Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Lectionary

  • Isaiah 49:2 – Mouths and Sharp Swords

    One basis I use for comparing Bible translations is the way in which idioms are handled. It’s difficult to measure this precisely, because you have to consider several things:

    • Is the idiom as used comprehensible to modern readers?
    • Does it mean the same thing to modern as to ancient readers?
    • Is there a reasonable English (or other target language) equivalent?
    • How good is the equivalent that was selected by the translation?

    Simply noting that an idiom in one language is translated by an idiom in another is not sufficient. Figures of speech work in essentially the same way and require that one ask the same questions.

    In Isaiah 49:2 we have a fairly simple figure of speech. In Hebrew, this very literally reads:

    He set my mouth like a sharp sword.

    Now I don’t know how natural that sounds in English to others, and I’m already running another poll, but to me “sharp” and “words” do go together in a figure of speech, and using mouth for the words spoken is also pretty standard. For example, I don’t think anyone has trouble understanding “potty mouth.” I have only rarely heard that combination with “sharp,” however. There I think we more commonly use “tongue” with “sharp” than “mouth.”

    So I classify the translations of the figure of speech in three categories. First would be those that translate the figure of speech or idiom completely literally. (I’d ignore the idiom if the figure of speech is common also in the target language.) The second group adjusts it somewhat to make it more comprehensible. The third translates the figure into natural, but not necessarily idiomatic language. The fourth group (of which I have no examples in this case) would provide an alternate idiom. The following list is not exhaustive:

    Translating the words and not the figure

    “He made my mouth like a sharpened blade;” (NJPS)

    “He made my mouth like a sharp sword,” (NRSV)

    Adjusted slightly

    In this case, the adjustment is generally “mouth” replaced with “tongue.”

    “He made my tongue a sharp sword” (REB)

    Translated into clear language (drop figure of speech)

    “He made my words as sharp as a sword.” (TEV) [Note here that one figure (mouth for words) is replaced, while the second (sharp) is retained.]

    “He made my words of judgment as sharp as a sword.” (NLT)

    “He made my words pierce like a sharp sword” (CEV) [In a sense another figure of speech is added, or perhaps “sharp” is merely enhanced, by the addition of the word “pierce.”]

    “He made my words like a sharp sword;” (HCSB) [The HCSB regularly surprises me, sometimes with incredibly obscure translations, and sometimes with exceptionally clear ones.]

    This comparison also raises a question with the NLT text. Should the words “of judgment” be added here? Is it perfectly clear that it is words of judgment alone that pierce like a sharp sword? On first reading, I am not happy with the NLT addition there. It makes plain something that is not plain in the text, and may even be incorrect. My mind could be changed, however.

  • Quoting the Old Testament in the New – Psalm 40:6

    Note: I will be using the English verse numbering throughout. Hebrew verse numbers are one greater in this chapter, thus this is Psalm 40:7 in Hebrew.

    In reading Psalm 40 several times, since it’s the lectionary passage for this week, I noticed a few things that I would have missed in just one pass. One of these is Psalm 40:6-8, which is quoted in Hebrews 10:5-7. There is a difference in the Hebrew of Psalm 40:6 and the quoted text of Hebres 10:5, however, which illustrates an interesting translation issue. The question is whether New Testament quotations of the Old Testament should be accommodated to the Old Testament translation in the same version.

    The book of Hebrews provides a good laboratory for discussing this issue. I’ve used the illustration of Hebrews 2:7 quoting Psalm 8:5 before. The NIV accommodates the translation by using “a little lower” in Hebrews 2:7, rather than “for a little while” which is a better translation of the Greek there. (I discussed this a bit more here.)

    It’s interesting, however, that while the NIV provides notes in all cases, they do not accommodate the translation in Hebrews 10:5. There we read in part:

    but a body you prepared for me;

    The text in Psalm 40:6 reads:

    but my ears you have pierced;

    I’m not sure why one was accommodated, but not the other, but the issues involved would likely highlight the difficulty one has in deciding this sort of issue. It’s not that I want to criticize them for their choice, though my choice would be to translate the text in front of me. It is always possible that they felt that there was more possibility for the alternative meaning in Hebrews 2:7 (where it is indeed possible, though not best, in my view), but did not see the same possibility in Hebrews 10:5.

