Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Marks of the Jesus Message

    This passage is from the lectionary selection for February 5, 2006, Fifth Sunday after the Epiphany.

    29And immediately as he came out of the synagogue he went into Simon’s house. 30Now Simon’s mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and immediately they told him about her. 31And coming near he raised her up, taking her hand, and the fever left her, and she served them.

    32And it became evening, when the son went down they were bringing him everyone who was sick and those troubled by demons. 33And the whole city gathered near the door. 34And he healed many who were ill with various diseases, and he threw out many demons but he wouldn’t allow the demons to speak because they knew him.

    35And he rose up very early while it was still night and went out and went away into a deserted place where he could pray. 36And Simon and those with him pursued Jesus, 37and they found him and they said to him, “Everybody is looking for you!” 38And he said to them, “Let us go elsewhere into the nearby country towns, so that I might preach there as well. Because it was for this that I went forth.” 39And he went into all of Galilee preaching in their synagogues and casting out the demons.

    — Mark 1:29-39 (taken from my TFBV project)

    The gospel of Mark introduces Jesus in a whirlwind from his first appearance through his baptism and into ministry. In fact, the entire book of Mark runs at a very fast pace. It’s easy to miss the depth of what’s going on.

    I often hear pastors and evangelists wondering how they should test their ministry. What tells them that they are proclaiming the right message and doing the right things? Well, that can be a big question and the answer might differ greatly from person to person. After all, there is a lot of service that needs done to people, from education to emergency disaster assistance. A wide variety of things can be keys to good ministry.

    But consider our passage today. I see three elements to the activity of Jesus, and an interesting reaction on the part of the crowds. The three actions are:

    • Healing
      Wherever Jesus went he brought healing. It seemed to come naturally to him. I think the first question to ask when testing one’s own ministry to others is simply this: Is it bring healing, spiritual and/or physical? Sometimes we’ll find that in our attempts to help other people we’re actually leaving injured people behind us. I’m often told that the gospel offends, and indeed there are those who are offending by a free gift of salvation. But much, much more often people are offending because those who proclaim and carry out the ministry behave in an offensive way. If there is offense, make sure the offense is because of the good news, and not because of “bad news you!”
    • Demons cast out
      Now I’m not suggesting that everyone’s ministry needs to include exorcisms, at least in the traditional sense. But your ministry needs to push out evil, and allow good to grow. It should cast out ignorance, and let true knowledge increase. I notice that in Mark Jesus doesn’t seem to go out of his way to cast out demons. They just keep popping up and getting in his way, and he promptly chases them off. Are you doing so much good that evil is just naturally driven away?
    • Proclamation
      Yes, Jesus actively claimed that the kingdom of God was near. He proclaimed the message. It’s very easy to get an unbalanced ministry. On the one hand we can do good so quietly that nobody else has an opportunity to join in. On the other hand we can spend so much time proclaiming that we have little time to do. A balanced, Christ-like ministry proclaims enough to bring people on board and keep the ministry going, but not so much that one can’t help but be a hypocrite–so much has been claimed that nobody can possibly live up to it.

    And what was the result of this? When Jesus went away for some rest, the people were looking for him. How many of those of us in Christian ministry experience this particular problem? I know some who do, but not that many. Often we’re working hard to try to drag people in to listen to us. The example of Jesus was that when ministry was taking place the demons fled, but the people flocked in to hear. That is how attractive we should make our lives and activities.

  • Wesley Elsberry Profile

    There’s an excellent profile on Wesley Elsberry on the Daily Kos who is both a Christian (United Methodist) and a scientist who accepts the theory of evolution. He works for the National Center for Science Education. This article makes a number of excellent points regarding the need for quality science education.

    I recommend this excellent article. As a Christian Bible teacher, I come to this from a slightly different perspective, but I feel a certain frustration because so many make the assumption that as an active and committed Christian I must also accept young earth creationism. A few folks are so kind as to allow for old earth creationism, but it is again taken as a given by many that I must accept intelligent design–surely I believe that God designed the universe! But the fact is that ID doesn’t prove that at all, and that there are many Christians all across the spectrum who see the difficulties with it.

  • Was the Bible Written to Me?

    In some recent discussions, mostly related to my Seventh-day Adventist background (for those who may not know, I’m now a member of a United Methodist congregation but was raised SDA), I have encountered quite a number of questions regarding who various elements of scripture are for. For example, many Christians will say that the law of the Old Testament was for the Jews, and is not binding on them. Others will say that the law itself was made void for everyone due to the death of Jesus. Seventh-day Adventists divide the law into two major parts, the moral law or ten commandments and the ceremonial law which covers just about all the rest of the Torah.

