter suggests there are a number of things which were not fulfilled at that time, such as the sun no longer being their light (verse 19) but YHWH serving that function (cf. Revelation 21:23-24), all its people being righteous (v. 21), to name just a couple. I note also that the Jewish Study Bible refers this to a future age when God will rule the nation directly.

    So again why do I find the cutoff at verse 6 interesting? Well, in that verse we have a reference to the continuation of the sacrificial services of the temple, something that most Christian interpreters do not include in any future age. Quoting from the JPS Tanakh:

    All the flocks of Kedar shall be assembled for you,
    The rams of Nebaioth shall serve your needs;
    They shall be welcome offerings on My altar,
    And I will add glory to My glorious House.

    Now Christian interpreters are not unaware of these texts, but many people in the pews are, and thus when they start studying eschatological prophecies they can become very confused.

    Let me make a couple of quick observations. First, Christian eschatology, insofar as it works from the prophecies of Hebrew scripture has divided prophecies between a first and second coming of Jesus. No such division is known here in the text. Salvation from sin and salvation from physical oppression are closely intertwined.

    Second, while both Ezekiel and Isaiah speak of a future time when the temple will be restored and sacrifices will be offered, Christian interpreters find that very hard to fit into any prophetic scheme. There are those who believe there will be a period of sacrifice in a restored temple during the time of the tribulation. I won’t go into the details of how this is supported from the text here. Suffice it to say that it can get complicated quite quickly. But in general, Christian theology has a problem with restored sacrifices seen in a positive sense, since the sacrificial system is commonly seen as unnecessary following the death of Jesus.

    One has to wonder whether the compilers of the Revised Common Lectionary didn’t want to avoid having these questions raised by a reading of verse 7 on Epiphany.

  • Christian Carnival Posted

    The latest Christian carnival is Ancient Hebrew Poetry.

  • Random Designer Wrap-Up

    I found the last several chapters of Random Designer quite attractive, I think partially because I’m from a Wesleyan background. We cross the “somehow” barrier and find that human beings, by whatever means that was accomplished, want to connect with their creator. In chapter 20, this is presented as “A Choice and a Chance.” The following quote (also used as an inset quote in the book) gives the flavor:

    An intimate, meaningful, and fulfilling relationship cannot be required. It can only be offered! Without the possibility of rejection, there is no opportunity for meaningful connection.

    Here I think Dr. Colling gets into one of the key potentials involved in looking at humanity from an evolutionary perspective, yet doing so as a theist, though I don’t know if he would go as far as I do. God takes risks by being the Random Designer instead of the complete dictator. There is the risk inherent in creation itself. Just what type of creature will arise that will think and connect? There is also the risk inherent in relationship. Will the person who seeks a relationship with God become a better person, or will he use the “specialness” of that relationship as an excuse to lord it over others? My own answers thus tend toward an “openness of God” theology. (Please be certain to distinguish my commentary here from Dr. Colling’s. Dr. Colling does not embrace the openness of God theology in the text.)

    Chapter 21, God’s Will: A Confusing Concept Becomes Crystal Clear promises clarity on a difficult topic, and here I have to express a bit of amusement. In general, once we come to an understanding of an issue, we think it’s crystal clear. I get caught here too. When teaching classes on the book of Revelation, I will inevitably be asked about some commentary in which the author says he has worked out the meaning of Revelation and it’s really very simple. I can point out that I have a row of commentaries on Revelation and several of them make a similar claim, yet do not agree on the meaning! So there are at least half a dozen crystal clear meanings to the book of Revelation.

    Understanding God’s will is rather similar, I believe. While I actually like Dr. Colling’s explanation, and I think he points in the right direction at least, it would probably take only a few minutes in a room with a Calvinist to get it all pretty confused again. Of course both Calvinist and Arminian would leave with a clear understanding–just different clear understandings.

    The chapter content is good. I think the subtitle is perhaps a bit optimistic, but then those who have no optimism don’t write books!

    Chapter 22, the rewards of perseverance builds on the spiritual view of humanity, while chapter 23 introduces the concept of “higher order random design.” I am not going to try to summarize this one. The key example is to be found in the human immune system. I think I followed it, but I am uncertain I can express it again myself. It does indeed express again the way in which randomness can produce order and design.

