Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Hebrew Bible

  • A Story of Three Prophets

    This is a follow-up to my post Information or Conversation, and it would probably be a good idea to read that entry first.

    One element of God’s method of revealing himself to people is that he chooses specific people to accomplish specific missions. I want to look at the time of the exile, and three of God’s messengers, Jeremiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel. Now there will be those who accept a later date for Daniel and will question my using him in this part of the story. Let me simply state that I do believe that the stories of Daniel, though not likely the entire book, date from the time of the exile,were later written down and collected in what we now have as the Aramaic portions of Daniel. For more discussion see Dating the Book of Daniel.

    At the time of the exile there were three distinct situations, three distinct groups of people to whom God needed to communicate his message. The first was the people of Judah who were rapidly heading toward exile and destruction. The second group was those who were already exiled and living in Babylon. The third was the Babylonian court, both the Babylonian king and officials for whom God had a mission, but also the exiles who were living in a state of privelege and facing the temptation to compromise away their faith.

    The inhabitants of Judah were living in a dreamworld of security, based on the belief that the presence of the temple, and thus God’s presence, protected Jerusalem no matter what. The exiles in Babylon generally felt abandoned by God and either waited expectantly for their soon return or began to simply give up. At the same time the king of Babylon took the view that he was favored of the gods because of his successes, and those who lived in his court faced the constant danger of compromise of their principles in order to gain power and favor and even permanence in their new situation. Any of these attitudes presented a barrier to God’s plan.

    God’s response was not merely to protect the facts. The facts were that the exile would be long but temporary, and that in the end the people would return. Jerusalem would be destroyed, but it would be rebuilt. Nebuchadnezzar was a great king and conqueror, but he also was limited and temporary and the way to success for the Jewish young people who found themselves there was faithfulness, not compromise. But even if they suffered for their faithfulness, the consequences of compromise would be even deeper.

    Those were the facts, but God still needed messengers. None of the audiences actually wanted to listen, but there were ways to make things clear.

    For Judah, there was Jeremiah, the weeping prophet. Not only one who could speak the message, but one who could weep the message, whose very life symbolized God’s love for Judah and his unwillingness to give up his people. God’s sorrow was expressed in the form of a prophet who spoke, suffered, cried, and was ignored, but who never gave up, who kept speaking until there was nothing left.

    Ezekiel was himself an exile, capable of understanding the situation of the exiles. His inaugural vision (Ezekiel 1) reassured Ezekiel that God was still with the exiles, that in spite of judgment there was hope. The message became a part of Ezekiel. But the presentation was different from that of Jeremiah. Ezekiel was not allowed to mourn his own wife’s death (Ezekiel 24:15-27). Both his visions and his methods of expression were powerful and creative.

    Daniel was one tempted to compromise in the court of the king. He had every opportunity to go over to the side of the winner, and to accept Nebuchadnezzar as the once and always king of the world. But he stood quietly for God and for faithfulness to his message.

    Three messengers with similar messages, but different audiences, and different means to present that message–God involved in the daily activities of human beings, a microcosm of God acting in the flesh.

  • 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.]

  • Genesis 4: The Two Lines

    While Genesis 1:1-2:3 (or 4a) comes from the Priestly source and continues with Genesis 5, our first dose of the Yahwist begins with Genesis 2:4 and goes through the end of chapter 4. We have plenty of opportunity to see the difference between the two sources. The Yahwistic story will pick up with the description of a world totally overcome by evil in Genesis 6:5 (6:1-4 are added from another source).

    Thus while we often call Genesis 3 the story of the fall, it would perhaps be more proper to call Genesis 3, 4, and then 6:5-8 the full story of the fall, the descent of the earth from “good” to “totally evil.”

    Genesis 4 thus provides the link between the initial separation from God and the resulting fear that is told in chapter three, and the near total corruption of chapter 6. In chapter four we see that there are two types of people, which are presented as two successions. One group is God-pleasing, and the other is in rebellion.

    1Adam had sex with his wife Eve, and she got pregnant and gave birth to Cain, because she said, “I have produced a man with YHWH’s help.” 2Again she gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Able was a shepherd, but Cain was a farmer.

    This is the simple introduction. Hebrew narrative is sparse, and you have to pay attention. We have two boys and they follow different professions.

    3After a time Cain brought some of the fruit that the ground produced as a gift to YHWH, 4and Abel brought something as well, from the firstborn of his flock and from their fatty portions. And YHWH favored Abel and his gift, 5but he did not look with favor on Cain or on his gift. So Cain became very angry and his face fell.

