Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Biblical Criticism

  • 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.

  • Biblical Criticism Resources

    Since I’m talking so much about critical theories in my discussion of Genesis 1-11 (now on chapter 6), I wanted to call some attention to material I have already posted concerning Biblical criticism. The best starting point for this information is the following pamphlet from the Participatory Study Series:

    That pamphlet provides answers to some of the basic questions that many lay people have about Biblical criticism. I sometimes criticize conservative scholars for ignoring critical study and methodology, although many do take it into account, such as the authors of the New International Commentary on the New Testament, New International Commentary on the Old Testament, or the Apollos Old Testament series. Liberal scholars and teachers, on the other hand, often seem to simply assume critical results without giving people the chance to evaluate the methods and any assumptions behind them.

    To help lay people understand better what is being said when people present conclusions from critical scholarship, and do so very likely with excessive confidence, I wrote a series of entries over on my Threads blog. Some time I’ll gather them together and make them more accessible, but in the meantime, here’s a list.

    While it is not part of the criticism series, I have continued discussion of Isaiah 24-27 here on this blog, and intend to continue working slowly through that section of Isaiah.

    The main point here is, as always, to evaluate claims for yourself, and not simply accept what others feed you.

  • Genesis 6:1-4: Sons of God and Human Beings

    These four verses provide a rather unusual interlude, coming between the genealogy of the patriarchal line in chapter five, and the story of the flood that truly begins in verse 5. I’m attributing them to the redactor who combined the J and P sources of the flood, though I think they work better with the P source. This is not the standard interpretation. The reason I suggest it is that:

    1. The style is neither that of J or P, despite the use of YHWH as the divine name.
    2. The instance of YHWH could well be the work of the redactor.
    3. The J source has explained the presence of evil in the world through the fall of chapter 3 and Cain’s sin of chapter 4.

    I could easily be wrong about all that, but it’s just a quick suggestion. Now to the interpretation.

    Wherever it started, this passage fits quite well into the final form of the story, giving us a reason for God’s action in sending the flood.

    1Now when human beings began to get numerous all over the land, and they gave birth to daughters, 2the sons of God {or “sons of the gods” or “divine beings} saw the daughters of the human beings. They saw that they were good looking, and they took wives for themselves from whomever they chose.

    There are three major suggestions for the meaning of “sons of God.” Before I list those, let me note that the translation could be “sons of the gods” as well, and that this would present the option of “divine beings.” The three major options are:

    1. The sons of the gods are divine beings such as angels. (The New Bible Commentary)
    2. The sons of God are the descendants of Seth and followers of God (Matthew Henry)
    3. The sons of God are human beings who are possessed by or under the control of demonic powers (The Bible Knowledge Commentary)

    (Commentary listings are just examples. There may be many more commentators who hold the same position.

    If the “sons of the gods” are divine beings, then the “sons of men” should be translated “human beings” or something similar, as I have done. If they are the descendants of Seth, then the “sons of men” would be the Kenites or descendants of Cain. If you take the third option, that they are human beings controlled by demonic forces, you would reverse the situation in option three, and in terms of physical form, at least, the sons of God would be the Kenites, while the sons of man would be the descendants of Seth.

    I think that the best parallel to the use of the term in this passage is Job 1:6, in which it is clear that supernatural beings are intended. In this case, the marriages between these supernatural beings and the human women result in ancient heroes and the “nephilim.” At the same time, wickedness increases, with very little in the way of limitations, because people live for so long. The long lives, as noted in chapter 5, help with passing on the patriarchal tradition, but this long life also allows some pretty incredible planning for evil.

    3Then YHWH said, “My spirit will not always work among human beings, considering that they are flesh. Their lifespan will be 120 years.” 4There were giants {Nephilim} on the earth in those days, and also after the sons of God went to the daughters of the human beings and bore children by them. These were heroes, the famous men of ancient times.

    God quickly reminds everyone that he is the one that is in charge. There’s to be a reduction in the lifespan, but don’t miss the way it happens. God withdraws his spirit, his breath of life.

    (29) You hide your face, and they are disturbed;
    You bring their breath to an end,
    And they return to their dust.

    (30) You send forth your breath, and they are created;
    So you renew the face of the ground.

