Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Bible Backgrounds

  • Imperfections in Scripture

    Lee at The Dubious Disciple generously and kindly reviewed my book When People Speak for God. In that review, he included the following sentence:

    A discussion of inerrancy follows, and how Henry’s recognition of the Bible’s imperfections has not disturbed his reverence for God’s Word.

    Now before I discuss this line, let me emphasize that this is not a critique or rebuttal of Lee’s review. I’m not saying he misunderstood me. What happened is that his particular phrasing suggested some clarifications to me, and I want to write about them now.

    Let’s start with an analogy. Supposing I’m viewing a sunset with one of my grandchildren. I might discuss imaginary shapes suggested by the clouds, the beauty of the colors, and the gift of beauty that God has given us. Were a scientist to hear my description, and think I was teaching my grandchild about the technical aspects of a sunset, he might well consider that there were serious imperfections in my talk on the sunset.

    In turn, if I was explaining the technical aspects to the same grandchild, discussing refraction, the composition of the atmosphere, cloud formation, the rotation of the earth, and so forth, while the scientists might be satisfied, if my wife heard the lecture, and supposed I was watching a pretty sunset, she might well consider that there were imperfections in my discussion of the sunset, which she would doubtless point out to me.

    Each of these ways of talking about the sunset is good and appropriate in its proper setting, and each is severely deficient when used in the wrong context.

    Now let me turn to the Bible. One of the points I endeavor to make regularly is that we must observe what the Bible is, rather than trying to predefine what the Bible should be. Instead, we often use texts such as 2 Peter 1:21 and 2 Timothy 3:16 (and if we’re lucky, 17) and construct our doctrine of what the scripture should be, whereupon we set to work trying to demonstrate that it is what it should be.

    I think it would be better to observe how the Bible came to be, and determine from that just how God speaks through scripture and how it is that we should hear his voice. My primary suggestion would be that everything in the Bible starts from God acting, and people experiencing God in action. From there, the writers report God’s actions in history.

    This necessarily involves their perceptions and their cultural backgrounds. This comes very strongly into play as we interpret Genesis 1 & 2 along with other creation stories. On the one hand we have objectors who see the creation story as deficient because it doesn’t tell a scientific story. On the other we have those who believe it must tell a scientific story, so therefore it does tell one.

    My question is just how we expect God to communicate to those who wrote this story. Should he first provide them with all the various scientific theories and data that would allow him to tell a story that we would take as scientifically accurate? What would happen then to believers a couple hundred years in the future? Might they not regard such a story as ridiculously primitive and therefore not divine?

    It’s my contention that God spoke to those people in the context of their culture and their cosmology. If I look at this as a scientific treatise or an historical record, I will, indeed, see imperfections. The Bible is very imperfect at being what it is not.

    While these elements of ancient cosmology may look like errors to us, they are actually “intentionals,” i.e., they are intentional elements of the way God chose to communicate with people and also chose to provide scripture.

    I would add further that the way in which the Bible was transmitted also points away from this kind of accurate fulfillment of our modern desires. I’d love to have good material on which to base precise dating of the kings of Judah and Israel. But if you try to line up those numbers you’ll find they don’t work so well. A massive effort of proposing co-regencies and various differences in recording accession years can bring much of it into line, but even Edwin R. Thiele (The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 1994) had to suggest that some of the final records of the northern kingdom had been lost. (I don’t have the page number, but I’ll hunt it down if anyone requests it.)

    The message of the books of Kings is not lost, however, because I can’t satisfy my curiosity. Thus what is an imperfection from my perspective is not an imperfection from another.

    I know this presents problems for some Christian apologists. The eternal effort to prove the Bible’s truthfulness, or at least make it highly probable, is very important to some. But the question is whether that enterprise matches God’s intent in scripture. As I mentioned earlier the benefit of 2 Timothy 3:17, which doesn’t say, “that the man of God may know history” or “that the man of God may know science.” Of course our understanding of how scripture is presented and how it came to be will impact the way we read that passage as well!

    Now just because the Bible is aiming to teach those subjects doesn’t mean it doesn’t have information on those topics. That is a separate investigation. What it does mean is that if we try to evaluate the Bible as a history or science book, we’ll find imperfections, since “perfect” always relates to a goal or standard. If we’re using the wrong standard, we’ll be misled.

  • Note on the Four Year Lectionary

    I’m doing a few comparisons of the passages in the four year lectionary I mentioned the other day. I’m posting them on my lectionary blog.

  • Brannon Howse Quotes an Etymological Fallacy

    Well, not a terrible one, at least not in the quoted material, which is from John MacArthur. But Howse makes an even bigger error. He first quotes Romans 16:17-18:

    Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple. [as quoted in referenced article, emphasis his]

    In commenting, he then quotes John MacArthur:

    The little word simple of the Hebrew language is real concrete, not abstract like Greek. Simple comes from a root word that means an open door. And a simple-minded person was somebody whose mind was always open… the simpleton was the person who had not enough discernment or discrimination or knowledge or understanding or wisdom to know what to accept and what to reject. And the Word of God will teach you how to close the door. It will teach you how to be wise. Wise is chakam in Hebrew, it means skilled in all aspects of living. [Howse’s source: John MacArthur, The Nature and Sufficiency of Scripture: http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/GTY111_The-Nature-and-Sufficiency-of-Scripture?q=simpleton]

     

    Do you notice the interesting error there? Howse quotes Romans, written in Greek, and then quotes John MacArthur, commenting on a Hebrews word. Now while I don’t think MacArthur’s definition of the Hebrew word is too bad (and he gives the actual reference, Psalms 19:8 [7 Heb], from which one can discover the intended word, pethiy), I still think demonstrating it from the etymology in this case is not the best plan. The word can be studied quite well by usage as it occurs 19 times in Hebrew scripture.

