Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Uncategorized

  • Perspective on Vocabulary and Genre in Genesis 1-11

    Just how does one go about determining how to read these chapters? I’ve talked in previous posts about literary types and historicity, but this is more about approach.

    I have both heard and read places where people state that these chapters are obviously narrative history because they “sound like it.” But how should one’s ears, or eyes, be trained in order to discern this in ancient literature? I would suggest that if you go to the passage with a modern set of genres, you will often be led astray.

    Imagine for a moment that there is no Hebrew Bible, and you are an archaeologist. You carefully dig into a chamber that has been covered for millenia, and it is filled with clay tablets. There’s writing on the tablets. You don’t know what culture this material came from and you don’t know what it is. You set about deciphering the script and discovering the language, and there in your hands is the text of what we call Genesis 1-11.

    What do you call this text? How will you decide just what it is? Well, we have much precedent for this sort of thing. One looks at the texts from surrounding culture, giving greater weight to texts that are closer in time and culture, and one tries to fit it into categories. If it is sufficiently different, one may create new categories.

    In the case of Genesis 1-11 let me suggest two things. First, if we didn’t have it, but discovered it as a new text, we would have no problem categorizing it as an origin myth. Basically, that is. Second, we would be very exciting by this text, because there are unique characteristics that make it very different from other origin myths. So we would spend a great deal of time cataloging those differences.

    Of course, things happened in reverse. We discovered Babylonian and Sumerian myths, while we already had Genesis. This is unfortunate in some ways, because we get very tense in categorizing Biblical literature. In popular understanding, the debate is always over whether something was copied or not. Was Genesis 1 copied from the Babylonian or Sumerian myths? Liberals say yes, conservatives say no. Which, of course, oversimplifies everything!

    What’s really more interesting is looking at how the various documents might be related in terms of thought, vocabulary, cosmology, literary structure, and so forth. Two written works may be related without being copied. For example, if one writes a romance novel, one is using a literary genre, and there is a relationship between that work and others of the same genre. You may find similarities in vocabulary and style that fall far below the threshold for copying, but which nonetheless indicate influence, common knowledge, or even common culture.

    These are better questions regarding Genesis 1-11. It is clearly not copied, in my view, but it is also clearly not unrelated. I will comment further on why I believe this in later posts.

  • Comparing 1 Peter 3:13

    Yesterday I commended the HCSB translation of this verse. Today let me give a couple of other options:

    • HCSB: “And who will harm you if you are passionate for what is good?”
    • REB: “Who is going to do your harm if you are devoted to what is good?” [Doesn’t read well, in my view, even though I love the REB]
    • TNIV: “Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good?” [Excellent, though I like “passionate” for this context]

    Not of these are horrible, nor are a number of others I read. I still like the HCSB best on this one.

  • Piper: Suffering is Judicial

    This is via a summary by Adrian Warnock, but I doubt Adrian would get a whole section wrong. There are a large number of things in this message that are right on target, and a few also with which I disagree.

    But the reason I’m posting a brief response is this: As has become standard with those who accept penal substitutionary atonement (PSA), metaphor has been promoted to reality. Everything gets placed in the courtroom. If we cannot distinguish spiritual things from the worldly metaphors used to describe them, then we will always be off track.

    Let me quote Piper as summarized by Adrian Warnock:

    Suffering is Judicial
    John PiperThis is most important, most controversial, and most helpful. In verse 20 it is clear that somebody took the universe and disordered it. Someone brought painful disorder to our relationships, workplaces, etc. GOD did it. We know it must have been God because it was done in hope! There can only be two other candidates—Adam and the devil. Did Adam and Eve sin in the hope of a future new heaven and earth? They didn’t have a clue about that when they fell! Was it the devil’s design to do it in hope? No! Only God did this in hope. God judged the universe because of sin. . . .

    Now while there are even some valid points within that selection, there is also a basic error. The courtroom has been imported and made into the reality. If God allows this to happen as a consequence of sin, that is apparently not sufficient for Piper. But God is still doing it, because God is in and behind everything that is. The courtroom metaphor distorts the issue.

