Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Biblical Criticism

Discussion of the historical-critical method and its various methodologies and their application to Bible study and formation of doctrine.

  • Does Gordon Fee Discard Part of the Bible?

    In the third part of his interview series, Adrian Warnock makes the following comment in asking a question of Dr. Wayne Grudem:

    I was impressed by your compassion and fairness in the introduction of your new book expressed towards your egalitarian colleagues who you mention by name.

    At a later point, talking about Dr. Gordon Fee, Wayne Grudem says:

    I doubt that people understand the full implications of a move like Gordon Fee’s in his commentary on 1 Corinthians when he basically says that 1 Corinthians 14:33

  • Brief Thoughts on Hebrew Poetry

    A few days ago Wayne Leman blogged about translating Hebrew poetry, and referred to an article by Philip C. Stine Biblical Poetry and Translation. The article is really excellent, and nothing I’m about to say here is intended to criticize that article as such.

    I’ve been very interested in translation of Hebrew poetry, but I think successful translation ranges from difficult to effectively impossible. The two translations I think do the best job into English are the Revised English Bible, and New Jerusalem Bible. One key feature of the NJB is the use of the Yahweh rather than “the LORD” for the name of God, which would obviously make it unacceptable to orthodox and conservative Jewish readers. In poetic terms, however, I think that helps just a bit.

    Referring to James Kugel, Stine says:

    In fact, he examines many traditional classifications of biblical parallelism, including the categories of Lowth, synonymous, antithetical, and synthetic, and finds them wanting. The ways of parallelism are numerous and varied, and the intensity of the semantic parallelism established between clauses might be said to range from zero perceivable correspondence to near perceivable differentiation.

    Now this is a good point, and one that a couple of my professors made to me when I was in graduate school back in 1979-1980, though perhaps not so clearly as Stine has done. The problem is that in order to teach this material to Bible students a bit of terminology is necessary. One can’t just say, even to beginning Hebrew students, that there is “some relationship” between the clauses. Nonetheless, a number of errors result from oversimplification. One of these is the idea that one can determine the definition of an unknown word by finding it in parallel with another term. Now such parallelism can contribute to our understanding of a word, and can give us a starting point in studying it, but it doesn’t determine it, as some people think it does. Without knowing the meaning of the word, the very thing sought, one cannot be certain what type of parallelism one is dealing with.

    So let me just suggest here that the terms synonymous, antithetical, and synthetic are quite useful. Like any labeling system, they oversimplify. Indeed, any system of labels is by nature less complex than reality and is provided precisely to allow such simplification. In order to improve accuracy, however, students should be taught that the actual parallelism will lie along a line from complete parallelism of thought to either complete opposition or through a synthetic combination.

    Now translating this is much harder, and comes back to the issue of how much interpretation the translator should do, and how much should be left to the modern reader. I’ve been playing around with this before, and commented in Reading Psalm 46, in which I also link to a couple of “transformations.”

    Hebrew parallelism does not have the same effect on English readers as it presumably did on readers of the Hebrew original. Thus I would suggest there is room for a broad range of translation possibilities, from a version that copies the poetic forms from Hebrew into English, to ones that might take the thought and express it in an English poetic form. I believe Bible translation and exposition would benefit from more transformations, re-presentations of Biblical material not only in new languages, but in new and/or different forms.

    One further note on Stine. He goes through the problems of defining poetry, and that’s a standard problem with Biblical material. Without a solid, understandable definition it’s hard to discuss what is poetry and what’s not, and how to deal with it. I think the problem with this definition is precisely the same as the problem with labels for types of parallelism. We are putting a small number of labels on a continuum–synonymous, antithetical, and synthetic on the one hand, poetry and prose on the other. But poetry and prose do not exist in well defined pockets in real life, and thus our labels will be problematic. On encountering a Biblical passage one might ask, “Should this be presented divided into lines, or paragraphed?” rather than asking whether it’s poetry or prose. Whether it’s technically poetry or not, if it presents well in defined lines, it might be best to present it that way.

  • Skepticism and Scholarship

    Ben Witherington comments on an attitude of skepticism on his blog in an entry titled Justification by Doubt. Dr. Witherington makes a number of good points, but I think the topic at a minimum needs more comment. I’d like to suggest you read his entire post before you read mine. I’m going to quote his conclusion, but you need to read his entire post for context.

    Skepticism is no more scholarly than gullibility. But they both have one thing in common

  • Is the Trilemma about Jesus Useful?

    Yesterday I wandered by the The Evangelical Outpost just to see what was going on, and besides finding a current thread on which I want to comment, I found an older one, Jefferson’s Jesus: An Appreciation of the Trilemma. In this post Joe Carter undertakes to defend the trilemma, a much maligned and yet much used argument.