    — Psalm 104:29-30 (from my paper Psalm 104: God, Creator and Sustainer

    It’s easy to forget as we rebel against God that all life, and even all existence depends on him. So rebellion against God, while it may seem to be a liberated way to live, is actually simply the way to death. As we look at the flood, we will want to consider this option of God withdrawing himself, and at the same time withdrawing his protection.

  • The Two Flood Stories Updated

    I’ve just reposted my essay The Two Flood Stories, correcting some links, improving the notes a bit, making some verse numbering a little bit clearer, and adding a section concluding the flood story. This editing was in preparation for continuing my Genesis series here by discussing the flood story. Thus far, I’ve discussed through Genesis 5. Probably later today, I’ll make a general post on Genesis 6.

  • 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.

  • Isaiah 24

    I used Isaiah 24-27 over on Threads from Henry’s Web as an illustration for use of the various critical tools. In addition, current events in the middle east have predictably started a great deal of discussion of end time events, and of apocalyptic literature.

    As I discussed in those earlier posts, many see Isaiah 24-27 as a sort of mini-apocalypse. If one looks at related literature, I would suggest it is quite logical to see these chapters as an early form. As we go through them, we will see many elements that are alluded to in later literature. It will be helpful to use these chapters as a starting point for understanding the various Biblical passages related to the end-times.

    Chapter 24 Composition

    I’m going to be brief in discussing the critical issues in each chapter, both because I discussed the critical tools earlier, and because I prefer to get to exposition as quickly as possible. For more information on critical issues, I suggest Isaiah by Brevard Childs as a balanced approach.

    Chapter 24 is in two basic sections: 1-13, which is an oracle of judgment, and 14-23, which is a prophetic disputation. In this, I’m accepting both the traditional division of the chapter, and the particular analysis of Seitz as cited by Childs (op cit). These identifications should suggest something about how we understand the passage. Grabbing any single verse, for example, could be dangerous. In the judgment oracle, we are getting only one part of the picture. We will have promises of blessing in later pictures. No single element gives the complete picture. In 14-23, we have a dispute, so we have two views. The question that is asked poetically is this: Is God really going to do this?

    Draft Translation

    So here is my draft translation with some commentary. Note that this is a draft translation. I use it to hang comments. You should always study from a translation produced by a committee to avoid theological biases–even or especially my theological biases–or simple errors.

    Isaiah 24

    1Take note! YHWH is devastating the land,
    and laying it waste.
    He twists it,
    and scatters those who live there.

    Note carefully that the starting point here is a clear statement that God is the one who is bringing judgment. We will discuss why God is bringing judgment as this section of Isaiah (24-27) goes forward, but there is no attempt to pretend that there is any other cause for the destruction. God’s sovereignty is strongly affirmed in apocalyptic literature, as in prophetic literature generally. At the end of the chapter we’ll see this again, as our author or redactor regards “God is going to judge” as a sufficient answer to the question of whether anything good can really come out of the destruction.

    I’m translating Hebrew ‘erets as “land” throughout. While I think there is a broader focus, the starting point of the imagery is the destruction of Judah. Other lands are brought in, but we are not talking cosmic destruction of earth as a planet here, but the devastation of inhabited countries.

    I will use color coding to indicate allusions to this passage in other apocalyptic literature, with red text indicating an allusion as indicated in the UBS IV Greek New Testament, and blue text indicating concepts that I believe appear in later literature.

    2Here’s how it’s going to be:
    As with the people, so with the priests;
    As with the servant, so with his master;
    As with the maid, so with her mistress;
    As with the buyer, so with the seller;
    As with the creditor, so with the debtor;
    As with the one who receives interest, so with the one who pays.
    3The land will be completely deserted,
    Totally plundered!
    For YHWH has given his word.

    The destruction is nationwide and indiscriminate. One of the regular questions about God’s judgment was asked by Abraham with reference to Sodom and Gommohra: Will you truly sweep away the righteous with the wicked (Genesis 18:23)?

    The answer in this case is yes, and at the end of verse three we have the reaffirmation that YHWH is the one who is doing all of this.

