Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Brief Thoughts on Hebrew Poetry

    A few days ago Wayne Leman blogged about translating Hebrew poetry, and referred to an article by Philip C. Stine Biblical Poetry and Translation. The article is really excellent, and nothing I’m about to say here is intended to criticize that article as such.

    I’ve been very interested in translation of Hebrew poetry, but I think successful translation ranges from difficult to effectively impossible. The two translations I think do the best job into English are the Revised English Bible, and New Jerusalem Bible. One key feature of the NJB is the use of the Yahweh rather than “the LORD” for the name of God, which would obviously make it unacceptable to orthodox and conservative Jewish readers. In poetic terms, however, I think that helps just a bit.

    Referring to James Kugel, Stine says:

    In fact, he examines many traditional classifications of biblical parallelism, including the categories of Lowth, synonymous, antithetical, and synthetic, and finds them wanting. The ways of parallelism are numerous and varied, and the intensity of the semantic parallelism established between clauses might be said to range from zero perceivable correspondence to near perceivable differentiation.

    Now this is a good point, and one that a couple of my professors made to me when I was in graduate school back in 1979-1980, though perhaps not so clearly as Stine has done. The problem is that in order to teach this material to Bible students a bit of terminology is necessary. One can’t just say, even to beginning Hebrew students, that there is “some relationship” between the clauses. Nonetheless, a number of errors result from oversimplification. One of these is the idea that one can determine the definition of an unknown word by finding it in parallel with another term. Now such parallelism can contribute to our understanding of a word, and can give us a starting point in studying it, but it doesn’t determine it, as some people think it does. Without knowing the meaning of the word, the very thing sought, one cannot be certain what type of parallelism one is dealing with.

    So let me just suggest here that the terms synonymous, antithetical, and synthetic are quite useful. Like any labeling system, they oversimplify. Indeed, any system of labels is by nature less complex than reality and is provided precisely to allow such simplification. In order to improve accuracy, however, students should be taught that the actual parallelism will lie along a line from complete parallelism of thought to either complete opposition or through a synthetic combination.

    Now translating this is much harder, and comes back to the issue of how much interpretation the translator should do, and how much should be left to the modern reader. I’ve been playing around with this before, and commented in Reading Psalm 46, in which I also link to a couple of “transformations.”

    Hebrew parallelism does not have the same effect on English readers as it presumably did on readers of the Hebrew original. Thus I would suggest there is room for a broad range of translation possibilities, from a version that copies the poetic forms from Hebrew into English, to ones that might take the thought and express it in an English poetic form. I believe Bible translation and exposition would benefit from more transformations, re-presentations of Biblical material not only in new languages, but in new and/or different forms.

    One further note on Stine. He goes through the problems of defining poetry, and that’s a standard problem with Biblical material. Without a solid, understandable definition it’s hard to discuss what is poetry and what’s not, and how to deal with it. I think the problem with this definition is precisely the same as the problem with labels for types of parallelism. We are putting a small number of labels on a continuum–synonymous, antithetical, and synthetic on the one hand, poetry and prose on the other. But poetry and prose do not exist in well defined pockets in real life, and thus our labels will be problematic. On encountering a Biblical passage one might ask, “Should this be presented divided into lines, or paragraphed?” rather than asking whether it’s poetry or prose. Whether it’s technically poetry or not, if it presents well in defined lines, it might be best to present it that way.

  • Nation Whose God is the LORD?

    Today while doing grocery shopping, I saw a T-Shirt with the slogan: My faith and my freedom are one. Underneath was the verse: Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD (Psalm 33:12).

    I don’t know who provides such a shirt, but that slogan troubles me deeply. I think it reflects the problem that many Christians have with unhypocritical support of freedom of religion in this country and elsewhere in the world. Now there is a theological sense in which I can understand the claim that faith and freedom are one. There is a point of spiritual freedom, the freedom to make spiritual choices and to build a healthy relationship with God that comes, for me, through my faith. But a key element of that spiritual freedom comes from the fact that it was freely chosen. That faith is my faith, and even though I share a fellowship with Christians because it is also Christian faith, it bears a distinct stamp.