    First let me quote:

    Philosopher Peter Kreeft considers the trilemma to be the “most important argument in Christian apologetics.

  • Anatomy of a KJV Only Argument

    I’ve pretty much quit bothering with the KJV only folks since their arguments are so repetitive. Yet occasionally I run across one that so illustrates the failings of this entire movement that I want to take the time to comment briefly. Of course, you all know already that I rarely comment briefly . . .

    The argument in this case comes from an article titled The Rudimentary Factor Underlying Infallibility by Jeffrey Nachimson, and relates to a comment made by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr. regarding the translation of John 5:44. Now the author of this article does not provide a useful reference to the material, other than author name, but a brief search of known material found Elgin’s material on this topic including the major arguments, though clearly the author of the attrocious article I am referencing was working from some other text.

    [For full disclosure, I need to note here that I am the publisher of Elgin’s book series Consider Christianity, but I would also note that the treatment given by av1611answers.com web site to other authors is no more fair or appropriate than what they use in this case.]

    First, the article begins in the usual KJV only manner by belittling all other Christians. I’m not going to quote it, but one can just follow the link and read the first couple of paragraphs to get the style. If you’ve read any substantial amount of KJV only material, you’re already acquainted with this procedure.

    Second, the article is one that deals with accusations of inaccuracies in the KJV. This is such an interesting approach for a KJV only advocate, because this article criticizes their own approach. Any logic to be discovered here will apply equally against the vast majority of KJV only arguments, which generally start with a list of errors they find in whatever modern version they wish to attack. The one and only constant with these arguments is that we know that the tortured logic must show that the KJV is right and all others are wrong. In response, opponents of the KJV only position occasionally present error lists of their own, demonstrating simply that the KJV translators were also human and suffered from the possibility of error. KJV only advocates, however, regard this as some form of slander against the KJV. That characterization is silly. Each and every critic, not of the KJV, but of the KJV only position, is aware that translators make errors. Only against a backdrop of a claim of infallibility for the KJV does it appear slanderous, but since neither the KJV translators, nor obviously the text of the KJV Bible itself claims this level of infallibility, it is hardly slander.

    Now if Nachimson cared about Hushbeck’s position, it was readily available. In his article Which Bible is the Word of God? he comments regarding a similar discussion concerning John 1:18, “If we were to follow the logic of the KJV-only supporters we would have to conclude that the translators of the KJV were trying to weaken the doctrine of the deity of Christ” (emphasis mine). Husbheck does not, in fact, believe that this kind of list of errors is the right way to deal with the problem. Rather, he is showing that the KJV is also vulnerable to that type of criticism. I would add, based on the same logic, that this approach to a translation can easily be taken as an attack on the Bible as a whole. If we find a characteristic that (1) destroys the validity of the Bible and (2) applies to all available Bibles (the KJV-only crowd do not accept the texts in their original language as authoritative), then the result is, in fact, to tear down the Bible.

    But let’s look at the argument itself before I comment further on its anatomy. It goes in this way:

    Nachimson says:

    Elgin Hushbeck, an engineer and apologetic writer, shows us what an engineering degree can do for the text of the King James Bible:

    Actually, while Elgin does have an engineering degree, he also has a master’s degree in Christian apologetics, and is the author of the apologetics series I referenced earlier. But what is the point here? Is it to suggest that engineers cannot possibly understand the Bible?

    Nachimson quotes Husbheck:

    ” The other type of problem involved poor translations. Translation is a difficult task and humans are not perfect. As a result, no translation the size of the Bible is perfect. While the King James Version is a good translation, it does have a few minor problems.

    Note here that even in the article quoted, and in the portion quoted by Nachimson Hushbeck makes his point extremely clear. He is simply pointing out something that true, and for which the evidence is overwhelming, namely that translations are not perfect. He is not slandering anything, nor is he claiming that one should abandon a translation because one finds such problems in it. He is simply pointing out to the KJV only advocates that their logic applies the other way as well. Note also that he notes that these are minor problems, something which can also be said at a minimum of most KJV only criticisms of modern versions.

    Nachimson quoting Hushbeck again:

    Again here are two examples: John 5:44 and Hebrews 10:23.In John 5:44 the Greek text very clearly reads “…and seek not the honor that comes from the only God.” Among other things this is a strong statement of monotheism. Yet for some reason the King James Version translates this as “and seek not the honor that cometh from God only?” Here any reference to monotheism is removed, and it becomes a statement that honor only comes from God. In Hebrews 10:23, the Greek text reads “let us hold fast the profession of our hope.” Yet the King James Version translates the Greek word for “hope” as “faith” and reads “let us hold fast the profession of our faith.” I have yet to hear of any explanation of either of these translations except that the King James Version translators must have known what they were doing. ” (Hushbeck, “King James Version Only” article)

    Note that I have provided a link to Nachimson’s article, something he has failed to do to Hushbeck’s.

