Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Source Criticism

    [Note, 3/25/06 — the original post was truncated due to a syntax error I made in the HTML. This is the corrected version.]

    (Continuing my series on Biblical criticism, from my last post From Criticism.)

    If Form Criticism can properly be called a “tree method” rather than a forest view, Source Criticism might be said to be a “grove method.” It looks at a broader swath of the text than Form Criticism, but still is not looking at the passage as a whole. To see the relationship between these various forms, look at my chart in the pamphlet What is Biblical Criticism?.

    Again, I must emphasize that this tool assumes certain stages of the text, that is a point in time when various literary elements were gathered together into larger documents, which were in turn gathered into the larger document that we have before us. In many cases this textual history will not be true. In a prophetic book such as Isaiah, for example, the prophet made certain proclamations of God’s word. These proclamations were then gathered into a larger document. It’s possible that there were a number of larger documents that were smaller than the final book of Isaiah (1-35, 36-39, 40-55, 56-66, for example), though in the case of Isaiah we discover these documents through literary study of the text itself.

    In Jeremiah, on the other hand, we have direct internal and external evidence of a process such as would be expected by Source Criticism, and so would be studied by this tool. In Jeremiah 36:4ff, Baruch receives some of Jeremiah’s prophetic oracles and writes them into a book. Note, in addition, that this copy of Jeremiah’s work was destroyed, and then was recreated (Jeremiah 36:32). The individual oracles that Jeremiah dictated would be of the general form of “prophetic oracles” (there are many types of prophetic oracle), and the document that Baruch wrote would constitute one of the source documents of the book of Jeremiah. How do I know this was not the actual book of Jeremiah as we have it today? Because Jeremiah ministered for some years after this incident (see 36:1-3 for dating), and we have a record of those incidents.

    Further evidence of sources in Jeremiah comes from the differences between the Septuagint and Masoretic text of the book. I’m not here discussing the differences in length between the two texts, but rather the position of the oracles about foreign nations, which is chapters 46-51 in the Masoretic Text, but is instead located at chapter 26 and following in the LXX. This is not proof that this is a source, but it strongly suggests that we have at least two sources in the book of Jeremiah, one the Baruch scroll, and the second a document containing prophetic oracles against the nations.

    In an earlier post I used the parable of the sower as an example of a parable that is attested in three gospels. Having the same form (parable) in three different larger documents helps us to study the nature of the form. The gospels are even more useful as an example of forms in action. There are blocks of text in Matthew, Mark, and Luke that show very close verbal parallels, suggesting some form of copying one from another. The question is what was copied, and who copied whom.

    These blocks involve text that is in all three synoptic gospels, some that is in Matthew and Luke, but not Mark, and some that is in Matthew or Luke, but not in any other gospel. The most common explanation for this phenomenon is known as the two source or two document hypothesis. This suggests that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark and an unknown source known as ‘Q’ for ‘Quelle’ which is German for ‘source.’

    You can identify various elements in this system using a gospel parallel. Where you find all three gospels in agreement, you are generally dealing with Markan material. When Luke and Matthew agree but Mark does not, you are dealing with Q material, when Matthew or Luke are alone in a reading, they are dealing either with their own independent material, or with further hypothetical sources ‘M’ or ‘L’. There are cases in which this loose equation doesn’t work, for example there are some elements of Q that appear in Mark, or there can be cases where only Luke or Matthew copy Mark. Note also that this is not the only theory of how the gospels were composed. (For related information see Understanding the Search for the Historical Jesus.)

    Careful source criticism is useful in understanding the history of the text and how it was composed. It can tell us about the people who were involved in creating the text. It is also a necessary adjunct to redaction criticism, which I will discuss in my next entry on this topic.

    There are a couple of dangers in source criticism, however. First, like all critical methods, it often must be based on limited evidence. Speculation added to speculation can get very doubtful. Second, there are cases in which Bible students conclude that they have solved a problem because they have identified the sources.

    As an example, Genesis 1:1-2:4a and Genesis 2:4b-25 are normally regarded as coming from two separate sources. There are differences in the way creation is described, and some potential issues in the order of creation. One response is simply to assume that they are different sources, and thus it’s no big deal that they tell a different story. But that is to miss an important element of interpretation. Even if you believe that the two passages come from different sources, someone seems to have thought they fit together. An interpreter must consider also what they mean when combined. Source criticism shouldn’t be used to shortcut a full exegesis of a passage.