    But with the accompanying text (about which more below), I’m pretty sure that’s not the freedom we’re talking about. There are a number of groups that advocate a Christian nation, one built on Biblical principles and enforcing Biblical laws. Let’s ignore, for the moment, the incredible problems there are with simply producing a “Biblical” system of law. One’s hermeneutic is quite determinative of what one holds to be applicable, and even amongst people who advocate a Christian nation, there is considerable variety of interpretational principles.

    There are those who advocate a nation that lives a life of holiness. What this means, in practice, is that they want a single set of moral standards enforced on everyone, derived from the Bible in whatever way they derive things. This will mean marital fidelity in the strongest sense–not only no sex outside of marriage, but no premarital sex, no common-law marriages, and modest apparel and lifestyle. It will mean that homosexuality cannot be tolerated anywhere in the nation. Blasphemy, of course, cannot be allowed, because how can a “holy nation” allow such a thing? Thus freedom of speech will be prohibited. Of course, idolatry and worship of any other God but “the LORD” however defined, must be eventually forbidden.

    Now I’m not arguing against anyone’s advocacy of a particular code of morality for their lives and for those in their spiritual community. I do that myself, and my own code is actually quite conservative and restrictive–to me! But for various reasons, many groups of Christians have decided that somehow true freedom can only come with the practice of Christianity. At the moment, they will advocate permitting other groups, but they want them to exist in a Christian nation and live up to Christian principles.

    They do so often for quite contradictory reasons. One broad grouping believes that Christianity has replaced Israel in God’s scheme, and that America is a new Zion, a new promised land, in which all the promises of blessings will be fulfilled if only we will follow the laws and purify the land. If you encounter such a view, don’t let them claim moderation. That slope is a very slippery one, and unless you are 100% in agreement, eventually you’re going to find yourself on the outside.

    Another broad group continues to believe that Israel is the benificiary of God’s promises to Israel, but they believe that those promises can be extended to our nation if we behave, as a nation, in the same way. This is a bit more logical on the first point–the promises after all were made to Israel, and there is nowhere in the Bible that might indicate a transfer to the United States of such blessings. But it is less logical on the second point, because we take random promises and random blessings and apply them on a national scale.

    Either of these groups needs to read the second half of the verse I quoted above: and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance. Clearly the reference was to Israel, and “the LORD” is YHWH, the proper name of Israel’s God. God does promise blessings to other nations, but not on the same covenant basis as he does for Israel itself. Either transfer or extension of that covenant needs some serious theological undergirding, and none is forthcoming from advocates.

    Jesus never advocated establishment of a physical nation. What he did was advocate people, with the kingdom of God in them, living kingdom lives. I challenge you to find Jesus advocating anything similar to the seeking of blessing on a national scale through somehow forcing them all to agree to identical moral codes. In fact Jesus seemed to be against the imposition of any detailed sets of laws on people; he was a revolutionary advocating the spirit rather than the letter.

    Freedom will not survive in a Christian nation, not because Christianity is bad but because it is a spiritual faith offering a relationship with God to individuals. Christianity applied by force should be regarded as an oxymoron. In fact, Christianity applied by force has repeatedly resulted in persecution of opponents and dissenters, and in a faith that bears little relation to Jesus. Non-Christians should be very careful to guard against the type of Christian who says that his faith and his freedom are one. But Christians should be equally careful. We are commanded to make disciples from all nations, but that does not mean that we should try to make the nations themselves into disciples. Christianity does not work that way and was never intended to do so.

    Freedom is freedom and faith is faith, and neither will flourish unless faith is freely chosen or rejected. Because of this I am absolutely opposed to the notion of a Christian nation. A nation with lots of Christians in it, yes. But even if 100% of the population were to choose freely and without pressure to be Christians, I would advocate complete freedom of religion, because anything else would be destructive to faith (and of course to freedom).

  • Wesley Blog Back/Goodbye to Wesley Daily

    Shane Raynor has returned to blogging after a summer hiatus. The Wesley Blog is back, but at the same time he announces the end of his experiment with the Wesley Daily. I’ll miss the Wesley Daily, because often Shane’s picks of a post for the day gave me good material to blog about. However, the Methodist Blogs Weekly Roundup on Locusts and Honey still helps me with that. Welcome Back Shane!

