Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Bible Study Method

  • Another Reason to Hate Study Bibles

    Thomas Nelson has release The American Patriot’s Bible: The Word of God and the Shaping of America*, which is a Bible so lousy in concept that one can dislike it without even bothering to read it.  (HT: Christ my righteousness.)  You’ve probably heard the cliche, “It’s a really bad book, that’s why I never read it?”  OK.  I’m caught.  But I’m still not going to read it.

    I don’t really hate study Bibles.  I’ve reviewed some of them before.  They can provide valuable background information and ideas.  But in too many Bible classes I see students reading the footnotes in place of the Biblical text, and assuming that the notes are correct, rather than interacting with what the Bible text (you know, the part normally printed on the top half of the page) actually says.

    But the Patriot’s Bible goes a step further by simply mating two sets of concepts.  It is really quite rare that American patriotic stories and symbols go directly with the passage of scripture one is reading.  In many cases, the text might just go quite contrary to these symbols.

    But by putting information on a particular page of the Bible, one suggests (to the suggestible, at least) that the Bible in that particular place actually embraces what is contained in that extraneous information.  Unfortunately, I know people in churches who are just careless enough to believe this without actually checking.

    The first rule of interpretation should be to actually read the words of the text you’re interpreting, even if only in translation.

    * Note that I provide this link for information purposes only. I do not in any sense recommend buying the book to which the link leads you.

  • 100 Enlightening Bible Study Blogs

    According to ChristianColleges.com (link removed due to odd request by linked site), and since they include this blog, how could I argue?

    Well, besides including me, there are a number of others on the list that are on my blogroll, and several other sites that I use regularly in study.  If I have time, I’ll look over the entire list, but that won’t be a very fast process.

  • Thoughts on Leviticus 1

    I’ve now read through the first chapter of Leviticus using the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary on Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.  I want to caution readers that I’m reflecting on and responding to the text of the commentary, and not just repeating it.  If I don’t identify a thought as coming from Baker (David W. Baker, author of the Leviticus portion), don’t blame him for it.  I will try to clearly identify those portions.

    I decided to add a bit to my study by trying a new way to use the Orthodox Study Bible, which I have already reviewed negatively.  Since the translation tends to annoy me, especially in the Old Testament, I’m reading the Biblical text in Greek from Rahlf’s (on which the introduction says the translation was based), and then reading just the notes from the Bible.  I’ll comment on this a bit more below.

    One theme I’m following throughout the commentary is worship.  Baker used the phrase “handbook for worship” back in the introduction (p. 4) and I want to see how he works that out.  In his comments on the first chapter, he has been very clear.  On page 24 he introduces the question “What can we take from this chapter that will help us in our worship?”  He continues with about 1 1/3 pages of discussion.  I think a key to this is his comment that:

    …The whole being, not just the intellect, would have been caught up in this celebration of worship for the God who held life itself in his hand, who gave blessings and heard prayers, and who even smelled the scent of his people’s worship.

    Is not our contemporary worship too often more cerebral than sensory, thinking about God rather than celebrating him? … (p.25, emphasis mine)

    Baker goes on to indicate that beliefs and thinking are important as well, but that we are perhaps not balanced.

    What struck me throughout, and was mentioned in other sources I read on this book as well, is that the tabernacle worship was very visual, or indeed more broadly sensory.  One doesn’t get the impression of a quiet place of meditation, or a building of one’s personal relationship.  One’s gift is public, presented in the community at a tabernacle in the center of the community, to a God who manifests his presence in that tabernacle.

    All of the introductions also emphasize how revelation comes from the tabernacle.  God shows his presence there and he speaks to the community from there.  Leviticus is largely presented as divine speech, and this speech comes from that center (Lev. 1:1).  Often we–and I am certainly guilty here–present hearing from God as an individual activity to be done in our times of devotion, personal prayer, and reflection.  Leviticus presents a very different picture of God speaking in, from, and about the various rituals of corporate worship.

    The introduction from the New Interpreter’s Study Bible points out something interesting about the structure.  They note that the book has 36 speeches of God, introducted by “the LORD said.”  In addition, there are twelve major summarizing statements which tend to divide the book into 12 parts.  These kinds of structural elements are often subject to subjective judgment (NISB points out two minor summaries as well), but do indicate an intentional and careful creation of the final form of the book, irrespective of how one dates it.

    In reading from three sources this morning, the Cornerstone commentary, the NISB, and the Orthodox Study Bible, there was one issue on which three divergent opinions were expressed.  Baker understands the laying on of hands as indicating that the animal is a substitute (p. 22), and he dismisses the idea of indication of ownership.  The NISB, on the other hand (p. 148, note on Lev. 1:4) states that this laying on of hands indicated ownership.