    Alden Thompson, an SDA author, uses the “law pyramid” starting at the top with the one law of love to God, then the two laws of love to God and love to one’s neighbor, then the 10 commandments, making this more explicit in more commands, then the 613 “mitzvoth” or commands found in Torah. Each group of laws expands on the principles in the greater law. (You can find Thompson’s eplanation of this in his book Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament God?, in chapter 4, “Strange People Need Strange Laws,” page 60. (Note: This book is published by my company, Energion Publications.) The result is a variant on the SDA position which makes the 613 commands simply a more detailed expansion on the more basic one and two laws, but leaves an open question as to whether the 10 commandments are universally applicable (Thompson as a committed SDA believes they are), or whether one must take the laws more as a whole and determine their applicability to time and place.

    I tend to bounce this question off of my SDA roots for the simple reason that I think that the more general Christian community has often not done enough thinking about what we believe about the law. In just about any congregation I will find people who think that the entire law was nailed to the cross, and no laws apply to us at all, to those who firmly hold that the 10 commandments must be kept, but aren’t sure just what the consequences will be for failure. At the same time, we have an almost exaggerated reverence for monuments of the ten commandments, expressed by people who are not all that sure about a good number of them.

    I’m also focussing on the issue of the ten commandments, because that is a common area of disagreement. But I’m really more interested in how we read the Bible in general, because this same type of question is quite valid for any scriptural passage.

    The fact is that none of the Bible was, in fact, written to me personally, nor to my church as a whole. (Now please pause a bit before jumping on me about the prayer of Jesus in John 17. I’ll allow that some passages can be read more broadly, but there are very few.) The SDA distinction between the 10 commandments divides a single instance of lawgiving into multiple parts, supposing one part to be directed to all people, and the other to Israel. But the 10 commandments themselves begin with “I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt . . .” (Exodus 20:2) That’s addressing a group of Israelites near Mount Sinai at a particular time and place. The Israelites through their celebrations participated as a people in God’s acts of salvation, and made themselves part of this as well. As Christians, we feel that we are a part of that deliverance as well, metaphorically through Jesus, called from Egypt (Matthew 2:15), and spiritually through being Abraham’s seed by faith (Galatians 3:29). We gain from the experience even though we did not experience it directly and physically.

    So despite the fact that I believe SDAs have thought a great deal more about the law and its relation to grace, I find myself in profound disagreement here. The Bible itself doesn’t make a distinction between the 10 commandments and the rest of the law. There is no part of the Torah that was addressed to non-Israelites. There is no indication of greater sacredness, except for two things: 1) It’s actual content and 2) That it is spoken by God directly to the people. In the history itself I see considerable reason to believe that the fact that the 10 commandments were spoken by God directly is not a good indicator. As I read Exodus 19, God was quite prepared to give his law directly to the people, but the people were not prepared to receive more. But I do believe the actual content of the 10 commandments sets them apart to some extent.

    But once I’ve said that the 10 commandments are addressed to someone else, I must start looking at the rest of scripture. There I find that this is nothing unusual. My favorite passages are all addressed to someone else! Even Jesus addresses most of his words to other people, to his Jewish audience, to his disciples, to crowds in Galilee. Paul addresses his letters to specific Greek churches. In Revelation, John addresses the report of his vision to the seven churches in Asia. There are a few items addressed to the church generally that I can read pretty directly, but I seem to be reading someone else’s mail a good deal of the time when I study scripture.

    Let me take a brief detour here to make a point about revelation in general. My wife was recently asking me about the story of John the Baptist identifying Jesus in John 1. The question is this: If Jesus is John’s cousin, does he not already know him? Doesn’t he have some history on which to base his conclusion and identification? Assuming we take Luke seriously, certainly John has some basis for knowledge, but apparently God didn’t choose to just tell him, “John, your cousin Jesus is the anointed one. When he comes to be baptized, point him out!” Instead, he tells John that the person on whom the Spirit descends like a dove is the anointed one. Sounds convoluted, doesn’t it? Sometimes I have to wonder about these things. Revelation seems to come in such a round about way.

    But you could look at books like Ezekiel, Daniel, or Revelation in a similar way. Ezekiel is amongst the exiles in Babylon, but is moved around by the Spirit in vision. The major thrust of the entire first chapter is simply that God is present, active, and powerful even away from Israel’s land. (Admittedly there is more there, but that’s the key message.) Why couldn’t God just say, “Ezekiel, I’m here and I’m still in control”? Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2 could have had a dream that showed armies moving and maps. The man knew most of those countries after all. But instead we have an image, and a call for Daniel to interpret. Later, in Daniel’s visions, for some reason we have a vision followed by an angelic interpretation. Those of us who have studied these books for years hardly notice. That’s just the way it is. But if you stand back and think about it, it can seem a little strange. Revelation again presents symbolically much that we might like to have laid out plainly. I’m reminded of Tolkien’s hobbits who “liked books filled with things they already knew, set down plainly without contradiction.”

    Jesus also used some convoluted ways, using parables and signs to aid in his teaching. He even expressed his reasons (Mark 4:10-12). Discussing this passage extensively would go beyond the scope of this essay, but let me simply suggest that Jesus was keeping the message from people who were never going to get the message anyhow. He was confusing the “5 minute a day” crowd. I regularly encounter people who want to become good Bible students on 5 minutes a day. I have to tell them I have no such quick method. Knowing your Bible, and more importantly knowing the God of the Bible requires much more commitment than that. (For more on parables see Interpreting Parables.)

