Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Greek

  • Looking at a Passage

    I’ve blogged here a few times about different ways of reading (here, for example). Lingamish has a series of posts on the topic as well that are well worth reading. They are:

    I have found many partisans amongst Bible students, especially of serious, detailed reading, outlining, diagramming, phrasing, and so forth. Others are partisans for reading large sections at a time. But all of these approaches have their benefits, and it is only by looking at the text from more than one angle that we get the whole. Someone might diagram an entire passage and provide extended exegetical arguments, but if the connection to the whole is not made, then something may well be missing.

    Lingamish has a “rubber meets the road” practical approach that is refreshing.

    One last link to Lingamish, Grasshopper Greek: Apocalyptic Rock, in which he puts a portion of Revelation to music. The player at the top of the post doesn’t seem to work, but the alternate link he provides does.

    As an occasional Greek teacher, normally of one or two students at a time, I take the opportunity both to read to them, and to have them read to me in Greek, before I ask them to translate. It takes a great deal of practice to smooth out one’s pronunciation and gain any ease in that process, but I find that students who do so can discuss the text and think about it more effectively. I’m guessing most of us who have studied Biblical languages remember a time early in our training when we would look at a word, but couldn’t really pronounce it, and then look it up in the lexicon. On failing to find it, we’d look back and realize that we weren’t looking for precisely the same word as was found in the text. Or was I the only one who ever made that mistake?

    Learning to pronounce the text comprehensibly helps with that process. I’ve been reading Syriac recently, trying to revive my knowledge of that language, which was never all that good in the first place. I made precisely that mistake just yesterday, because my pronunciation has become weak, and I don’t clearly remember the form and the sound together.

    I don’t know how many will take to rockin’ in Greek, but it’s an interesting idea!

  • Galatians 3:2: AKOE PISTEOS

    Or should I make that AKOH PISTEWS? Note that a similar question can be asked in Galatians 3:5, but I will assume due to theme that one will give the same answer in both places.

    Writing an exegetical article on this verse could be quite lengthy, but I agree with J. Louis Martyn in his commentary on Galatians when he says:

    . . . Paul is not asking the Galatians which of two human acts served as the generative locus in which they received the Spirit, a decision on their part to keep the Law or a decision on their part to hear with faith. On the contrary, he is asking rhetorically whether that generative locus was

    • their act in becoming observant of the Law or
    • God’s message (akoh).

    — page 288 [some punctuation/formatting including Greek rather than transliterated text is mine-HN]

    The specific translation of akoh pistewj depends on two factors. First, should the word “hearing” be active or passive, in other words is the thing that generates the reception of the Spirit the act of hearing, or the content of what is heard, the message? The second is how does faith relate to the message. Is it a message that is faith, or is it a message that elicits faith? Martyn (op. cit.) Romans 10:16-17, where the message is much more clearly established as that which elicits faith, and the word akoh is also pretty clearly established as passive in intent.

    So how do translations compare on this. Here are some examples, showing the variety on these two points:

    • TNIV – Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard. [This agrees with the NIV, which is surprising considering the accusations of Calvinist bias in the NIV translation.]
    • REB – did you receive the Spirit by keeping the law or by believing the gospel message?
    • NLT – Did you receive the Holy Spirit by keeping the law? Of course not, for the Holy Spirit came upon you only after you believed the message you heard about Christ.
    • ESV – Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?
    • CEV – How were you given God’s Spirit? Was it by obeying the Law of Moses or by hearing about Christ and having faith in him?
    • TEV – did you receive God’s Spirit by doing what the Law requires or by hearing the gospel and believing it?

    I don’t see any translation that gets quite the nuance that I see in this passage, though perhaps I’m being a bit too tense. In this case, I think the NLT actually has the best translation with the CEV and TEV following very close after.

    Of course, it’s hard for translations to get everything right. In this case, however, I think that formal equivalent translations, such as the ESV really leave the English reader hanging, because “hearing of faith” cannot possibly elicit the same semantic ranger as akoh pistews, with unfortunate results.

  • Junia in Romans 16:7

    Suzanne McCarthy has a series of posts on the Better Bibles Blog about the name “Junia” in Romans 16:7. I’ve discuss this before on the Compuserve Religion Forum, but Suzanne covers all the major points. Here posts are, in order:

    List updated to include parts 7-10, written after I posted this.

    I’m writing this for two reasons: First, I want to commend the entire series to you for your reading pleasure and its educational value. This is some good blogging. Second, I want to comment indirectly on this verse and the way we make theology and practice out of Bible passages. I really have nothing to add directly.

    The handling of this text illustrates to me two elements of the way in which we make theology from scripture that are problematic. (Yes, I guess I’m on a 2’s kick today!) I believe that we tend to take the propositional statements of scripture over its narrative, and secondly, we tend to avoid the implications of the cultural context. (For further notes on context, see my essay Understanding Context.)