    Quoting further (after skipping half of a long paragraph), still from Adrian’s summary:

    The meaning of all misery in the universe is that sin is horrific. All natural evil such as floods, disease, etc. is a statement about the horror of moral evil. God looked upon sin, and he said, “Here is my response to that.” He subjected the entire creation to this. Until you see the moral outrage of sin in proper proportions, and the magnificence of God in proper proportions, that will seem to you like an over-reaction. The world will say, “That’s ridiculous! He saw one sin and he did all that?” The reason for suffering is to teach you about your heart. You don’t even get close to understanding the horror of the way you treat your wife. There is a moral scandal about falling short of God’s glory.

    Here I have to disagree again. The imaginary universe in which no natural disasters occur is just that–imaginary. Again, promotion of a metaphor (the courtroom) to reality distorts our ability to discuss the issue.

    I’m wondering if Piper and those who hold a similar view don’t also have to hold a young earth creationism position. Certainly there were natural disasters before the fall of humanity if one holds that the earth is old. The old earth creationism position would suggest physical death as a natural part of the world, not as a consequence of sin, and much of that death historically was caused by natural disasters.

  • Relating the Incarnation to Inspiration

    Yesterday I wrote a few notes about Dr. Peter Enns and his suspension by Westminster Theological Seminary. G. K. Beale, who reviewed Dr. Enns’ book, complained that Dr. Enns is not very clear about just what in the incarnation applies.

    Since I still don’t have my own copy of this book, a situation that will be remedied soon, I would like to comment myself on how the incarnation applies to inspiration in my view. Since I believe that the incarnation is central to Christian doctrine, and more specifically it is central to the way in which I think about God, it should be obvious even without my saying so that I find this doctrine central to inspiration.

    Starting from the view that Jesus is 100% human and at the same time 100% divine, and that the fact that this is possible is a mystery, I would identify three key points:

    1. Somehow it was possible both for Jesus to learn and grow, and at the same time be divine and sinless. Luke 2:52 would demonstrate this if nothing else.
    2. Though divinity is infinite, its revelation to us in the incarnation was located in space and time.
    3. Again though divinity is infinite, the amount that can be revealed to us is limited.

    Briefly, what is the importance of these three points?

    1. The first would suggest that revelation can grow, i.e. be progressive. I would understand from Luke 2:52 that Jesus came to greater understandings of many things than he had as a child. The scriptures parallel this process to some extent. Note that I don’t hold that revelation is progressive in the sense that every later passage is better or supersedes all preceding passages. Rather, the whole of revelation grows.
    2. Jesus, though being divine and drawing on infinity, had to communicate to people in the place and time where he was revealed. Thus he gave teachings directed at Jewish people living under Roman rule mostly in Galilee. We learn from that revelation, but we don’t see it in the same way. The revelation doesn’t provide infinite knowledge to the local people. Rather, it must be contextualized within the matrices provided by their language, culture, and understanding.
    3. Jesus may have had access to infinite knowledge. I don’t know. That’s part of the mystery. Just how did that work? But the people whom he taught had a finite time to learn, and so do we.

    Scripture, I think, partakes of all these elements. I join with Dr. Enns in avoiding the term “error.” Rather, I think the things we would call errors from our perspective were intentional from the point of view of communicating with that culture. So while I would call the cosmology reflected in Genesis primitive or pre-scientific, I don’t think it’s in there by mistake. It’s in there because it was the best way to communicate the spiritual truths contained there to that audience.

    To understand it properly, we have to recontextualize it without losing the message on the way.

  • The Value (and not so much) of the Anchor Bible

    At this point I’m nearly half way through my study through 2 Corinthians with Victor Paul Furnish’s Anchor Bible Commentary, on which I made introductory comments earlier.