    For whatever reason, God has generally chosen to give his word in a context of experience. From that experience we can then derive principles, lessons, and even commands that apply to us personally or as a community. In this way all of scripture is important, even though it may not apply to me directly.

    The key is that in each of these cases, God is dealing with real people in a real way. I want to know God better and so the way that he dealt with Israel back in the wilderness, or the way he dealt with the church at Corinth or the churches in Asia is very, very important to me, because it tells me how God deals with people under different circumstances and at different times. This doesn’t make the 10 commandments inapplicable, but it may make them applicable in a different way. At the same time, it means that all those other chapters in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are also applicable in that they say something about how God works. If we believe that God was really dealing with Israel, operating in a relationship with them, then we need to ask what we can learn from the way in which he dealt with them.

    Recently, in studying through the Torah I have found that there is much more there than normally meets the Christian eye. We are so used to dismissing the “ceremonial law” as all pointing to Jesus and done away with at the cross that we have missed much of the content. There are things to learn here about community, about holiness and sanctification, about sacrifice, about thanksgiving, about order, and about commitment to God as his people.

    At the same time, as we realize these laws were not given to us gentiles, we are not looking to replicate the sytem of worship of the Israelites. We want to learn everything we can about living in covenant with God as it is applicable to our time, our covenant and our relationship with God.

    In that sense, the 10 commandments are simply a part of that whole picture. As you study them, I think you will find that they embody much more universal principles than do the many laws, and that you will find many more ways in which they apply to your personal and church life. Nonetheless there is more there to learn throughout the Torah (Pentateuch).

  • Choosing a Pew Bible

    Sometimes choosing a pew Bible is a kind of afterthought. I grew up in churches that didn’t even have pew Bibles. It was expected that all the church members would have their own and would bring them to church. But for many churches the pew Bible can have a major impact both on worship and on learning.

    One church I was associated with decided to get some new pew Bibles. They wanted to get the NIV, because most of the members used that at home, and the pastor also used it in preaching. Then it turned out that they could get NRSV pew Bibles cheaper from their primary source, and so the church now has NRSV Bibles in the pews. Most commonly scripture readings are taken from a different version, and the pastor uses a third version in preaching. The members still own the NIV more than any other version, so the pew Bible is of a version that is rarely used.

    How can one choose a good pew Bible, especially considering the inevitable differences in the desires of various church members?

    The key to this process is to be very clear first about your mission, and then about your use of scripture in your worship services. Ideally, your use of scripture will reflect your church’s mission, and will help your church carry out your mission.

    Most churches will speak of a mission to the community and of outreach when discussing their mission. But often the actions of the church speak of a considerably different mission. For example, if a church claims to be dedicated to reaching modern young people, and yet uses the KJV in preaching and teaching, there is probably a disconnect between the claimed goal and the actual goal.

    Assuming your church is trying to reach someone, let’s look at some of the groups you might want to reach:

    1. Persons who have never been church members and who did not grow up in church
    2. Persons who grew up in church, but have left
    3. Churched persons who are dissatisfied with their current congregation
    4. Needy persons who can be reached with literacy programs
    5. Young people
    6. Persons whose primary language is something other than English
    7. College age adults
    8. Educated and professional people
    9. Existing, long-time members

    I personally think all of these groups, and many more that I have not mentioned, should be reached by a church, and many of them are not. I would not criticize a church for having an outreach to any of these groups as its goal, or the goal of one of its worship services. But it is important for your church to recognize who they are really reaching. Often we speak of outreach to the unchurched, but we run worship services that are designed for habitual church goers.

    Further, we must ask what role scripture plays in the worship service. Do you use scripture readings as a means of worship? Do you use responive readings? Are members of the congregation asked to read scripture out load? Is scripture primarily a part of teaching? How important is easy understanding to the effect of your scripture reading.

    It is not sufficient just to choose a Bible with a good “public reading” rating on one of my version charts. That was one of the ratings I was not even sure I should use because it is so subjective. What I like in public reading may well be very different from what you like. The CEV, for example, was translated with oral reading in mind, yet I know many people who abhor hearing it in public scripture reading, even when they appreciate it for private reading. I personally rate the CEV at an ‘8’ (out of 10) for public reading, and the ESV as a ‘5’, but I know many people who would rather hear the ESV.

    In addition, I know many people who love the KJV for public reading because they think it just sounds like a Bible. It has a “spiritual ring” to it for many people’s ears. But those same people will admit that they really don’t understand what they hear very easily.

    Young people are likely to follow modern versions with little “church language” such as the CEV, the NCV, or the TNIV. Older members, or more educated (or perhaps just more intellectual in attitude) may prefer something that sounds a bit more dignified, like the REB, the NRSV, or the ESV. Those versions, however, contain a good deal of church language, and so may be less effective for teaching.

