Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • A Short Note on the REB of Isaiah 38:21-22

    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.

    • This chapter of Isaiah parallels 2 Kings 20:1-11, and the new order is in accord with the order in that chapter. There are strong verbal parallels that suggest either that one was copied from the other, or that both came from the same source.
    • Placing the healing together with the promise seems logical in context.
    • The REB provides a note and marks the verses by numbers so you can reconstruct the original chapter.

    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.

  • Of Mercenary Troops and Scumbags

    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.

    • The troops don’t have to support the American people, they’re a part of the American people.
    • The “American people” are not only what the majority want. I happen to be in that majority. I want us out of Iraq, but the people who disagree are also part of the American people, and so are the troops.
    • Like the rest of the American people, troops are permitted to have opinions as well. I happen to disagree with much of what these guys said, but that’s life.
    • Volunteer != Mercenary. Thank the volunteers, don’t beat them up.
    • I have never met an obscene comfort, and I’d like to be given an example. I do wonder whether Mr. Arkin has been deployed, then extended and extended and extended without any choice in the matter. Perhaps whatever small comforts the troops can be provided might appear less obscene.
    • I guess the troops are allowed to have any opinion except one of contempt for any portion of the people back home. Mr. Arkin has an odd view of “freedom of speech.”
    • The troops in general should not be blamed for the various scandals, any more than a community should be blamed for having a mass murderer in it. Those responsible should be punished. Those not responsible are, well, not responsible.

    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.

  • Family and Good Deeds News

    There’s a story today in the Pensacola News Journal about my step-son John Webb and the John Webb Winter Golf Tournament. Great stuff, though I must note that John has signed with the Chicago Cubs this year, so will be wearing much more blue than red!

    Preparing for the tournament has kept me fairly brief in all my postings this week, a side effect some will certainly appreciate!

  • Christian Carnival Posted

    The latest Christian Carnival has been posted at Thoughts of a Gyrovague. Go read, enjoy, and learn!

  • Christian Reconciliation Carnival #1

    The first ever Christian Reconciation Blog Carnival is up and running at Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength. Check it out!

  • The Real Cost of Health Care

    Hmm! I don’t really know what that is! But Robert J. Samuelson has an excellent column on Newsweek (via MSNBC) that discusses the issue. He makes a number of excellent points, including pointing out that we’ve hidden the actual cost of health care, though I suspect not nearly so successfully in this country as in some others.

    One thing he points out is this:

    Our health-care system will inevitably combine government regulation and private enterprise. But what should the mix be? Which patients, providers and technologies should be subsidized and why? How important is health care compared with other public and private goals? Will an expanding health-care sector spur the economy

  • Genesis 9: A New World

    Genesis 9 looks at the beginnings of life and society after the flood. It can be of interest in a number of ways, because along with parts of chapter 8 it supports the Noahide laws, and is the foundation for blood being forbidden to eat blood (Acts 15:20, which does not quote this, but must be based on it). The question of how much the world has changed following the destruction of everyone not in the ark must have been a serious worry for Noah and his family, and thus our narrator proceeds to correct that problem.

    For those interested in theodicy, this is an indication that the view represented in the Pentateuch is that the world was definitely harmed by the advent of sin, though it shows a progression of destruction rather than an instant fall. Following the flood, animals are said to fear humans. Whether this is something completely new, the story does not say, but it is at least a new level of fear, doubtless connected with the fact that animals are now offered for food. Note that there is no clean/unclean distinction provided for the world in general. That was specifically part of the covenant of Israel. It is important to note that in the debates in the early church, certain elements of the Christian faith were trying to force rules on gentile Christians that Jews would not require of them (See Acts 15 and Galatians, especially).

    As I have done in my previous entries on Genesis I will identify the sources as generally understood in source theory. In this chapter we have only P (priestly) and J (Yahwist) material, and there is a small disagreement on what is what. Verses 1-7 are identified as P by Speiser, but as J by von Rad. Noth also identifies 9:1-17 as a block by P. All agree that 18-27 is J, while 28-29 is again P. I will use blue text for P, red text for J and leave the disputed section in black. That will allow you to read a connected narrative in any source as much as possible.

    Again, the translation is as fresh as this afternoon, and should be considered a draft. Hopefully I’ll get back to checking it more thoroughly some day.

    (1)Then God blessed Noah and his sons, and told them, “Be fruitful, and multiple, and fill the earth. (2) The animals, birds, and everything that moves on the ground, along with the fish will be in awe of you and afraid of you. I have placed them under your authority. (3) Every living creature that moves will be your food. Like the plants and herbs I have given you all of them. (4) Yet you shall not eat the flesh with its life, that is, its blood. (5) Their blood and their lives I will demand from your hand, from every living thing I’ll demand it. And from humans I will also demand from each one the life of another human. (6) The blood of one sheds human blood shall be shed by human beings, because human beings were made in God’s image. (7) As for you, be fruitful and multiply, and move out across the land and multiply in it.”

    This is a very interesting text for several reasons.

