Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Bible Study

  • Bibles: Turning a Blessing into a Curse

    I have blogged a number of times on the benefits of having multiple English Bible versions to use in Bible study, especially for the student who does not know Biblical languages. I did so most recently in my post From Word to Study, in my series on word studies.

    Yesterday I got an e-mailed link to a blog post titled all these translations, arrgh in e-mail in which the writer narrated a journey through confusion to some sort of solid ground with reference to Bible study. It’s not his conclusion that causes me to disagree, but rather the fact that he and so many others have to go through such a journey. I do disagree with his preference for formal equivalence versions for study, but that’s another topic. Others may be less careful than he was and get stuck in some very dangerous places.

    Why is it that the blessing of having the Bible readily available in English can so often be turned into a curse. Here are some of the common complaints I hear:

    1. I can’t follow the pastor’s scripture reading. It’s not the same as in my Bible.
    2. I like the rich language of the KJV
    3. The differences in versions causes confusion. Nobody knows what to believe.
    4. There are missing/added passages in that Bible!

    How do we respond to this? Well, it’s valuable to educate people on the process of translation and the reasons why translations differ. I try to do this in my book What’s in a Version?, which is actually simply the lesson materials for a seminar I’ve taught several times. I’m looking at extracting from this a shorter version titled “Choosing a Bible” with additional material on choosing Bibles with study notes, and then expanding the current book, which only has a couple of paragraphs on the major issue of gender language, for example. Such education is good, and of course I like to sell books! 🙂

    But let’s look at these objections and some things we can do to help people understand through what we do in church, Sunday School, and other such studies on a daily basis.

    1. Have a pew Bible.
      We like people to bring their Bibles to church, but the one way to be sure everyone can read together is through use of a pew Bible. Then identify the translation you’re using and let the congregation know that it is in the same version as the one in their pew. This can also help with unison reading and responsive reading. People can still choose to use their own Bibles, but then they’re on their own. Consider also preaching about Bibles, and perhaps also sponsor a missionary who is translating the Bible. Bring your missionary to the church to speak.
    2. It may be difficult to deal with the “rich language” issue. In some churches, the answer may be a Bible that has more majestic language, though in modern English, such as the REB or the NJB. In other cases you may simply have to explain to some members that in order to reach the unchurched who don’t understand “churchy” language, you’re reading from a more modern version. To those who love the KJV, I suggest setting up a small study group of those who are of like mind, and using the KJV in your group. This will have the added advantage of adding a Bible study event to your week.
    3. Differences in Bible translations are generally only a major problem to those who use the proof text method. The best answer to this is to train your congregation (whether you are a pastor or other leader) in how to study and to lead them to base their beliefs on a broader range of scriptures and a more secure foundation of interpretation.
    4. It’s a bit more difficult to deal with the whole passage differences simply because you need to deal with how texts are copied, but again, educating people to broaden their scriptural base will help, because no major doctrines are based solely on disputed passages. Education and study are still the key.

    More important than any of the specifics is to constantly celebrate the availability of the scriptures in your teaching, preaching, and in your daily life. Be aware that even very good technical criticism can drive people from the Bible. My own dislike for the Living Bible had to be sidelined just a bit when I found that it was the first Bible my wife had read, and resulted in her coming to the Lord. What if someone had gotten to her first with a charge of corruption? Criticism of Bible versions is healthy, and often required. There is no Bible version that cannot be justifiably criticized. But such criticism should always be put into context.

    The abundance of Bibles is a blessing–let’s strive to keep it that way!

  • ESV Endorsements

    I’ve written a considerable amount of negative stuff, not about the ESV itself, though I do have a few complaints, but about its supporters. Thus when a friend e-mailed me a new endorsement, I thought I’d take a look at why these endorsers regard the ESV so highly. The latest endorsement is ESV: the long-awaited Palmertree endorsement. The key thing about this endorsement is that, well, there is no key thing. It’s sort of an “I waited a long time and then got comfortable with it” kind of endorsement.

    He does, however, cite three other endorsements: John Piper, Philip Ryken, and Mark Driscoll. I’ve dealt with Mark Driscoll’s comments before (more recently here), though he has revised the material a bit, but the bottom line is still the same. After reading the other two, I have to say that they have added little, so I’m not going to go over them point by point.

    There are three elements in these endorsements of the ESV:

    1. Nostalgia
    2. Theological positions
    3. The allure of literal “accuracy”

    Nostalgia

    Nostalgia was something that drove the KJV only movment for years. Now many people who might earlier have been sort of gentle KJV advocates are realizing they need some modern version, and the ESV has proven the least shocking option. I actually have little problem with someone using a Bible for reasons of nostalgia. If you understand the ESV, and you enjoy it, go ahead and use it. The same thing goes for the KJV.

