The Evangelical Ecologist points to some interesting material on the possibility of getting fuel for energy from the moon. It seems to me that space exploration will really take off when we find an economic reason to go there. Spin-off technology is just not that likely to light up people’s life, and fundamental research is not sexy enough. A bit of helium-3 just might do it. 🙂
Author: henry
-
Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin
This is one of those automatically controversial topics. Jordan J. Ballor made an entry on it at Power Blog bearing the same title as my post.
I don’t have a major problem with the intention of this article. Loving the sinner, but hating the sin is a very Christ-like thing to do. The problem I have is that so many claim to do this, but very few do. We use the term “sinner” in a special sense–love the sinner (guy who sins much more than I do), but hate the sin (stuff that’s badder than what I do!). We despise the person because we can’t dissociate certain activities from the persons who do them. We classify as “sins” differences in personality or things we happen not to like.
Other than that, this is good advice! 🙂
-
Making Medical Decisions
I found this article on MSNBC very interesting in terms of the number of doctors who feel that they can somehow impose their moral choices on their patients. I do have some problems with the methodology involved in the survey and the conclusions drawn–the former don’t clearly support the latter. Nonetheless, these attitudes raise some warning flags for me.
Sometimes, and I don’t know of a scientific study that would tell me precisely how often, the medical profession takes a very arrogant view of the rest of us. They know best, and we ought to listen. But the facts are that there are many, many disagreements on treatment amongst medical professionals. I believe firmly that the individual should be the one to make the choice as to medical care, even if that choice results in his or her death. (When dealing with children, other factors come in, of course.) That decision should potentially be informed to the maximum extent possible, i.e. the medical professionals should provide whatever information the patient desires.
I’m concerned that so many don’t feel obligated to inform patients of procedures to which they may morally object. They may be right about the morality, but that moral decision is not theirs to make for another person.
-
Moderate Christian Blogroll: Thoughts from the Shower
Please welcome a new member to the Moderate Christian Blog Aggregator, Thoughts from the Shower. Since I had time this morning to give an extra look to the site, let me call your attention to Anne’s two most recent posts, Speaking Life and Doctrinal Statements, both of which should interest many on the moderate blogroll.
-
Word Study Dangers: The Process
Several years ago I was in an online chat on religion, and one of the other members discovered that I read Hebrew. I actually forget how he accomplished it; that wasn’t the topic and I didn’t tell him. In any case, he said, “Wow! You read Hebrew!” I acknowledged that I do. “I’ve been wanting to talk to someone who reads Hebrew,” he continued. “Tell me what Genesis 1 really says.” To his great disappointment I suggested that he read Genesis 1 in one of several English Bible versions.
This does not mean that I believe I get no benefit from being able to read Genesis 1 in Hebrew. There is a great benefit in essentially seeing many of the possible nuances as I read, and working with the semantic ranges of the Hebrew words and particular forms. I am reminded of this benefit every time I switch from reading Hebrew to translating Hebrew into English. I may understand a passage after I have read it in Hebrew, in that I could respond quickly and accurately to questions about what it says, the particular forms involved, and so forth. But when I turn around to express that understanding in English I have to struggle. I can produce one translation, but then I read my own translation, comparing it back to the source, I will revise . . . and revise and revise, not necessarily getting better.
In fact, I was teaching a class a couple of years ago on the book of Hebrews (note the switch to something written in Greek despite its title!). Now I have written a study guide that includes a translation, which I was using, and I commented that while “mature” was a possible reading for the Greek “teleiotes” in Hebrews 6:1, that it was a bit weak, and perhaps “perfection” would be better, though I had some concerns with the connotations of that word as well. As I was driving home, I got this tickling in my brain, so I pulled out my own study guide and checked Hebrews 6:1. Sure enough, the verse read “mature” in my own translation. I’m in the process of revising that translation for a new edition, and I know there will be many changes as I try to express the meaning more effectively.
In general, the translation you use when you read the Bible in English will have seen much more review and revision, by a large number of scholars more qualified than I am. Each of those scholars will likely have struggled with presenting the meaning that he or she sees in the passage clearly and accurately. There’s a certain arrogance in making the assumption that one can quickly get to “what the Greek (or Hebrew) really says” in a moment off the top of one’s head, and do so more accurately than a picked committee of translators who spend months working on a single passage. This does not mean that we should not question or come to our own conclusions. It does mean, in my view, that we should question carefully and searching carefully for evidence and judging it rigorously. In addition, we should view the results with appropriate humility, expecting, accepting, and evaluting the questions or challenges of others.
Similarly, lexicographers of ancient languages pursue evidence from many sources and work diligently to catalog, summarize, and present that information to the modern student of the language. A quick word study doesn’t produce a similar result. The word “quick” is very dangerous. But more importantly, whatever one believes one has discovered needs to be held with some humility. I cringe when a pastor or teacher, after reading an English translation says, “But what the Greek really says is . . . ” As a general rule, the meaning then provided is not what the Greek really says, but rather the meaning that best fits with the subject of the sermon.