  • We’re Supporting What?

    Over on the evangelical outpost Joe Carter is blogging about the situation in Afghanistan, where Abdul Rahman is awaiting sentencing for converting to Christianity.  Read the full story from Cybercast News Service here.  You can review the Afghan constitution and see just why this is possible.

    This story is bringing to people’s attention just what it is that we have wound up supporting in some countries in the middle east.  But what I’m wondering is just what did we expect?  I don’t care how often they declare adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, fundamenatlist Muslims do not, and cannot support these types of rights.  What’s more, they don’t want to.  I want to make it clear here that I’m not making a general attack on Islam.  I do know of moderate Muslims who believe that their faith supports human rights, and who really mean it.  The problem is that in general those are not the people who are in charge of governments in the Middle East.

    I’m a veteran of Desert Shield and Desert Storm.  We were stationed in Saudi Arabia, where women are not allowed to drive (from the UDHR, “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this
    Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex . . “), and where it was often impractical for the women in our armed forces to drive in the city of Riyadh.  They could do so in the outlying areas, where generally nobody knew.  We complained about the inhumanity of Saddam Hussein’s regime, and I certain make no excuses for his behavior, but in many ways Iraq was the freer society.

    I think that many Americans really don’t comprehend just what type of a society Saudi Arabia is, and what type of a country Afghanistan will be under its own government.  We need to realize that what is happening in these countries is not good.  I’m not interested in the actual numbers of Muslims who take which approach to their religion and to politics based on that.  Whenever and wherever one person’s political views result in someone being imprisoned and threatened with death because of his or her beliefs, that’s too radical for me.  We should be angry simply because someone was imprisoned and tried for such a “crime.”

    But again, what could we expect?  We move in to impose democracy on these countries, and the majority vote for the these types of governments on a regular basis.  Since we are so determined that democracy is the right way to go for everyone, we are going to be stuck with such conclusions.  I’ve heard people wonder why we got a majority Shi’ite government in Iraq.  Just look at the demographics!  It was bound to happen.  I guess what we really want is democracy, but a democracy in which people vote for what we want them to vote for.

    This is the problem with the “sweetness and light” explanation for our military activities “over there” at least since the first gulf war.  I was certainly in no doubt about our purpose over there at that time.  It was simply unthinkable to have Saddam Hussein in charge of that much oil.  But we don’t have the guts to admit that we expended the lives of patriotic young Americans for oil, so instead we invent humanitarian reasons for the fight.  And in the Middle East, it’s pretty easy to find humanitarian reasons why a government should be removed from office.  The problem is finding good reasons to support the one you want to ally yourself with.

    If Americans will really look at this closely, I believe we’ll see that we’ve been led down the garden path by the war propaganda.  If we went into Afghanistan to catch Al-Qaeda terrorists, then fine.  We should judge the result based on how many terrorists we caught, and how much terrorist operations were disrupted.  On the other hand if we went into Afghanistan to create a western style democracy and bring human rights to the people, then we would have to judge our results on that basis–and those results would be miserable.

    I think we do need to look at militant, fundamentalist Islam as an enemy movement. They want to make us all Muslims. I am concerned also about Christian reconstructionists, though they have not resorted to violence. It is not the religion itself that concerns me, but the willingness to apply force in order to accomplish those religious goals. We need to view this as a war between freedom and oppression, between a secular society in which we are all free to make spiritual choices, and a religious dictatorship. Whatever your faith, I count you a friend if you support my right to make free choices in spiritual matters. I count you an enemy if you think I must be forced into a particular faith. I honestly don’t know whether that’s liberal, conservative or moderate. But I do think it’s right.

    (Personally, I think other countries should be permitted to deal with their own affairs. But in these cases, we’re helping them. I don’t think it’s right that we help people violate our most serious values. Let me just add a hint here: If the war aims include “they all lived happily ever after” then you’re probably dealing with a fairy-tale scenario.)

    When we go to war, we need to know why. We need to know what we intend to accomplish. We need to judge the results by whether or not we accomplished what we set out to do. That is the only way we can make the expenditure of lives and resources worthwhile, and the only way we, the American people, can judge whether our leaders have been good stewards of those resources. I fully believe that there can be justification for war. There can be good reasons to expend human life in the pursuit of our national and international goals. But when the commodity expended is human lives, then we need to be all the much more careful and honest in judging the stewardship.