    Where I have a problem with nostalgia is in churches when its used for public reading and especially outreach. Too often church people regard something as obvious, clear, enjoyable, and downright cuddly and loveable, when most of the people who come through the door find it anything but. Consider your audience when choosing a Bible translation for use in the pews.

    Theological Positions

    First, I do not mean that one must not hold any theological positions, nor do I mean a position that holds the Bible to be inspired and accurate translation to be important. I have never run into anyone who doesn’t think the Bible should be translated accurately. Disagreements are about precisely what constitutes accuracy, and how one goes about achieving it.

    What I mean here, however, is selecting a Bible based on how well your favorite texts support your favorite theological positions. If you have carefully examined the source languages, and tested how the English expression would be understood, and you then regard the expression used as the best expression of the meaning (pause for breath!)–then that’s fine. But that’s not what I see argued. People simply announce that the Bible in question, especially the ESV, supports their conclusion. How about some linguistic arguments, assuming you endorsers are capable of presenting them.

    The Allure of Literal “Accuracy”

    I put accuracy in quotes because I think this is the great failing of this entire school of Bible translating. It’s an example of the one ended telephone cord approach to meaning. In communication, there is no “accuracy” except in terms of what the receiver actually receives. You may think “propitiation” is a wonderful word, which accurately conveys the meaning of the Greek word hilasterion, but if the hearer hears “blablabla” instead, no meaning is accurately conveyed.

    Of course, ESV advocates will announce that they can explain the word propitiation, and then the congregation will understand it. Well, so can the Bible translators, by translating hilasterion into something the readers understand in the first place. You complain that those using dynamic equivalence deny the readers the chance to decide for themselves. Well, all your process does is deny them the same choice by passing it on to their pastor, who has likely determined what “propitiation” means based on his church’s doctrinal statement.

    Accurate translation has to convey meaning accurately from the source language to the reader or hearer in the receptor language. I repeat what has become nearly a mantra for me: There is no accuracy in a vacuum. It’s only accurate communication if the hearer accurately hears it.

  • Is it a Hoax?

    Rev. Rob Schenck of the National Clergy Council issued a statement attacking the forthcoming documentary on the grave of Jesus and his family. It was titled TV Special on Jesus’ Grave — a Hoax?. Though I have already commented on what I see is a completely unscientific and unscholarly hype, this is not terribly surprising in terms of the shallow reporting the media gives to historical projects. “Hoax” is probably too strong a word. One must, after all, take into account the standards (such as they are) of the industry before condemning a single individual. The documentary will probably have as much truth as one would expect–very little.

    But Rev. Schenck himself engaged in some similarly unscientific and unscholarly rhetoric himself:

    “Media outlets should exercise restraint in reporting Cameron’s Hollywood fiction masquerading as scientific fact. All of Jesus’ contemporaries recorded Christ rose after being dead for three days and ascended into Heaven. For 2,000 years people of faith along and countless scholars have pored over the Scriptures, confirming their veracity. A Hollywood director is the least qualified to render any determination of Biblical truth. Not only so, but the people Mr. Cameron has partnered with completely lack credibility. One has been discredited by experts as a charlatan. This is nothing more than a modern day circus sideshow. At best it is pure presumption. At worst, it is pure chicanery.” [Emphasis mine]

    Instead of responding with a more reasoned approach to the evidence, Schenck responds with hyped rhetoric. It is plainly obvious that not every contemporary recorded that Jesus rose and ascended into heaven. That might be good advertising copy, but it is not good scholarship, nor does it do anything to promote a Christian understanding. The second sentence I emphasized simply affirms that Christians have believed in the resurrection. It is certainly debatable from a historical point of view. It’s interesting also that the National Clergy Council chooses to present a response from a person whose bio shows no signs of any qualifications in archeology or history at all.

    For me, the resurrection of Jesus is an article of faith. I welcome neither careless documentaries, as this one will almost doubtless turn out to be (it’s claims are clearly excessive), nor do I welcome hyped and careless defense of my faith.

  • Finding the Tomb of Jesus

    A documentary to be shown on the Discovery Channel purports to have discovered the tomb and the ossuary of Jesus (CNN story here).

    I’m amazed that something like this would be called a “documentary” since there is next to no possibility of sufficient evidence for such a claim. The sad thing is that archeological claims, when popularized, rarely resemble anything a trained archeologist would actually say. Archeology is not about searching for a specific person’s remains or some specific artifact, Indiana Jones movies notwithstanding.

    This is not, however, solely a province of opponents of Christianity. When archeological discoveries have even the slightest relationship to the Biblical text, Christians will portray them as new “proofs” of the accuracy of the Bible. Inevitably they do no such thing, but each side contributes to this attitude of proving or disproving. Then of course others make discoveries that disprove Christianity, but later these prove to be no such thing either.