    1. Animals are held responsible for killing
    2. People are not allowed the lifeblood, even of animals, something that would later be held to require expiation (Leviticus 17:11)
    3. While God forbids the killing, he requires humanity to enforce it–by killing
    4. Humanity’s blessing and sovereignty survive unimpaired, as does God’s image, given as the reason for forbidding murder.

    I would note that the strong connection to later Levitical law tends to support holding 1-7 as priestly (P) in origin.

    (8) God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, (9) “Look, I myself am establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after you, (10) and with every living creature that is with you, with the birds, and the animals, and with all the living creatures of the earth with you, from all those who went out of the ark, all the living creatures of the earth. (11) and I will establish my covenant with you, and all flesh will never again be cut off by the waters of the flood. There will never again be another flood to destroy the earth.

    The possibility of a rerun could be expected to be the greatest concern to everyone, so God makes a covenant that he will not destroy all living things again by a flood. All the living creatures are included in this covenant.

    (12) And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I am placing between me and you, and between all living creatures with you for eternal generations. (13) I place my bow in the cloud, and it will be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. (14) And when I bring clouds over the earth, then you will see the bow in the cloud. (15) And I will remember my covenant that is between me and you, and with all the living creatures, and with all flesh, and the waters of the flood will not come again to destroy the earth. (16) When my bow is in the cloud, I will see it, and I will remember the eternal covenant between God and every living creature, with all flesh that is on the earth. (17) And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.”

    The question of reminder comes up. I would simply note that God is always portrayed in the Bible as much more involved with human activity and in the course of human history than many theologians are comfortable with. In theologies, God is generally much more respectable than he is in scripture. Here he allows one to believe that he requires a reminder, though the text doesn’t say he does. The text simply tells us that he will remember when he sees the rainbow, and makes no comment on what he does otherwise. I’m regularly impressed with how much less concerned with God’s reputation the Bible writers are than are modern theologians.

    (18) Now these are the sons of Noah who went out of the ark: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Ham was the father of Canaan. (19) These three were the sons of Noah, and from them people spread over all the earth.

    (20) Noah became a tiller of the soil, and he planted a vineyard. (21) He drank some of its wine, and he became drunk, and he was naked in the middle of his tent. (22) And Ham, father of Canaan saw his father naked, and he reported it to his two brothers outside. (23) And Shem and Japheth took a robe, and they placed it on their two backs, and they went backwords, and they covered their father’s nakedness, but their faces were to the rear, and they didn’t see their father’s nakedness.(24) Noah woke up from his wine, and he knew what his younger son had done to him. (25) And he said, “Canaan is cursed. He will be a slave of slaves to his brothers.” (26) And he said, “Blessed is YHWH God of Shem, and Canaan will be his slave. (26) God will make Japheth’s territory spacious, and he will live in Shem’s tents, and Canaan will be his slave.”

    This is a difficult passage. One solution is textual. Some have suggested omitting “Ham, the father of” so that the whole episode would relate to Canaan, rather than Ham, but that would also cause some havoc with the logic of the rest of the story. The key (see Kidner, Genesis, p. 103-104) may be in seeing that major sin as an unfilial, disrespectful act on Canaan’s part. Since he sinned in terms of his family responsibilities, it is his family, via his youngest son, that is cursed. This sounds quite unfair to modern ears, but multi-generational curses were not unknown in the Bible.

    (28) And after the flood Noah lived 350 years. (29) And Noah’s full life was 950 years, and he died.

    The priestly (P) source is, as always, concerned with numbers and genealogies. Noah, however, was the last of the very long lived patriarchs. From here they begin to deteriorate as well.

  • Iran and the Iraq War

    And now the third in a series of short posts–an unprecedented attack of brevity for me!

    I’ve been saying “Iran” over and over again as the war in Iraq was first contemplated and then executed. An article today in the Washington Post talks about the influence of Iran and the fears, entirely justified in my view, of various regimes in the area on this matter. I think this article is quite enlightening.

  • Codex on Mesopotamian Creation Stories

    Tyler Williams is beginning a series on this topic. After reading just the first entry I strongly recommend that any of my readers interested in the creation stories take a look at this material.

    For those who have not been following my material you can look at the Genesis category on my Participatory Bible Study Blog, and particularly the first entry, which includes links to my other material on the web. The material in the Codex series will clearly deal in much more detail and depth with things I only mentioned in passing.

    Hat tip: Abnormal Interests.

  • The Difficulty of Scientific Conspiracies

    . . . is illustrated here, in a nice post by Carl Zimmer. I’m extremely interested in the debate about these fossils, so I read what I can find, but I lack the scientific expertise to have a relevant comment on the science.

    What I would like to point out is the way in which the controversy is conducted by the scientists. These are not people who take well to orthodoxies. They tear at each other’s theories with great vigor, and they keep on studying and researching to find out more. Contrary to claims of critics, if there is a scientific problem with any aspect of evolutionary theory, there will be plenty of scientists there to point out the difficulties and debate them.

    When scientific errors have been debunked it has been by scientists using scientific methodology and not by detractors arguing on religious or philosophical grounds.