  • The Unforgivable Sin

    The Wesley Daily has posted an entry by Jason Woolever (post-methodist) entitled The Unforgivable Sin. If you read this blog regularly,or if you look over the entries right now, you’ll realize that I don’t post something that just says, “Go look!” all that often, but this is the time for an exception.

    This is a good post! Go read it!

  • Examples of Textual Issues in Translation

    One issue that is commonly neglected in comparing Bible translations is the text used. Translators are well aware that differences in translation can be the result of differences in the text used, but in modern times, the approach to the text used by most translations has been very similar, and thus tends to be ignored by non-professionals. One major distinction is between those translations that follow the Textus Receptus, and those that use a more modern, eclectic text in the New Testament. The NKJV is a good example of a modern translation that follows that text.

    But in discussing the RSV, ESV, and NRSV, I was reminded of another textual difference that is less well known: The attitude of the translators toward conjectural readings and readings in supported only by an ancient version or one of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Typically, in translating the Hebrew scriptures, Christian translators have followed the Masoretic Text, the text printed in the vast majority of Hebrew Bibles, unless they find it impossible to translate the MT intelligibly. In that case they will look to the versions, the scrolls, or even to a conjectural emendation in some translations. The tendency in New Testament textual criticism, because a large amount of external evidence is available, is to study each variant and determine the best text, but this procedure has not yet carried over into Old Testament studies.

    (More conservative translations tend to produce more of a “conjectural translation” as opposed to a conjectural emendation. By “conjectural translation” I mean a translation that is simply one’s best guess at what a text may mean. In many cases, I find these translations no less questionable than a conjectural emendation. I will try to write a blog entry sometime soon on some examples of difficult texts in the Hebrew scriptures and how they are handled by various versions.)

    So a significant difference between translations may be their handling of the text, in particular the text of the Hebrew scriptures. I’m going to look at two examples, from two different translations. In each case, the particular text accepted is accepted only by the version cited amongst modern versions.

    The first is an added paragraph between 1 Samuel 10:27 and 11:1. In this case we have an explanatory paragraph that comes between Saul becoming king and the situation in Jabesh Gilead which is Saul’s first problem as the leader of Israel. The NRSV alone among the modern translations includes this paragraph as part of the text. It is noted in a footnote in both the NLT and the CEV.

    The paragraph reads:

    Now Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had been grievously oppressing the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had escaped from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-gilead. (NRSV)

    In favor of adding this paragraph to our current text are the following:

    1. It is contained in 4QSama
    2. It could easily have been left out by haplography, with the scribe’s eye scanning from the first Nahash here to the second at the beginning of 11:1
    3. Its use by Josephus indicates that it was likely in the Greek text he was using
    4. Compared to 4QSama the MT is very short. Using both the LXX and this evidence, it is likely that there has been a considerable amount of haplography in the MT.

    Against adding this paragraph are the following:

    1. The external evidence for this reading is extremely weak
    2. The explanatory paragraph could well have been a marginal comment that was later incorporated into the text.
    3. The MT is generally the more carefully copied text type. (But note that it was probably not under that type of control when 4QSama was created.

    The NRSV shows its tendency here to be nearer the leading edge of modern scholarship than are other versions. I think in this case they made the correct choice, though I’m sympathetic to the considerations that probably led the NLT and CEV teams to place this additional text as a footnote.

    A second case involves the text of Isaiah in the Revised English Bible (REB) and the New American Bible (NAB). Isaiah 41:6-7 are transposed in that version to follow Isaiah 40:20. This is a correction supported by no external textual evidence at all. Presumably the change is based on a copying error involving miscopying part of a column, but the mechanism by which the change could occur is a bit obscure. It would have had to occur very early in the text.

    In favor of this change:

    1. The apparent logical structure of both chapters is corrected
    2. The presumption that an early error might have been made in copying columns

    Against the change:

    1. Complete absence of external evidence to support it
    2. Though the chapter logic is made smoother, it is a common style in Isaiah 40 and following chapters to intrude diatribes against idols into the flow. Following the author’s style, then, would seem to suggest that the passage would be acceptable in its current location.
    3. The process of copying that would result in the present text when starting with the presumed text is somewhat obscure.

    Here, though I like the REB generally, I think that the translators’ choice was not the best one.