    Dealing first with the issue of narrative and propositional statements, I do not mean simply that we take passages that present propositions over those that are narrative in nature, for example, taking Galatians over Acts. I mean to say that we take the theological propositions over the narrative background. There is considerable narrative background even in non-narrative passages. For example, in Galatians we have both the theological heart, of the book, and we have some application toward the end. In the first part, Paul is presenting theology, in the last, he is talking behavior. In my seminary class in Galatians, a quarter long study, we never got out of chapter 4. Now I understand that when doing in-depth study, you can’t always cover all the ground you’d like, but is one’s view of the book balanced when you read the heart of the argument but not the conclusion?

    Similarly, you might compare the heart of Galatians to 1 Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians you can get a good deal of narrative by looking just below the surface. What is actually happening in the church in Corinth. Gordon Fee uses the narrative in chapter 11 to note that obviously women were prophesying and praying in church, otherwise why comment on their headgear? He follows this up with his textual arguments that chapter 14:34-35 is an interpolation. (See The First Epistle to the Corinthians in the New International Commentary on the New Testament, pages 699-708. I regard Fee’s comments here as definitive.)

    Romans 16:7 falls into the narrative. It tells us what the church was actually doing, and here we have that exception to the rule that intrudes on one’s comfortable assumptions. The easy thing is to explain this quick reference away so that we can keep our interpretation of other passages about women intact. I must note here that I do see as the only strong reason for rejecting the idea that Junia was an apostle is a preconceived notion that a woman cannot possibly be an apostle. The most probable reading of the text, in my opinion, is that she was.

    And that’s were the other element comes into play–cultural context. We come to the text of scripture, not hearing the text speaking directly to us, but rather listening in on the divine conversation with someone else, in this case God to Paul to the church in Rome. This is true of all of these passages. In the background we have to realize there is a patriarchal society. Now certain people want to make that patriarchal society normative.

    But think of it this way. Supposing that today I write that we need more women active in church leadership. I believe that to be the case. I feel no need of qualifying my statement. Supposing that someone reads my statement 2,000 years from now. Women’s liberation has succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest dreams and extended itself into nightmare. We have a matriarchal society, and men are not permitted in positions of leadership. How will my statement be understood then? It should be understood as irrelevant to the existing situation. Women are in all the positions of leadership, but it could be understood as advocacy of an all female leadership.

    In a patriarchal society, I think we need to look for the exceptions to discover the answer to the question of whether other indications of all male leadership are simply an artefact of the particular culture, or whether they are a moral imperative. In fact, by looking at those exceptions, such as Romans 16:7, I believe we see the church willing to accept female leadership, but not yet ready to push for equality in the church when the church lived in a very unequal society.

    I believe a combination of observing the narrative of scripture and the cultural background will lead us to a more balanced view of church leadership roles.

  • Baptized Foolishness

    I often hear 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 applied to the issue of whether one needs to know Greek in order to comment on certain translation issues. It’s difficult to see how anyone could imagine that this passage applies to such a situation. Certainly there are spiritual things which a Christian will understand differently than others, but you either read Greek or you don’t.

    First, let’s look at the broader context of the passage. (I will quote portions, but I assume that everyone can look this up in their Bible.)

    The first epistle to the Corinthians is, as the word “epistle” denotes, a letter, written by the apostle Paul in response to problems in that church. It is often treated as a kind of random collection of advice to that church, but that is not really the case. There is a very important unifying theme. That’s why I won’t limit my discussion to the verses you specified. In particular, verses 10-17 set the scene for the entire book.

    Paul first says that the problem in Corinth is a division into factions (1:10-12) then he asks pointedly whether Christ has been divided (13). He continues by asking whether they were baptized into his (Paul’s) name. He then takes one of his famous detours to explain who he did, or did not baptize, on which his memory is not terribly clear (14-16) but verse 17 sets the state for his discussion of 18-31. He was not called to baptize but to preach. It is the proclamation of Jesus Christ that is the focus of Paul’s work.

    This is a thematic statement for the epistle. As we read through the entire letter, we see that Paul sees a central problem in the factions of the church. People are dividing themselves up over different evidences of how spiritual they are. Not only that, they are questioning Paul’s leadership, because he doesn’t fulfill their particular tests of spirituality. Some see the truly spiritual person as one who bears wisdom. Others see those who ignore deeds of the flesh as truly spiritual. Others test their spiritual state by their wealth, and even bring such wealth into the communion service. Yet others see the mark of their spirituality in the various gifts of the Spirit, and especially in the gift of tongues. Thus for them, the one who speaks most in tongues is, in fact, the most spiritual person.

    Paul challenges this view in chapters 12-14, and then in chapter 15, he returns to this initial point—the preaching of Jesus Christ, crucified, dead and also resurrected. He makes clear then that the only true completely spiritual state comes with the resurrection or transformation when this corruptible puts on incorruption and this mortal puts on immortality (15:54-55). Until that time, our spirituality, whether manifested in knowledge, prophecy or tongues is still partial and limited. I note here that any idea that the canon of scripture constitutes perfect knowledge is in direct contradiction to Paul’s message to the Corinthian church. We absolutely do not have perfect knowledge. That is reserved to the kingdom of God.