    Consider also what most church members are using at home. If you are going to use a different Bible in the pew than people normally bring to church, be aware of the questions that may occur. If you use responsive readings, check your hymnal as well and find out what version is used in preprinted responsive readings.

    If you find the need to compromise between a more “majestic” sounding version for scripture readings as part of worship, and a more readable version for teaching in church, consider putting an “easy to read” version in the pews, and printing scripture readings and responsive readings in your bulletin. Consider also doing some teaching about Bible translations so that your members will understand why versions are different and be able to make intelligent choices about them.

    For further information, see my book What’s in a Version?. I also am available to teach classes on Bible translations in churches.

  • Divine Wisdom and Discernment

    I’m back to my discussion of inspiration, dealing with the issue of how one determines whether someone can speak for God. In this entry I’m going to look at the last two items on my list, divine widom, and the gift of discernment, which are closely related.

    As a preliminary, let me comment that I have noticed that most of the gifts of the Spirit have their “talent” counterparts. There are those who exhibit wisdom, and then there is the gift of messages (or words) of wisdom. There are talented teachers, and then there are those whose ability to help guide a group into understanding spiritual truths seems supernatural. There is a talent for languages, and then there is the gift of tongues as exhibited on Pentecost with everyone hearing in their own language. I don’t want to take up space in this entry by digging more into this idea, so if you think I’m off-base here, we’ll need to wait for another set of entries to discuss it more. But for the moment, I want to suggest such a relationship between a wise person, and one who has the gift of discernment or, I would suggest, shares in the divine wisdom.

    I’m combining my discussion, because I think the relationship between wisdom exhibited as wisdom, i.e. a Proverbs sort of wisdom, and the gift of discernment is very close. I think we ignore that relationship at our own peril. The problem is that the gift of discernment doesn’t have some specific physical manifestation to identify it. It can be claimed in the same way as the gift of prophecy, or as any message from God. One person can make the claim of the gift of prophecy, while another claims discernment and backs them up. The result is just as circular as any other test I’ve mentioned.

    So let me start with wisdom. I think it is critically important that we pay attention to the fact that the Bible includes wisdom literature. Many of the Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes fall into this category. If you pay attention as you read these books, you will see something significantly different from the message of the prophetic books. The prophets stand on their claim to receive messages from God through the Spirit. Their sanction is their inspiration by God. They invite you to accept or reject their message, and experience the consequences (graphically presented) of your choice.

    Wisdom writers, on the other hand, appeal to the nature of the created universe, to the experience of how God works, and to the understanding the community has built up. They are clear that the message comes from God and is a divine message, but it is a process of the mind that has perceived God’s revelation. I don’t believe that this is any less “inspiration” than the prophet’s message, but it invites the reader to participate in another way, by thinking and getting themselves involved in the divine wisdom.

    Jesus also spoke in this wisdom mode. There has been a debate amongst historical Jesus scholars about whether Jesus was a wisdom teacher, an eschatological preacher, with the latter being similar to the prophetic approach. I would suggest that the question narrows Jesus too much. Jesus spoke in the form of wisdom at times and in the form of prophecy (Spirit driven speech) at times. One of the reasons I think that those on the outside couldn’t understand the parables was that the parables were not in the form of announcements; rather, they were in the form of seeds. It’s wrong to look for the interpretation of a parable. One needs to look for how a parable can seed into one’s thinking and change one’s whole approach to life. That is divine wisdom operating within.

    But divine wisdom is not a purely human endeavor. It is not that people figure out God. Rather, it is that people grow in wisdom by looking into God’s actions, in the physical, spiritual, and moral realms. Psalm 119:104 says we get wisdom through God’s precepts. Sometimes I add this to my list of tests–the obedience test. If we set out to obey God with all our hearts and minds, we will not ultimately be led astray. When we are led astray, it’s because in some sense we have kept an agenda other than finding divine wisdom. Wisdom literature emphasizes that wisdom starts with fearing God (Proverbs 1:7). Following God’s wisodm involves acknowledging him as creator, and finding his wisdom in the creation (Proverbs 8:22ff, Psalm 104). Divine wisdom is one thing that appears to be promised on the only condition that we seek it wholeheartedly (James 1:5).

    That divine wisdom forms the foundation for our understanding of discernment in the community. I think by now anyone who has stuck with me through all these essays will realize that I put the greatest weight on the community of faith in discerning God’s message. Abraham had very little community to work with. We’re told in Joshua 24:2 that Abraham’s family were worshipping other gods. He simply had to move on faith. God honored his determination to obey and gave him direction clearly enough. Over time, the community of faith has exercised its discernment in preserving and granting authority to certain written material as part of our body of faith literature. The study of canonization is itself fairly complex. (I talk about this just a little bit more in the Participatory Study Series pamphlet What is the Word of God?) Let me just say here that if we do not believe that God leads spiritually in the community as it selects a body of literature that is authoritative, we should probably give up the notion of any canon at all.

