A friend sent me a link to this post on Language Log which discusses public repentance as a speech event. If you tag some spiritual implications onto the linguistic analysis, it adds some interest as well!
Category: Author Related
Posts that relate in some way to my books. Excludes administrative posts and most reviews of other people’s books.
-
Spectrum of Views on Historical Reading of the Gospels
I often present a standard spectrum of views on reading the gospels as history, one which extends from the conservative, or even fundamentalist side, which claims that all details of any type must be historical, to the opposite radical conclusion which claims that the gospels are entirely fiction. Most discussion goes on somewhere between that, with many conservatives allowing for minor differences in what they regard as eyewitness reports, and few scholars claiming that there is no historical basis in the gospels.
But there is another spectrum I’d like to point out this Easter season: Just how important is history to our faith? These two spectra may not be completely independent, but in my experience they can be. I have encountered people who believe pretty much whatever the gospels say is historical, but don’t regard that as terribly important. On the other hand there are folks who think that the “Jesus of faith” is the key, no matter how one takes the historical evidence.
I personally tend to give the gospels the benefit of the doubt, though I have no need to reconcile issues like the number of demoniacs who met Jesus on the other side of the sea, or the numbers of denials and cock crowings, or who precisely showed up when on Easter morning. It is important to me to regard these as unimportant, but I’m not bothered too much if you want to reconcile them. I’m not disturbed, on the other hand, if the feeding of the 5,000 and the 4,000 is regarded as one event told multiple times with variations, or two distinct events.
In the modern western world, we think first of facts and history, and whether this is all true, in the sense that it happened as described. But that can lead us to try to read the gospel to answer a list of questions that the gospel writers weren’t trying to answer. What I’d recommend, and what I try to do for myself on a regular basis, is to simply read the each gospel on its own and try to see just what the writer was trying to pretend. Then I can turn to history, or whatever other issues are involved. But my faith is profoundly based on their story and their testimony and the way that connects to mine.
Chronology can be fun, in fact I enjoy it, but it is not the root of my faith.
-
Thinking about the Servant – Isaiah 50:4-9a
I made a mental connection this morning while reading the lectionary passages for Palm Sunday/Passion Sunday. I’m not certain just how valid this is, but I thought I’d write about it. There are multiple views of the servant passages in 2nd Isaiah. Some see each passage separately, with some being prophecies of the Messiah, and others not. Others see a collective Israel that occasionally gets specified down to one individual.
This passage, seen as Messianic by many Christians, is one that is frequently identified with the voice of the prophet himself, the writer of 2nd Isaiah. He has a message to give, it comes from God, and he is to present it in spite of opposition. (As an example, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, Anchor Bible: Isaiah 40-55, pp. 319-323.)
Earlier in the day I wrote a devotional emphasizing that Philippians 2:5-11 addresses us collectively as a church (“you” is plural) and not merely as individuals. It seems to me that the collective and the individual commands are much less distinguished in scripture, i.e. the tasks to be performed by God’s people and those performed by God’s person tend to blend into one another. Thus an extremely “clean” interpretation is not particularly desirable. The focus can shift freely.
I should note that I am already quite invested in a collective interpretation of the servant passages, with Jesus Christ presented in the New Testament as the ideal Israelite, not to mention ideal person, but I think this connection kind of gives me a better feel for how this works.
-
Parsimony of Miracle Assumptions: Matthew 21:1-7
Or I might title this “Was Jesus a Horse Thieving Magician?”
I learned this story so long ago I don’t remember just when it was, but I got a Sunday School version that left me with the impression that because Jesus was God, either he knew everything, or his father revealed to him the location of the donkey, and the words to use so that the disciples could get away with it. Probably the divinity of Jesus and his command shone through his disciples, thus preventing their arrest as horse (or donkey) thieves.
This left a glow in my mind until I thought about the story some more later. I’ve observed this same interpretation in debates online. Someone objects to the story on the basis that Jesus is supposed to be sinless, so how could he steal a donkey? (Or perhaps merely borrow one without permission.) Sadly, in the most recent case I observed, the next comment from the defender of Christianity (non-professional variety) was that Jesus could take the donkey because he was God, and after all owned everything. So who was the owner to object?
While it’s true that in Christian theology Jesus is God, and God owns everything. But if you think about it a bit, such an argument could make the sinlessness of Jesus pretty meaningless. Why was he sinless? Well, anything he did could be justified by the fact that he was God.
Now real Christian apologists will generally regard this as a particularly weak stab at Christianity, though I would have to say that I take seriously those objections that objectors take seriously, even though it sometimes requires effort. There is, however, no reason to get stuck on this one.