  • How the World has Changed

    Change is a feature of the modern world.  This has practically become a cliche.  We have become used to technological change, though we’re still not certain how to deal with it.  But there is political change as well, and transportation and communications together tend to speed political change.  Newsweek calls attention to one aspect of change in an article titled Putin’s China Problem.

    To political analysts, this development was probably not a surprise.  After all, it would be extremely surprising if Russia, formerly a superpower in at least equal partnership (or enmity) in dealing with international issues, would passively allow all of its power to slip away.  There are relatively few options for Russia in seeking power in the world, and China was the obvious option.  It’s not certain that the China relationship will be a plus.  As things stand, Russia could wind up a junior partner in a Chinese sphere of influence.

    In the same way, Bush’s India trip was certain a likely, if not necessary move, providing the United States with alternative partners in the region.  One wonders when Vietnam will be given consideration for a similar detente?  China’s dominance can hardly be palatable to them.

    But I’m not really an analyst of international affairs.  The reason this story caught my eye was simply the increased complexity of world affairs.  At the same time American voters are generally uninterested in international affairs, and also generally not that well educated.  International affairs commonly rate very low in importance on various polls, except for counter-terrorism activities (see, for example, this Fox News Poll).

    Changes are likely to come even faster in the future, and to be more international in character.  It’s no longer going to be adequate to know only the home issues.  Which brings me to my favorite topic:  Education.  We are struggling with an educational system that has a very hard time keeping up with these changes, particularly in technology, which costs money.  Knowledge of the world is still extremely limited amongst most of our voters.  If we don’t improve and update our educational system, we will very quickly find ourselves losing the title of the world’s last superpower.

    I would like to suggest a complete review of our educational process in America.  Right now we are training people for a world situation that doesn’t exist.  Everything in the educational system needs to be examined with the question of whether it contributes to making a student a good citizen and whether it prepares that student for life and work.  Then we need to put the right resources into the right place.

    And it will be critical to think bigger than the local community.  Things happening in Siberia and China will have an impact on our lives, and that impact will come sooner rather than later.  Let’s not let it be a surprise.

  • Balancing Old and New

    My wife and I often approach things differently. I know that’s a really shocking admission, likely to stun our family, friends, and neighbors. 🙂 We even like different styles of worship services. She tends to embrace new things quickly. I’m rather conservative. I can be persuaded, but you need to prepare a good case first! We knew this when we were going out together. For the most part, it has been one of the strengths of our marriage. It could be a weakness, something to fight about. We’ve learned, however, to balance our approaches, and we find that at different times and circumstances each of our approaches works for the best. Don’t get me wrong, though, there can be some substantial debates along the way!

    Today while I was looking around at some things on the web and waiting for time to go to church (I’m an early riser, she gets up later), I came across an article in Christianity Today, Four Words that Make Me Cringe: What’s so great about their old church back home? And why should I care?. The author, Marilyn Yocum, tells of an encounter with those stories of a parishioner’s “old church” and how it became a positive thing. Go read it. It will make you think about how you respond to suggestions.

    Now “in my old church” can be used as a critical, progress-stopping phrase, just like “we ain’t never done it that way before.” There is a certain desire for the “old ways” when everything always worked so much better than it does now. It’s amazing how our memories filter out the things we’d rather not remember. Once we have survived a situation, we tend to remember surviving, and not the struggle that went into it!

    One of my college professors used to require students of church history to read the book The Good Old Days–They Were Terrible, which presents a much more realistic picture of what it was like to live “back then.” I am always amused, as a student of the ancient world when people talk about what is traditional. Inevitably, what they’re talking about is what their church or community was like when they were a child. And a glowing picture it always is for them. When some want to go back to the 50s, they often forget that life expectancy was much lower, that treatments for cancer and heart disease that we now take for granted were unknown, and that communications that we would find hard to live without were nonexistent.

    There can be an advantage to looking back. It involves learning from experience and being challenged by the accomplishments of the past. But there can also be a deadening disadvantage: We can be held back by what they did not accomplish and what they did not know.

    More than once I have been told by an elderly church member that multiple generations (the number varies) of his or her ancestors were buried in the church cemetery, that they had built the church, and that they would not approve of what was being done with it. It’s really very safe to invoke the dead as support for an argument. They have better things to do now, and we’ve probably forgotten exactly what they were like in any case.

