Via a link from Wayne Leman, I found this post from Greg Lamm’s blog STAYINGTHECOURSE.
I think this is an exceptional idea to aid with serious study of a passage. It relates well to both the reading and sharing phases. Of course under sharing I would include sharing your paraphrase with others and even challenging them to try this for themselves.
A variant on paraphrasing is praying the scriptures, putting them in your own words.
Wayne Leman has an exceptional post on women and Bible translation. We talk a great deal about gender accurate (or I still like gender-inclusive) language, but it’s men that are doing most of the talking. That’s because there are more men than women involved in translation. I’m in full agreement with what Wayne says in his post, but I want to carry things just a step further.
First, however, I want to make sure you understand what I mean when I say I’m an egalitarian. It doesn’t mean that I believe men and women are the same. Thank God they are not! What it means is that I believe that each person should be start on a level playing field and be appreciated and used in accordance with their gifts. So how could I support putting more women on Bible translation committees any more than I could support putting more men on them? The problem is that we are human, and some of us are guys, and we may not think of all the gifts. Since I believe men and women are different, we need to go out of our way to hear what the other gender is thinking. Since translation is dominated by men, as is interpretation, we may tend not to think of the need for women’s gifts in our activity.
There’s no big wall here. Men can have some of these gifts, just as women can have gifts we consider the province of men. My wife and I reverse some of the activities that you might expect. In the properly male dominated home the guy drives, I’ve heard. I generally let me wife drive. She likes to, I don’t. We divide financial responsibilities. But stereotypical folks do exist, I suspect. The best way to be sure is to be inclusive.
I stated this in book on Bible translation:
I believe that the best translation is likely to result from a committee of persons with diverse beliefs, all of whom are committed to translating without allowing those beliefs to interfere. (A bias in favor of accurate translation would be entirely appropriate, and could not be said to interfere.) Since I believe nobody is entirely free of bias, the best defense against bias is diversity. However, diversity in which one simply averages out the results of the various biases still leaves too much room for inappropriate results, so I believe the one commitment all members of a translation committee should make is to accurate translation within the context of the methodology they have chosen. (This extract from pages 39-40 can be found at the Energion Publications Announcements Blog.)
I now believe this diversity should definitely be extended to include gender.
But shouldn’t this be extended to interpretation? If the Bible message was presented only to men, then perhaps only men should listen and understand. But if that was not the case, perhaps we lose something by not including the voice of women in our interpretation.
The last step of my method of interpretation is sharing. Some people wonder why I include sharing as part of the method of interpretation. There’s a level of accountability that results simply from expressing your understanding of scripture and listening to other people’s reactions to it. You can learn how you might be misunderstood. Others may point out things you had missed in studying the passage. You may learn of implications of your interpretation that you hadn’t comtemplated.
Ideally such sharing should include the entire community so that diverse people are heard from. Not just men and women, but people of different ages, races, and cultures should be included. Many errors of Biblical interpretation might be avoided if we learned to listen to the broadest and most diverse possible community.
I’ve been discussing translation in its relationship to inspiration over the last couple of days, and I just wanted to present a couple of thoughts on how we think about inspiration, especially in practical terms. By “thinking in practical terms” I mean the way in which we apply our understanding of inspiration in our application of what we learn from inspired writings. I had my attention directed to this issue when I discussed inspiration with a friend of mine who believes in inerrancy. We expressed considerable disagreement when we defined inspiration and discussed how it worked, but in the vast majority of controversial texts, we found that our interpretations were identical.
This is the similar to the conclusion I have come to about translation, though I would say that one’s beliefs about inspiration are of almost no value as a predictor of that person’s translation philosophy, while they are a predictor to some extent of how one will carry out interpretation. They are, however, less accurate of a predictor than I would imagine had I not done a little informal testing.
I think the problem here is with the way in which we talk about inspiration. We do so in an extremely God-centered (source centered) way. Now being God-centered is not a bad thing, but in this case it can be misleading. I would suggest that while our theories of inspiration center around God and what he can and does do, our processes and principles of interpretation generally center around us as human beings and what we can do. This shouldn’t be surprising, considering the amount of effort that must go into understanding any message, especially the message of scripture.
No matter how accurately we believe God gave the message, in practical terms the issue is much more how accurately we can understand it. Let’s say that 2% of the message of the New Testament is lost by copyists. I think that number is fairly high, because that is closer to the percentage of the text that is in dispute. But even if that is the case, I suspect that if we compare interpretations, we will see that a much higher percentage must be lost by somebody in the process of interpretation.