    There are a couple of hints here, but no definitive statement of why God favored Abel’s offering, but did not favor Cains. Some would claim that Cain needed to bring a blood sacrifice, and his fault was bringing agricultural products. But there has been no command up to this time about what to sacrifice. Another suggestion is that Abel is said to have brought the firstborn, whereas that is not specified about Cain. But considering the normally sparse nature of Hebrew narrative, I’m not sure that is significant. I think the intent of the story is that each brought an offering from the results of their profession.

    God’s displeasure is not specified, but Cain’s response, I think, suggests the reason. Cain’s heart was not in the right place.

    6And YHWH said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7If you do well, you will be lifted up, but if not, there is sin waiting at the door. It desires you, but you must take it under your rule.”

    I see this as an indication that God was not implacably opposed to Cain, but rather that Cain was opposed to God. The rejection of the sacrifice was a symptom, but the disease was the sin waiting at the door. As we see from the continued story, Cain does indeed let that sin rule over him.

    8Cain spoke to Abel his brother, and when they were in the field, Cain rose up and kill his brother Abel.

    There is only a small distance between the sin lying at the door and death, in this case murder. I like the economy of the Hebrew text. Some translations try to supply what Cain said, but the Hebrew is simpler. I could have translated “Cain had words with Abel” but I’m not sure that even that not an addition to the thought. This may simply be an indication that Cain’s action in murdering Abel was premeditated. He set it up.

    9And YHWH said to Cain, “Where is Abel, your brother?”

    But he said, “I don’t know. Am I my brother’s keeper?”

    People are famous for different things. Cain is famous for this response to God’s question. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” In this way Cain seeks to deflect God from the real issue–premeditated murder on Cain’s part.

    10Then YHWH said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is calling to me from the ground!” 11Now you are cursed from the ground because it has opened its mouth to receive the blood of your brother from your hand. 12When you cultivate the ground, it will no longer give you its strength. You will be a fugitive and without purpose in the land.”

    13And Cain told YHWH, “My punishment is more than I can stand! 14Look! You’re making me leave the very surface of the ground, and I will be hidden from your face, and I will be a fugitive and without purpose in the land, and anyone who finds me will kill me.”

    15But YHWH said to him, “So let anyone who kills Cain suffer sevenfold revenge!” And YHWH put a mark on Cain, so that he would not be killed by anyone who found him, 16and Cain left the presence of YHWH, and he lived in the land of Nod to the east of Eden.

    God is not deflected from the issue. Since Cain is a farmer, he is sentenced to harder work for less results. Note the relationship between this curse and the curse put on Adam in chapter 3:17-19. But contrary to later practice, Cain does not pay for killing his brother with his own life.

    What happens is a separation. Questions such as where Cain got a wife, and how there was a land of Nod where he could build a city, and who would live there all miss the point of the story. What we are seeing is the early explanation of why there are two lines of people–those who are obedient to God and those who are in rebellion. The myth is powerful even if the story leaves historical holes.

    The mark of Cain, which is sometimes used in popular speech as a curse is actually a protection. It says that Cain, though a murderer, must not be killed because of the vengeance that God has decreed will follow. For Cain, the mark is a blessing, an amelioration of his punishment.

    17Then Cain had sex with his wife, and she got pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain built a city, and named it after his son.

    18Enoch had a son named Irad, and Irad had a sone many Mehujael, and Mehujael had a son named Methusael, and Methusael had a son named Lamek.

    19Lamech married two wives named Adah and Zillah. 20Adah gave birth to Jabal, who was the progenitor of those who live in tents and keep cattle. 21His brother’s name was Jubal, who is the progenitor of those who play the zither and flute. 22And Zillah also gave birth to a son named Tubal-Cain, who was a smith, working bronze and iron. And Tubal-Cain’s sister was Naamah.

    As we have genealogies of the patriarchal line (Genesis 5 & 11), so here we have a genealogy tracing the line of evil back to Cain. The victory of Cain’s line is emphasized in Genesis 6:5ff. For those who believe in a universal flood, it’s interesting how Genesis 4 can specific people of the non-patriarchal lines as the ancestors of those with certain professions, surely something that could not be if their line died out in the flood. I believe this supports my contention elsewhere (The Two Genesis Flood Stories) that the Yahwist source does not tell of a universal flood, and thus there is no perceived contradiction between Genesis 4 and Genesis 6-8.

    23Lamech said to his wives:

    Adah and Zillah, hear my voice,
    Lamech’s wives, pay attention to what I say.
    I have killed a man because he wounded me,
    And a child because he brused me.

    24If Cain will be avenged seven times,
    Lamech will be avenged seventh-seven times!

    The interesting thing here is the way evil multiplies. Lamech, with Cain’s example, continues the pattern of murder, but he expects to get by with it.