    If we do accept God’s working in the community, then the more times we have someone who has heard God’s voice, the greater the body of knowledge we have to work from. I suspect that God expects more in terms of discernment from me than he did from Abraham on this issue. Not because I’m wiser than Abraham, or more spiritual, or anything of the sort, but because I have much, much more material to work with, and thus many more ways to check what I hear.

    In sports that allow plays to be reviewed, the reviewer can see the play from various camera angles. Often I look at a play as it’s shown on TV and I see one thing, and then some other camera angle makes it clear that the reality was somewhat different. Abraham had one camera angle. I have many. My lousy spiritual eyesight can be aided by many different views.

    I would suggest that the gifts of wisdom and discernment relate very closely to the divine wisdom and need to be judged as such. A “word of wisdom” or as I prefer, “message of wisdom” is something that can be tested by the community at the time it is spoken. We especially compare it to the divine wisdom. Does this word reflect the fear of God? Does this wisdom reflect God’s activity in the world? Is it in accordance with God’s precepts from which we get understanding? An absolute statement by someone who claims discernment can be tested in the same way.

    One final comment I need to make has to do with how we find an objective standard. Obviously I believe that the Bible is a valid source for me in terms of faith and practice. Otherwise I wouldn’t belong to a denomination that claims that as a doctrine, and I wouldn’t be a Bible teacher. I think, however, that our witness needs to be more community based. As Christians (and I’ve been speaking in a Christian context here) we need to make our witness clear. We cannot simply provide a list of reasons one should regard the Bible as true; we need to show that the Bible is the book of a community in which God is present. I think this is where we frequently fail. And to bring this entry full circle, we frequently fail because while we’ve accepted some pronouncements as true (which is good), we have failed to let the divine wisdom be planted in our hearts and minds and start to bear fruit.

    We need to make divine wisdom the hallmark of our community.

    Note: Other articles of my own that I have used in this series include Inspiration, Biblical Authority, and Inerrancy and The Authority of the Bible.

  • Attitude of Repentance

    Note: I wrote the following two days ago for my wife’s devotional list. I thought it might be of interest to the blog.

    10And God saw their actions, that they turned from their evil way, and God repented of the evil that he said he would do to them, and he didn’t do it. – Jonah 3:10

    If God can repent, why can’t I?

    Repentance is such a scary word to us. It’s something people who are really nasty, probably something like the Ninevites, need to do. It’s for big revival meetings when sinners rush down to altars weeping before the Lord because of their many sins. Even if I was part of that crowd at the altar, I no longer need to.

    It’s funny how when we hear Jesus say, “There will me more joy in heaven over one repenting sinner than over 99 righteous people who don’t need repentance,” we usually hear him talking about some other guy. “There’s really joy in heaven today. So-and-so repented!”

    Is it that we really don’t care to spread joy in heaven, or is it so hard to get the repentance thing down that we’re just not willing to go there no matter how hard it is to do?

    Yet even God repents. Why?

    In navigating in the air, one learns that wind speeds and directions may change, and this will result in a need to change course because the air through which your moving is itself moving, forcing you to reorient yourself and make certain of the right course. A good navigator can make fine predictions of the air speeds and conditions along the course and come very close to a good course. But no matter how good he is, he is going to check those conditions regularly and adjust his course if necessary.

    The Christian life is much like that. Even if you’ve been to the altar and repented, there’s a constant need to check your course. Conditions may have changed while you weren’t paying attention. You may need some adjustment. And that’s what repentance is. In fact, to be sure of staying on the right path, we need to constantly check and repent.

    We can’t afford to one of the 99 just persons who need no repentance. I can imagine the look on Jesus’ face when he said that. Yeah, right! Ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance. If we think we’re in the 99, we need to repent of that, if nothing else!

    But why does God repent? The joy of it is that God will repent when we do. We can change the conditions for God’s work in us, in our church, and in our community. And when the conditions change, God will change. He is even anxious to repent. “Just give me a reason to repent and I will,” he says. Read Jeremiah 18, especially verses 7-10. “If you repent, I will repent.”

    Sounds like a plan!

  • Finding an Authoritative Translation – Supplement A

    In my entry Finding an Authoritative Translation I talked about ways in which a person who is not familiar with the source languages can nonetheless check for translation problems and at least be forewarned as to where translation may become an issue in Bible study. I indicated I was going to go back to talking about inspiration, but first, I need to correct a couple of oversights.

    I left the New English Translation (NET) off of my list. It should be included under Literal, Protestant, and Evangelical. While the translation will deviate somewhat from a fully formal equivalent translation, that is still its primary philosophy. (This is reflected in my detail page for the version, which shows a ‘9’ for the formality on a 1-10 scale, but also a moderate ‘5’ on functionality.) Don’t read anything into my missing this translation on the previous list. I don’t include it reluctantly, and I didn’t even get an e-mail from anyone telling me I forgot it. I just plain left it out, and it is one I use regularly in comparing translations.