I think this extends to the great divide between types of revelation, even the big one between general and special revelation. The question is not in the accuracy of the content, but rather in what is to be conveyed, and how well we are capable of understanding it. I would presume God would write his character quite perfectly in nature (though we have the ever-present question of the fall), and yet that may be the hardest message to interpret. Some people prefer the immediate revelation of modern prophets or of dreams and visions. I too believe that God is as capable of speaking today as ever, and as likely to do so, but in that case we have the additional burden of deciding on the authenticity of the message, and we still need to interpret what we hear, especially if it is a vision or dream.
This is one of the reasons I opposed the doctrine of inerrancy. It seems to be a way of guarding the barn door after the cattle have departed. Interpretation has gone in a thousand directions while some are arguing that the message was absolutely correct at the starting point. In addition, somehow it’s OK for us to lose part of the source in the process of copying–something acknowledged when inerrancy is postulated solely of the conveniently missing autographs–and yet if one supposes that instead something got altered on the way from God to the prophet, all revelation must immediately fall apart.
Revelation is of value when I comprehend and apply it, and assertions of its validity apart from adding the line “and you can understand it” seem pointless to me. I think that is part of the point of the wisdom literature in the Bible. It’s God’s message, but you have to think about it and comprehend it. Who you are, and how you have exercised your mind will make a difference.
No matter whether you are listening to a new idea, a message someone claims to have received directly from God, or the interpretation of a passage of scripture, your individual mind, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, is the final filter to separate sense from nonsense. Even the firmest believer in the detailed accuracy of the text of scripture will realize that many interpreations of that scripture are nonsense.
This morning I want to get a bit personal, which I don’t usually do on this blog, but this is something important and close to my heart. Many of my readers already know that my son James Webb (step-son for you people who get technical) passed away in 2004 after a five year battle with cancer. He fought the battle with cancer with courage and faith. His father passed away early in that battle, and in 2003 some of his dad’s friends looked for a way to raise some money to help John Webb Sr.’s son. They decided on a golf tournament.
I like to remember James this way. I use it as my computer wallpaper. James is in worship at Myrtle Grove United Methodist Church and just lifts his hands and lets the music flow.
The money was supposed to have gone to help us with James’s medical bills, but those were in control at the time of that tournament, so James made the choice to have the money given to Sacred Heart Children’s Hospital, and particularly designated the money to the children’s morale services. James knew better than most how important morale is in fighting a life-threatening disease.
The 2005 and 2006 Courage in Life Awards were won by a group of James’s best friends who also were informally named the best-dressed team.
The other day I was going through digital video and I found a tape we had recorded shortly before James’s death. It was just before Hurricane Ivan struck here in the Pensacola area, and the marching band at Tate High School in which James had been a drummer wanted to play their fall show for him, knowing that he probably wouldn’t live to see the first performance. With Ivan approaching they were unable to do what they wanted, which was to perform on the football field in uniform, but they gathered in the band room. James could barely get himself out of bed, but we used a wheelchair and got him there, and he took the sticks and launched the band on the school fight song. It was difficult for me to watch it. That was the way he lived, and his choice for the way to go out of this world. That attitude stuck to the very last as the Tate drumline came to the funeral and escorted him to the cemetary to an upbeat, victorious rhythm.
Because of this in 2005 we first gave the James Webb Courage in Life Award each year to the team or individual that brings in the largest amount of donated money to the children through this tournament, and also to the largest single corporate sponsorship. For more information on all of this, see John Webb Winter Golf Tournament.
The best dressed team again wins the James Webb Courage in Life Award in 2006.
It’s with that attitude that we, his family, have kept the John Webb Winder Golf Tournament going. Nearly $20,000 later, the tournament continues to serve the children at Sacred Heart Hospital. The “John Webb” is now my older step-son, a professional pitcher, this year signed with the Chicago Cubs with a minor league contract and an invitation to big league training camp. (He has a few innings of big league time, but has played largely at AAA). John will be here for the ceremonial first drive. He will bring a number of his friends and they will visit the children and sign baseballs and just spend time with them. Then a bunch of regular guys and gals will play golf and the money will go to the children.
If you’d like to come to Pensacola, or you’re already here, you’ll be welcome. If you’re interested in participating, you can also donate directly to the cause. My organization, Pacesetters Bible School took the program under its wing for financial and accountability purposes from the second year. Any donated money goes directly to the children. The tournament pays all the expenses and brings in money, so there is no administrative cost whatsoever to donated money.
More importantly, I like to remember every year the challenge of living life to the full, and leaving this life as though you’re triumphantly going on to glory. That was hard for a 17 year old. I remember a day early in the summer that year when James asked me to take him to dinner somewhere. He wasn’t one for long conversations, but I knew when he said that he needed to say something. The one thing he had wanted to do before the end was march in the band for one last season, but that wasn’t to be. As we drove to the chosen restaurant, he said simply, “I don’t think I’m going to be able to march. I don’t have the strength. I need to get out of the band now, so someone who can actually march will be able to practice.” He did give his place to someone who would be able to march, but he continued to attend practice and help out with the developing program. He was more interested in seeing “his” band succeed than in his own wants.
