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.
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.
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.
[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:
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.
Hmmm. Having read about this at Abnormal Interests (Is a Better Score Better or Worse?) I decided to take it. I got 100%, though actually I’d give the test only about 80%. Does this qualify me to be an unbeliever? 🙂
Wow! You are awesome! You are a true Biblical scholar, not just a hearer but a personal reader! The books, the characters, the events, the verses – you know it all! You are fantastic!
It is very important not to assume what a bill will actually accomplished based on its title. Titles are generally designed to put a positive spin on the contents of the bill in the hopes that people will not read further or seriously consider the consequences of what is actually proposed.
A new bill in Colorado has precisely that problem. There are a number of issues in terms of implementation, but I want to look at one particular line:
NOT BE REQUIRED TO TEACH A TOPIC THAT VIOLATES HIS OR HER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND NOT BE DISCIPLINED FOR REFUSING TO TEACH THE TOPIC;
Matt Young at The Panda’s Thumb comments:
Realistically, what subject besides evolution will spur a great many parents, teachers, or students to opt out of a lesson? Enough, that is, to interest the legislature? None. I find it very hard to believe, then, that this bill is not a cover for undermining evolution in favor of a narrow religious agenda.
Perhaps my past experience with very narrow religious groups gives me some perspective on the possibilities here, but sex education comes to mind immediately. But more importantly I know people who regard numerous works of classical literature as evil, and who could well claim it was a violation of their conscience to have to teach those. In effect, the bill hands over the curriculum to the individual conscience of teachers.
I would suggest that a better plan is for those who feel they cannot handle the public school curriculum to go either the private or home school route. I don’t mean to be nasty here, or to suggest that the public should have no involvement in curriculum decisions. I believe parents and the public should be very much involved. But a public school teacher needs to teach the curriculum provided. Free speech rights do not mean that every individual has the right to modify the curriculum. It’s a public process. The teacher’s free speech is not impaired by this, in my view, simply because the government fails to provide a platform.
The public schools exist as infrastructure, to produce citizens educated to a certain level. An individual teacher cannot be permitted to distrupt that process because he or she cannot conscientiously teach some subject matter that is required. The proper response is to find a job that he or she can conscientiously do.
While I’m at it, I would suggest to Christian parents that the best time for your children to get their first exposure to ideas you find objectionable is while they are still at home. At that point you can respond with your own beliefs on the matter. Your Sunday School classes can teach on it, and your youth leaders can provide instruction as well. The child then gets a choice. If the sex education class doesn’t cover abstinence in the way you’d like, you can provide that instruction. If you disapprove of evolution, arrange to have your beliefs taught through the auspices of your church, or in your home. Parental involvement is tremendously important. Use it!
I hope people will consider these issues and a number of other troubling points of this bill, especially if, as predicted, similar bills are introduced in other states.
. . . has been posted. There’s a link to one of mine and there are also links to many very substantive posts which is what I go to this particular carnival to find. As I have time after this weekend of the John Webb Winter Golf Tournament, I will try to link to some specific posts both here and at the Pacesetters Bible School blog as it seems appropriate.
No, I’m not sick. I’ll be accompanying my stepson, John Webb, to Sacred Heart Hospital where he will take a number of his baseball colleagues to visit the children’s wing. They’ll sign pictures and baseballs, visit and have fun with the children, and try to brighten their day. This has been a tradition of the John Webb Winter Golf Tournament. Tomorrow we’ll all be at Osceola Gulf Course here in Pensacola to raise money for the child services program at the hospital.
A friend referred me to this page in which there are numerous really bad KJV only arguments–what other type are there?–but there was one I wanted to note in particular, because it is an argument that is often used in weaker form, but is here carried to its logical (and silly) conclusion.
First let me note that while the author of the article waxes enthusiastic on the semantic range of “epi” in Greek, he fails to discuss the semantic range of “in” and “on” in English, which, according to my Webster’s IIIrd International actually overlapped in Jacobean times. I didn’t make a particularly thorough study of that. Perhaps someone with an OED handy will comment. He should also have done further research on the semantic range of “charagma” though he probably didn’t because he really bases his conclusions on the following argument:
The modern Greek student is little more than a babe compared to these men who learned the language long before the dumbing down of education took its toll on today’s academy. They spoke the language, were able to write prose in it, and were entrenched in it. There are a few universities with classics departments like Bryn Mawr and Berkley in modern times that have standards of Greek scholarship that are truly outstanding, but few truly well-rounded students of the language are produced on the whole, and none on the level of the great scholars of the 17th century. . . .
The normal form of this argument goes like this: My expert is smarter than you, therefore my argument is true. I see this quite regularly. Some young earth creationist finds someone with a PhD who supports their argument and then asks me who am I to argue the Dr. X, PhD? For someone like me who is not a scientist, the simple answer is, “I see your PhD and raise you several hundred PhDs.” Or something like that. (I don’t play poker–don’t bother to correct the form!) More than one person can play the “expert” game. Quite often, one will find that the person citing the expert hasn’t even understood what the expert said.
In this case, however, we have taken a step further. Bible translators in the 17th century knew more Greek than anyone today, thus any translation they produce must be better than one produced by modern translators.
If this were a valid argument, all cases of disagreement would be settled by simply referencing the one person with the best credentials. Argument over. Of course, we don’t do that, because even the person with the best credentials can make mistakes. New people get their reputations by overturning the tried and true theories of previous generations of experts.