    Let me commend two texts to you:

    “Don’t remember the former things, don’t think about the past.” — Isaiah 43:18

    “Remember the former, ancient things, for I am God and there is nobody like me! I am God, and there is no other!” — Isaiah 46:9

    Classic Biblical contradiction? Go back and read each of those passages. Try reading both chapters from start to finish. I think you’ll see the point when you get the verses in context. And at the same time you’ll see what we have to look for in order to balance the “good old” and the “bad old” and mix in the “good new” and the “bad new.”

    The church is the church of the living. Let the living take all the available ideas from the past, all the experiences, all of God’s leading, and then add all the creative new ideas and excitement of the present, and select the things that will best accomplish God’s work in the present, listening to the Holy Spirit all the way.

  • Art for Fun, Faith, and Profit

    This is a very different sort of blog entry for me. I’m used to writing heavy and sometimes obscure entries on religion, Biblical studies, or politics for this blog. So bear with me . . .

    My wife Jody and I spent a couple of hours today at the Fairhope Arts and Crafts Festival in Fairhope, Alabama. This is a wonderful art show that is popular enough with exhibitors and with visitors that they can afford to be selective in who they allow to exhibit. Artists from all over the country come there to show and sell their work. It’s well worth the time to take a good look around.

    Henry Neufeld at Fairhope Arts and Crafts Festival with Garden Tower

    Cheryl FosterOne of the exhibitors at the show is a good friend of ours, Cheryl Foster. Her business is called C. Foster’s. Cheryl is an artist with a whimsical sense of humor and a wonderful talent for expressing it in art. Her art ranges from ugly mermaids–a humor item that I don’t think I quite get (my wife gets it, and so do many others) to fine paintings. Art for just plain fun is a wonderful thing.

    Here are some of Cheryl’s paintings on display. Note the presence of Dusty the cat sitting on the chair. You can find out more about Dusty on Cheryl’s web site.

    But Cheryl is also a woman of faith, taking as much joy in her faith as in her art. In fact, she also expresses her faith in art. One example of this is her collection of crosses. I have one of these on display in my office, and so do many others among our family and friends.

    This time, however, Cheryl has introduced a new concept–Garden Towers, or scripture theme clay towers. The wonderful pieces of artwork take a scriptural theme and express it in art.

    Garden Tower, vine and fruit of the Spirit

    I am coveting the garden tower that is based both on the vine and branches and the fruit of the Spirit. (I guess that considering it’s about the fruit of the Spirit I should covet it, should I?) 🙂

    Noah's Ark Garden Tower
    Jody really likes the Noah’s Ark Garden Tower.

    And one more picture just to finish this whole description up!

    This is Betty Portzer (right), who works with Cheryl, with my wife Jody.

  • Form Criticism

    We’ll begin our discussion of specific tools within the historical-critical method by looking at form criticism. I’m going to try to present this in a way that will be useful to lay students of the Bible, so note that I will be ignoring the more obscure forms and some technicalities of the method. The general outline I provide should help in the use of various critical commentaries. The key is to read critical judgments critically. (I would note that form criticism generally becomes less certain and therefore less useful in my view as it tries for greater and greater detail.)

    In my previous overview entry, I looked at the different phases of the production and transmission of a text, and showed that form criticism referred to the oral transmission stage. There was a time when I would have said that form criticism applied only when there was an oral stage of transmission, but more recent studies have shown that it can be applied to some texts that did not have an oral stage, such as epistles. There is a danger, however, of finding special oral forms everywhere just because one wants to apply form criticism. Watch out for this when you use critical commentaries.

    Form criticism is possible because in oral transmission and in some types of written transmission, particular types of material tend to take specific, repetitive forms. This is best illustrated in the beginning for children’s stories, “once upon a time.” Because these materials tend to take particular forms, we can discover something about their intended meaning and use from identifying the forms, and then comparing them to other material that displays the same form.

    In discussing the Parable of the Sower I mentioned the form only briefly, but now let’s look at some of the forms in the material that Jesus used. Parables, for example, could come in at least two types, the short, pithy comparison, or the illustrative story. The parable of the sower is of the second variety. So we would compare it in terms of form to parables such as the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, or other similar longer stories. This may not seem terribly profound, but it does lead us to ask just what differences there might be in interpretation of the two types of parables. For example, many interpreters (I’m one of them) will tell you to look for the one main point of a parable, and be very careful when trying to assign meaning to the details. But would there not be a difference in how one might understand the simple comparison and the longer illustrative story? Certainly there should be. The details of the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32; note that this is a good example on which to study the boundaries of the passage to be studied) are far more important to interpretation than the Pearl of Great Price (Matthew 13:45-46), for example.