I’d like to ask this: What am I doing to live triumphantly and make an impact? What are you doing? Maybe this particular cause is not your thing. I guarantee that there are similar needs in your own neighborhood. Be active and make a difference!
Christian Carnival CLVI has been posted at Parableman. It looks like a rich list again, and as I have for weeks and weeks and weeks, I hope to manage to post some responses, links, and comments to a number of these posts. Reality being what it is, however, I probably will do a miserable job on that task.
Theodicy is a big subject, but for many people it relates closely to acceptance by Christians of the theory of evolution. I recall conversing with one friend who commented that while he could understand my acceptance of evolution, he just had a terribly hard time accepting a loving God who could, at the same time, use a process that involved so much killing and destruction in the creation of life.
Now personally, I have a much harder time dealing with the holocaust, the Russian revolution, or the death of Saudi Middle School girls because of the actions of religious police. Those actions represent clear evil to me, moral choices made in favor of evil resulting in pain and death. The fact that God allows such things requires a bit of explaining.
Nonetheless, the sheer bloodiness of the evolutionary process is certainly troubling to many. Since I grew up believing in young earth creationism I can understand this. To go from the idea that God painlessly and bloodlessly created all the creatures essentially as they are, and that all pain and death are the result of evil, to a view that pain and death are simply a part of existence in the universe is quite a step. There are those who will say blithely that evolution really doesn’t make any theological difference. It’s just a matter of the technique God used to create. But that is to ignore serious implications.
In this case, however, the implications also apply to old earth and/or intelligent design creationists just as much as they do to theistic evolutionists. The blood and guts exist, and they exist before any human being has made a choice to sin. Thus they seem to be a feature of the universe rather than the result of some wrong action. This is called “natural evil.” Wikipedia gives a fair definition, but when dealing with creation one needs to note in addition that the traditional Christian view that has accomplanied young earth creationism is that there was no natural evil in the world prior to the fall of man (Genesis 3), and that all natural evil resulted from that moral failure. Thus while you can distinguish natural evil from moral evil on an ongoing basis, even natural evil ultimately was caused by the actions of a moral agent.
Dr. William Dembski has written an excellent article on this subject, Christian Theodicy in Light of
Genesis and Modern Science. Those who read this blog regularly will be aware that I generally don’t hold a positive view of Dembski’s work, so listen to me here. This article is the best single discussion of natural evil that I’ve read. It’s clear, well argued, and creative. I think those who write on theodicy will be responding to it and referencing it for some time to come. Having said that, I disagree with the major conclusion and would debate a number of individual elements. Dembski believes in an old earth, though he also supports intelligent design, which makes his overall view very close to that of most old earth creationists. I’m going to quote it here simply to demonstrate the widespread acknowledgement that this is a problem. In some later posts I plan to respond to individual elements of Dembski’s view.
With regard to Hugh Ross, he says:
Nonetheless, the actual arguments I’ve seen from old-earth creationists that attempt to preserve both theological and scientific orthodoxy have struck me as inadequate if by theological orthodoxy one means a traditional understanding of the Fall that traces all natural and personal evil in the world to human sin. Take Hugh Ross. Ross does not believe the Garden of Eden was free of death, decay, pain, and suffering. For him, there was never a perfect paradise. To justify this claim scripturally, Ross will cite Genesis 3:16, in which God informs Eve after she has sinned that he will greatly multiply her pain in childbirth. Since zero multiplied by anything remains zero, Ross infers that God did not here initiate Eve’s pain but rather increased her existing pain in childbirth. More generally, Ross will suggest that God uses randomness, waste, and inefficiencies (his terms) to bring about the “very good” world into which he placed Adam.
I will simply note that I sympathize with the problem here. For people who are used to thinking of a God who uses no “randomness, waste, and inefficiencies” this seems a pretty serious problem. Dembski cites Ross as accepting that, and indeed he accepts that he himself has a need to discuss this particular problem.
I was thinking about all of this when I ran across a post by Carl Zimmer on The Loom, Cancer: An Evolutionary Disease (follow links from there to an abundance of additional information). My son died of cancer, and suddenly the whole issue becomes personal. In my view of evolution, cancer is just as much a product of natural selection as is anything else. So “natural evil” touched me rather directly in this case. At the same time, I’m extremely interested in seeing evolutionary research aid our understanding of cancer and help find cures.
Now let me try to get to the point of this note. After thinking a bit about how I’ve answered this question before, I simply don’t believe in natural evil. What we call natural evil is simply the environment in which we live, and which rewards our good choices and “punishes” our bad choices. Further, the sort of environment proposed by young earth creationists–which I believe for the first 20 odd years of my life, is non-sensical. Dembski quotes Ross as referring to the “increase” in labor indicated in Genesis 3 as part of the curse as a reason to believe that there was hardship and death prior to the fall and it was merely increased.
