Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Isaiah 64:6 – Menstrual Cloth

    I was planning to leave my comparisons with just Isaiah 63, as I believe that continued comparison charts will largely show the same thing. I’m still reading the translations side by side, and if something seems different I will bring it up.

    But today in reading Isaiah 64 in several translations I came across Isaiah 64:6 (5 in Hebrew) in which the phrase “all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags” (KJV) occurs. Now having just read this in Hebrew I was reminded that the literal translation of this is “menstrual cloths” or something similar. These cloths would be unclean, as was the woman in her menstrual period. One extended discussion of the issue of uncleanness can be found in Leviticus 15:19-33.

    In the passage, there is clearly meaning in the fact that these are not merely dirty pieces of cloth. For example, had someone washed their hands and dried them on these cloths after digging ditches all day, by modern standards we might call them dirty. If I repair the car and then wipe the grease on a rag, we would escalate that to filthy rag. But the menstrual cloth implied ritual impurity, however odd that might seem to us today.

    So having read the TNIV translation:

    All of us have become like one who is unclean,
    and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
    we all shrivel up like a leaf,
    and like the wind our sins sweep us away. — Isaiah 64:6 (TNIV)

    Now this doesn’t disturb me much. In the course of the verse they have gotten in the words “unclean” and “filthy” and I would assume that the TNIV translators, along with all the modern versions I checked (quite a number), simply don’t think that “menstrual cloth” is going to be meaningful to modern translators.

    But when I turn to a translation that prides itself on word for word renderings, that “seeks as far as possible to catpure the precise wording of the original text” (ESV Preface), I thought perhaps things would be different. But here the desire for literal translation escaped the ESV translators:

    We have all become like one who is unclean,
    and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. — Isaiah 64:6 (ESV)

    Now I definitely think “polluted” is better than “filthy” in the context. But we have still replaced one metaphor in Hebrew with a completely different English expression. The Message carries this the furthest, using “grease-stained rags,” which does not reflect the basic idea all that well, but has the advantage of conjuring an immediate image in English.

    Though I found only one modern version, the Complete Jewish Bible, that uses any word referring to menstrual cloths (menstrual rags), I did find that ancient translators used that. The LXX, Vulgate, and the Peshitta, all translate with something that includes the original literal meaning in its semantic range. Interestingly enough, the Isaiah Targum, according to the text I have available, uses an even better euphemism than any of the English versions, “cast off garment” or I might prefer the translation “garment thrown far away” (Stenning, The Targum of Isaiah, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949).

    So is there an element of meaning in the actual Biblical wording here or not? Is it possible to convey that meaning accurately in a literal translation? Such a literal translation does not appear common in modern translations.

  • When Adrian is Right He’s Really Right

    . . . and on the subject of enjoying God, he’s really right.

    I don’t mean to throw more fuel on the fire of this “hearing God” thing. Personally I think John Piper’s original article should be much, much less controversial than it is. The main thing that seems to be happening is that people are extending what he actually said to cover a great deal more ground. He may be right or wrong on many other things, but on this one he’s right, and I enjoyed that article.

    Adrian is also right about enjoying God. What is it with gloomy Christians? It seems almost as though some people are afraid that we might enjoy ourselves too much in church and miss out on all the serious stuff. In a perpetual search for doctrinal correctness, they fail to call people to joy as well.

    Now I’m not suggesting here that truth is unimportant. I think it is very much important to be right. Otherwise I would not respond to things in Christianity that I think are going dangerously wrong–even, for example, to respond to some of the hostility I sense to joy. I think it is true that we are supposed to enjoy God.

    My seminary experience, however, tells me that one can get a great deal of knowledge of God without enjoying him and without finding a relationship with him. My own seminary experience, heavily focused on Biblical studies was a progressive experience of learning more and more scripture and becoming more and more isolated from the community, and even from private devotion and worship. My life became totally centered around knowing stuff about God, and God himself faded into the background.