    Secondly, thinking of the NET reminds me of the use of footnotes. Supplement all of the other procedures I mentioned with checking the footnotes of each and every version that you use. Translation footnotes are a good indicator of both the level and difficulty of the translation issues involved. To see this in action, when comparing a verse through whatever set of versions you use, make a little checklist of which versions have a footnote related to the issue you’re researching. If you find that practically all versions have a note, this is a probably a question that has caused widespread discussion. Divide the notes as well as the chosen translations into a groups according to how they solve the problem. How many different types of solutions are there to whatever question is involved. This can be considerable work, but at the same time, there’s a great deal of information contained in those brief notes.

    In using all of these versions and footnotes, be sure to check the front matter of your Bible edition for information on how the notes are formatted, and what they may contain. They are normally explained there, and you will get more from your Bible edition if you know how its features work.

    This may leave some folks with the question of why the notes in your Bible would vary so much between one translation and another. I think this relates directly to the more common question of why Bible versions differ in the first place. The process of translation is one of making choices. As I said earlier, no translation is perfect. The translation team must make choices of text, wording, style and so forth. But they also must make choices as to what is important enough to put in the footnotes. Too many footnotes can clutter up the translation and make it hard to use; too few may leave the reader without needed information.

    Before you get upset at one or another translation team over the number of notes, consider these issues. It’s easy to make a translation for yourself that you like. (It’s interesting that Suzanne McCarthy on the Better Bibles blog made some comments about personalizing a Bible translation. I wonder how that would work!) When I make a translation for my own use in study it will very from slavishly literal where I might want to reflect a source language idiom, to extremely loose where I think a difficult point needs to be clarified. An ordinary reader would find this a very frustrating translation to use, but it suits me just fine. It’s much harder to make a translation for a broader audience, and there have to be trade-offs.

    Two caveats:

    1. Beware of translation shopping, by which I mean going from version to version until you find one that has the right wording. Some people go so far as to search concordances for different versions to find the wording they need to make a point. If the reason you choose the wording is that it is clear, and that it brings out what you believe to be the accurate meaning of the passage, that’s a good thing. But if you have simply sought words that work in some particular sermon or illustration, then you may be taking the text out of context.

    2. Beware of “what the Greek or Hebrew text really means.” I really abhor hearing this phrase in a sermon, because it will almost always be followed by misinformation, or at least information that is slanted. As I noted above, translation is a process of making choices, and what normally follows “what the Greek really means” is the gloss for that word that best suits the topic of the preacher’s sermon. I’ve had several years of training each in Hebrew and Greek, and then significant experience teaching directly from the Biblical languages, and I can’t even begin to produce the quality of translation that an expert committee can produce when translating on the fly, or in sermon preparation. I know there are people with better Greek or Hebrew skills than I have, but I suspect most of them would not claim that their off-the-cuff translation would be better overall than the work of a translation committee. What I’d suggest saying is something like this: “This verse could be translated _______” or “Another way to look at this verse is _______” or “The connection of this verse with our topic might be clearer if we translated this as ________.” All of these allow the speaker to focus on the application of the verse to the particular audience and to suggest an alternative translation, but do so without suggesting to the congregation that the translation in front of them is wrong, and that their pastor or teacher is capable of correcting it in the course of a 20 minute sermon.

    None of which means you can’t suggest that one translation is better than another. Just make sure people know that translators can honestly differ, and that the versions they have before them were generally produced by dedicated, skilled people.

  • Revision and Translation

    In my book What’s in a Version? and in my Bible Translation Selection Tool I do not deal much with the question of whether a translation is a revision or not, except when the translation is not taken from the original languages. In this entry, I’m going to look at a couple of revision histories, and discuss what terms like “revision” and “derivative” mean in the context of translation.

    Let me deal with “derivative” first. As a literary term, it is of very limited usefulness, simply because a translation is derivative to some extent by nature. The translator is not attempting a composition. Originality is not all that desireable for the most part; occasionally one may need serious originality to come up with a way to accurately convey what is said in the source language. Thus all translations are derivative to some extent. To apply this to a translation revision is a bit misleading, unless that translation is rewritten without reference to the source languages. It might, for example, be accurate of the Living Bible, though not of its successor the New Living Translation.

    Before I look at the process of revising a translation let’s look at the historical connections between some modern versions. The KJV has been the root for many English translations, as the following chart will show:

    Some genetic links between Bible translations

    Note: I make no attempt in this chart to show precise chronology. Note also that any translation owes something to those that have gone before. The NIV, for example, was a new, original translation, but nonetheless it does owe something the the KJV and RSV before it.

    Now let’s look at the whole process of revision.

    In some ways this issue is similar to the one commonly found in apologetics books. How can one trust the Bible when it has been translated so many times? In response, one might ask what damage is done to the source text when it is translated. The difficulty here is that each new translation can, and most commonly does, go back to the source texts, and thus there is no deterioration due to successive revision; rather, there is likely to be improvement.