    The Orthodox Study Bible phrases it differently, and I think this expression is consistent with Orthodox theology.  (Perhaps one of my Orthodox readers can confirm this for me or correct any error).  It says:

    Here, the worshiper placed his hand on the head of the animal and killed it, and in so doing united with the offering; for the animal’s death became the death of the offerer. … (p. 118, comment on Lev. 1:4)

    I am going to keep those three expressions in mind as I continue this study.  Which best expresses the understanding of sacrifice in Leviticus?  In protestantism there is a certain desire to get a “pure” substitution out of Leviticus, but I don’t see that clear of an expression.  On the other hand, Baker’s comment that ownership was already indicated by the worshiper bringing the animal, so what was added by laying on hands, is a cogent criticism of the “ownership” idea.

    It seems likely to me that the idea of identification, which the OSB then carries forward to the identification of the believer in baptism with Christ’s death, is closer to the thought of Leviticus.  Milgrom (150-153), however,  makes a fairly strong case for hand-leaning as an indication of ownership, and dismisses identification because of its magical nature.  This will be one to watch and think about as my study progresses.

    As a final note, I did find the OSB much more usable when I did not read the translation.  I’m going to continue the practice of reading the scripture from the Greek and then reading the notes while ignoring the translation for awhile.

    Abbreviations:

    OSB – Orthodox Study Bible

    NISB – New Interpreter’s Study Bible

    Milgrom – Milgrom, Jacob.  Anchor Bible:  Leviticus 1-16.

    Baker – Leviticus portion written by David H. Baker, of the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary on Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

  • The Extras in your Bible Edition

    David Ker is concerned about section titles in your Bible.  And well he should be.

    I frequently talk about avoiding reading the “lower half” of your Bible when you study.  What I mean by the “lower half” is the study notes that so many editions put at the bottom of the page.  Now this is something that applies particularly to study Bibles, and it’s not subtle–you can easily tell whether you’re reading the Biblical text or the notes.  One of my pet peeves is people reading a note from their Bible when I ask for their thoughts on a text.

    But what David is talking about is much more subtle, and it’s easy to miss.  The fact is that the chapter, paragraph, and verse divisions in your Bible were not created by the original authors, but are part of the translation process.   If you take a text that was not divided into paragraphs and divide it, you will do so based on your understanding of the text.  If you add titles, those will be based on your perception of the way the text should be understood.

    Go check out David’s post for a good example of how the meaning might be adjusted in this way.  Then when you study your Bible, give consideration to the possibility that the main point isn’t what the title suggests, or that the text might flow through that paragraph division.

  • The 24/7 One Year Chronological Bible

    The greatest difficulty I have in reviewing this Bible edition is distinguishing between what interests me and what might be helpful for people who are wanting to put more spark in their Bible study.

    24/7: A One Year Chronological Bible from Tyndale House is directed at a particular purpose, and it fulfills that purpose quite well.  I tend to emphasize the translation in discussing Bibles, but individual readers tend to look for a particular edition, often buying a Bible not for the translation, the Biblical text it uses, but for the features of that edition.  What most people look for in a Bible edition is a single volume that will generally be “their” Bible for study, for reading, for use in church–pretty much everything.

    If you look at this Bible from that point of view, it’s not going to make it.  It doesn’t have any study notes (no surprise), and it would be very difficult to find verses as needed.

    My point is not to criticize this edition for not doing what it does not intend to do, but rather to emphasize that it’s good for a particular purpose.  It provides a new approach to reading the Bible through and becoming acquainted with its story.

    There are a number of ways to think of the Bible story.  One is to think of the books are they are collected and put together, the story of the formation of the Bible. This is important, and relates to the process of canonization and thus to the history of the church, our community of faith.  Another way is to look for theological themes.  This Bible provides a way to address the story line, the record of how God has acted.

    In addition, it’s designed for the spiritual discipline of Bible reading.  Biblical materials are arranged chronologically, so that you will hear Psalms in the editors best guess as to where they belong, and you will read the messages of the prophets at the time when they were written.

    There are some obvious difficulties with this approach, one being that not everyone will agree on where things belong.  Psalm 104 is placed with a large group of Psalms, some other wisdom literature, and portions of (1st) Isaiah just after the fall of the northern kingdom.  I know of people who would argue both substantially earlier and substantially later.  Obviously they have to put it somewhere, and that’s not a bad choice.

    Several books whose dating might be controversial are placed in traditional positions.  The book of Jonah is placed right after the narration of the reign of Jeroboam II with a note that Jonah’s ministry occurred during this period, which assumes that the book is not pseudonymous, and many scholars believe.  All of second and third Isaiah is placed inside the reign of Hezekiah, and Daniel is placed in the late 7th/early 6th century.