    This note is not so much about 2 Corinthians as about the series in general, and especially some of the newer volumes. I absolutely don’t recommend this series to preachers. They are good and detailed, though often involving leading edge rather than well established scholarship, but they are so detailed that it is very hard to get to the point. A scholar preparing for a lecture to a seminary class on a passage wants this kind of detail. Few preachers that I know would like it.

    Note that “half way through” means page 252 of 588, and I’m just into chapter 4. I find it necessary to have my Greek testament open to the passage throughout because it’s hard to remember what word or phrase I was reading about last by the time I get to the next comment.

    At the same time, the level of thoroughness is something I welcome, that linguistic and textual issues are covered in great detail, and that the commentary on critical theories regarding the book is good. If you are willing to wade through the extensive other content, there are some useful theological applications as well. It’s just that if you want to really get the value, you have to dedicated hours to a few verses, and that’s rarely possible for sermon or Sunday School lesson preparation.

    This volume, and the whole series are extremely useful, but you need to keep your purpose in mind.

  • Another Quick Look at the NISB

    I blogged a bit before about the New Interpreter’s Study Bible [NISB], in which I noted that it was somewhat more technical than The Learning Bible and less critical than the Oxford Study Bible.

    Since then I have been using it quite a bit in my personal devotions and study, and I’d like to add a couple of points.

    First, the NISB is less involved with textual and grammatical issues, and more involved with interpretation and theological application. If you’re a preacher, its notes will lead much more quickly and directly to points you can make in a sermon. It shares this characteristic with The Learning Bible, but since its notes are a bit more in depth it will generally be more useful in sermon preparation.

    Second, I have noticed a careful balance in the notes. On page 1959, for example, commenting on Acts 2:23 and the accusation there made against “the Jews” that they had crucified Jesus. The problem with this accusation, of course, is that it has been carried forward by some to just about any group of Jews, and thus has been used extensively by anti-Semites. The Excursus, titled “Responsibility for the Death of Jesus” discusses the meaning of this type of statement within the early Christian church and for modern Christians:

    When Jewish Christians spoke of Jews who put Jesus to death, the intra-Jewish nature of the conflict was clear. But when Christians who are no longer Jews speak of “the Jews” as being responsible for the death of Jesus, there is a whole other nuance that fuels anti-Judaism. Luke’s narratives must be understood in both their historical and theological contexts; at the same time, they must not be used to foment anti-Semitism.

    Well put, in my opinion. I continue to become more impressed with the notes as I read.

  • The Major Errors of KJV-Only

    Someone signing as Morgan Sorensen just left a comment on my old post (11/28/2006), and I want to promote it to its own post, because it demonstrates the core errors of the KJV-Only position in a very small space.

    I’m printing the entire comment but I’m interspersing it with comments on the core errors that are displayed.

    Henry Neufeld, You are the one, in error here . These two verses do NOT say the same thing, unless you have graduated from “Dumbness school”.

    In what way do they not say the same thing? Surely since you believe that in order not to see it I must have graduated from “dumbness school” you can provide details.

    Furthermore, two important factors from the scriptures hang you , and James White out, as the deceivers that you are.
    One, is the first pillar, (of two) on the doctrine of scripture. That the Word of God came not by the WILL of MAN. Therefore, any changes to this Word of God, by the WILL of Man, must result in “sriritual blood poison”.

    Here’s the key KJV-Only error. They assume that the KJV is the one and only word of God, thus any changes from it become errors because you can’t change the word of God. But the word of God is not limited to one translation, and it didn’t come into existence in 1611. By this standard, the KJV is “spiritual blood poison” because of the alterations it makes from the source Greek and Hebrew texts.

    Of course that isn’t the case, because they, like other Bible translators, were simply working with what they had, and they did a pretty good job. Their translation shouldn’t replace the source texts. How could it? But it was very good for its time.