    4The land decays mournfully!
    The land dries and dwindles!
    Those who were important diminish.
    5The land is defiled under the rule of those who live there.
    Because they have violated the covenant,
    Altered the statutes,
    Put aside the eternal covenant.
    6That’s why a curse has consumed the land,
    Those who live there have felt their guilt,
    That’s why those who live in the land are burned up,
    And those remaining are few.

    Note the beginning of verse 6: “That’s why a curse has consumed the land.” The author doesn’t have a problem with regarding judgment as an act of God and at the same time the result of the actions of the people that bring an inevitable curse upon them.

    7The new wine is crying,
    The grapevine is withered,
    Even joyful people are sighing.
    8The joyful sound of timbrels stops.
    The sound of those who shout for joy ceases.
    The harp’s joyful sound cuts off.     [Revelation 18:22]
    9No one sings as they drink wine.
    The beer is bitter to those who drink it.
    10The deserted city is shattered,
    All the doors are and windows are barred.
    11In the streets people mourn over their wine.
    All joy becomes dark,
    The land’s mirth is gone.
    12What remains in the city is desolation,
    Destruction has smitten the gate.
    13For this is the way it will be
    in the midst of the land,
    among the people:
    Like shaking an olive tree, [Revelation 6:13, though the allusion is weak]
    Like the gleanings when the grape-harvest is over.
    [The “time of trouble” or tribulation.]

    The oracle of judgment is unrelievedly bitter, and does not make any promise of restoration or blessing. The start of this scenario is dark.

    Now we come to the prophetic dispute. To clarify what’s going on, I’m going to put one side of the dispute in normal text, and the other in italics.

    14These will raise their voice!
    They will shout!
    At YHWH’s majesty they will cry out from the sea!
    15So glorify YHWH in the east,
    Among the islands of the sea the name of YHWH.
    16From the farthest parts of the earth we hear songs.
    Splendour to the righteous!
    But I said, I’m vanishing! I’m vanishing! Woe!
    The treacherous have dealt treacherously;
    Indeed, the treacherous have dealt very treacherously.
    17Terror! The pit! The Snare!
    They’re all after you!
    18Here’s what’s going to happen:
    One who flees from the fearful sound will fall into the pit.
    And the one who comes up out of the pit will be caught in the same.
    For the windows in the heights are open,
    and the foundations of the earth tremble.
    [Looks back to the fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven in the flood, Genesis 7:11]
    19The land is completely shattered.
    It’s totally wiped out!
    It has been shaken vigorouoshly.
    20The land will stagger like a drunkard.
    It will sway back and forth like a temporary shelter.
    Its trangression will lie heavy on it.
    It will fall, and won’t rise again.

    21This is what will happen that day:
    YHWH will punish the high host in heaven,
    And also the kings on the land.
    22And they will be gathered together
    as prisoners are gathered together in the pit.
    They will be locked up in prison.
    [Devil bound for the thousand years, Revelation 20:1-3]
    And they will be punished many days later.
    [End of the millenium, Revelation 20:7-10]
    23Then the moon shall be abashed,
    and the sun ashamed,
    for YWHW of hosts will rule in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem,
    And glory will be before his elders. [Revelation 4:4]

    As we move forward through chapters 24-27 we will see more types of literature, but already we have at least two concepts that are common in apocalyptic. These are the starting point of divine judgment and the expectation of ultimate resolution by God. The final verses of chapter 24 serve to emphasize the inevitability of God’s final victory by framing it as part of a dispute.

  • 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.

  • Genesis 5: Preservation of the Patriarchal Line

    Introduction

    Genesis 5 continues the priestly account of origins. Now I don’t want us to get the idea that there are two separate messages here, because the two sources (priestly [P] and Yahwist [J]) have been brought together with their own message. Nonetheless, we can get some additional breadth and depth to this message by noting how we might understand these passages if we had only one of the two sources.

    The priestly writer continues from the creation that is found good and moves to the patriarchal line. He mentions the curse in connection with Lamech, who believes that his son Noah represents some form of relief (see comment below), but he doesn’t mention the corruption of the world until Genesis 6:11, though the comment that Noah was found perfect in his generation suggests that there was something less than perfect going on. For P, the preservation of the patriarchal line is critical. We learn that the world became corrupt, but not how. More of the action is placed in God’s hands and less in people’s hands.