    Nachimson now quotes the Greek text, notes that there is such a thing as an adjectival use of a prepositional phrase in Greek, and then agrees with Hushbeck on the literal translation. Those who want to follow this in detail can follow the link back to Nachimson’s article.

    But then he says:

    The problem with Elgin Hushbeck is that he failed to notice two things:

    1) That the context of the verse renders a literal adjectival translation of this passage senseless.

    Here let me drop down past his second point, which I will take up in a moment, to quote his discussion of this first point.

    Beginning in verse 30 in John 5, Jesus Christ discusses the plethora of witnesses that testify to his ministry and authority. He lists the testimony of John the Baptist (vs. 32-35); his works (vs. 36); the Father (vs. 37); the scriptures (vs. 39); and notice in verse 41 where Jesus Christ states exactly where he DOESN’T GET HIS HONOR FROM! Why the discussion is how to know if something or someone is from God, AND THE HONOR THAT ONLY GOD CAN GIVE! No one in this context bats an eye about monotheism! There isn’t an inclination anywhere in 47 verses that one person (including the lost Pharisees) is discussing the necessity of monotheism. For Hushbeck to conjecture that the A.V. rendering doesn’t uphold monotheism in the passage because it doesn’t translate the prepositional phrase as an adjective, is bordering on the realm of the absurd. The point is where do REAL testimonial witnesses and honor originate? REAL honor comes from God ONLY, not the only God.

    Umm, so where is his argument here? If the text says it comes from the only God, that’s what it says. And it is certainly not nonsense. In a world in which one might also seek honor from other gods, it was quite appropriate for Jesus to point out that this honor came from the one God. His Jewish audience would have had no difficulty with that. The point Nachimson claims Jesus is making here is just fine. But the translation chosen by modern versions is also just fine, it does make sense in context, and there is no reason for Nachimson to arbitrarily alter the text of the gospel of John here in order to support his favorite translation. Talk about amateur critics! (See below.)

    Now I return to add the second point:

    2) That there are other translational possibilities that he didn’t bother to look into or inform his readers due to his prejudicial bias against the King’s English.

    Where does Nachimson get the idea that Hushbeck has a “prejudicial bias against the King’s English.” Apparently he just felt the need to make up an insult. Of course I don’t have such a bias either, and yet I don’t speak “the King’s English” in daily life, I don’t preach in it, and I don’t need to use a Bible written in it. Nachimson gets the idea that others have such a bias because he has a completely irrational bias in favor of the English of the KJV, and thus any balanced perspective, such as one that approves such language in its place, appears to be a bias against it.

    Nevertheless, Hushbeck’s real problem is his ignorance of Greek grammar. Here I shall quote, “A Grammar of New Testament Greek,” by James Hope Moulton, Vol. III-Syntax, by Nigel Turner, pg. 225-226:

    “There is therefore not surprisingly some confusion of monos with the adv. monon: Mk 6:8- meden ei me rhabdon monon (D monen); Acts 11:19- medeni ei me monon (D monois) Ioudaiois; Heb. 12:26 OT seiso ou monon ten gen, alla kai…; 2 Tim. 4:8; I Jn 5:6- ouk en to hudati monon (B mono). In Jn 5:44 monou is best TAKEN ADVERBIAL; not from him who alone is God, but only from God (Jewish monotheism was unimpeachable; Jesus was referring to their love of human praise), IN SPITE OF THE WORD ORDER. Lk 5:21 adv. monos.”

    But what is the argument in favor of taking this adverbially? Surely Nachimson is not suggesting that we should take whatever view of any passage that Moulton, or Turner who wrote the volume in question, took. If so, then we can surely destroy the KJV Only position using such authority. There is, in fact, no argumentation provided in favor of this position at all. We see here an illustration of the KJV Only method. Those quotes from grammarians which appear to support their position are authoritative, and all others are not.

    The fact is that there is excellent reason to read this passage precisely as it is written and to take the term adjectivally. Of the modern versions, I found only one, the NLT uses the term adverbially. Now I want to emphasize that the simple fact that all these translations take the term adjectivally doesn’t make it so. But it does make Nachimson’s claim that Husbheck is ignorant of Greek grammar rather silly. While he tries to focus an attack on just one person he’s really saying that all of these people did not make a translational choice, but rather that they are all ignorant of Greek grammar.

    It would do the reader good to examine the passage mentioned by Nigel Turner; Luke 5:21. This passage states:

    “And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?”