    25Adam had sex with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son, and she named him Seth, because she said, “God has given me seed instead of Abel whom Cain killed.”

    26Seth also had a son, and he named him Enos. At that time people began to call on the name YHWH.

    This is the Yahwist’s way of telling us that there is also a patriarchal line, a line dedicated to obedience to God. The priestly source will provide us with more details in chapter 5.

  • Isaiah 24-27: Basics of Criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Genesis 3: The Story of the Fall

    I just completed drafting a translation of Genesis 3 for my Totally Free Bible Version project, which is simply where I make my personal translation work available free on the web for anyone who wants to use it within a very limited set of rules. I want to comment some on this story and its meaning in the Christian tradition.

    If you haven’t read my materials on Genesis 1 & 2, you might want to follow the link now just to get some background. In addition you will find some useful information in my series on the historical critical method on my Threads from Henry’s Web blog. The first article is Biblical Criticism Overview – I, and the category is Biblical Criticism.

    Introduction

    A fundamental question in dealing with Genesis especially is just what type of literature each passage is. A great deal of the way we interpret a passage depends on the type of literature we perceive it to be. Both young and old earth creationists, for example perceive the first 11 chapters of Genesis to be narrative history in some fashion. The debate between their two positions has to do with precisely how one understands certain terms in the narrative. Old earth creationists, for example, will tend to see more distance betweent he symbols and the reality.

    I like the illustration used by Derek Kidner in his commentary on Genesis in the Tyndale Old Testament commentary series (see the end of this entry for links). On page 66 he discusses the differences in terms of history between the historical description of David’s sin in 2 Samuel 11, and the prophetic restatement of that in 2 Samuel 12:1-6. I think that distinction is a good one to keep in mind, but one should also be aware that Nathan’s parable that narrated David’s sin is intended in some way to convey historical facts, though concealing somewhat their real referent (even David doesn’t realize who he is condemning), and clarifying the moral issues involved.

    I would like to add a third category here–not intended as historical narrative at all. Gerhard von Rad, in his OTL commentary, tries to present these early chapters of Genesis as heavily demythologized, and indeed compared to their ancient near eastern parallels they are. But at the same time there are many mythological elements remaining, and I believe those elements, along with the function and message of the story, give us ample justification to read these passages as myth, and to accept them as performing the function of myth within early Israelite culture.

    What indicators show me that this should not be read as narrative history? Those who have read my earlier discussions of Genesis 1 & 2 will notice that some of the same reasons apply, but chapter 3 is even easier. In fact, I have some difficulty seeing how so many people can read this chapter and actually expect it to convey narrative history. Kidner’s comment that the New Testament writers take it as history (op cit, 66) misses the point, I think, simply because as a myth it is well suited to provide the foundation for precisely the type of doctrines Paul especially was presenting. We are separated from God and need to be reconciled. We are separated from eternal life, and must be redeemed by Jesus.

    Indeed, one of the most common passages used to read Satan into Genesis 3, and also involved in trying to make it history, is Revelation 12, which itself is pulled out of the narrative sequence. In my study guide to Revelation, I title that section the timeless conflict, because the rebellion of humanity, or in general creaturely rebellion and separation from God and God’s saving activity is not limited to a single historical instant.

    In this chapter, however, we open with a talking snake. As we will note there is no indication that the snake is anything but a snake, except that he talks. Then we have magic fruit. Notice that the effect comes automatically. At the end of the chapter God has to block the way to the tree of life because if human beings gets back there they will obtain eternal life magically. There is mythology removed here, but this is not entirely demythologized!

    So in my view the chapter expresses a state, an ontological reality, without providing us a narrative of the process. One could understand this as indicating an instant in which humanity was offered close communion with God and preferred instead to live independently. It could, as Tillich might express it, simply state the separation of the finite being from the infinite ground of all being. In either case the end-state is the reality with which we live, and the reality from which we look to be redeemed. At the same time, I think there is a clear sense of something gained as well. Humanity accepted cognition, choice, and moral responsibility. As a result, redeemed humanity will be, I think, greater than a humanity that never went through that experience and never experienced the choice to do right or wrong. (Pardon a little extemporaneous theologizing!)

    Sources

    This passage has a single source, the J source, and ties closely with Genesis 2:4-25. If you were reading the priestly source alone you would go from Genesis 1:1-2:3, and then go straight to chapter 5, following which you would read about the flood as the first sign that things went bad. In this case, we have the story of the fall, then Cain and Abel, then the crash represented by chapter 6.

    But this chapter is a unity. If there are any borrowing or other sources, they are at the phrase level.

    Translation and Notes

    Note: Regard this translation as draft. It’s as fresh as this morning. 🙂 Scripture text is in blue.