    Now having set this context, I return to 1:18-25 (with further reference to 26-31). It’s interesting to me that this passage is brought up frequently when someone is losing an argument. “My argument may look foolish,” is the cry, “but it’s really divine wisdom!” I have seen this used again and again in opposition to serious study, whether that is through study of the original languages, or simply a careful look at a passage in context. “If it isn’t simple, it must be false,” is the war cry of some.

    I will suggest that this attitude is actually one of the things Paul would oppose, based on the principles in this passage.

    18 For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,
    “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
    and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

    1 Corinthians 1:18-19 (NRSV)

    We immediately see that Paul has a specific type of “foolishness” in mind—the foolishness of the cross. Paul’s argument here is that the world finds the idea of a savior who died on a cross to be foolishness, and the notion that such a savior rose from the dead impossible (see chapter 15), but that this is God’s wisdom and the core of Paul’s preaching.

    Paul’s intent here is to place the cross—and specifically the foolishness of the cross—at the center of the proclamation. When someone takes this point and then tries to apply it to just any form of human foolishness, that seems to me to border on blasphemy. It is not that God has taken all foolishness and made it wisdom; rather, through Jesus Christ, God has taken a specific thing—the incarnation—and cancelled the human wisdom of the world with that. Notice verse 19. It is the foolishness of the cross that destroys the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning. Was it all wisdom and all discernment? Hardly. Paul speaks of a spiritual gift of discernment. Paul speaks with respect of the Hebrew scriptures which place a great premium on wisdom.

    Verse 21 puts further emphasis on this. It is through the foolishness of the proclamation, which Paul has already alluded to in verse 17 as the focus of his ministry, that God has chosen in order to save people. For Paul, opening the good news of a relationship with God, one which he believed would culminate in a resurrection-transformation, to everyone was a very critical proclamation. And it was made possible, in his view, not through words of wisdom, but through the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

    Now verse 25 is also critical. “For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength” (1:25 NRSV). It is not that human foolishness is greater than human wisdom, it is that God’s foolishness (relatively speaking) is greater than the greatest of human wisdom.

    Now does this say that any foolish thing someone can say about scripture is alright and that nobody should challenge it? No. Even Paul wished to use words of wisdom in speaking to the Corinthians. He wished they were mature enough to hear them (2:6-10). Did he say that someone who doesn’t know a language actually does? No, he simply elevated the foolishness of the cross above the wisdom of the world. I repeat that trying to carry all forms of human foolishness past logical objections by trying to ride them in on the “foolishness of the cross” at a minimum borders on blasphemy to Christian ears.

    Now let’s look at 26-31. Here Paul points out that many of the members of the Corinthian church were not terribly important, rich, or wise by the world’s standards when they were called. This is one of a number of places in this letter in which Paul makes the effort to put everyone on an even footing before God. Later, in chapter 12, Paul will point out that all gifts come from one and same Spirit who gives them out as he wills. Again, all stand on a level field before God. After discussing those gifts Paul switches again to the calling (12:12-13). Again, he speaks of equal footing.

    Chapter 13 makes this more explicit, and also gives us a key principle. What if I have various gifts, even all knowledge? If I don’t have love, I am nothing. That’s because the principles of love as expressed in 13:4-8a all tend to keep me from making a faction out of my particular talents or gifts. They take the pride out of those gifts.

    In chapter 8:1-2 (and following), we see a misapplication of knowledge. Someone who knows that an idol is nothing can use that knowledge to hurt another brother or sister. Knowledge puffs up. But does Paul suggest we need no knowledge? Not at all! He refers to knowledge as a gift. I love verse two and use it frequently. Anyone who thinks he already knows doesn’t know the way he should.

    I recall a youth pastor who had listened as I spoke about the scriptures and answered questions from his youth group. At the end he said he had a question. “I’ve been studying the Bible now for four or five years and I feel that I’ve pretty much got it. What do I do now?” he asked. I admit to being pretty close to speechless. When we quit looking for more knowledge, when we allow the idea that we have attained to stop us, we are truly in a pitiable state.

    So what does my knowledge of Greek do for me? It allows me to read Greek and to comment on Greek words. Does it give me special status before God? Absolutely not. Does it give me the inside track on salvation? On sanctification? Absolutely not. All it does is allow me to read and understand Greek. Can my understanding improve? Absolutely. I pray continually that it will improve.

    On the other hand, does Paul’s statement here suggest in any way that someone who doesn’t know Greek can read it anyways? Again, not at all. The one who reads and the one who doesn’t are not to judge one another spiritually because of that.

    There is the reverse error that I also see in the church. Because of this passage many Christians celebrate ignorance. They figure that God has chosen the simple things to confound the wise, so let’s be as simple as we can. That is precisely the same error—believing that the state of my knowledge gives me a special place with God. There is only *one* foolishness which is elevated here: the foolishness of the cross.

    I leave you with a text from Hebrew scriptures, in which wisdom personified is crying out in the street:

    22 “How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple?
    How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing
    and fools hate knowledge?
    Proverbs 1:22 (NRSV)