    The demise of Wesley Daily has made me decide to go ahead with an experiment I was planning over on the Pacesetters Bible School Newsletter. Yes, I know, it’s a fairly boring title, but there it is. It’s a group blog, though I’ve been the most prolific poster, and often I’ve been the one to post material provided by others. I started to write a note requested entries from people who would like to allow me to cross-post, similar to what was done on Wesley Daily, or also simply to contribute material, but I laid it aside, because I was thinking my idea was too similar to Wesley Daily.

    But there are some substantial differences, and now there’s no Wesley Daily, so I’m going to try it. I’ll post over there later in the day. The big differences are these: 1) Pacesetters is interdenominational, and the small essential doctrinal statement will be posted there and 2) The purpose will be to post material useful those involved in religious education, and particularly youth and young adult level religious ed. I’ll define that broadly, and I’ll flesh this out a little over there.

    Oh, and thanks to Shane for the great idea. 🙂

  • Red State Rabble on Enemy Recognition

    I really appreciate the post Uniting Against the Common Enemy. As I said in an earlier post, I don’t expect others to back off about their positions on various issues. But we also don’t need to have those additional disagreements prevent us from cooperating on issues about which we do agree.

    I particularly like the following:

    RSR is fighting against those authoritarians who would impose their religious views on the rest of us. We don’t believe giving church-goers two days to dismantle the entire apparatus of their religious belief — or else — constitutes a workable strategy.

    We’re not interested in philosophical purity, either.

    Bravo! And as a religious person I’m with you 100% in preventing anyone from imposing religious views on anyone else. I know that there are some other Christians who do want to impose their beliefs through the law, and I will fight against them both inside the “large tent” of Christianity, and in the political arena.

    We want to work closely with activists like Ken Miller to defend science education in public schools. Moreover, we respect him for his many contributions to that struggle. In fact, it’s hard to think of many people who’ve done more. We frankly don’t care what his religious views are. It’s his actions that count in our book.

    Excellent point again. I just had to quote it to emphasize it.

    For our part, RSR is proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with people of faith who want to defend America’s secular institutions from attacks by the radical right.

    And I’m happy to work with you on that. The radical right doesn’t like people like me any more than people like you. We can stand together to defend freedom.

    In the discussion of sides, I think we should consider two substanstial positions: Freedom–free inquiry, freedom from compulsion in religious and philosophical issues, and authoritarianism, especially of the religious sort. In that fight, those who are interested in freedom share a common interest that I think overpowers everything else, and we need to stick together on those points.

  • More on Bible in Public Schools

    Ed Brayton calls attention to a Texas Freedom Network report on the teaching of the Bible in public schools. Not surprisingly, the report is not good. Bible teaching is constitutional under certain specific circumstances, largely amounting to requiring that it be taught as an academic subject in a non-sectarian way. The recommendations by the Texas Freedom Network, available at the link I provided, are good ones, if public schools are going to teach Bible courses.

    I have previously commented, however, and I continue to believe that it is not best to have Bible courses in public school. I still continue to believe that is the best policy. That doesn’t mean that the Bible shouldn’t be mentioned. I think it will find an appropriate place in literature, history, and comparative religions, for example. But a class specifically in the Bible presents problems.

    From the point of view of a conservative Christian, the possibility that Biblical criticism will be taught is a serious issue. What view of the Bible is to be taught? Should it be taught as inspired? Inerrant? Mythology? Each of those issues will differ depending on the particular religious view of the teacher. It will be difficult to find teachers who can teach the Bible in a neutral manner. I am practically certain, for example, that I could not give fundamentalists a fair hearing in class. In my view, academic study of the Bible makes such things as Biblical inerrancy and a literal understanding of such material as the antedeluvian material so improbable that I would have a hard time presenting them as having any kind of validity outside of faith. A rational person might believe they were historical material, but that would come from a faith position.

    From the point of view of any non-Christian, I think there is an overwhelming probability that a course will be taught from at least a generally Christian viewpoint. Even thought I think the Texas Freedom Network’s suggestions are good, as far as they go, but even though such a Bible class would be constitutional, I think it would be better to leave teaching of the Bible as a separate subject at the Elementary and High School level to churches, synagogues, and religious schools.