    This raises some issues of inspiration. In certain views of inspiration, one would prefer to have a single text which was entirely consistent. The idea of New Testament writers using varying texts can be disconcerting to someone who would prefer a very rigid standard.

    I find this kind of thing very enlightening. The New Testament writers lived with differing manuscripts just like we do, even though they had not developed textual criticism in the same way. Extracting theology from scripture is much more an art than a science.

  • Translating Psalm 40:7-8

    Aside from numbering problems, Psalm 40:7-8 appears to be quite straightforward on first reading in Hebrew (where it is verse 8-9). The numbering problems include chapter numbering (39 in the LXX), and verse numbering (8-9 in Hebrew, 7-8 in English). Of course, we all know that verse numbering is not inspired; it is often positively uninspiring.

    The reason I wanted to bring it up, however, is to show how our approaches to interpretation might change what we see as a translation problem. Few of the English versions I consulted see any obscurity in this passage at all. The NRSV translates it thus:

    7Then I said, “Here I am;
    in the scroll of the book it is written of me.
    8I delight to do your will, O my God;
    your law is within my heart.”

    There is a footnote that tells us, “Meaning of Heb uncertain” but does not provide any alternatives or any discussion. A number of English versions, including the http://books.energion.com/bibles/enebvdetail.php?version=REB”>REB and the http://books.energion.com/bibles/enebvdetail.php?version=NLT”>NLT mention no difficulty at all. The http://books.energion.com/bibles/enebvdetail.php?version=NASB”>NASB provides the note “Or, prescribed for,” with is actually quite helpful. Yet in general if you read this book from the various English versions done mostly by Christian translators, you won’t get a sense that there is any translation issue here. Even the LXX translates it pretty much the same way.

    This is one reason I enjoy reading both the New JPS translation and the notes in The Jewish Study Bible. First, they provided a clearly marked footnote on this, and then the notes provide a good explanation of the issue.

    7Then I said,
    b- “See, I will bring a scroll recounting what befell me.” -b
    8To do what pleases You, my God, is my desire;
    Your teaching is in my inmost parts.

    Note b reads: “Meaning of Heb. uncertain.” The notes however tell us that the NJPS translation is interpreting this as “the psalmist’s hymn or a record of his experience.” Alternatives include the Torah (which fits with verse 9 in Hebrew very well), or the book of life, in which case the psalmist is thankful that his name is written there.

    I think the problem here is not major issues such as whether there is some sort of Messianic prophecy or not. Rather, we’re used to hearing this more frequently from the quotation in Hebrews 10:5-7, which has its own variations. The quote begins with verse 6, for one thing, in which we have the word “body” (as in the best mss of the LXX) rather than “ears” as we have in the Hebrew (and some mss of the LXX). Nonetheless, in general the text doesn’t have to be specifically Messianic to be used by Jesus. At the same time its common use in quotation may blind us (or might I say blinded me?) to the alternative understandings.

    The use in Hebrews 10 suggests that the writing is about the person speaking. Thus Jesus is saying that it is written of him in the Tanakh. Yet we have seen three alternatives. It might be something written by the speaker about himself. It could be the instructions of the Torah itself, connected to his expressed desire to do God’s will (v. 8), or even yet the book of life. I do see this last as the least likely in connection with the theme of the Psalm.

    It is such little things that make me really enjoy reading both the NJPS translation and the notes in The Jewish Study Bible.

  • Textual Emendation in Isaiah 49:7

    The JPS Tanakh of Isaiah 49:7 reads, in part:

    Thus said the LORD,
    The Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One,
    b-To the despised one,
    To the abhorred nations,-b . . .

    Note b reads: Meaning of Heb. uncertain. Emendation yields “Whose being is despised / Whose body is detested”; cf. 51.23.