    These aren’t bad choices, as the reasoning for other dating would have to be explained to the average Bible reader, and there is also an argument for hearing the books in one sense as they were intended to hear.  Whether pseudonymous or not, Jonah bears the name of a prophet from the reign of Jeroboam II, Isaiah internally claims to be written in a period spanning the reign of Hezekiah, and Daniel provides a 7th-6th century chronology for itself.  Nonetheless, I think it’s worth noting.

    Now let me get more to the purpose of the book.  It’s intended to provide a year long reading program, allowing the reading to experience the Bible story in a new way, one that would be very hard to do normally.  I think that’s a laudable goal, and the editors are completely successful.  This shouldn’t be your first reading Bible, but if you’ve read the Bible through at least once, it will be a good way to experience it again.

    One of the great errors of many deep Bible students is to get so focused on the trees (such as the details I discussed above) that they don’t get a picture of the story.  This Bible will help fulfill that need.

    Positives:

    1. Single column text aids reading
    2. Good arrangement with readings identified in the text.  There’s a guide in the back, but you won’t have to use it.
    3. Use of the NLT text.  The NLT is extremely well suited for a Bible of this type
    4. Approximate timeline
    5. It isn’t your “carry to church” Bible and it nowhere pretends that it is.

    Neutral:

    1. There is a Christian symbol chosen and featured each month of reading.  This doesn’t do anything for me, but I’m guessing it will for others.
    2. Scripture index, necessary for looking up particular texts, but not needed for the main purpose of the book.

    Negative:

    1. Size and print size. This could also be positive, but it strikes me as negative based on the purpose.  It’s a bit small.  That makes it portable, which could be useful, but at the same time a bit harder to read and to use.
    2. Binding.  I don’t know about this, but my wife believes the binding will not be durable enough if one is reading through it in the year.

    Since I cited my wife, I should mention her other comments.  She didn’t like the print and binding that much, but she very much liked the idea of having a Bible arranged chronologically.  She thinks more devotionally than I do, so that’s worth mentioning.

    Despite the comments on binding and print, in general this is a wonderful addition to the available tools for students of the Bible.

    Now we just need to start using them.  We are richer in Bible study tools right now in the English language, yet our Biblical knowledge continues to deteriorate.  That indicates a lack of desire or will, I think, as there is certainly no excuse for someone who reads English and wants to know the Bible not to do so.

  • A New Kind of Publishing

    When I was persuading by my wife and daughter to get a 21st century cell phone, my now indispensable Palm Centro, my friends were amused but not surprised that I soon had Bible software on it.

    I must confess that the one time I used that Bible in church I got some really suspicious looks.  “That guy’s using his cell phone during the church service!”  No, but I was checking out a passage the preacher was using in the ESV, which is the version I have on the phone.  (No, the ESV is not my favorite, but it’s quite usable for me.)

    At the same time, I’m dealing with the fact that in my own publishing work I’m finding that many more people want content that is accessible online, and you simply don’t get to talk to them if you don’t make things available now, and don’t make them interactive.

    David Ker relates these new realities to Bible publishing, and notes some of the potential problems as well.  I have found the same problem he has with devotional time.  I can often work Bible reading and study time into my electronically herded day, but prayer, meditation, and listening to the Holy Spirit are substantially more difficult.  For those I have to cut myself off from the world.

    There is a problem, as I noted tangentially in my post about church yesterday, with equating the technology we use to solve problems with the problems and/or the solutions themselves.  For example, the problem of keeping in touch with one another during the week so that we can spur one another to good works is not solved by employing technology as such; rather, technology can help us do what needs to be done.  It’s also excessively easy to equate social trends with the technology on which they feed; I’m certainly guilty of that.  But all these things do interact.

    I think the basic question will remain whether our tools control us, or we will control our tools.  The new interactivity can provide many new opportunities.  One element of the method of Bible study I teach is sharing.  By sharing I mean hearing from others as well as speaking to others, and testing what you think you heard from God against what others think and hear.  Technology, and particularly the number of voices we can hear will either help or hinder that process, depending on how we use them.  We can now interact with many more people, from many more points of view, but will we interact with them effectively and seriously, or will it be superficial contact?

    The potential is tremendous.  I congratulate David for getting us all thinking about this.  How do we use both social trends and the technology that accompanies or feeds them to improve our Bible study and our spiritual lives?

  • Using Greek and Hebrew in Preaching

    Bill Mounce has some excellent suggestions.