    What process does a person undertake to produce a new translation? One goes deals with issues of target audience, source texts, translation philosophy, target language style and so forth, and one translates. How does this differ from a revision? In a revision one deals with all of the same questions. There are two differences. The translation philosophy and method is to one extent or another derived from the earlier translation, and second, phrases in the older translation that do not need to be changed are not changed. Variations in how much a revision will change a translation depend on what the translators find as they translate.

    In the chart above, for example, when the ASV was produced from the RV, it was largely a matter of employing the American editors preferences in wording and style. This was not a new translation at all; simply the selection of one set of editing results over another. Because of the time gap, there were a few additional points, but these were largely minor. In the case of the Living Bible, the ASV was paraphrased from the English of the ASV to a more modern, colloquial English, and this was done without reference to the original languages. This is the closest thing I see in Bible translation to the normal understanding of a derivative work in terms of literature. The New American Standard Bible, on the other hand, while flowing from the tradition of the ASV, was a new translation starting from the original languages. The only importance that the fact that the NASB is a revision has for the user is that a certain style is maintained. Every word of the text has been reworked using original language texts by the new translators.

    The NIV and the NEB each introduced some new elements into Bible translation philosophy at the time. The NIV manages a sort of balance in terms of functional and formal equivalence. If you check my data page on that translation (link above), you will see that it rates quite high in both my formal and functional tests. The NEB leans much more to the functional side of the scale. These are not directly revised from any other version.

    Nonetheless translators will consult other versions. I normally make a working translation of my own when I prepare to preach or teach, even if I use one of the major versions when I’m actually in front of people. I will first create a translation of my own, then I revise it, and then I will compare it to several major versions. I recheck differences between these versions and my own work to make sure that I understand why they translated as they did. Sometimes the result is that I again modify my own work. This is also normally a part of the process of translation for anyone who wants to be accurate.

    I think that the ESV is particularly clear on this issue in their preface. They have separate headings, “Translation Legacy” and “Translations Philosophy.” Under the first heading, they note that ” . . . each word and phrase in the ESV has been carefully weighted against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek . . .” A little later they note: “The words and phrases themselves grow out of the Tyndale-King James legacy, and most recently out of the RSV . . .”

    In effect, the revisers thoroughly check everything against the original languages, and are willing to change what needs to be changed for accuracy and for current language, in effect giving you the same quality of translation as you get from a brand-new translation. There is no ongoing loss of meaning that results from this process. There would be no necessary improvement were the translation not a revision at all.

    Now if a new translation introduces a new translation philosophy or some new efforts in terms of style, then there is a reason to look at a translation that is not a revision. But those are the precise things we look for in a translation in any case. So supposing you are looking for a literal, or formal-equivalent translation. The fact that the NASB and the NRSV are both revsions tracing their history back to the KJV really has no bearing on which you should choose. You would have to look at their philosophy of translation, their style, their translation committee and from there make your decision. And in this case, I chose the NRSV because, though a revision, it has introduced a substantial new twist in translation style–gender neutral (or gender accurate, depending on your viewpoint) language, and it made this innovation while revising another version. Which just goes to show how little the term “revision” will tell you about a particular translation.

    One last point I like to emphasize is this: The proper way to test a translation is to check it against the documents from which it was translated. I have seen huge numbers of arguments discussing what might have happened, or what certain terms mean, when simply looking at the translation itself would answer the questions.

    (Note: I will get back to talking about inspiration, though I suspect some were hoping I’d find another subject!)

  • Finding an Authoritative Translation

    In George Orwell’s Animal Farm things eventually boil down to “all the animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

    I think I can apply this to Bible translations as well as to animals, especially when one is looking for an authoritative translation. The fact is that no translation perfectly reflects the source languages. Thus, there is no translation that is the final word on the interpretation of any particular passage. The final appeal must be to the texts in the source languages, and to the best research available there.

    This situation is very disappointing to many Bible students who don’t know their Biblical languages, which is the vast majority of Bible students. How can they successfully get finality about a point of Biblical interpretation from a translation? Surely there is a translation that is right all the time, that can simply be trusted. But the answer is no. No translation is ever perfect.

    But are some translations “more equal” on this point than others? I would say that there are, and that there are some techniques that English speaking and reading Bible students can use in order to avoid getting caught by a translation issue. These techniques are really fairly simple, and the necessary tools are widely available.