    I noticed this first when I read this in Hebrew, and found that I was not able to produce a translation that I found satisfactory. I remained in doubt. So I looked it up in a few translations. Note also that the reading adopted in the JPS text is itself an emendation.

    (more…)

  • Nelson Study Bible Note Problems

    I’m not going to link to a specific edition on this, because there is no ISBN in the edition from which I’m working. It appears to be a match for this item on Amazon.com, and to be essentially the same notes as this item, though I cannot be absolutely certain. If you have a similar version, you can simply check your notes to see if they say the same thing as mine.

    First, of course, I’m a bit prejudiced because I think the NKJV is one of the less useful translations. It is literal, but less readable than the ESV or the HCSB. I don’t call any of the major modern versions bad Bibles, but the NKJV is fairly low on my list.

    What I want to comment on today, however, is the notes, part of Nelson’s Complete Study System. I used this Bible today for my lectionary reading. Each morning I read both the current week’s lectionary passages and the next week’s, thus giving me 14 opportunities to meditate on them. I use different Bible versions and also read the notes if I’m using an edition that has notes.

    In my reading on Isaiah 42:1-9 today, I noticed this note in a “wordfocus” block:

    . . .While ‘ebed can mean slave (Gen. 43:18), slavery in Israel was different than in most places in the ancient Middle East. Slavery was regulated by the Law of Moses, which prohibited indefinite slavery and required that slaves be freed on the Sabbath (seventh) year (Ex. 21:2)–and the Year of Jubilee–the fiftieth year (Lev. 25:25-28). . . .

    Now there is certainly value in pointing out the slavery laws in Israel, and comparing them to those in the ancient near east. Notice, however, that if one reads on in Leviticus 25, there is something that is not mentioned in this little note, and it is significant.

    44But as for your male slave or your female slave who are yours, from among the nations who are around you you may acquire both male slave and female slave. 45And also from among those who are [foreigners] living in your land and from those who are sojourning among you you may acquire them and from their clan that is with them which they bring forth in your land, and they will be your possession, 46and you may leave them to your sons after you to possess; they may enslave them permanently. Only with your brethren, the children of Israel, each person must not make his brother labor harshly.

    The problem here is that the note implies that somehow Israel’s form of slavery was entirely benign, without mentioning the exception to the rule. Anyone from the nations around or from foreigners who were in their land could be bought and possessed permanently.

    This is important because there are two ways of handling slavery passages in the Bible. The first is to try to deny the similarity between the slavery practices in the Bible and that in other countries or in more recent times, such as slavery in the United States. The second is to view the rules of slavery as a cultural accommodation, i.e. slavery was not good, but was not yet forbidden.

    I take the second approach. My point about this note is that that the editors of these notes presumably take the opposite one, but that they gloss over a substantial element of the Israelite rules for slavery. This is one of the ways in which study notes can be deceptive, even unintentionally.

    The second note comes on Psalm 40:1, in which it discusses the words translated “waited patiently” in the NKJV:

    The Hebrew translated I waited patiently is literally “waiting I waited.” The emphasis of this phrase is not really on patience but on the fact that David waited solely on the Lord. . . .

    I have to wonder where they got this interpretation. The phrase “waiting I waited” is simply not good English. It is formally equivalent to the Hebrew, but this is one of those cases where the literal translation does not suggest the right set of options to English ears. It is a Hebrew idiom of intensification. I WAITED! Now you may think of a few options, such as the intensity of the expectation, or the length of the wait, but the verbal structure itself does not specify who is waited on, or anything about how this person is the sole person on whom the Psalmist waits.

    The context suggests that YHWH was the sole one in whom the Psalmist placed his hope, but the verb form suggests only the intensity of the experience. For modern American English, I don’t even like the word “waited” here, though the REB and the NRSV both use “waited patiently.” I would prefer the JPS Tanakh’s “I put my hope in the LORD.” They lose the intensification, but I think they catch the essence of the verb more clearly.

    What I would hope to show from these examples is the danger of depending on notes, along with the value of looking at more than one translation. Looking at more than one set of notes is also a valuable hedge against incomplete or misleading notes.