    Secondly, the Word of God is; “Forever settled in Heaven”, it is”pure”, it is by Jesus’s own explanation, the “Lifeblood” of the Christian. Jesus said; “My Words are life unto you”.
    In Leviticus 17, we read that the LIFE is in the blood. You fellas are tampering with that “life”, and inserting the tincture of “scholastic arsenic” into that “God given Pure bloodstream” of the traditional text, and presenting the corrupted Alexandrian mss. as pure, when you ought to know, it is not.

    Now she also assumes that the “traditional text,” a rather ephemeral object is equal to the “word of God. Which is it? Is the KJV the word that cannot be changed, or is it the “traditional text?” And what represents the traditional text? The textus receptus, the majority text, or some reconstruction of the Greek text used by the KJV translators?

    Considering some of the completely unique readings in the latter chapters of Revelation, again, the KJV might well be accused of adding this “spiritual arsenic.” Of course, no such thing is true. They did the best they could with what they had–and it was an excellent job. The translators themselves would be horrified at the type of arguments KJV-Only advocates use in supposed support of their work. With friends like these . . .

    Further, who presents “the corrupted Alexandrian mss. as pure”? I’m an advocate of an eclectic text, and don’t regard any hand copied manuscript as “pure” in this sense. All are subject to error, and all disagree with one another in some way. If the scriptures are corrupt, that corruption was introduced pretty early.

    Your stupid mis-caricature of Mrs. Riplinger, shows both you and James White’s cowardice and un-gentlemanly behaviour.

    Anyone who speaks the way she does about others has no grounds to complain about how she is treated. She has slandered many men of God and her book contains an overwhelming number of errors.

    Not that I in any way need to defend Mrs. Riplinger, as both you and James white, could not scholastically measure up to her ankles. You both stand exposed for your lies and deception.

    I eagerly await the first time that you expose my lies and deception. All you did in this comment was assert that I was a liar. Try again.

  • MyBibleVersion.com – Adding a New Concept

    Lingalinga, formerly going under the identity lingamish, made a suggestion about my Bible Version Selection Tool. He thought it would be nice to be able to modify the version profiles to one’s individual tastes, and use the tool against those profiles rather than the ones I supply.

    I agree with him, and it wouldn’t be that difficult for me to implement, partially because I have most of the necessary code on file from other projects. The main difficulty is designing a usable system. So I’m going to give you, my readers, a chance to make more detailed suggestions.

    I will have one firm proviso. I’m not going to mix this idea in with the original tool. Feedback has indicated that my original tool (still available at http://books.energion.com/bibles/eneversion.php) was simply too complicated for most users. They would give up after going through one or two of the items, and rarely would get to all eleven. That’s why I created the simplified version with profiles. Users can now check a box and get the more detailed layout. I think, however, that adding links for all of this to that page will remove the benefit. Instead I will create a new page for individually tailored selection.

    Here are the basic features:

    1. Simple registration and sign-in. Version information can then be recalled and edited, but only by the one who created it.
    2. Though each person, unless possessed of multiple personalities, should likely have one set of descriptions for Bible versions, multiple sets are possible.
    3. The editor will present a matrix with the complete list of versions, defaulting to the current numbers and descriptions. Users will simply provide an ID for their data, and then modify any information they wish.
    4. Users of the personalized selection tool will be able to choose any one of the profiles provided by users, probably via drop-down box.
    5. Other than selection of the data set against which you want to work, the selection tool will function in the same way as it does at present.

    Some options I’m considering:

    1. User profile, with some kind of user ID (not necessarily real name) and web site/blog link.
    2. Published/not-published option, so you can edit on a new set of profiles for the translations without having it show publicly.
    3. Published profile sets would then display the user profile information, allowing users to evaluate a bit. For example, if the person who created the profile set is contributor to a major Bible translation blog (Better Bibles, for example), one might give it more weight.
    4. Allow users, more specifically anyone who creates a profile-set, to add characteristics on which they want to rate a version. This is a bit more complex, and would not be in any initial version.
    5. Allow users to add versions to the list. Again, in the initial version, people would have to e-mail me to add a new version.