    In this passage in Luke you have a similar set-up, where the discussion is centered around something ONLY GOD CAN DO! There was never any question about monotheism! Such are the devious of ways of amateur Bible critics who fool around with Greek New Testaments. It is like a toddler trying to handle a 9mm pistol. Nevertheless, in Greek, the last phrase of Luke 5:21 appear as thus:

    “… ei me monos ho theos;” – Lit. “Except only God?” Hence the Greek indicative “ei,” and the Greek subjunctive particle “me,” together form and idiom that means, “except/unless.” However, in this case better English is “but.” However, the point is, you have the adjective “monos” functioning as an ADVERB just like John 5:44 even those the sentence structure is different. The point is still the same because both contexts are discussing entities that are limited to God’s discretion.

    But what Nachimson misses, while busily accusing others of ignorance, is the simple fact that the syntax of these two passages is different. The probability that “monos” is an adverb in Luke 5:21 is much higher than in John 5:44. The fact that there are similarities in the context does not mean that the point must be the same. Note in addition that it is the Pharisees talking in Luke 5:21.

    I now omit some paragraphs quote Daniel B. Wallace on the use of adjectives adverbially in Greek. You can again go back to the referenced article to read this if you wish, but this is a point that was never in dispute.

    Therefore, it is evident that based upon the context of John 5, and the clear fact that adjectives (even if in the attributive position in a prepositional phrase) can function adverbially to form a more idiomatic structure in the English translation.

    The KJV only method continues. First, Nachimson provided a substantial amount of evidence to support an idea that was never in dispute (adjectives can be used adverbially in Greek), and now he claims that he has proven something else–namely that one should take this particular instance of an adjective adverbially. There is a key difference between the examples given and John 5:44. In John 5:44 the adjective is in the attributive position, while in all the other examples, either it is not, or there is some other syntactic indication that one should take the adjective adverbially. Assuming Nachimson quoted Turner correctly, and I don’t have that volume at hand to check, I would simply have to disagree with him that one should take “monos” adverbially in John 5:44

    But second, Nachimson goes on to suggest that we are taking “monos” adverbially in order to “form a more idiomatic structure in the English translation.” Does Nachimson have any comprehension of translation theory at all? If it should be taken adverbially at all, it would be because that was the intent of the Greek of this passage, not to make the English more idiomatic. We try to make the English as idiomatic as possible so that people who read it in English understand the intent.

    Thus, the A.V. 1611 preserves the better reading “that cometh from God only?” instead of, “that comes from the only God?” in the modern translational perversions.

    And there’s that typical KJV only quote. At the most Nachimson has demonstrated that one might, were one so inclined, justify the possibility of an adverbial translation. He hasn’t even begun to demonstrate that it is the best one, nor to provide any evidence that taking “monos” adjectivally here is a “perversion.”

    POINT: LEAVE JOHN 5:44 AS IT STANDS IN THE A.V. 1611 AND LEARN SOME MORE DETAILS ABOUT GREEK GRAMMAR AND CHAPTER CONTEXTS BEFORE YOU MESS WITH THE GREATEST BOOK IN THE HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

    . . . and point refuted. It is Nachimson who lacks an adequte knowledge to cogently argue his point, thus he is left arguing something else, and then hoping we won’t notice his sleight of hand as he claims to have proven his original point.

  • Isaiah 24-27 – Interpretation

    Now that we’ve looked at various critical issues about this passage, and I’ve discussed the dangers and difficulties involved with Biblical criticism, I’d like to summarize some of the things we can learn by examining the passage critically.

    We have identified a number of elements in the passage that have been strung together to form a whole, overall message. If we read the passage through without carefully looking for the various sections and the various breaks between sections, we might try to pull the entire thing into a single theme. You can try this as a study experiment for yourself if you like. Try to make a coherent outline of these four chapters that organize the subject matter coherently in the sense, for example, that you might organize a college research paper.

    What you’ll notice is that it is very difficult to find any coherent timeline, or to find any good geographical or historical “hooks.” In the previous chapters, especially 13-23, there are numerous references to historical events, locations, and people, and it is normally fairly easy to date a particular oracle and tie it to some particular set of events. These identifications are not without controversy, but there are at least some facts to deal with.

    In chapters 24-27 in contrast, there is very little. But if you look at the passages they all deal with material that is somehow related to the end of the age, to God’s judgment on the whole world. That is why this passage is often called an apocalypse, as it deals with material similar to that of Daniel, Revelation, and some of the other apocalyptic literature. But it differs both in that it does not have the same symbolism, and again because it does not tie easily to specific historical events.