  • A Common Theme for the Epiphany 2 Lectionary

    I’m probably going to talk about common themes later, but I noticed something interesting that might not be the first thing one would notice in these passages, and that’s a combined sense of inadequacy without God’s Spirit, and the adequacy given by the presence of God’s Spirit. In Isaiah 49, the servant is taken as an infant, and equipped by God. This parallels John 1, I think, where we do not have an expression of inadequacy, but we have the giving of the Spirit at baptism, and ministry that follows it.

    Inadequacy is specifically expressed in Psalm 40:1-11 “pulled me up from the seething chasm” and “from the mud of the mire” (v. 2, NJB), and in Paul’s letters frequently, but demonstrated in our passage again through the focus on “called by the will of God (v. 1), and “relying on God” (v. 9).

    Whether or not the inadequacy is expressed, in each case the preparation and the giving of the Spirit is the launching point for ministry. We talk about the baptism of Jesus as demonstrating the path that each Christian must follow. Jesus is obedient to God, even though he has not sinned and doesn’t require baptism for forgiveness of sins. But note also that Jesus is not inadequate, as we would normally think of inadequacy, but he also launches his ministry when he receives the Spirit.

    There is a pattern there for modern ministry (clergy or lay) as well.

  • Common Theme, Lectionary for Baptism of Christ – A

    The texts are Isaiah 42:1-9, Psalm 29, Acts 10:34-43, and Matthew 3:13-17. (Check them on Textweek which is a wonderful resource.)

    I like to think about common themes in these passages so that I can, if I want create a sermon or a lesson that incorporates all four texts. In this case I see a common them or the creator of all who intrudes into our lives for redemption. There is some piece of this in every one. Now that is way too broad as a theme, but it has gotten me started thinking in several directions.

    Isaiah 42:1-9 – this gives us both elements, with verses 1-7 dealing with the servant, his call, and the way God’s Spirit comes upon him empowering him for a task of redemption. One sermon that would come to me from this passage would discuss just what it is that God means by justice, and how God (or God’s servant) goes about bringing it to pass. Verses 8-9 talk both about power and universality. Note also that if God is creator of all, and Lord over all, he is also interested in everyone. We can downplay our “in-group specialness.”

    Psalm 29 is pretty strictly a hymn about God’s power, which can tie in with Isaiah 42:8-9 (and verse 5).

    Acts 10:34-43 is the story of Peter realizing that God is concerned with more than his own people. It would make an excellent text to discuss moving from exclusive to inclusive because one recognizes that God is more inclusive than I am!

    Matthew 3:13-17, of course, tells of the baptism of Jesus and the coming of the Spirit on him, to a Christian the greatest act of redemption.

    I could think of several lessons one could teach from a combination of all four of those texts.

  • Another Interesting Lectionary Omission

    Since I’ve been attending a lectionary discussion group during Wednesday lunch, and therefore spending more time on the lectionary texts, I’ve been interested in the way the texts are selected. For this coming Sunday, Epiphany, one of the texts is Isaiah 60:1-6. “Now what could possibly be interesting about that?” you might ask.

    I’m glad you asked! In this case what’s interesting is the cut-off point. In general, this is a prophecy of restoration, given to Israel during the time of the exile, or perhaps afterward. (It would fall in trito-Isaiah, assuming one accepts that division.) More specifically it is a prophecy of Israel becoming a religious center, and other nations supporting them.

    I found it interesting that the Learning Bible (CEV), in its note on Isaiah 60:7 specifically says that the temple referenced there is the rebuilt temple, dedicated about 515 B.C. This suggests that in the view of those interpreters this passage was fulfilled with the restoration of Jerusalem and the temple following the Babylonian exile. Yet a brief reading of the chapter suggests there are a number of things which were not fulfilled at that time, such as the sun no longer being their light (verse 19) but YHWH serving that function (cf. Revelation 21:23-24), all its people being righteous (v. 21), to name just a couple. I note also that the Jewish Study Bible refers this to a future age when God will rule the nation directly.