But even if the folks in the 17th century were head and shoulders above all modern academics in the area of Biblical languages, would that mean their translation was the best? Even if they conversed and wrote in Greek themselves (though Latin was more common), they did not converse in Koine Greek, and thus are no more native speakers of that language than I am. I do agree that there is a considerable problem with the education of pastors in Biblical languages. The increase in the number of people who are trained to some extent has resulted in a crowd of people who are supposedly expert enough to have an opinion, but who really know very little. I’ve often commented that when you hear the phrase “what the Greek/Hebrew here really means is . . .” you’re about to be misinformed. But none of that means that the 17th century scholars should be given the final word.
They also lacked a few things:
The idea that the 17th century had the final say on this subject is simply ludicrous. The translators of the KJV may have been excellent scholars, and I believe they were. They may have done the best they could with the resources at hand and the conditions under which they had to work. I believe they did so. But there were many things they simply could not know because they had not been discovered yet. They were so far from the time at which the source texts were written that they gained no benefit from proximity of time, as we might suppose the early church fathers had, but they also came before much of the textual evidence we have today had been discovered. The situation only becomes bleaker in terms of the Hebrew scriptures.
I’m not certain this is the silliest KJV only argument, but it certainly is an excellent candidate!
The REB is one of my favorite versions, and indeed for personal reading is my favorite. Nonetheless it has one feature that often makes me mildly uncomfortable, its tendency to move texts around with a minimum of textual evidence. Even in cases in which I find the balance of internal evidence favorable to such a move, doing so without any manuscript evidence at all makes me a bit uncomfortable as part of a translation.
A good example of this is found in Isaiah 38, in which the REB moves verses 21 and 22 from the end of the chapter and places them prior to verse 8, reading 1-7, 21, 22, 8-20. Now before you have an excessively negative reaction, there are some reasons for this move.
But I still have a problem for this one. The REB note is cryptic: “Cp. 2 Kgs. 20:1-11” and the added note in my Oxford Study Bible doesn’t help that much more: “The Revised English Bible has moved these verses from the end of hte chapter to their more logical place in the narrative.” But there are two questions, first whether one can impose a logic on the text without evidence of disruption, and second whether the new order is, in fact, any more logical. As the chapter appears in all manuscripts, We have the sicknesses, the report of a short prayer, the promise of healing, a longer prayer of thanksgiving that retells the story, then the act of healing. Especially if one regards the longer prayer as an addition from a different source, I could easily see how a compiler would produce the existing order. It makes good enough sense, though having something written after his healing appear in the text before the healing may offend our sense of chronology. One should note, however, that included in the prayer is the narrative of what happened and of Hezekiah’s prayer itself.
Even further, we need to consider issues of composition, and ask the question of how the chapter came together as it is. The narrative in 2 Kings 20:1-11 is more complete (except for the thanksgiving prayer), and well ordered. I don’t think that only on the basis of looking at the two texts we can be certain of the order of composition. It looks to me offhand as though both were brought together from the same source material for different purposes. Obviously this entry is not a study of the composition history (I would recommend Childs, Isaiah, pp. 282-283 for a brief discussion, noting that Childs also sees 21-22 as logically following verse 7.) Nonetheless, I would suggest that the purpose of composition of this chapter is different from that of Kings, and there is a good possibility that the redactor wished to have the chapter end on the note of “going up to the house of the Lord” just before discussing the visit of Merodach-baladan.
In any case, unless one can posit a scribal error, such questions go back to source and redaction criticism, rather than textual criticism. There doesn’t seem to be any basis for suggesting a simple scribal error. Even if one believes that a later redactor inserted verses 21-22 at the end of the chapter, one would still have to deal with whatever logic caused that redactor to place the text where it is. Further, if one cannot see the logic in terms of this chapter, even better logic would be produced by bracketing it as unoriginal.
All of those options would be acceptable in a commentary or a scholarly study. In a translation, I’m concerned with this type of change based on the level of evidence available.
Fellow philophronos blogger Laura is pretty annoyed with William Arkin for what he wrote about the troops in The Troops Also Need to Support the American People. She has demonstrated that here and defended it further here.
Now anyone who has read both our blogs is aware that we disagree dramatically on the Iraq war. My initial thought was that Laura was going overboard at a fairly reasonable point–civilian control. But then I read Arkin’s blog entry. Starting with the title, he manages to obscure the one good point with a hail of contemptuous language.
Oh, by the way, I do consider “scumbag” excessive. But that’s just me. I might have gone with “condescending obnoxious elitist” or something like that.
What bothers me is that this is the very sort of attitude and writing that is not support for the troops. They are doing precisely what they are supposed to do. They are carrying out the will of the civilian leadership in Iraq. It’s not up to them to figure out whether their activities are popular. Those of us who oppose the war can do so, and we are doing so, by the legitimate means of the ballot box. That portion of the American people who are in uniform in Iraq don’t have control over that, and shouldn’t, one way or the other.
Support for the troops involves respecting what they do. It doesn’t mean excusing those who do wrong, but it also doesn’t mean blaming everyone in uniform for the faults of a few, nor does it mean blaming people in uniform for the faults of their civilian leadership.
On the other hand, it should be clear that one can oppose the war and support the troops. I was one of the troops in more than one conflict in which I disagreed with the civilian leadership. As a person in uniform, I carried out my orders. It’s as simple as that. But I will not, as a civilian, simply accept whatever military leaders happen to want to do. The Iraq war is a bad choice badly executed. But it has been executed by excellent volunteer troops who deserve our thanks.