    For those who have web sites, it looks to me like we would have the same XML generator available to work under your individualized profile. You’d be able to create a set of profiles for Bible versions, then use an RSS reader to access your information and display it on your site. I have the basic code for doing so here. I would expect this to be possible with the personalized version as well.

    These are just my preliminary ideas. I will accept suggestions via comments to this blog entry.

  • Narrative from the Pentateuch

    I frequently recommend reading the story of the exodus through conquest as a kind of connected narrative, trying to learn from the stories. The problem I’ve discovered is that many people skip over the ceremonial and legal parts of the Bible and thus often miss important narrative points that are interleaved with those elements.

    Ultimately, I recommend that you read the whole thing, but for those who may prefer to try something a bit lighter, here’s a connected path, with chapters to be skipped in [brackets] along with a summary of what you’re missing there. There will be occasional short genealogies or legal items of just a few verses that I include with the reading.

    Genesis

    1-4:16 [4:17-22 – Kenite genealogy]
    [5 – Patriarchal genealogies]
    6-9
    [10 – Table of Nations]
    11:1-9
    [11:10-26 – Second patriarchal genealogy]
    11:27-32
    12-24
    [25:1-18 – Abraham and Keturah + genealogy]
    25:19-35:29
    [36 – Esau’s genealogy]
    37-50

    Exodus

    1-20 (note that I include the giving of the 10 commandments in the narrative)
    [21-24:8 – Law and covenant]
    24:9-18
    [25-31 – Instructions for the Tabernacle]
    32-34
    [35-40:33 – Regulations and building the tabernacle]
    40:34-38

    Leviticus

    [1-8 – Instructions for various offerings]
    9-10
    [11-27 – Various laws, feasts, sacrifices and other regulations]

    Numbers

    [1-8 – Census, along with various duties and laws]
    9-14
    [15 – More laws and ceremonial regulations]
    16-17
    [18-19 – Priestly Responsibilities and the ceremony of the red heifer]
    20-25
    [26 – New census]
    27
    [28-30 – Various laws]
    31-33
    [34-36 – various laws, list of tribal leaders]

    Deuteronomy

    1-3
    [4-30 – repetition of the law]
    31-34

    I do not mean to imply that the legal and ceremonial sections are less important; far from it. I believe they have great spiritual insights. But those who are just starting to read the Pentateuch might do well to start just a bit lighter.

    Let me also recommend my essay Interpreting Stories for use in connection with these narratives.

  • For Us to Fulfill All Righteouness

    I noticed something in my reading time this morning that has presumably been staring me in the face through many readings of the passage. In fact, this is the 14th morning in a row that I’ve read this as part of this week’s lectionary, so I’ve had plenty of opportunity. The passage is Matthew 3:13-17, and specifically verse 15.

    But suddenly as I was thinking about just why it was that Jesus should get baptized it occurred to me first that if it was his Father’s will that he get baptized, even though he had no sin in need of forgiveness, and then didn’t get baptized, well, obviously that would have been sin. But I thought that was just a tricky way of stating what was obvious from the start.

    Then I thought. “appropriate for us.” Who is “us?” John and Jesus? Jesus and the crowd around who didn’t participate? What about everybody, us, including me? In the sense that we are all called to be baptized, surely that’s true. But then it occurred to me that Jesus is here identifying himself with us in our baptism. When we are then baptized, we identify with him in ours. He’s so much a part of us that he does everything that we’re doing.

    It struck me that one of the difficulties I see in intercessory prayer on behalf of a congregation is that often our 21st century psyches don’t really identify with the congregation. We do “identificational repentance” without really identifying with the ones we pray for. When Daniel prays for Israel in Daniel 9, it is clear that he is part of Israel, and repents for sins for which he feels the guilt as part of his people. When we pray for our churches or nations, it is often with a sense of praying for their sins, because we haven’t (in our view) contributed.

    It was there all the time, but this morning I received a new blessing of feeling just how much Jesus identifies with us lowly folk way down here. At the same time I was challenged to identify more with my brothers and sisters in prayer, thought, and action.