    J, on the other hand, emphasizes the human side. We have an explanation for the corruption in human action, we have a line of people who are in rebellion, and then, at the end of chapter 4, we have the simple statement that there was also a patriarchal line. Seth is born, then he has a son, and with that we are told that people began to call on YHWH.

    There is a certain elegance and simplicity to each of these source documents, but there is a depth that is provided by combining them. I’m reminded of the debate between Calvinists and Arminians, specifically about the sovereignty of God, and which view gives God more glory. By attitude, P could be a Calvinist and J an Arminian, as P puts all the focus on God, while J spends his time talking about the action of creatures. The redactor combines these into a story of God in relationship to people. This is one of the benefits I see in using critical methodologies. It is easy, however, to stop by observing the sources, as though identifying sources amounted to interpreting the text. It doesn’t. Sometimes it doesn’t even produce anything of real interest. But at other times it does help us get a bit closer to the author’s aim.

    There will be only a few verse by verse comments. Most of Genesis 5 is self-explanatory. At the end I will deal with an overview of the type of literature involved, chronological calculations, and ways in which the chapter has been understood.

    Genesis 5: Translation and Notes

    1This is Adam’s genealogical record. When God created humankind he created them like himself, 2he created them male and female, blessed them, and called them Adam (human).

    Note that Adam produces a son in his likeness as God produced Adam in his own likeness. I would imagine that those who support a physical likeness, i.e. that God physically looks like a human being, might use this verse for that purpose. I would see the reverse. The likeness is not primarily physical, it is in being a choosing, acting, moral creature. This was the foundation of the patriarchal line.

    The likeness of God must somehow be preserved, and as we can see in chapter 4, Cain’s clan is not doing so well at preserving it.

    3Adam lived 130 years and gave birth to someone like him, in his image, and he called his son’s name Seth. 4After he gave birth to Seth Adam lived 800 years, and gave birth to sons and daughters. 5His full lifetime was 930 years. after which he died.

    6Seth lived 105 years, and gave birth to Enosh. 7and Seth lived 807 years after he gave birth to Enosh, and he gave birth to sons and daughters. 8And Seth’s full lifetime was 912 years, after which he died.

    9And Enosh lived 90 years, and gave birth to Kenan. 10And Enosh lived 815 years after he gave birth to Kenan, and gave birth to sons and daughters. 11Enosh’s full lifetime was 905 years, after which he died.

    12Kenan lived 70 years, and gave birth to Mahalalel. 13And Kenan lived 840 years after he gave birth to Mahalalel, and gave birth to sons and daughters. 14Kenan’a full lifetime was 910 years, then he died.

    15Mahalalel lived 65 years, and gave birth to Jared. 16And Mahalalel lived after 830 years after he gave birth to Jared, and he gave birth to sons and daughters. 17Mahalalel’s full lifetime was 895 years, after which he died.

    18Jared lived 162 years, and gave birth to Enoch. 19And Jared lived 800 years after he gave birth to Enoch and gave birth to sons and daughters. 20Jared’s full lifetime wsa 962 years, after which he died.

    Thus far note the pattern. The phrase “and he died” is not likely to be accidental, as it is repeated throughout. We are noting physical mortality.

    21Enoch lived 65 years, and gave birth to Methuselah. 22Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah for 300 years, and he gave birth to sons and daughters. 23Enoch’s full lifetime was 365 years, 24but Enoch walked with God, and he was just no longer there, because God took him.

    We tend to focus on long lives in reading this passage, but the focus of the Bible writer is on the walk with God. Even those who have long lives are living on the ground that is under God’s curse. The one who is truly blessed is Enoch, who lives on earth a short time, and then is taken. The structure of the chapter points an arrow at Enoch because his story is missing that one phrase: “and he died.”

    Cain’s line goes seven generations, though the focus is on the sixth, named Lamech as is the ninth patriarch of Genesis 5. Lamech in Cain’s line is a murderer. The seventh in the patriarchal line walks with God and proves it is still possible. In Genesis 3 God walks in the garden, and Adam and Eve are afraid (Genesis 3:10). Enoch doesn’t have this fear of going for a walk with God. This passage affirms the possibility of a walk with God.