    Again, don’t get me wrong here. The knowledge is good, but it needs to go with a living experience, and I think that experience will be reflected in joy, a joy that stays with you even in sorrow. Without that joy I would not have made it through the last several years of my life, and I thank God for it. The same several years have made it clear to me also, however, that a sense of euphoria based on little or no foundation won’t work either.

    I hope all Christians will seek the joy that comes from experiencing God’s presence and hearing his voice, wherever and whenever they can.

  • Using God as a Label for our Fears

    Way back in the prehistory of this blog I posted an entry about fear and human-animal hybrids. Yesterday I got the latest edition of this type of fear in my Breaking Christian News e-mail. In it was a story headlined Prayer Alert: Ethical Outrage as Scientists Create “Human-Sheep”. Now I’m always mildly skeptical when I see an article that doesn’t so much report the event as it reports the outrage of the reporter to the event.

    For example, consider this quote, part of a preface to the story from reporter Teresa Neumann:

    I will never forget my feelings of disbelief and revulsion when I read Toffler’s assertion that in our lifetime we would not only witness the advent of human cloning, but fully human-animal hybrids as well. Those feelings returned with a vengeance yesterday when I read that researchers in America have just “created” a sheep with half-human organs. Who does man think he is? Where will this lead? What must God think? What should our response be? Do we run to the caves and cower in shame, calling for the wrath of God to come quickly upon the earth, or—like Abraham or Jonah—do we plead forgiveness and ask God to change the hearts of man, thus changing the society we live in? Let us pray…

    So much, I guess, for objective reporting. Personally, I think I will pray for those Christians whose fear and revulsion somehow allows them to think that man is getting too close to God. I’ll let you all in on a secret–getting to the point of assuming God’s power is quite a distance away from us humans.

    The link from the BCN story is to CBN which takes essentially the same approach. Again, the primary story is about the debate:

    A bio-ethical debate is raging at a Nevada university, where scientists have created the world’s first sheep with half-human organs.

    For a more news-oriented report, see this story in The Mail.

    We often use God as a convenient label for what we don’t know, and as long as that’s not all he is, I don’t have a major problem with that use. But when God becomes the label for our fears, then I believe we have a problem in our faith walk. Somehow God has made it through the crusades, the inquisition, and the mutually assured destruction policy with nuclear weapons. I doubt he’s particularly threatened by a few human organs grown in sheep. It does make me think about a nice horror movie based on the idea of killer sheep with superhuman intelligence, chasing sheep dogs and farmers from their land and taking over the world. Baaaaaaah! Sheep Rule!

    There’s a continuing residue of thinking from the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) that often makes Christians believe that we might get too close to God and bring on his wrath and destruction. Perhaps we should apply a little logic. Any tower in the ancient near east would be considerably less lofty than the Empire State Building, or the Sears Tower, or the Twin Towers. The Twin Towers fell, but it was evil human beings using natural weapons that accomplished their fall.

    Interestingly enough, the builders of the Tower of Babel were also not so much trying to usurp God’s power as they were trying to get protection from God’s wrath. Their fear was driving them.

    There is the very valid question of safety, but safety concerns do not come from the possibility of offending God by mismanaging his universe. There is a concern with the possibility of viruses. I have no knowledge in the relevant areas, but I found this blog entry that discusses a few of those issues. My plan here is not to lay all fears to rest, but rather to suggest rational discussion leading, I hope, to appropriate safety measures. Fear will produce retreat; wisdom will produce caution. Progress means risk–it’s worth taking just a little.

  • Translation Comparisons in Isaiah 63

    Why Isaiah 63? Well, I was reading it in Hebrew for my devotional time this morning, and then I compared some modern versions purported to be readable, and I thought it would be valuable to provide a complete comparison.

    Note that I’m not attempting to provide a comprehensive list. I’m just comparing some poetic and idiomatic phrases that caught my eye. The versions I will use here are the ESV, TNIV, CEV, and NCV. Of these, I have recommended the TNIV, CEV, and NCV as options for outreach Bibles, that is, Bibles suitable for people who are not well versed in the church environment and dialect.