    Most interpretation can be reduced to finding good questions to ask, and then looking for the answers. Often we look for answers in Bible study before we have considered our questions carefully. So what are the questions of form criticism?

    There are basically four three things we look for:

    1. The structural elements of the passage we are studying, which also involves finding the correct boundaries of the passage
    2. What type or genre is it?
    3. What is its setting and purpose?
    4. Compare and contrast to other similar passages.

    You may need to go through these elements a number of times. It’s convenient to start with someone else’s divisions of the text and someone else’s division of the forms into named types, but I would suggest trying to practice this yourself before simply accepting someone else’s division. You will find it especially helpful to reconsider your division of the text into individual passages after you have compared it to other similar passages.

    In the case of parables, I’ve already made some suggestions of types. But let’s look at another form–the proverb. This is a good early example to work with, because with the book of Proverbs we have many examples already laid out for us. Note, however, that not all of Proverbs consists of proverbs. Especially in the early chapters there are some other forms, such as the hymn to wisdom in chapter 8. But now consider some other examples of proverbs elsewhere in scripture.

    Ezekiel uses a proverb in Ezekiel 18:2, “The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are dull from grinding.”

    Now it’s very much in the form of a proverb. It’s a short, pithy saying that illustrates a point of common wisdom. What would it’s original setting be? We can imagine a situation in which children suffer for their parents’ actions, something that is not all that uncommon. This one is fairly easy. Ezekiel, on the other hand, is using it in another setting. He is using the form of a prophetic oracle. How do I know that? Well, the first clue is in verse one, when he says, “The word of YHWH came to me.” In his case, he’s using the proverb that was probably originally about the general human condition to discuss God’s action; God’s judgment is not going to fall on the children for what the parents did, but rather, God’s judgment will fall on the person who has committed the wrong. We can gain some understanding of the passage by realizing that this proverb was first an expression of an aspect of the human condition. It was probably first used by the Israelites to express how they felt that God was dealing with them, and then is reused in this oracle in Ezekiel to express how God was going to reverse that. The use of this one form in another can be considered an element of redaction, which I’ll discuss later.
    Now consider an instance in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. There he uses what is probably a proverb, “Nothing beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6). Now there is some question about the meaning here. Some would suggest that this is a call to use nothing outside of scripture. But considering when Paul wrote this, is it likely that Paul is saying to stick to written scripture? He’s still dealing with an oral form of the gospel message itself. So we can ask what might this parable have meant in its original setting. I’m going to suggest that there was a possibility that this is used as a statement about someone who is working entirely on material that has been passed on. It is not a compliment to someone who is sticking with the letter; it’s a criticism of someone who has nothing original to contribute.

    Paul is now bringing this to the Corinthians. Is it a criticism in his use? In one sense. He’s saying that the Corinthians have not (yet?) contributed anything to the message of the gospel, and yet they are acting as though they had created an original contribution and attained spiritual superiority. It would be like a student who presented a research paper consisting entirely of quotations, and then claimed to have accomplished original research.

    Let me conclude by listing some benefits of form criticism and some potential problems.

    Benefits:

    1. Gets us to look closely and in detail at a small portion of the text
    2. Encourages us to ask certain questions of the text
    3. Helps us discover other passages that we can use effectively in comparison
    4. Encourages us to discover, if possible, how a text has been used in various settings
    5. Helps us block off a subsection of text and to find its function in a larger passage

    Dangers:

    1. It’s a tree method rather than a forest method, i.e. it gets you to focus on a small portion of the text, and then often you won’t look more broadly. Avoid this by first surveying a larging scripture portion before looking at the individual passage.
    2. It tends to focus us back on the original setting and purpose of a passage. For example, the form critic is first interested in why a proverb or parable would have originated in oral use. It’s final use, such as by Ezekiel or Paul can be ignored. Avoid this by continuing your study after identifying and working with an individual passage as a form using other methods, especially using redaction, literary, and canonical criticism.