    1. Use multiple translations
      If you compare the translation of a text in more than one version, you will be alerted to translation differences. Start with the assumption that if there is a substantial difference in the way a verse is translated, i.e. that the two translations don’t simply express the same thought in different words, then there may be a significant translation issue underlying those different versions.
    2. Make your choice of versions wisely and purposefully
      Choosing multiple versions to compare when looking for translation issues is differnt than choosing a version for your own reading or study use according to your preferences. You want to find versions that are done by credible scholars, but that differ in their approach sufficiently so that they are likely to disagree on controversial issues. I’ll list some good selections for this purpose below. In particular, be aware of the translation philosophy involved. For example, comparing the rendering of the ESV with that of the CEV may give you the idea that there is a significant translation issue, when the problem is really that one is very literal while the other is dynamically expressive. With some extra attention, you will then often find that they are both trying to convey the same message, just in a different way.
    3. Check concordances with original language references
      Many people put a great deal of weight into these kinds of studies in terms of finding or even creating new definitions, but without facility in the language in question it is doubtful that your work will be all that accurate. Such study can alert you to just where the problems are in a translation. This may not give you the final answer, but at least it may keep you from being embarrassed by finding out that you based your interpretation on a faulty translation, or that you were dogmatic about something that is really very controversial.
    4. Use commentaries
      For this purpose you need an exegetical or critical commentary. You might want to look at some suggestions for materials in my reader’s guide to Bible study tools.

    Now let’s expand just a bit on which translations are “more equal than others.” If you want to catch translation problems you need to be more careful than usual in your selection. Let me suggest that your select one or more from each of the following groups. Note that the groups do overlap.

    You want to avoid hitching your star to older translations, such as the KJV, ERV, ASV, Young’s Literal and so forth. These translations can be good an helpful in reading and study, but they were made without much modern research and many recent discoveries in manuscripts and language, and thus are not nearly as helpful in identifying true translation issues.

    Literal Translations

    You can generally avoid the older RSV as most translation issues will be reflected in the newer versions. I don’t list the New King James Version simply because its focus was to reflect the text and language of the KJV, and thus it does not present as much new information as other versions.

    Dynamic Translations

    Catholic Translations

    Protestant Translations

    Mainstream/Liberal Translations

    Evangelical Translations

    Jewish Translations

    In this category, the one item to consult is the JPS Tanakh: The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text. I do not have this rated yet on my list of Bible translations, but it should be consulted especially in cases of interfaith dialogue.

    As I noted earlier, there is ultimately no way short of learning the source languages to really be able to handle all translation issues. You will find, however, that the majority of the Bible is not that controversial in its translation. Translation issues deal with a small number of texts, though often these are the most contentious. Using multiple translations wisely will help you avoid errors and embarassment.

    See also my book, What’s in a Version? and my Bible Translation Selection Tool.

  • Martin Luther King Day: Man, Nation, and Myth

    I missed posting yesterday because I was suffering from the flu. In fact, I’m not all that energetic today either, but I did want to post something about Martin Luther King day.

    Many people seem not to have become comfortable with Martin Luther King day as a holiday. This was brought home to me as I talked business to somebody on the phone and mentioned that I wouldn’t be able to accomplish something yesterday because of the holiday. There was a long pause, and then, “Oh. Yes. It’s Martin Luther King day.”

    Oh yes! It is! (Or it was.)

    And that got me to thinking about the day itself and the man who inspired it. Dr. King was not all that popular a man during his life. He spent his time fighting against the cultural standards of his region in his time. There were even those who were happy to see him die. We like to think of those days as “bad old times” that won’t be coming back. But the basic problems of human nature, of fear of things that are different, and of resistance to change, no matter how much needed, are still a part of our lives and culture.

    That’s where we need the myth. People look down on the word “myth” as though somehow a person is diminished as part of a myth, as though a myth is less than any other story, rather than greater. But the fact is that a person lives on and accomplishes more as a myth. Many people have written historically about Dr. King, and some have thought to tarnish his image. I don’t really know how much their historical data has impacted people individually, but I don’t think they’ve succeeded in tarnishing the myth. It is myth that allows him to still speak, even though he is dead.

    Hebrews 11:4 says that Abel offered a better sacrifice than his brother Cain, and in that way, even though he is dead, he still speaks. That’s the myth in action. There’s a great deal more than just believing something involved in faith here. Dr. King managed to see the vision of what could be instead of what was, he visualized a path that others hadn’t seen, his faith in his vision, in his God, and even in his country was strong enough to allow him to take action. Through that faith he offered a better sacrifice.

    I need to say one thing about faith in his country. Non-violent protest requires a faith that is beyond oneself. The military leader, prepared with weaponry, personnel, and a plan, needs faith in his own abilities and that of his troops to take action. The non-violent protester believes that somewhere inside his opponents and in those who are apathetically standing by there is a whisper of conscience, enough goodness or divine spark, enough something to make them step up and do the right thing, even if they must be pressured to do it.

    And that myth–that story that lives on, that provides a challenge and a form to our actions–lives on, and keeps calling us to change the inequities and injustices that we see before us today. The question is whether we will live up to the myth, perhaps even creating new and greater myths to drive us. Will we learn to be a nation that deserves to enshrine a day to deal not just with inequalities, but to celebrate and carry forward the fight for justice? Will Martin Luther King day become a true part of the American mythos, for all of us?

    Or will it be “Oh. Yes! Martin Luther King day,” as we regret the lack of hours for business.