    As a part of other classes, I think it could and should be done appropriately. The Bible is involved in a substantial portion of our history and literature, and that background shouldn’t be lost. But that can be accomplished effectively as part of classes in those other subjects.

  • The Impact of Context

    The other day I was reading an article on the practice of prophetic ministry–I’m not going to say where; it was in print and not on the web–in which the author claimed that a prophet does not have to get it right. In fact, he said, a person with the gift of prophecy may get it wrong early in their career as they are “practicing.” The reason I’m not concerned with the specific source here is that I’ve heard this a number of times amongst those involved in the modern prophetic movement.

    Before I go on, let me note that I do believe that all the gifts of the Holy Spirit continue to the present. I don’t, in principle, have any problem with someone exercising the gift of prophecy today. I write a bit more about this in the pamphlet Spiritual Gifts: Prophecy. But I do think that the modern prophecy movement has become very careless with the concept of “the word of God” and runs a serious risk of driving people from the church.

    (more…)

  • Christian Carnival #138 Posted

    Christian Carnival #138 has been posted over at Thoughts of a Gyrovague. Again, it looks like some fun stuff. Last time I only managed to link to and comment on four posts, I believe, but I read and intended to comment on lots more. Does that count? 🙂

  • More on Religious Battle Lines

    Ed Brayton has written an excellent post on this topic over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, titled Drawing Religious Battle Lines. I’ve already said my piece on this one, so I’m just going to send you over there to read this excellent essay.

    My high opinion of it has nothing to do with the fact that Ed talks about me a bit in the post. 🙂

    (Hmmm! Posting gremlins seem to have kept me from posting this earlier, so even though it’s a bit behind times, I’m going to post it for the link. Ed’s post is still excellent!)

  • Biblical Criticism Resources

    Since I’m talking so much about critical theories in my discussion of Genesis 1-11 (now on chapter 6), I wanted to call some attention to material I have already posted concerning Biblical criticism. The best starting point for this information is the following pamphlet from the Participatory Study Series:

    That pamphlet provides answers to some of the basic questions that many lay people have about Biblical criticism. I sometimes criticize conservative scholars for ignoring critical study and methodology, although many do take it into account, such as the authors of the New International Commentary on the New Testament, New International Commentary on the Old Testament, or the Apollos Old Testament series. Liberal scholars and teachers, on the other hand, often seem to simply assume critical results without giving people the chance to evaluate the methods and any assumptions behind them.

    To help lay people understand better what is being said when people present conclusions from critical scholarship, and do so very likely with excessive confidence, I wrote a series of entries over on my Threads blog. Some time I’ll gather them together and make them more accessible, but in the meantime, here’s a list.

    While it is not part of the criticism series, I have continued discussion of Isaiah 24-27 here on this blog, and intend to continue working slowly through that section of Isaiah.

    The main point here is, as always, to evaluate claims for yourself, and not simply accept what others feed you.

  • As Christ Loved the Church

    Lingamish has a wonderful post about Ephesians 5:22ff (if you don’t know about the part that is “ff” be sure to read his post!), and what this can mean in our relationship with our wives. (I do intentionally use purely male references, referring to the Lingamish and myself. You can adjust as necessary!)

    This reminds me of what my mother did at my wedding. I married late in life and acquired three step-children, who have now brought 4 grandchildren (working on 5) into my life. (Note: Never miss a chance to mention the grandchildren.) Because of the unique circumstances, we arranged to have my mother speak a blessing (and read one from my father, who could not attend), and also the children. The children built their blessing around the text that was featured in the wedding service, Ephesians 3:14-21. They didn’t realize that reference is also inscribed inside our wedding bands.

    When my mother spoke, she began with Proverbs 31. Jody got tense. She’s not really excited about Proverbs 31. But after reading a selection from it, she said, “Henry, I feel that this is really addressed to you. You have to deserve the Proverbs 31 wife.” That made Jody relax and turned the verse on its head. But I didn’t mind.

    Anyhow, it must be the day for “improve your marriage” texts!