So with those warnings, let me look at the major steps in the process of producing a set of definitions for a word. First, let me distinguish between a “gloss” and a “definition.” A “gloss” is a word or phrase proposed as a translation for a word in the source language. When a Greek student is taught that “pistis” means “faith” what he is learning is a “gloss.” Contrast that with the following from the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains: “that which is completely believable—‘what can be fully believed, that which is worthy of belief, believable evidence, proof” [Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996, c1989). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.) (Vol. 1, Page 370). New York: United Bible societies)]. While I could complain just a bit, the latter is a definition, rather than a mere gloss.
The object of a word study is not primarily a better gloss, but a working definition. You will end up with more potential glosses than definitions, because the range of definitions of words in two different languages do not coincide precisely.
Logically, the process is as follows:
- Survey the appropriate literature for uses of the word
- Categorize those usages, dividing them according to the various factors that influence meaning in a specific context, such as literary genre, historical period, syntax, language register, geographical location, and so forth.
- Propose definitions. This will result in a different division, as some definitions are broader in range over time, geography, genre, etc. than others.
- Group your examples under your definitions. Throughout the process be prepared to change your mind.
- Look at external resources, such as cognate languages, ancient lexicons, translations into other languages that are more contemporary with the literature.
- Revise, revise, revise.
- Organize a lexical entry
Now this process is generalized, and also sanitized. Unless you’re one of the few fortunate scholars who have an opportunity to start from scratch on a new language, such as those who work on the Ebla tablets, you will always interact with existing lexicography. This is one error that folks with limited training in a Biblical language–often between a semester and two years–regularly commit. They believe that somehow their translation or the definition that results from their word study will be better if they start with a blank slate. It is good exercise to work from scratch. As an occasional Greek teacher I not only recommend it, but require it of new Greek students. But it is part of a process of learning, and not good for the final result. When you’re going to use that definition on unsuspecting students or parishioners, check it against existing sources. That means Greek-English/Hebrew-English lexicons, theological wordbooks, and modern translations at the least, and preferably commentaries and even journal articles on the specific word. If you are going to disagree with those sources, first understand why they translated the word as they did, and be certain that you can challenge that translation successfully.
This entry has discussed a process that is truly only accessible to someone who actually reads the source languages. As I continue I’m going to look at some specific processes involved and some of the pitfalls, and then I’m going to proceed to ways in which the wonderful resources available can be used to enhance your understanding of the Bible even if you do not read the source languages. I do not believe it is necessary to know the Biblical languages in order to do serious Bible study. It’s a big help, but much can be accomplished without it. But pretending to do something for which you do not have the skill is a very dangerous thing, and I believe that frequently happens in Bible study.
-
Moderate Christian Blogroll: Quiet Paths
Please welcome the newest member of the Moderate Christian Blog Aggregator and blogroll, Quiet Paths. Hopefully I’ll get around to another roundup (say that several times fast!) very soon, and include something form them.
-
John Webb Winter Golf Tournament 2007 – Final!
It’s over, it went well. What more is there to say?
Well, I said a good deal on the Pacesetters Bible School News blog, so go there for more. You can start here.
-
New Series on Word Studies
When I divided my blogging between three blogs, I didn’t realize how hard it would be to do. It seemed logical to me to keep all my religion and society stuff here–theology, politics, economics, science, education–do Bible studies at Participatory Bible Study Blog and indulge my love of fiction at Jevlir Caravansary. Well, it wasn’t so easy.
My new series on Word Studies is a good example of this. It could have been here, but it ended up there, so I thought I’d provide a link. I’ll be discussing how word studies are done by Bible students, especially those who don’t know the source languages, and some of the dangers and pitfalls.
-
Word Study Dangers: Overview
[This is the first in a short series on word studies, especially the type of study done using an English concordance keyed to the Biblical languages, such as Strong’s Concordance.]
A few years back in the pre-blog days when most online discussions took place on various forums, someone proposed to me a new translation and interpretation of a particular verse. I don’t even recall the verse any more. What I do recall was the process of figuring out what the gentleman had done in order to produce the words he presented to me. That text was totally unlike any English translation of that verse that I knew of, and completely impossible by my reading of the Hebrew. He said he had worked on the translation using Strong’s, so I knew my starting point.
Slowly I worked my way back through Strong’s and discovered that he had simply looked through the possible translations for each word, and then selected one that he wanted to use. He had combined those English words in the fashion of one putting together a difficult jigsaw puzzle, and then had dealt with minor issues such as verb tenses and the syntax according to the sense that he was looking for. As a result, the verse consisted of a series of words, correct in the sense that they came from a Hebrew/English dictionary, but none of which were actually possible translations in that particular context.