    Some commentators, as I have noted before, simply think this passage is incoherent. But let me suggest another option. Our author has taken a variety of elements, including hymns of praise, oracles of judgment, and promises of victory, and has strung them together. (To see my previous comments on this passage, start with my entry Isaiah 24-27 – Overview.) This seems to offend our sense of order. Surely a prophecy should be more coherent!

    But will the end times be all that coherent? I’m often struck by the extreme order of prophetic timelines presented by many preachers. The end of the world will happen on a precise, easily perceived schedule. If you follow the particular preacher’s interpretation you will be OK, because you will know what is going to happen. But times of God’s judgment and of his redemption, such as the time of the exile to Babylon and the restoration under Cyrus and his successors often does not work in that coherent of a fashion.

    I think that rather than being incoherent or accidental, these chapters portray the feeling of being in the midst of the end times. There will be times when it seems victory is in sight, and we will sing songs of praise. There will be times when it will seem that all is dark. There will be times to recite the oracles of judgment: God will deal with the wicked. At other times we will need to remember promises of praise. (Please note that I am not a pre-tribulationist, in case you couldn’t tell!)

    Isaiah 24-27 presents an excellent picture of that time, and if you read it out loud, and let the changes of attitude sweep over you, you may come to better understand some of the nature of living in a time when God is coming both in judgment and in redemption.

    [This conludes my series of blog entries on Biblical criticism. There is obviously much more that could be said, but I have to draw a line somewhere. I mentioned in an earlier post that I might post some on critical issues in the book of Daniel, and I probably will, but I will do so over on the Participatory Bible Study blog.]

  • Isaiah 24-27: Basics of Criticism

    Now that we’ve looked over the text and found a set of transitions in it, we can start looking at how critical methologies will apply to this material. Will they help us interpret and apply the passage?

    This is a moment to look at some of the reasons I’ve been writing this series. Frequently, Bible students are confronted with the results of critical scholarship, but with very little support, documentation, and reasonsing provided to help them determine whether they should accept a particular critical position or not. On the other hand, they will often see denials of the results of criticism with equally little background provided. One can’t avoid the types of questions that Biblical criticism asks, even though one can have widely varying positions on the answers. Whatever commentary or study Bible you choose, there will be statements about the date of writing, the authorship, and the historical and cultural circumstances of the book.

    What do you do when one set of notes tells you that the gospel of Mark was written around 45 CE, while another says it was written between 70 and 80 CE? In relation to our particular exercise, what do you do when one source tells you that Isaiah was written by a single author in the 7th century BCE, while another says it has at least three authors dating from the 7th century to the 4th century BCE? Again narrowing in on Isaiah 24-27, how do you respond when one source says this is a scattered collection of unrelated sayings that has obviously suffered in editing and transmission, while another tells you that this passage is a coherent whole with a single theme carefully presented?

    You can, as some people do, take the word of the scholar who is most similar to your theological viewpoint, you could throw up your hands and say, “Nobody knows!” or you can dig in and ask a simple question: How do each of these scholars know what they claim to know? That is the purpose of delving into critical methology. How does someone come to any of these conclusions?

    Let’s think briefly about the gospel of Mark. There are two major areas of disagreement that alter the way scholars date Mark. The first is their solution to the synoptic problem. If someone believes that Mark is one of the sources for Matthew and Luke, he will clearly have to date it before Matthew and Luke. The second major issue is found in the relationship of the text to the destruction of Jerusalem. This is not only an issue of whether predictive prophecy is possible, but also whether the text of Mark reflects a situation in which the temple has been destroyed or not. Based on these criteria, you’ll find that more conservative scholars who believe that Mark was written first tend to date Mark very early. More liberal scholars tend to date Mark a bit later, even if they believe Mark was written first. Conservative scholars who believe Matthew wrote first tend to date Mark a bit later, though often still before the destruction of Jerusalem. (This can get tricky depending on how one dates Matthew.) Some scholars who are moderate or liberal believe Matthew was written first, and this results in a very late date for Mark, since in general the same scholars would date Matthew shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem. If you look carefully in each introduction to Mark, you will probably find the reasons even though they may not be clearly set out for you.

    In the case of Isaiah, we don’t have an issue of copying, except in a small number of cases. We have two categories of issues: 1) That some portions of Isaiah are written presuming Assyria to be the main enemy, 2) that some portions are written assuming Babylon to be the main enemy, 3) that Cyrus is specifically named as a deliverer (which even some who like a 7th century date in general find a little hard to accept), and 4) that there are also passages that appear to apply to a time of rebuilding. This is not the time to evaluate all those issues in detail, but you should be aware of them. The deutero- and trito-Isaiah theories are based on an analysis of the text itself, along with a small number of external references. You need to consider the details about the text in order to express a valid and convincing opinion on the topic.