I would suggest that there’s a better reason: It simply couldn’t be any other way. And Genesis confirms this, I believe, when it says that God placed the man in the garden ” to till it and keep it” (Genesis 2:15 NRSV). Do you suppose that if Adam did not till the garden, the plants would grow equally well? If he chose one seed over another, would there be more of what he did plant than of what he didn’t? Even the much maligned author of the second creation story (Genesis 2:4b and following) doesn’t imagine a perfect world in the way that Christian theology imagined. There would still be choices and there would still be consequences, ultimately confirmed simply by the fact that the human couple were able to make the choice to sin, and noticed consequences even before God came a talked to them.
There would simply be no meaning to moral evil, or no possibility of it in a world in which there were no consequences to one’s choices, and if there are consequences, then it must be possible for them to be negative as well as positive.
I’ll be posting more details. This is just my opening shot on the topic. Watch for the category Theodicy in the coming weeks.
I know, none of you readers believe I am capable of being brief, but I’m going to try! This post was triggered by my reading of Richard B. Hoppe’s post Dissent Out of Bounds on Uncommon Dissent (Oops, make that “Descent”), which is largely about Uncommon Descent’s comment censorship (because of which I do not comment there and I ceased tracking back to them), but the comments in question bring up some excellent points.
One key is a definition of design. There’s some good discussion of that in the comments. But the issue I want to address is the matter of design and theistic evolution. It seems that when certain intelligent design (ID) proponents wish to make their movement seem larger, they include theistic evolutionists, on the grounds that if we believe the universe is designed, we do, in fact, believe in intelligent design. One assumes, of course, that we don’t believe in unintelligent design! When we’re to be excluded because we don’t believe in the right type and time of design, then we’re asked to produce a place, time, and proof of design, which in general we don’t think possible.
In posting recently on translation I’ve noticed that many people connect one’s idea of inspiration with one’s approach to translation. The assumption seems to be that a person who believes in some form of verbal inspiration, especially verbal plenary inspiration, will necessarily favor a formal, word-by-word, or literal translaltion. Of these terms I prefer formal, in that the most literal translations do not manage a word-by-word equivalence, but rather account for the grammatical form and structure of the source language in the form and structure of the text in the receptor language as far as possible.
My own involvement in these debates sometimes tends to foster that very viewpoint. I have a non-verbal view of inspiration, in that I believe God inspires messengers with messages through various experiences, which may include a verbally dictated component, rather than dictating words. In Ezekiel 1, for example, my understanding is that God presented Ezekiel with a vision and Ezekiel searched for the words with which to present what he had seen, accounting for the slightly confused nature of the text. Because of my view of inspiration, one might assume that I would support a theory of translation that is message based rather than individual word based.
When I took second year Greek, the grammar to use in getting beyond basic introductory material was Dana and Mantey’s Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament which is very hard to get. But as a replacement, and also a considerable improvement, we now have Daniel B. Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics.
For those who are just trying to build their knowledge of Greek a bit, it is probably not best to try to read or study through a grammar. There can be a benefit in doing so, and I have read Wallace’s grammar through, but it can be a daunting task unless you already read Greek fairly well and also truly like studying grammar. But you don’t have to take such a boring approach! One of the best features of this and all other New Testament reference grammars is the scripture index.
You can get started building your grammar knowledge by looking up the verses that you read in the index. This will mean that some days you will have nothing to look up, while on other days you will have several verses. Once you look up the specific page on which the verse is referenced be sure to go back and read the entire section. Don’t be put off if you don’t follow the whole thing. Over time you’ll get to understand the material better.
Since I responsded to a post on principles of interpretation, and Bruce Alderman also weighed in on that topic, I’ve been keeping my eyes open for more interesting discussion.
Today I found a couple of posts by way of a trackback to my threads blog, in which the author notes that he recommends my article to stimulate thinking, even though he clearly disagrees with it. I actually can’t think of a better reason to recommend reading a post, so let me recommend a couple of his on the same basis. Well, let me add that his first principle of “context, context, context” receives my complete agreement, though I disagree on some details. At some point I hope to respond to his second post on interpretation in accordance with the gospel, but I don’t have time right now to do it justice.
As of now, I’ll have to be satisfied with strongly recommending that you read it and think about it.
These two articles are actually part of a broader series. The first is Part Two – The Christian WorldView – Interpreting Scripture, which contains “context, context, context”–enough to recommend it as reading, though I would differ on details about context. The second is Part Three – Interpreting Scripture – Gospel Hermeneutic. I would find a bit more to disagree on in the second, but I believe it is not unrelated to my own view in Hanging Biblical Interpretation.
Read and enjoy!