    25Methuselah lived 187, and gave birth to Lamech. 26And Methuselah lived 782 years after he gave birth to Lamech, and gave birth to sons and daughters. 27And Methuselah’s full lifetime was 969 years, after which he died.

    Methuselah is the longest lived patriarch, but he is not the hero. He is more or less a footnote to his father, Enoch, who walked with God.

    28Lamech lived 182 years, then gave birth to a son. 29He called his name Noah, saying, “This child will comfort us as we work and toil with our hands as the result of the ground being cursed by YHWH.” 30And Lamech lived 595 years after he gave birth to Noah, and gave birth to sons and daughters. 31And Lamech’s full lifetime was 777 years, after which he died.

    32Noah was 500 years old. He gave birth to Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (Translation taken from my TFBV project.)

    Note that it can be presumed that Noah bore his three sons over the course of those 500 years, and that this is a summary. The 500 years note gives us some chronological data, and suggests that Noah’s call to build the ark may have come around this time, while the flood began, according to this chronology, when Noah was 600 years old (Genesis 7:6).

    Discussion

    The single most discussed and debated issue of this chapter deals with chronology, which was probably a secondary consideration of the author/redactor. He was more concerned with demonstrating the preservation of the patriarchal line, which then leads to the genuineness of the call to Abraham.

    But the simple fact is that on the surface, at least, it appears that one can generate some chronology from a genealogy like this. I have reproduced a portion of this chronology below.

    Name Age at Firstborn Remaining Years Age at Death Birth AM First Child AM Death AM
    Adam 130 800 930 0 130 930
    Seth 105 807 912 130 235 1042
    Enosh 90 815 905 235 325 1140
    Kenan 70 840 910 325 395 1235
    Mahalalel 65 830 895 395 460 1290
    Jared 162 800 962 460 622 1422
    Enoch 65 300 365 622 687 987
    Methuselah 187 782 969 687 874 1656
    Lamech 182 595 777 874 1056 1651
    Noah 500 *600 500 1056 1556 1556
    *Beginning of the flood. Noah’s death will be dealt with later.

    Looking at this from the point of view of known history, there are several problems. Around the time suggested for the flood (between 2300 and 2400 BCE, depending on how one dates creation), there was a flourishing Eblaite civilization, there had been a Sumerian civilization for around a thousand years, and Egypt was being ruled by its fifth and sixth dynasties. To put it quite simply, this chronology cannot be reconciled with what we know of ancient near eastern history. It is not simply a small discrepancy; the issue would be thousands of years. You not only need to move the flood prior to the advent of Sumerian and Egyptian history, you also need to leave enough time for the population to grow such as to form the people groups involved and produce an adequate population.

    There have been a number of solutions to this problem. One, of course, is to stick with the chronology as “God’s word” no matter what it may imply. This is often presented as the choice of faith. But faith in what? Actually the faith involved is in a chronology and in a particular way of reading the text. Is it truly honoring God to insist on reading the text of scripture, his written word, in such a way as to blatantly contradict his history as written in the natural world? I think we must consider the possibility that insisting that the form of chronology presented in the chart above is God’s word–the message God intended from this passage–is perhaps a bit arrogant.

    Old earth creationists, though they are particularly dealing with geological evidence and the age of the earth solve this problem as well by assuming gaps in the chronology. If you look at the structure of the chronology, however, it looks as though it was put together rather tightly. The father’s birth is recorded, followed by his age at his son’s birth, followed by the years he lived after that, and then the full lifespan. In response to this, old earth advocates would note that there is also a formal element in the number of patriarchs. There are ten here and another ten in Genesis 11; ten before and ten after the flood. In addition, if one had a longer list of patriarchs, one could remove individual names while leaving the remainder of the list unchanged. Thus if there was someone removed after Seth, we would understand “gave birth to” as “starting the genealogical chain that gave birth to” Enosh.

    There is a further option, which is the view that I have taken throughout these chapters. They are simply not narrative history. There is a theological point being made. There are two lines, or two categories of people: Those who follow God and those who don’t. The ultimate goal of those who follow God is to be with God (Enoch), while the ultimate goal of those who oppose God is to wind up like Lamech in further destruction. The chronology itself is simply a tradition whose form is maintained to hold together the full story that is being told–a story that teaches.

  • 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.]