    As we start on Isaiah 24-27, I want to call your attention to a couple of my own experiences in studying other books. I did a full quarter independent study in college on Ezekiel’s call vision (Ezekiel 1). One commentary guts the call vision of repetitions and things that seem not to fit into a coherent description of the vision. As I read this commentary (see the paper for more details), I began to ask myself whether the original report of the call vision would, in fact, have had the characteristics of brevity, organization, and clarity that this commentator supposed it would have? I decided that this was unlikely. A vision, after all, is not an ordinary experience. One might be slightly incoherent in describing the vision. By making the chapter more organized, that commentator was, in fact, losing the feeling of excitement and awe, along with the difficulty of describing a vision of this nature. I encountered the same thing using R. H. Charles’s commentary on Revelation in the ICC series. Charles rearranges the last chapters of Revelation because he thinks they are so horribly disarranged. He even suggests the following:

    . . . John died either as a martyr or by a natural death, when he had completed i.-xx. 3 of his work, and that the materials for its completion, which were for the most part ready in a series of independent documents, were put together by a faithful but unintelligent disciple in the order which he thought right. (Charles, Revelation Vol II, p. 147)

    Again we have to ask whether the order that the modern student thought right is the order that would have appeared right to the original author.

    The assumption behind the interpretation of the passages I cited (Ezekiel 1, Rev. 20:4-22) is simply that a description of an end time vision should be clear, orderly, and in perfect sequence. The problem I have with this assumption is that there don’t seem to be any examples in scripture of such a clean, orderly work that would allow us to conclude that this was the “normal” form for such a vision report. The apocalyptic speeches of Jesus are more orderly, though not much more forthcoming with the data, than these, but it isn’t the report of a vision. A similar assumption has been made about Isaiah 24-27.

    If you did your own outline of these four chapters, showing transition points, take a look at it again. If not, use the one I did earlier in this series, and then read the passage again. What kind of feeling do these chapters give you? Is it necessarily true that in a time of crisis, however resolved, we would feel a clean sequence of events, or would we have a slower transition?

    Each of the “forms” we identified (though I used ad hoc names, rather than those you will find in many commentaries) contributes to the feeling of these chapters. We can use form criticism, identifying a passage as a hymn or a prayer, for example, to help us understand the pieces, but they form a portion of the word picture that the author is painting. They come from different places and situations, but they are combined into one theme.

    In my next entry I’ll look a bit more at the theme and how it is brought together, and we’ll use a little bit of methodology from redaction criticism. While some scholars do try some source criticism on this passage, generally theories that combine some of the elements into sources prior to the final composition generally rely on extremely thin evidence, and I am unconvinced that such sources can be identified. The best picture of authorship, in my view, is that a single author takes elements from worship, devotional life, existing literature, and his own visions and compositions, and combines them into a passage heralding God’s final victory. The elements may look scattered to us, but that is largely because we come with the wrong questions, asking what historical events are in view, what is the sequence of age-ending events pictured, and so forth, when the author is answering the question of what it will be like when YHWH makes his final intervention in human history.

  • Isaiah 24-27 – Starting Form Criticism

    Form Criticism involves identifying smaller units in a composition that might have been transmitted separately, especially orally, prior to being included in the composition you are studying. There are quite a number of sections in our selection (Isaiah 24-27) that can be examined in this way.

    Since I am writing this series to help people examine the results of critical Biblical scholarship critically, let me suggest that you try at least part of this process on your own. I will assume you are working from English Bible versions, though I will comment some from the Hebrew text. Here’s a simple process to use:

    1. Read the entire passage a couple of times to get used to it.
    2. Read the entire passage more slowly, looking for transitions. Transitions might include:
      1. Change from prose to poetry and vice versa
      2. Change of topic, such as from praise to warning
      3. Transitional phrases, such as “thus says the Lord”
      4. Substantial changes in style and vocabulary (these are usually very hard to detect in the short units involved in form criticism)
    3. Check your work reading from another version. It is possible for transitions to be obscured by translation. It is also sometimes quite arbitrary whether passages are rendered as prose or poetry
    4. Examine each section marked off by the transitions you noted, asking:
      1. Is this a passage that could have existed independently? Would it have made sense either without context or in multiple contexts?
      2. How tightly is it integrated into the passage?
      3. What might you call this? Don’t be worried at this point about formal names of Biblical forms. Just come up with something descriptive, such as “hymn/poem of praise,” “oracle of judgment,” “Promise of blessing,” and so forth.
    5. Ask yourself how each of these sections advances the theme of the passage as a whole

    Once you have done these things you are ready to look at commentaries, or just at the discussion below. As you examine these passages as part of the whole, consider that someone, somewhere thought they worked together, otherwise we would not have them edited into a substantial document such as the book of Isaiah, or this large section of it.