  • Mounce on What the Greek Says

    Bill Mounce, author of the wonderful Basics of Biblical Greek, which I have used in teaching, has a post at Koinonia titled <em>Matthew 7:26-Is a moros a moron</em>, with the very proper answer–NO!

    There are two things I’d like to call attention to in this post.  The first is an excellent illustration of the false allure of etymology or seeking cognates.  This is more for the serious Hebrew student, but while sometimes one must look for ideas for a “hapax legomenon” in cognate language, one should be aware that the cognate provides ideas, not proof of a new meaning.  Context provides the final judgement, and if a word occurs once, that means that humility is called for regarding that final judgment.

    The second is the sprinkling of “what the Greek says” (or Hebrew) into sermons, especially by those who don’t really know, which is the vast majority of times I’ve heard this used.

    Mounce says:

    I know it is tempting to show a little Greek knowledge and try to create a helpful word picture, but unless you are absolutely confident that your Greek is absolutely right, I strongly urge you not to display your Greek knowledge.

    Which brings me to the general point. I encourage my students to never say, “In the Greek ….” Why would you do that? To impress the audience with your academic acumen? To convince them that you are right when you can’t prove your point with biblical logic? Perhaps I am being a little harsh, but I am sensitive to pastors claiming to be an authority and putting themselves up on a pedestal. That’s not where servants belong.

    Just so.  I have rarely been privileged to quote two paragraphs from a blog post with which I agree more completely.

    PS:  You’ll have to read Mounce’s whole post to discover more about morons!

  • Bill Arnold on the Composition of Genesis

    I have written quite a bit about this topic on this blog, and am also doing a series related to it on my Threads blog, so I was glad to see another summary article (HT:  Dr. Platypus).  Most lay people are not well acquainted with critical theories about the Pentateuch, as they get the briefest of descriptions followed by either a dismissal from one side or an assertion of scholarly consensus on the other.

    Bill Arnold’s article is very useful for several reasons.  He outlines the overall theory very well along with traditional dating of the various sources.  He discusses some of the possibilities for the history of those sources, and alternative dating.  He does take up some non-traditional views, but in several cases (looking at the dating of P, and some of what he says on H), I happen to agree.  It’s always nice for the non-specialist to find some fine scholar agreeing with his much less sophisticated opinions!  I was convinced by the linguistic arguments from Dr. Jacob Milgrom in his Leviticus commentary from the Anchor Bible series, whose praises I sing from time to time.

    Having said all that, I commend the article to those who would like to know more about this topic.

  • My Favored Translation Method

    John Hobbins divided translations into two classes in a recent post.

    Which do you prefer: (1) a translation that makes sense on its own, without off-site explanation, or (2) a translation that is a head-scratcher until an explanation is given which clears things up, and even then leaves you wondering if you have it right?

    Almost everyone I know, except J. K. Gayle whom I wish to congratulate for his well-earned doctorate, prefers, all others things being equal, a type (1) translation. …

    Now I have a bit of a problem with that division of the types of translations.  I’m guessing that John thinks I prefer type 1 translations, since he has responded to some of my comments and I’m not J.K. Gayle, so I’m going to respond as though his answer refers to me.  As for J.K. Gayle, he has produced a new blog on Bible translation, which I won’t claim to completely understand, but will certainly read regularly.

    That leaves me as a “type 1 preferer” by default.

    But is that actually the case?  Frankly I have a hard time understanding this division.  I am, in fact, an advocate of just about every variety of translation, depending on the purpose for which it is used.

    Thus when one is going to sit at one’s desk and study out a passage with commentaries, concordances, and other reference sources, I would often be quite happy with John’s variety #2.

    On the other hand, if I’m giving a Bible to a child or young person, or someone who has not previously read the Bible, I’m likely to start with #1.

    I frequently ask people to read lengthy passages from the Bible, such as whole books, and again for that purpose I like a Bible that is easy to comprehend without going to external references.

    Some may wonder if this is not giving people a wrong impression of the meaning of the various passages they read.  The problem here is the assumption that the result of one person’s long study of an obscure verse in a translation that leaves it obscure will result in enlightenment.  (John does not partake of this error.  He recognizes the tentative nature of conclusions in the post I cited above.)

    A person who uses an easy-to-read translation in order to get an overview will not discover all the possibilities for interpretation of the text.  That should be no surprise.  One won’t do that while reading for overview in any case.  Getting an overview of a passage or book is simply one part of studying the passage and should be supplemented by others.

    So I would have to say, if asked whether I choose the Bible versions behind door #1 or door #2, “Yes.”  On any particular occasion it would depend on the individual (or audience) and the purpose for which the translation would be used.

    No translation conveys all that the source text will convey, nor can it be expected to.  One must match what is conveyed to the needs of the situation.