    A second issue for me would be whether this word is indeed more concrete than the Greek word used in Romans 16:18, akakõn. That seems plenty concrete to me. But of course, John MacArthur made no reference to Romans 16:18. He was dealing with Psalm 19:8, so we don’t know that MacArthur thinks pethiy is more concrete than akakõn.

    Howse, on the other hand, borrowed the etymology of a Hebrew word in order to apply it to a Greek passage. I’m not concerned with whether you agree with Howse’s position on the major topic. The problem here is demonstrating a lack of good procedure and knowledge in applying biblical languages.

  • Yet Again on the Meaning of Inerrancy

    John Hobbins is again correcting the rest of us regarding the meaning of the word inerrancy. The interesting thing here is that I can affirm everything he says about inspiration in his post.

    He writes in opposition to the approach taken by by Michael Heiser and C. Michael Patton, each of whom have written posts regarding how to deal with errors in the Bible.

    Now I’m going to be brief (don’t laugh!). Michael Heiser and C. Michael Patton aren’t idiots. I don’t mean here to imply that John Hobbins says they are. But a point I have made previously about inerrancy in response to John is that the common usage of the word “inerrancy” does not agree with the way John uses it.

    That doesn’t make Heiser and Patton more right about the inerrancy of scripture, but my observation is that their view accords with the more common understanding of what inerrancy means. Maybe people ought to mean something different, but they don’t. But I’m of the school of thought that suggests the meaning of words is to be determined by their usage, and by that standard, calling Hobbins’ view “inerrancy” is misleading. Most readers, at least non-academic readers, will understanding him to believe something different than he does.

    People in the pews tend to believe someone who claims to accept biblical inerrancy would be concerned with discussing whether Jacob bought or conquered Shechem (as Heiser does), or the details of gospel stories (as Patton does).

    But Hobbins says:

    Now, if you believe that it is part of the Holy Spirit’s teaching office to reveal to us that Jesus (say) healed two blind men at Jericho, not one; that Jacob (say) bought Shechem and then conquered it at a later time, you are claiming that the Holy Spirit speaks, not through Scripture, but through harmonizing exegetes. I oppose such outlandish claims.

    But if I ignore the vocabulary, I find I can affirm, indeed that I really like many of the phrases that Hobbins uses in regard to scripture and inspiration. I like to say that when we discover the message God has for us in scripture (always through the power of the Spirit), it is always true. Recently I have had to add the affirmation that we can discover that message. We have no need to walk in darkness.

    So why not use another term, such as simply stating that one has a high view of scripture?

  • Search Syriac Resources (Link)

    With hat tip to Bible Studies and Technological Tools, I link to a site that allows you to search online Syriac resources. Good stuff!

  • Monumental Hodge-Podge Biblical Studies Carnival

    It has been concocted and posted at Dr. Jim’s Thinking Shop. It is monumental. And a hodge-podge. Like I said.

  • Of Lead Codices and Crucifixion Nails

    Actually the headline is just hype. I’m not going to say much about them. By the time things settle down to where I think I have something to say, somebody else has already said it. I guess I’m just slow.

    But here’s a great quote from James McGrath at Exploring Our Matrix:

    Even while the media has begun to take notice of serious doubts about the authenticity of the lead codices, a new story is circulating about the alleged discovery of the nails with which Jesus was crucified. I wonder if they are made of lead and have inscriptions upon them, and had earlier been used to hold Noah’s Ark together.

    I think that just about tells the tale!

  • Some Basic Linguistics

    One of the great problems I find in teaching biblical languages, or in explaining Bible translation to lay audiences, is that people don’t understand meaning very well. They assume that words have fixed, narrow ranges of meaning, and that if you search carefully, you can find a word or phrase to precisely represent that word in the target language.

    Most of them have some idea that this might not be right, but that hasn’t seeped through to their practice. A few questions usually suffices to get the process started.

    I’m embedding a video from Wycliffe Bible Translators (UK), or rather audio with a slide show, that does a good job with the basic concepts. This one doesn’t go in depth. What it does is clear a lot of the ground and get some basic structures in place. (HT: Kouya Chronicle.)

     

     

  • Biblioblog Top 50 and Carnival

    The top 50 is up, and Jim West is hosting the carnival with his usual snark. I’m #25 in the former, and not present in the latter. Enjoy!

  • History of the Bible for 3rd Graders

    I was surprised to be invited to teach a session on the history of the Bible to the third grade class at my home church. So what does one do with about a half an hour to talk about the history of the Bible with about 20 lively 3rd graders?

    I chose to create some slides using generations to illustrate the time that has passed since various key points in the history of the Biblical text. Using 20 years as a generation I put little people icons on slides, starting with somewhere around my own age compared to theirs, and then multiplying until I got back to the time of the Exodus. I interspersed the time charts with images dealing with what happened during that time frame in the history of the Bible.

    I hadn’t tried to teach that age group in more than 30 years, so I was a bit nervous. How did it go?

    They were really engaged with the time element, counting my icons of people, multiplying and checking the math. They had intelligent questions throughout, especially about the nature of writing and how manuscripts were copied.

    While I didn’t overdo the big words, these kids didn’t need me to add a lot of fun–they regarded the topic as fun. I think our kids are ready to learn. We just need to be ready to let them.