    The best way to build your skills with this type of criticism is to get good commentaries that include use of this methodology (most commentaries in the Old Testament Library or the Anchor Bible series do so, see my reader’s guides on Bible Study, Old Testament, New Testament, and Biblical criticism), then do your own work, and then compare that work to the results in the commentary.

  • Policy or Feeling?

    Eleanor Clift in Newsweek has a new column, Dem Feingold Tosses GOP a Life Raft, in which she points out that Feingold’s bid to censure Bush is not good political strategy. It certainly is not, and especially for any politician or political party that is trying to reach out to the center. I’m a passionate moderate, and this kind of thing makes me run looking for someone else. Unfortunately, we are very short on “someone elses” in politics right now.

    I think we need to look beyond the politicians to find out what the problem actually is with government in this country. In the same article, clift points out that 50% in a Wall Street Journal/NBC survey indicate that they would like the democrats to control congress. I think there is a big problem with that number, or any number that simply states what party we want to control congress. Because the parties are so diverse at this point, it can only be the result of a vague feeling we have about the two parties, and not a principled choice of particular candidates.

    In my own congressional district, I’m never sure which party I want to hold the seat until I know who has been nominated. My feeling about the national Republican or Democratic parties (usually very negative) doesn’t really play much in the decision. The question is whether this person will represent me and this district well in congress. But there is clearly a body of people in this country, large enough body of people in this country to sway elections, who are going to vote based on how they feel about a party. I say that because the politicians keep on winning, and they keep on playing games. The Republicans did it with Clinton, and now the Democrats are doing it with Bush.

    I’d like to be able to say that if either party wants to truly win the center, they will need to start behaving responsibly, as a party. In fact, however, I’m afraid I’d probably be wrong. The evidence is that politicians get elected by behaving like politicians. Both parties engage in this type of petty behavior, and both continue to have success with it. The primaries continue to produce the same type of candidates.

    That pushes the problem back to us, the people. Why is it that we allow our opinions to be swayed so much by the latest shenanigans of either party? Why is it that a politician that manages to smear his opponent best with negative ads can win? Why is it that politicians must avoid specifics about what they would do in office, resorting instead to vague generalities?

    I believe it’s because we, the people, don’t have the patience to really study the issues, and then choose the person who has the best grasp of them, and who reflects our values. What we vote for is the person who can give the best impression of supporting our values without tying himself down too much.

    That’s how we get politicians who promise major educational reforms without ever spending more money.

    That’s how a politician can say with a straight face that he will increase services and decrease taxes, and what’s more, get re-elected after failing to do it!

    If we, the people, don’t spend more time studying the issues, making intelligent choices, and then expecting our politicians to do likewise, we will continue to get the type of government we currently have, in which politicians spar over petty things instead of grappling with serious issues in a serious way.

  • The Man Has No Choice?

    Anderson cooper is blogging over on CNN getting ready for a program on a case that’s being called “Roe v. Wade for men.” The idea is that a man should have a choice about having a child, and about whether he should have to pay child support. I suppose there’s going to be a long discussion complete with handwringing and emotion, but I’m not going to watch.

    But let me give you one more links, to a story that has all the details in one place. Men’s activists launch ‘Roe v. Wade for Men’says a story on MSNBC.com.

    The story says that a group calling itself the National Center for Men is supporting this lawsuit. I don’t usually get this annoyed at a story. But is this the national center for men, or is it perhaps the national center for irresponsibility?

    This guy had a choice. He could choose whether or not to have the fun of making the baby. Now he wants out of the responsibility that results. I hear his arguments about the woman having the choice of an abortion. But I would make two points about that. First, even if one does support abortion rights, the situation of the man and the woman when pregnancy occurs is hardly comparable. But second, one type of irresponsibility is not the solution to another.

    Let me note simply that my position on the moral issues of abortion is different than my position on the legal issues. I think the proper moral place to make choices about reproduction is before you engage in sexual activity that might produce a pregnancy. This is true for the man or the woman. After that, your moral choices are different. At the same time I do believe that the best approach to preventing abortion is through education and support. By this I mean education in making responsible choices, and the necessary social support when the right choice, or for that matter when the wrong choice is made.

    In this case, the woman has made a responsible choice, and the man wants permission to make an irresponsible one. Well, he can. He can irresponsibly decide not to pay child support, and then like anyone else who doesn’t face his responsibilities, he can face the legal consequences.