    I would first note that all four of these versions capitalize “Holy Spirit” suggesting divinity in an Old Testament passage in which this was likely not in view. That is not terribly surprising, but it does illustrate the evangelical Christian roots of all four of these versions.

    I am only going to post the phrases I’m comparing, so you may need to get out your own Bible and work with the context.

    Verse Version Phrase;
    1 ESV crimsoned garments
    TNIV garments stained crimson
    CEV clothes stained red
    NCV dressed in red
    In this verse, the ESV strikes me as not quite being English, and I’m not certain of the value of its text in literal terms. Just what does “crimsoned” mean? I believe I know, but I read the text in Hebrew first. The NRSV uses “garments stained crimson” just as the TNIV does. Both the CEV and the NCV simplify with “red.” There is a significant difference in meaning between “clothes stained red” and “dressed in red.” In context one can still get the picture, but the phrase itself is a bit weak. I give the CEV points for both “clothes” and “stained.”
    2 ESV and your garments like his who treads in the winepress
    TNIV like those of one treading the winepress
    CEV your clothes look stained from stomping on grapes
    NCV as if you had walked on the grapes to make wine
    The ESV wording in this verse is extremely awkward, and I don’t think they gain poetic value from it, though it does follow the KJV tradition “and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winefat.” TNIV is again content to provide natural English, though treading the winepress is no longer a common term. NCV is the most explanatory.
    9 ESV In all their affliction he was afflicted
    TNIV In all their distress, he too was distressed
    CEV It troubled the Lord to see them in trouble
    NCV When they suffered, he suffered also
    This is another completely non-radical rendering by the TNIV. CEV and NCV are much bolder, and with good effect, in my view. I would ask the ESV translators whether when their child is in pain they would say, “In all your affliction I am afflicted,” or whether they might instead say “I’m hurting with you” or something similar.
    10 ESV and grieved his Holy Spirit
    TNIV and grieved his Holy Spirit
    CEV and made his Holy Spirit sad
    NCV and made his Holy Spirit very sad
    One thing I’m noticing in this chapter is how frequently the TNIV and ESV have the same reading. With all the exaggerated criticism, you might expect more radical renderings from the TNIV team, but they seem quite restrained.
    14 ESV to make for yourself a glorious name
    TNIV to make for yourself a glorious name
    CEV The name of the Lord was praised for doing these things.
    NCV and by this you won for yourself wonderful fame
    Note that the CEV rendering combines thoughts in different lines of Hebrew poetry and thus doesn’t fully correspond with the phrase cited from the other versions. NCV conveys the information that “name” in this context refers to fame or reputation.
    15 ESV the stirring of your inner parts
    TNIV Your tenderness
    CEV Show us that you care about us
    NCV your love
    This is a clear instance of an idiom translated word for word in the ESV, but idiomatically in the other three versions. The difference in the amount of text I quoted is based on other issues in the translation of the verse, in which the CEV and NCV both deal with repetition in poetic lines by combing them into more standard English style. That type of translation of Hebrew poetry, which loses the form, but may well convey the meaning more clearly is not my topic here.
    17 ESV and harden our heart, so that we fear you not
    TNIV and harden our hearts so we do not revere you
    CEV Why did you make us want to disobey you?
    NCV Why do you make us stubborn so that we don’t honor you?
    Again, combination of parallel thoughts into single elements tends to make it difficult to quote precisely the phrase desired. I think TNIV’s “revere” is better than “fear” in this context.

    I would have just a few observations on this. First, of course, studying a few instances that caught my eye in a single chapter does not fully characterize Bible versions. That should be obvious, but I don’t want there to be any mistake.

    Second, one of the clearest differences between formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence comes in the translation of idioms. Do we preserve the source language idiom, however little sense it may make in the target language, or do we find a good target language idiom to convey the same meaning. Depending on what the reader is looking for, one could answer that question either way. The ESV consistently translates idioms word for word in this chapter, while the TNIV takes a few steps away from that, but the NCV and the CEV generally seek a new idiomatic way of expression.