There is no need to justify donkey stealing. Let’s go back to the start, sticking with only the version in Matthew 21. There is simply no suggestion of a miracle, such as miraculous knowledge of the donkey’s location. There is no suggestion that divinity needed to flash forth to make the story work. It is simply told bare bones. So supposing this is a modern scene, and you’re walking down a road with someone, and he says, “Go over to that farm you can see off to the left, and you’ll find a horse tied to a tree. Untie it, and bring it here. If anyone asks, say, ‘His owner needs him.’”
Would you assume that your walking partner had received a vision, or that he knew there was a horse normally tied up there, or perhaps had some valid reason to know there was one tied up there now? Would you assume that he was asking you to participate in a bold act of horse theft, or that he had the appropriate rights to use the animal? I suspect our first assumption would be that the person had naturally acquired information, and that unless he was some kind of criminal, that he was not choosing this casual means to launch a life of crime.
So why do we assume that Jesus did otherwise? We know he fed the 5,000, but we don’t assume that he miraculously produced every breakfast. We assume he’s sinless, so why would we assume an explanation here that opens him up to the charge of theft?
Imagine this story instead. The day before, Jesus was going through that village, and a follower there offered him the donkey for his use. He told the man that he didn’t need the donkey that day, but would call for it later, and they agree where it would be. When he was ready to use it, Jesus used this purely mundane information to call for a donkey to which he had every right. And that is hardly the only possible set of assumptions that works with the story.
So why didn’t Matthew fill in a few more blanks for us? First, I doubt he thought anyone would make the assumption that Jesus was stealing the donkey. Second, Matthew is trying to present Jesus as king, and telling the story in this bare bones way leaves open the impression of a sovereign requisitioning what he needed to accomplish his mission.
Most objections to scripture result more from what we say about scripture than from what scripture says itself. Don’t get stuck with unnecessary assumptions, even if they sound miraculous and holy.
-
A Difference in Agendas – John 11:1-16
I noticed a theme in this passage that I think is important. If you look at the response of the disciples when Jesus proposes to go to Bethany (v. 7-8). They believe it’s too dangerous to go there. It appears to me that for the two days that Jesus delayed, the disciples assumed that he was not going to Judea because of the danger.
It doesn’t say that explicitly at the beginning of the chapter, but since that is their immediate reaction when Jesus says he is going, I suspect they spent those two days in relief that Jesus had chosen not to go to Lazarus, even though he was sick.
But when Jesus announces that he will go to Bethany, the disciples suddenly realize that Jesus is not on their program. He has a kingdom agenda. He is going to do the thing that brings glory to God. Ultimately, this trip is dangerous–so dangerous that it leads to the cross.
The question for each one of us is this: When we come to that fork in the road, which agenda is first for us: personal safety or advancing the kingdom?
-
The Value of REB Eccentricity
Or perhaps I should say REB uniqueness.
One of the major reasons for using multiple Bible versions when studying the Bible in English (or any other language other than the originals) is to make yourself aware of alternate translations for particular passages. This goes beyond different ways of expressing the thought in English, to places in which the source language could be interpreted multiple ways, but even in the most literal translation, one must choose one or another option.
This morning in doing my lectionary reading, I chose the REB, and quickly found two examples: Genesis 12:3b and Psalm 121:1-2.
In Genesis 12:3, most translations use “in you will all nations of the earth be blessed” or something very similar. It is possible, however, to translate as the REB does:
All the peoples on earth
will wish to be blessed as you are blessed.Now it happens I prefer the option presented in most other versions, but most people would not be aware of the alternate possibility unless they check a footnote, or use the REB. This is a positive value for a version which is known for accepted readings that are a bit out of the mainstream. (Note that I love the REB for my own reading; I will disagree with any translation on various renderings, and I don’t let that concern me. As long as a reading is well supported technically, I would never count it against the translation.)
The second one is in Psalm 121. Verses 1 & 2 are normally translated in a slightly ambiguous way. Is one looking to the hills for help? Is one rejecting the hills in favor of the Lord? This becomes more interesting when one seeks a Sitz im Leben for the passage. For example, if it is a processional song going toward the temple mount, looking to the hills could stand in for looking to the Lord.
The REB, on the other hand, renders unambiguously (or less ambigously, if that is possible!):
If I lift up my eyes to the hills,
where shall I find help?
My help comes from the LORD,
maker of heaven and earth.In this case, I like the REB rendering slightly better. But my preference is not the point here. I think the REB can be a valuable addition to the library of the serious Bible student who does not know the source languages simply because it showcases some unusual readings. Of course, one hopes the student will be directed to the footnotes in all versions, as they often provide the same service.