    Now for a look at transitions (I add “user friendly” titles for sections in bold):

    • 24:1 – changes from prose to poetry at the beginning of the passage as a whole
    • 24:3 – verse ends with “for YHWH has spoken this word” creating a section of 24:1-3. Note, however, that the topic continues in verse 4
    • 24:14 – Topic change from destruction to a song of praise, though it ends on a negative note
    • 24:1-13 could be called an oracle of judgment
    • 24:17 – Topic change to judgment again.
    • 24:14-16 could be called short hymn/poem of praise to God, though consider the last half of verse 16 and just how it relates to the rest.
    • 25:1 – Topic change again to a hymn of praise.
    • 24:17-23 could be called either an oracle of judgment, or a prediction of end-time events
    • 25:6 – Topic change, prediction, promise of future blessing
    • 25:1-5 could be called a hymn of praise
    • 25:10b – Topic change, prediction of judgment on Moab
    • 25:6-10a could be called a promise or prediction of blessing
    • 26:1 – Topic change, the song to be sung in Judah
    • 25:10b-12 could be called an oracle of prediction of judgment
    • 27:1 – Topic and form change, punishing of Leviathan, turn to cosmological imagery
    • 26:1-21 could be called a song of lament for the community.
      (Note that treating this whole chapter as a unity is not accepted by many commentators. I will look at some of the differences in my next post as well as explaining why I see it as a unit
    • 27:2 – Form change back to poetry
    • Despite the change in form from prose (v1) to poetry (v2), 27:1 doesn’t appear to be a separate unit, but rather an introduction to verses 2-6
    • 27:7 – Topic change, poetry now describes a situation of judgment
    • 27:1-6 could be called a promise of restoration
    • 27:12 – Change topic and form from judgment expressed as poetry to promise expressed as prose
    • 27:7-11 could be called both a warning and description of judgment
    • 27:12-13 contain a promise of restoration in prose form.

    Now all of this may seem rather complex, but it is the type of work, in very summary form and with selected terminology, that Bible critics do. If you think I am attempting either to support or to oppose the value of such work in this example, you’re missing the point. I am simply attempting to show you the nuts and bolts that go into critical claims, claims that are both asserted and rejected often without consideration of how their proponents arrived at them.

    In my next post I’m going to look at some of the suggested divisions by commentators, and I’m also going to discuss what, if anything, we have accomplished in all this activity. As we proceed through the other critical methods we will continue to ask just what of value each one has contributed to our understanding of this passage.

  • Isaiah 24-27 – Textual Issues

    I’m approaching the textual issues for these four chapters from the point of view of English translations. I want to look for those textual issues that actually have an impact on major English translations. This is a procedure you can follow any time you study a Bible passage, assuming you don’t know Greek or Hebrew and can’t use original language tools. Check the footnotes in a variety of translations, and note readings that are used as the primary text, or that are suggested as alternates. These may results from several sources:

    • LXX/Septuagint
    • Syriac
    • Other versions, Latin, Coptic, Georgian, etc.
    • Other Hebrew manuscripts-there are, indeed, some small variations even in late Hebrew manuscripts.
    • Dead Sea Scrolls
    • Conjecture, normally tagged something like cn or cj (Check the abbreviations in your Bible translation for details)

    This list applies to the Hebrew scriptures. In the Pentateuch, add the Samaritan Pentateuch as a source. In the New Testament, you need a different list.

    I’m going to limit my list this time to the New Living Translation, the New Revised Standard Version, and the Revised English Bible. I’m limiting the number to three just for space. There are a number of other good Bible translations to use in this type of study, including especially the New English Translation and the English Standard Version.

    These versions contain the following numbers of textual footnotes in the four chapters we are considering, including places where the translators indicate that the Hebrew meaning is uncertain:

    • NLT – Has a small number of translation notes; no textual notes. (The absence of textual notes is significant also.)
    • NRSV – Lists seven verses with textual notes
    • REB – Lists eight verses with textual notes

    The value of looking at multiple versions is illustrated here. As you will see in the chart, the REB and NRSV lists only match in one case. We will compare readings in the NLT, where in some cases an issue is resolved by the translators, but they did not feel a footnote was necessary. In normal study, you can survey more translations. I looked at the English Standard Version, Contemporary English Version, and the New English Translation, though I did not include them in the chart.