    While it was not my focus for this comparison, the same differences could be noticed in handling poetic lines. ESV and generally TNIV reflect the Hebrew poetic lines, while the NCV and CEV scramble them as necessary to express the meaning. That conveys certain elements of meaning to audiences who are not acquainted with Hebrew parallelism–a very large percentage of Bible readers–but at the same time it loses the opportunity to see the structure of the Hebrew poetry.

    The differences occur on a scale, i.e. there is not a clean break between the two styles of translation. If you compare the CEV and the ESV, it looks like two completely different approaches, but the TNIV is somewhat mediating, and I know that if I added several more translations, the scale would be even more evident.

    Being aware of such differences, we can more intelligently select a Bible version for any particular setting and use.

  • Science Fiction gets Further Behind

    It’s amazing to see things like this during my lifetime. New Mexico is considering a small local tax to develop a spaceport. More power to them if they can draw this strong new potential business to their region.

    I can still recall being taken to a neighbor’s house to watch the moon landings, and my father, who passed away less than a year ago, saw the introduction of the automobile and electricity to his home town. (Note that’s not the invention of either, but their introduction into a small town in Canada.

    It seems to me that change is still accelerating. What will the world look like in another decade?

  • A Response to The God Delusion

    Bruce Alderman has a humorous response to The God Delusion. Check it out here. I’ll reserve further comment until I have finished reading the whole book myself.

  • New Conservative Group Challenges Expansion of Executive Power

    The American Freedom Agenda sounds like a very interesting new group with a positive agenda, in my view. Many of the principals have fine, long-term credentials in American conservative politics.

    Their material is worth a look.

    HT: Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

  • Structure and Literal Translation

    I have found what is probably the best argument for a literal translation. I have certainly used literal translations frequently in commentary, though I favor dynamic equivalence for reading ease.

    But Bob MacDonald, whose blog Bob’s Log has just joined the Philophronos Blogroll, does some extremely interesting work on structure in the Psalms. Now you will get various discussions on this topic scattered through commentaries, but it’s hard to find extended material on the structure of various items of Hebrew Poetry. (Note my own work on the structure of Psalm 104 from a college paper.) Bob has also done some really good charts on the structure of Hebrews, which are on my reading list.

    In any case, there is a level of study that can be facilitated by the kind of translation he does, though most of the people I encounter in Bible studies would not have the patience for it. That’s their loss. I’m happy to try to provide what they are interested in, but there are some wonderful benefits to be gained just from thinking about this kind of work.

    I welcome Bob’s Log to the Philophronos Blogroll.

  • Hearing God’s Voice Redux

    When I was a teenager, I lived in Georgetown, Guyana with my parents who were missionaries. (My father was the Medical Director of Davis Memorial Hospital there, and my mother taught nursing off and on.) During that time I had an opportunity to go visit Kaieteur Falls. In those days one got to the park by flying in an aging DC-3 aircraft that was incredibly noisy We landed perhaps a mile away from the falls (I forget precisely how far–it’s been a couple of years since I was a teen!), the aircraft engines were shut off, but I continued to hear this roaring sound. I thought my ears were just ringing after the long noisy flight, but it turned out to be the sound of the falls in the distance. After some walking I came on a vantage point on the side of the gorge from which I could see the falls. It’s a shear 700 ft drop with additional distance fallen over the rocks. The river comes off of the savannah, and simply falls off a cliff. The sight is awesome. Coming upon it for the first time is a spiritual experience.

    I have tried to describe it a bit in the paragraph above, but I haven’t done that well. I have tried to describe it to others, but I can see in their eyes and hear in their voice that I have failed to truly catch the feeling of that first look at this spectacular falls. It is an experience that I treasure for myself, but that I always convey in a way that is substantially less than what I feel in telling it. I would love to return to Guyana and go see the falls again, experience that again. I suspect, however, that I would still fail to convey it to others.