    So again why do I find the cutoff at verse 6 interesting? Well, in that verse we have a reference to the continuation of the sacrificial services of the temple, something that most Christian interpreters do not include in any future age. Quoting from the JPS Tanakh:

    All the flocks of Kedar shall be assembled for you,
    The rams of Nebaioth shall serve your needs;
    They shall be welcome offerings on My altar,
    And I will add glory to My glorious House.

    Now Christian interpreters are not unaware of these texts, but many people in the pews are, and thus when they start studying eschatological prophecies they can become very confused.

    Let me make a couple of quick observations. First, Christian eschatology, insofar as it works from the prophecies of Hebrew scripture has divided prophecies between a first and second coming of Jesus. No such division is known here in the text. Salvation from sin and salvation from physical oppression are closely intertwined.

    Second, while both Ezekiel and Isaiah speak of a future time when the temple will be restored and sacrifices will be offered, Christian interpreters find that very hard to fit into any prophetic scheme. There are those who believe there will be a period of sacrifice in a restored temple during the time of the tribulation. I won’t go into the details of how this is supported from the text here. Suffice it to say that it can get complicated quite quickly. But in general, Christian theology has a problem with restored sacrifices seen in a positive sense, since the sacrificial system is commonly seen as unnecessary following the death of Jesus.

    One has to wonder whether the compilers of the Revised Common Lectionary didn’t want to avoid having these questions raised by a reading of verse 7 on Epiphany.

  • Who Cares about the Present, We have the Future!

    A few years ago I was discussing the behavior of a televangelist (who and the particular behavior is unimportant), when she said, “You know, if I believed in God, I’d be afraid to do that.”

    Now there are certain assumptions in that statement. The God in question must be one who rewards and punishes in the afterlife, and who cares how we behave in this life. But that’s not so far off as reasonably Biblical description of God.

    Thus I was interested to find the following quote in Judgment Day, the NOVA documentary on the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial. Lauri Lebo, a journalist, is commenting on her father’s view and that of other Christians in the area.

    If you believe in heaven and hell and you believe you have to be saved. Nothing else could possibly matter. Not the first amendment, not science, not rational debate. Er, all that matters is that you’re going to be rejoined with the people you love most on this Earth. (Source: Transcript part 9

    Now this statement struck me, and reminded me of my particular conversation. Though I obviously have a “side” in this case–I’m very much pro-evolution–I’m not primarily interested here in the constant battles over who is more truth-challenged in these debates. I think that the school board in this case came out pretty bad from the point of view of integrity, but that’s not my major point.

    My concern here is simply for the attitudes and practices that are appropriate for Christians who believe in eternal life. Is it proper to let the belief in eternal life overcome your scruples about everything else?

    Lectionary texts for the last week have dealt quite a bit with the question of waiting for the coming of Jesus and what we are to do in that case. I know that many people wonder why God would not tell us precisely when Jesus was scheduled to return. I could give many answers to that, but one would have to be this: We can’t afford to know when such a thing will happen. Every time someone has convinced a large group of people that the end of the world was coming on a particular date, they lose all interest in behaving themselves in this one.

    People spend a great deal of time in Revelation and related apocalyptic passages, but I would suggest we spend a little bit more time with Mark 13/Matthew 24/Luke 21, which can be summarized as saying to relax and keep right on going until it’s right there. In 2 Thessalonians 3:13, Paul gets in on the act as well, telling people not to tire of doing good.

    That one line is probably the best advice to Christians in anticipating the end of the world. Just keep on behaving like you’re going to be living out your life right here. Keep on doing good!

    I have encountered this attitude in academic disciplines. Why bother with scholarship, or why bother with extremely careful scholarship? The key thing is that you bring in souls. I have encountered this in daily life. Why should I put out my best effort at work? The ministry is more important. Why should I be careful with financial accountability? I’m doing God’s work.

    In connection with neglecting one’s secular work, I can’t resist a story. More than 30 years ago my father was medical director of a health conditioning center. They were building a new hospital facility, a good portion of it self-help. My dad was pretty handy, and as he was able, he was out getting his hands dirty, and especially working on the electrical installation.