    Verse REB NRSV NLT
    24:15 the eastern regions, footnote indicates that the Hebrew is uncertain in the east In eastern lands
    All translations reflect one probable reading. There is no textual variant, but there is some uncertainty as to translation
    25:5 deletes “heat in the shadow of a cloud” includes this phrase, but divides the poetic lines differently Includes all, divides as REB
    This passage using some difficult phrasing. REB sees the phrase “heat in the shadow of a cloud” as out of place, NLT translates as is, but NRSV begins a conditional clause at the end of verse 14, carrying it forward into verse 15, thus including the phrase, but nonetheless making greater sense of the passage. Personally I would go with the NRSV translation here; REB is deleting a phrase because it is too uncertain to translate.
    25:11 despite the struggle of their hands with every stroke of his hands and all their evil works
    The NRSV marks the word “struggle” with a footnote indicating the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain. Even though neither the NLT or the REB provide a footnote, it is clear from the difference in their rendering that the meaning is somewhat uncertain. The problem is with the rendering of the Hebrew word ‘arbah, “movements (or nimble movements)” associated with hands. The meaning is clearly metaphorical, and the translations differ in their rendering. This is a good issue to resolve when you get to exegesis.

    I call attention to the fact that only comparing translations and comparing footnotes would bring this type of issue to the attention of a Bible student who does not read Hebrew.
    26:4 he (using the parallel line with “LORD” to indicate the meaning) LORD GOD LORD GOD
    Another NRSV footnote not reflected in the others. The Hebrew reads “Yah YHWH,” and this is handled differently by the different translations. Since there is no significant change in meaning, the rendering is largely a matter of taste. Many commentators regard the duplication as an error as the use of the abbreviated “YAH” is unusually before the full tetragrammaton “YHWH.”
    26:8 We have had regard to we wait for you we love to obey your laws
    The REB here claims to follow the 1QIs(a) reading, which leaves off the “you” suffix on “we hope (for)” or “we look to.” Literally as far as possible, “Even/also the path of your judgments, YHWH, we look to [you]” which would allow a number of renderings. Is it in the path of judgments that they look to the Lord, or is it the path provided by God’s judgments that they look to? Again, though the scroll and the versions that generally follow it suggest a reading here, exegesis is more likely to provide an answer to how this should be rendered. Note again that only one version provides you with the footnote indicating there is something to study here.
    26:11 zeal for your people zeal for your people eagerness to defend your people
    Hebrew literally reads “zeal of the people” here. Only the REB provides a footnote indicating we are dealing with a variant, though all three versions make the same translation choice. Again, the footnote alerts you to an issue.
    26:16 chastened by the whisper
    (REB also notes that Hebrew reads “they” rather than “we” as other versions translate)    		 poured out a prayer bowed beneath
    Both REB and NRSV call attention to the issue here. This is one to settle in exegesis, though you should be very careful in coming up with a decision if you can’t check the Hebrew.
    26:18 REB note word “like” in the Hebrew delete “like” delete “like”
    All translations render in a similar way, but REB calls your attention to an underlying variant. It is not at all certain how one would translate if the word “like” is included.
    26:19a their bodies (second line), footnote indicates Hebrew “your body” Your dead (collective) their bodies
    The meaning here is identical, but REB again alerts us to the textual issue.
    26:19b those long dead those long dead in the place of the dead
    This is not a textual issue but one of translation. The Hebrew word is “shades.” NLT takes it as the dew falling in the place where the shades live, thus “place of the dead” while the other translations take “shades” as those who have been dead a long time.
    27:6 time to come days to come the time is coming
    Hebrew is literally “those to come” or “the coming ones” which could certainly refer to days. All three versions take this as a reference to time.
    27:8 His quarrel with Jerusalem ends . . . By expulsion He has punished Israel only a little
    Hebrew literally “by expulsion, by exile you contended against them.” I would suggest the variety of renderings makes a footnote a good idea, but only the NRSV provides one in this case.

    *F: – footnote reading; T: – reading incorporated into the text

    This is obviously an incredibly quick tour of the textual issues in the chapters. Many will find these all too minor to take very seriously, but I think they do illustrate the type of information a serious Bible student can find by working with multiple translations and making serious use of the footnotes. Unless you can work with the source material in the original languages, you will have to settle your choice between the renderings of various versions during your exegesis.

    My next entry on Isaiah will deal with various elements of the passage as they can be examined with form criticism. Remember that this will be a kind of dissection approach to the text. Later we’ll look again at the whole to ask what genre the whole composition is.

  • High School Bible Classes Again

    In a previous post, The Best Place to Teach the Bible, I discussed my view that home and church or other private organizations were the best way to teach the Bible. I’ve had a couple of comments to that post that I think deserve some comment, and since I don’t like to make post-length comments here on my own blog, I’m going to comment in another post.

    First, Dave L. comments:

    Henry, I agree with your position concerning keeping the Bible out of schools, but had a question for you on one of your responses above, namely, “just because someone reads Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek [doesn’t mean] they will agree on what the Bible says.