    Scientific historical study doesn’t work this way. The point is not to prove or disprove an entire collection of documents, such as the Bible, but rather to determine historicity point by point and create a most probable reconstruction of historical events. That process involves a great deal of nuance, and a willingness to admit ignorance in many cases, or tentative conclusions in many others.

    Both the statements “archeology proves the Bible” and “archeology disproves the Bible” are silly. The Bible is not a single source from the historical point of view, and sources are not proven or disproven, rather, individual elements of a story will be determined to be more or less probable.

  • Logos Library Resource on Ancient Israelite History

    I got an e-mail yesterday from a representative of Logos Bible Software alerting me to the Origins of Ancient Israelite Religion collection which is currently at the “gathering interest” phase. He mentioned that this package is in danger of not gathering enough interest.

    I hope those who use the Logos Bible Software and are interested in this topic will take a look. It looks like a good deal to me. I’m quite addicted to my Logos system, especially the Scholar’s Library and Original Languages Library packages. Many of the books that come free with the system are not of much interest to me, but I have found all the additional cost packages worth the price. So take a look at this package.

    For what it’s worth I’m not paid to endorse this, though the links I provided above to the original software do go to my Amazon.com store. 🙂 Buy enough copies through my links and I could get some of the extra goodies I want for my Logos installation!

  • Was Priscilla the Author of Hebrews?

    Ruth Hoppin, author of Priscilla’s Letter, is the author of the month on the Religion Forum. There is a mildly interesting discussion going on there, though it could use some additional debate, so check it out.

  • New Series on Word Studies

    When I divided my blogging between three blogs, I didn’t realize how hard it would be to do. It seemed logical to me to keep all my religion and society stuff here–theology, politics, economics, science, education–do Bible studies at Participatory Bible Study Blog and indulge my love of fiction at Jevlir Caravansary. Well, it wasn’t so easy.

    My new series on Word Studies is a good example of this. It could have been here, but it ended up there, so I thought I’d provide a link. I’ll be discussing how word studies are done by Bible students, especially those who don’t know the source languages, and some of the dangers and pitfalls.

  • Bible Quiz Score

    Hmmm. Having read about this at Abnormal Interests (Is a Better Score Better or Worse?) I decided to take it. I got 100%, though actually I’d give the test only about 80%. Does this qualify me to be an unbeliever? 🙂

    You know the Bible 100%!

     

    Wow! You are awesome! You are a true Biblical scholar, not just a hearer but a personal reader! The books, the characters, the events, the verses – you know it all! You are fantastic!

    Ultimate Bible Quiz
    Create MySpace Quizzes

  • Biblical Studies Carnival XIV

    . . . has been posted. There’s a link to one of mine and there are also links to many very substantive posts which is what I go to this particular carnival to find. As I have time after this weekend of the John Webb Winter Golf Tournament, I will try to link to some specific posts both here and at the Pacesetters Bible School blog as it seems appropriate.

  • Doctrinal Statements and Bible Use

    A friend e-mailed me about a post which caught my attention. It seems that a blogger wanted to use the feed of the ESV Bible from the official web site, but found that the terms of service required him to accept a doctrinal statement first (relevant links are in his entry).

    Personally, I think that the blogger, Kevin Wilson, was pretty nice about the whole thing. He’s correct, of course, that they have the right to make any terms of service they wish. But the fact that they do have a doctrinal statement in their terms of service does lead me to ask something about the priority of doctrine over scripture–or the reverse.

    Personally, I’m convinced that getting people to read the Bible for themselves is a good thing. For one thing, there’s nothing like exposure to actual Bible passages in context to convince one that inerrancy isn’t a very viable approach. (Yes, I know that intelligent, educated people agree with me. They’ll say that I’m wrong, and I say that they’re wrong, which is as it should be.) Further, however, I do believe that the Holy Spirit works through the study of scripture in reaching individual minds. So I’m not even content with Wilson’s acceptance that one might not want the service used on a site that mocked the Bible.

    What better benefit could a site have than to have multiple links back to their own work from sites that opposed them? Who do they want to have reading their Bible? Perhaps this is the true confirmation of what I keep hearing from some defenders of the ESV–it was not really designed to be understood by unchurched people, so the doctrinal statement makes sure that readers will know the language into which the ESV is translated.

    But I suspect it’s more likely simply that this is an attack of random exclusivism. The site provides a translation for people who agree with them. Surely people who don’t believe in inerrancy and the several other doctrines they list will not even be able to comprehend the Bible anyhow, so what good would it be to them?

    Personally, I’m going to keep advocating easily read translations that are made as widely available as possible. It just seems like the Christ-like thing to do.

    This leads me to ask something about the priority of doctrine over scripture.