    I have that same problem in discussing the study of the Bible. Why do I regularly read the Bible in the morning to start my day? Well, I can tell you that my day goes better when I do–and it does. I can tell you that I believe in such activity as a spritual discipline, and I do. I can make the abstract statement that I hear God’s voice in scripture–and I do. But as many times as I’ve talked about it, even to people who are Bible students, I find that rarely does the other person’s face light up, and their words express an understanding of that feeling of spending time with God in the Bible.

    After I had been away from the Lord and the church for 12 years after graduate school, I returned to Bible study. I’d remained acquainted with the scriptures, because I didn’t want to lose my Greek and Hebrew skills. But I had read, though not read the Bible. I went back to study by reading the gospel of Mark. Now I knew what the gospel of Mark said, but as I read it again, I found an excitement, an anxiety for the next chapter. I read the book slowly over the course of Lent. It was like seeing and hearing it all again, but refreshed, as though I had never heard it before. Again, this is an experience that seems to lose incredibly in the telling.

    I took a challenge once from my students in a class. I advocate reading a text multiple times for an overview and to fix the whole picture in your mind. They were finding the passage boring on the second or third pass through. I said I would take any passage, read it through multiple times, and tell them when I ceased to get something new out of it. The chosen passage was the Sermon on the Mount, and I read it 38 times in succession over the course of two weeks. There was some new line that I underlined, or some new marginal note on every reading. I think most serious Bible students will not find that at all remarkable. They’ll realize that on pass 38 I was still only scratching the surface. But there are others whose eyes glaze over when I relate that experience, and I know that yet again, I have failed to communicate what I feel.

    Then yesterday, I dropped by Adrian’s Blog, and found a link to this article by John Piper. Now those of you who have read this blog for some time will know that I have disagreed substantially with many of Adrian’s posts, and a few times John Piper’s name has come up in a negative light over some of the same issues. But as I read that article, the words jumped out at me, and I knew that the experience Piper was describing is essentially the same is mine, but described so much more effectively. That’s the experience of reading God’s word that I keep trying to describe, yet always fail.

    When I linked to the article, I had no idea that there would be the type of controversy that there seems to be over on Adrian’s blog. I wasn’t trying to make theological points or convert those who don’t believe the Bible is inspired. I was certainly not trying to put down anyone who hears God’s voice in other ways (such as on viewing a waterfall or in prayer) or who hear God speak on other subjects. Obviously I cannot in any way speak for John Piper, whose theological positions differ substantially from mine. But I didn’t read any of those negatives into either the article or Adrian’s post.

    There are those who should hear a correction in the article. I frequently encounter people who do not have the patience to seriously study the Bible, yet will take any amount of time and effort to get a “personal word from God.” They’ll travel to conferences, stand in line for hours, seek out “prophetic ministry services,” and buy large numbers of books, but they won’t get serious about the Bible. I don’t know why, though some tell me it’s a lack of time. It’s just too hard. I would hope that such people would hear John Piper’s article as a correction. It’s not that they should seek God’s voice in many different ways, but they need to seek it at the core as well.

    I can’t tell you how to grab hold of the experience, but I do suggest putting in time with the scriptures, taking the time to let the words sink in, and doing so prayerfully. Pray that your mind will be opened, and your will ready to obey what God will show you. I may not be able to fully convey the experience in words, but I will testify that it’s worth it.

  • Hearing God’s Voice

    You know, John Piper has come on my radar on women’s ministry issues, and some of my comments have been pretty negative. But this article on his DesiringGod.org web site is something that resonates completely with me. For my skeptical friends, no, this is not the evidence you keep hoping I’ll provide. It’s simply an example of where someone else’s experience of God parallels mine so completely that I have to simply say “Wow!”

    Let me tell you about a most wonderful experience I had early Monday morning, March 19, 2007, a little after six o’clock. God actually spoke to me. There is no doubt that it was God. I heard the words in my head just as clearly as when a memory of a conversation passes across your consciousness. The words were in English, but they had about them an absolutely self-authenticating ring of truth. I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that God still speaks today.

    . . . continue reading from DesiringGod.org.

    Hat tip: Adrian Warnock’s Blog.