    Chapter 24 takes a step out into the unknown by suggesting that the genome may be as loaded as is possible and that we may well not move to greater complexity than human beings. It’s an interesting point, but one which I am woefully unqualified to analyze.

    Finally, chapter 25 deals with the call to relationship with the creator again. The form of expression and the theology here is very comfortable for me as it coincides closely with my own.

    Wrap-Up!

    This is the first time I have tried to blog through a book rather than read it completely and then write a few short notes or attempt a review. I see advantages and disadvantages. In once case, I re-read a section and commented on it further due to readers’ remarks. I think that second read had some value. So much for the process.

    What do I think of the book overall? I regard the first section as one of the best explanations of the basics of evolutionary theory for a layman that I have read. It does not involve the detail that a book like What Evolution Is includes, nor does it have the spice of Evolution, Triumph of an Idea, but it has substantial advantages too.

    First, I think it makes clear both the complexity of life and the power of the “random design” concept. Variation + Natural selection works. Dr. Colling is not afraid to look at abiogenesis and give us an idea of where the science is there as well. I think it is quite appropriate to separate abiogenesis from the biological theory of evolution for many purposes. At the same time, for many people the origin of life is the major question.

    Second, Dr. Colling is clearly an excellent teacher, and can explain complex processes simply. He apologizes to his colleagues in the scientific community for the extent to which he will simplify, and having read other materials, I know he is simplifying considerably, yet I do believe he gives an overall excellent picture. When looking at the forest one might misidentify a tree or two while still getting the shape of the forest.

    Third, Dr. Colling is talking about evolution in theistic terms, even when he is not talking about divine intervention. The recognition of God as the creator, and more precisely of God as the Random Designer underlies the entire book. The science is not divorced from theology, though science and theology are each given their spheres, their separate identity and their separate subject matter.

    Finally, these earlier points mean that this is a book for Christians and other theists who want to understand how one can still perceive God in an evolving world, as well as for those who want to understand how a theist can possibly manage that. One of my responses to the claim that nobody can be a theistic evolutionist is simply: And yet here I am. Well, now “here’s Dr. Richard Colling.” The second half of the book is a more explicit expression of the Christian faith that was always present even in the first half.

    One thing that struck me throughout was the basic honesty of this whole book. We have intelligent design proponents trying to pretend to do science without identifying their intelligent designer. Dr. Colling is unafraid to state from the start who he means by the Random Designer. That freedom comes with a lack of ulterior motives. This isn’t a sneaky way to get a specific type of “random design theory” into high school classrooms. It’s simply an expression of how one scientist who is also a man of faith sees God in random design.

    I would strongly recommend this book for any Christian who is considering the creation-evolution controversy, and also for anyone who wants to understand where many people of faith stand in terms of the relationship between science and theology. It is clear, informative, and challenging. I can’t ask for much more in a book!

  • New Year Blog Dressup

    I spent a good bit of time yesterday dressing up my blogs for the new year. This unseemly waste of time on the merely visual probably came to pass because I’m fighting a cold.

    I like to keep my three blogs, this original Threads blog, and the two I derived from it (Participatory Bible Study Blog, and the Jevlir Caravansary) similar in appearance. I’ve used the same theme on all three with a different header image and different sidebar arrangements.

    For those who may be new to Threads, I created the Participatory Bible Study Blog in order to separate material strictly on Biblical exegesis from the more general “religion and society” theme of this blog, and the Jevlir Caravansary to separate out my occasional flights into fiction or poetry writing. While Threads is my personal blog, I do stay closer to my professional work in religious education here. My life is divided these days between writing and teaching on the one hand, and continuing computer business on the other. As I’ve developed the teaching ministry, I’ve spent less and less time on the computers. In turn, the computer business is divided into managing networks for small businesses, which provides a steady income, and the occasional spurt of activity producing custom software. It will probably surprise nobody who is involved in any ministry work that while I spend probably 80%+ of my time on the writing/teaching, and 20% on the computer related business, a majority of my income still comes via technology. I call it modern tentmaking.

    As for the new year, my plan (business plan, not resolution) involves putting more time into writing, especially for print, and spreading the other work around.

    A blessed New Year to all!