    The facility was Christian, and there was a young man there who was supposed to be working, but who would bring his Bible, and would stop working and share things from it with other workers. Not only was he not working himself, he was disrupting everyone else. But what do you do? It’s a Christian facility, and look how holy he is! Well, my dad banned him from bringing his Bible to the site. It was quite a scandal for a few days. How could a Christian physician order a subordinate not to bring his Bible to work? But my dad stuck to his decision.

    I would suggest that the right attitude is to be doubly accountable–here and for the next world. Live like you don’t get to hide anything. Be as honest as you possibly can. Carry out your work as conscientiously as you possibly can.

    It isn’t a matter of putting eternity on the back burner. The Bible repeatedly commands faithfulness here. I think that means faithfulness in work, research, publication, and one’s political activities, as well as in one’s church activities. Lying, even if motivated by kingdom concerns, is not an option.

    Who cares about the present? We all should.

  • The Human Face of Scripture

    Psalm 137 came up in the lectionary for this week. Now there was a time when we would get this Psalm at least with the final verse left out. That verse reads “Blessed is the one who seizes your little ones and dashes them against a rock.” One should understand, of course, that this was a Psalm about/by Jewish exiles in Babylon, and that the Babylonians had done precisely that sort of thing to them. One strong element of the Psalm is revenge.

    I was teaching a class on the Old Testament, drawn from the book Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament God? once, and I asked people in the class whether they would feel the way the Psalm describes if someone had come into their community and killed their children. Would they want their attackers to suffer the same fate?

    Person after person in the audience expressed their desire to be forgiving, and their disapproval of the attitude expressed in the Psalm. Then one lady, a grandmother, interrupted the flow. “I think many of us are lying to ourselves,” she said. “I would feel bad that I wanted it, because I know what Jesus said, but I would want them to suffer the same fate.”

    Several people changed their minds. That one lady had given them some cover to be honest with themselves. The fact is that Psalm 137 is a very human Psalm, and a very real Psalm. It makes us uncomfortable, but I believe part of that discomfort is that we know that those feelings are not far from many of us.

    Does this justify a search for vengeance? That’s another matter. It is an expression of the true desires. Perhaps what we need to do when we have such feelings is express them and then seek the grace to forgive. That’s another subject. My point right now is that the Psalm expresses who we are.

    This Psalm makes me think about what the Bible actually is. I’m amazed at how frequently we decide what the Bible ought to be, and then try to force it to be whatever it is we think it ought to be. But we have the Bible itself and we can observe that it doesn’t fit these prescriptions we make for what it must be. People decide it must contain hard information sent from God by means of verbal dictation. Humanity should not have any real involvement. A little personality here and there, but no impact on the actual message.

    But in fact the Bible displays a range of human attitudes, emotions, cultural baggage, and even mental capacity. God’s commands are not merely God’s commands; they are what people heard God commanding them to do. And communication is limited to the capacities of the least capable end of the line. Scripture displays both a human and a divine face. (See The One-Ended Cord.)

    I also recently read a post titled Minimising mistakes in the Bible (or not). This is a good discussion of a minor Biblical error. The “error” a problem for inerrantists, who have to find a way to work around it. I would suggest, however, that it’s a natural part of the human face of scripture. The message comes through clearly, while there is a minor glossing over of fact.

    People often assume that I don’t believe in inerrancy because I have a long list of errors in the Bible. But that is not my problem with the doctrine at all. For those who want to ask me for my list, I don’t have one. I’ve encountered many things that I put down to “the human face of scripture,” but I don’t keep lists of them, because to me they are not very important. I suppose that if I did not reject inerrancy on other grounds, such a list might become important to me. But as it is, I think inerrancy simply misses the point of a communication between a perfect God and imperfect (or at least limited) human beings. Such a communication is simply much more dynamic than can be described in the phrase “error-free.”

    Scripture is divine, because it involves communication with God. It’s human because it is communicated through and to humans. Because it is what it is it requires careful and prayerful–Holy Spirit guided–interpretation and application, accomplished, of course, by humans, who are hopefully aware of their own limitations.