-
A Desire to Please and a Fear to Offend – Psalm 95
Matthew Henry, in commenting on Psalm 95 says that “[t]his psalm must be sung with a holy reverence of God’s majesty and a dread of his justice, with a desire to please him and a fear to offend him.” I’m wondering just how that was derived from this Psalm.
I don’t doubt that there we should desire to please and fear to offend God, if for no other reason than that I believe God commands us to do merely what is best for us in any case. But in this Psalm we have a description of approaching God, and it doesn’t seem to match this solemnity. Working from God’s Word (GW), the first couple of verses refer to shouting, using adverbs like “joyfully” and “happily.”
Now I don’t think reverence and happiness are incompatible. I don’t think shouting and reverence are incompatible. But I know plenty of congregations where they would be seen as such. A person who approached the song service by shouting joyfully would be very unwelcome. I won’t accuse Matthew Henry of making such a mistake. I don’t know precisely what his approach to worship would be.
At the same time we turn to fearing to offend. Again, a joyous response doesn’t seem to involve a fear to offend, but rather points to a situation in which perfect love has cast fear out (1 John 4:18). And no, I don’t think I’m confusing the awe/fear of reverence with fear as in terror. The one fear the Psalm calls for is a fear of being stubborn and closed off to God’s direction, a fear of testing God.
I may have been unfair to Matthew Henry here, but his entry on this Psalm doesn’t seem to match the spirit of the work.
-
Exodus 17:1-7 – In and Out of Trouble
I provide some devotional thoughts (not particularly exegetical!) that I gleaned from this passage in my post today for my wife’s devotional list.
-
On Being a Stepfather
I was pleased to find a report on MSNBC.com on titled It’s tough being a stepdad. In my experience stepparents are often underrated, and do not receive much consideration. The stories we hear tend to be negative–when stepparents fail, as often we do.
You see, I am a stepfather. I got married late in life to a woman who had three lovely children already. The two oldest were already past the age of 18, and I remember with great amusement my pastor telling me that I didn’t have to worry about them. He gave excellent advice, but he missed it on that point. I still had occasion to be very much involved in their lives, despite their age, involving both joy and sorrow.
Our younger son was 12 years old, and was in chemotherapy for cancer when we got married. He passed away five years later. As things got more difficult with the cancer treatment a good friend of the family called me aside and said, “Henry, many people are going to ignore you in this situation because you’re the stepparent. But don’t forget to take care of yourself.” Well, some people did ignore me, but to be honest most people gave me all the consideration I could possibly ask for.
My relationship with all my children grew with time. Let me offer a word of advice from my experience: Don’t be in a hurry. Children don’t get used to you overnight, and trying to force things doesn’t help in the least. I tried to be very patient, and I have heard from the kids now that they are substantially older that they appreciated that. There are some things you have to get involved with, and there are some things you should. Just be sure you think carefully about which are which.
The second point I would make to other stepparents is that your relationship with your stepchild isn’t something that takes away from, or loses something to the relationship with the birth parent. While my children’s father was alive, I was careful not to say anything bad about him, and never to try to replace him. It won’t work, and it is neither necessary or desirable. You can have a good, constructive relationship with a stepchild that is yours, while nurturing and encouraging the relationship with their birth parent. My children’s father passed away suddenly, early in the morning, when he was out of town. My youngest son came to me within a few minutes after he heard the news and said, “Well, Henry, I guess it’s all up to you now!” He never called me “dad.” I was always his stepdad. I had and have no problem with that–stepdad is an honorable title.
I made it a note in my last paragraph, but let me make it explicit as well: My third suggestion is to never run down the child’s birth parent. It’s a game you’ll lose, and it’s a game you should lose. Learn what isn’t your business and stay out of it.
Now I have grandchildren. I like to call people’s attention to the bumper sticker that reads, “If I had known how much fun grandchildren were, I’d have had them first!” I say, “I did that!” There were easy points, and there were hard points, but it was all worth it.
I offer this for what it’s worth. This was just my experience, and I’m no expert. Not even close! But I do know that stepchildren can be a joy, and that giving stepparenting the time and attention it deserves is well worth the effort.
-
Origen and Bible Censorship Poll Results
You can see the poll results here if you haven’t done so already. I’m going to replace the poll with a new one. I posted this poll after reading Origen’s comment that immature Christians should not be permitted to read certain passages of scripture, especially the Song of Songs (or Song of Solomon).
I found this poll interesting, because as I expected there were few people who wanted to try to control church members’ Bible reading. I was wondering if there might be a few out there, but there were none. The only restriction that received any votes was that children shouldn’t be allowed to read sexually explicit passages (1 vote out of 20). The remainder were simply different ways of saying people should be allowed to read whatever they want.
Thanks to all who responded.