He was extremely disappointed when I was not enthusiastic about his creative efforts. Surely I was not dogmatic enough to simply reject his translation out of hand! After all, it came from Strong’s, surely a standard authority on the meaning of the Hebrew text, and one used by many, many Christians! And yet I was just that dogmatic.
Now this is not a series on the inadequacies of Strong’s as a Biblical languages resource, though it does have many such inadequacies. It provides glosses, rather than definitions, and those glosses are taken from out of date sources. Discovering the meaning of precise forms varies from extremely difficult to impossible. Nobody who was actually skilled with the languages would make use of it as a serious resource for knowledge of the source languages. There are other English concordances, keyed to other Bible versions, that are based on more accurate sources, yet they still suffer from the other inadequacies.
The larger problem, however, is the people who try to use these concordances as a resource to study Bible words. There are things you can learn making use of such resources, but finding more accurate definitions of Bible words than those found in standard language resources is not one of those things. A student who does not understand the source languages would do better with one of the many Bible dictionaries or word books that are available.
The problem is in the nature of word studies. Similar issues come up in discussion when one tries to define a word. There are two extremes in discussing English words. On the one hand we have those who believe words mean whatever they want them to, and on the other we have the dictionary addicts. The first group doesn’t care to use standard definitions and creates a great deal of confusion for obvious reasons. The second group looks in the dictionary, and if a word is not being used according to the particular definition (often the first one presented) found in their particular dictionary, they are annoyed. The dictionary rules.
There is a subset of this group who are fascinated by older dictionaries. “I want a dictionary that comes from a time when words had meaning and weren’t subject to the whim of the uneducated masses,” they say. That there never was such a golden age of language doesn’t other them at all. The word should mean what their older dictionary says it means, and anyone who disagrees is just the product of a “dumbed down” educational system.
But dictionaries are merely reporters. The writers of dictionaries do not, for the most part, create meaning, except as any other writer does. People create meaning when they make use of words to communicate. A single word doesn’t have only one meaning; generally it has many. Its meaning doesn’t generally remain unchanged over time. What lexicographers (the writers of dictionaries) do, is survey the usage of words over a wide body of literature and formulate and report appropriate definitions. Multiple definitions per word are required, because words get used in many different ways with different meanings. There are scholarly meanings, technical meanings, popular meanings, regional meanings, and so forth.
For example, when I talk about computers I use “CPU” (central processing unit) to mean the little chip on the motherboard that does the processing. I got used to that usage years ago. Frequently these days someone will call me for service on a computer, and they will ask, “Should I just bring my CPU or do you need the monitor and keyboard as well?” This usage bugs me, even though I truly believe what I said in the last paragraph. They’re not wrong; they’re just using a quite common popular usage. Most of my readers probably find CPU used in that sense to be more appropriate than its use to refer to the chip. In terms of the way meaning develops, CPU is an acronym, yet many who use it would not know what the letters stand for. It has become a “word.” Similarly “car” can mean many things, from the part of the elevator that one actually rides in, to the car on a train, to the automobile that one drives. This is generally true of words. One determines from the context just what definition is appropriate. Our minds are wonderfully adept at figuring this out.
Words in Hebrew and Greek are no different. The reason a concordance like Strong’s has quite a number of glosses (words of phrases provided as possible translations of a particular Greek or Hebrew word) is that those Greek and Hebrew words have many potential meanings in different contexts. You can’t simply take the list of meanings, choose one that you’d like to read in this location, and run with it. There are many factors that go into the particular choice of an English word, factors that the mind of a native speaker would process naturally and quickly.
Some of these factors are:
- The immediate context
For example, you can tell what definition I’m using for “car” easily in each of the following sentences. I drove my car to work. and The locomotive was pulling 25 cars.. - The particular form of the word
Both Greek and Hebrew are inflected, and sometimes such inflection will result in a completely different meaning for the word. The lexical form (the one you find at the head of the dictionary entry) will be the same, but the meaning will be substantially different. If you don’t know about these different forms, you may well come up with an impossible answer. - The type of literature
Words are used differently in different types of literature, and you have to be conscious of that effect. For example, priestly texts will use words about sacrifices in a much more technical way than general historical texts. - Syntax
The structure of the sentence may indicate a difference in the meaning of the word. In Greek, this is a very important thing to remember about prepositions. One common mistake made by those who do not know Greek is to list the possible definitions of a preposition and then choose the one best suited to their desired translation, without considering the form of the preposition’s object. That doesn’t work in Greek! - Time period, particularly in Hebrew
Meaning can vary based on when a text was written. This is generally important in translating Hebrew, though not so much for New Testament Greek because the New Testament was written over such a short period of time. - Peculiarities of usage by the particular author
Just as modern writers and speakers may use words in unexpected ways, the Bible writers could do likewise.
In my next entry I’m going to go over the process of doing a good word study, and examine the level of knowledge of the Biblical languages required to handle certain information.
- The immediate context