    1Now the snake was more crafty than any of the wild creatures that YHWH God had made, and he said to the woman, “Has God said that you may not eat from every tree in the garden?”

    Note several things about the snake. He is not a special creation. He’s one of the creatures of the field. Other than being more crafty and able to talk, we get no introduction. I would simply suggest here that when you have talking snakes, you’re probably dealing with something other than narrative history.

    2And the woman answered the snake, “We may eat the fruit of the trees in the garden. 3But regarding the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘Don’t eat from it or touch it, lest you die.’”

    It’s interesting that the woman immediately moves to put an extra buffer around God’s command. If you don’t touch it, you can’t eat it. Let’s be safe. But moral choices will often require us to operate at the limits of moral decision making. For example, as one makes a decision about the morality of stem cell research, how does one operate with a hedge. You have sanctity of life issues on both sides of the equation. You have to make a decision, and you don’t get to hedge it very much. Will you eliminate research that could save lives, or will you protect embryos?

    Eve wanted a hedge. She distanced herself from the problem.

    4And the snake said to the woman, “You will certainly not die. 5Indeed, God knows that on the day that you eat from it, your eyes will be opened, and you will become like divine beings, understanding both good and evil.”

    The odd thing here is that the snake turns out to be right, as the story goes on to show. We often try to ignore this, or interpret around it in Christian understandings of this chapter. “Well, they started to die,” we say. I would suggest that there is no way out of this dilemna within Christian theology except an understanding of grace. God intended them to die, but preserved their life instead. God can repent (Genesis 6:6). I think we have the first instance of it here, and I think we’re supposed to notice.

    At the same time note that God had never denied what the snake promised. He simply said, “Don’t eat.” The possibility is left open that they would become like divine beings, and yet die as a result.

    I use the translation “divine beings” rather than “gods” because I think that fits better with the trend of the Torah as we have it now. It was not that they would become gods in the sense of being worthy of worship, but rather than they would share in an aspect of divinity, namely the ability to bring forth either good or evil.


    6When the woman saw that the tree’s fruit was good to eat, and pleasing to look at, and desireable so as to gain wisdom, she took from its fruit and ate it, and she also gave it to her husband with her, and he ate. 7And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they stitched together fig leaves and made themselves loin cloths.

    The woman “saw” that the fruit was good. We have an abbreviated narrative. Somehow the snake makes the woman see the fruit in the way he wants her to see it. This passage makes me wonder if we don’t have more of a narrative of internal struggle, the sort of struggle that takes place in any child who is contemplating something forbidden. It might be the cookie jar. Indeed, the cookies will taste good, and the child will experience pleasure from eating them, but there is a reason not to. An internal conversation convinces the woman that this is a pleasure worth having.

    Conversely, the text doesn’t tell us that the woman decided that God was wrong, even though that is what the snake had told her. She convinces herself that the fruit is good, and God’s statements about it recede conveniently into the background.

    8Then they heard the sound of YHWH God walking in the garden in the cool time of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from YHWH God among the trees of the garden.

    The immediate result of stepping out on their own is that the human couple are afraid. Notice that God is merely going for a walk, presumably looking to talk with the people he made and placed in the garden. He’s not blustering, throwing thunderbolts, threatening, stomping, or anything similar. He’s just taking a walk. Humanity has stepped out indepedently, but is afraid of the results.

    9And YHWH God called out to the man, “Where are you?”

    10And the man said, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked, and I hid.”

    11And God said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

    The human couple had been naked since they were created, but suddenly it becomes important. With self awareness comes shame, shyness, uncertainty of how to present oneself. It’s something they will have to deal with on this new path they have embarked on.

    12Then the man said, “The woman whom you appointed to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate.”

    13So YHWH God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?”

    But the woman said, “The snake led me astray, and I ate.”

    Who says the Bible isn’t relevant? This scene takes place in myriads of households, myriads of schools, and myriads of workplaces every day! We’re confronted by something that has gone wrong, and everybody looks for the person who is to blame. Everyone points at someone else. It can’t possibly be our own fault.

    Notice that God doesn’t ask the snake anything. Is it possible that the snake is simply a symbol for an internal struggle, that God doesn’t deal with the snake because it’s being used by the woman as a “devil made me do it” kind of excuse? I don’t know, but I suspect there’s a reason why the snake doesn’t get to defend himself.


    14So YHWH God said to the snake, “Because you have done this, you are more cursed than any of the wild creatures. You will crawl on your belly and eat dust as long as you live. 15And I will place hostility between you and the woman, and between your descendants and hers. Her descendants will bruise your head, but yours will bruise her descendants’ heel.”

    I have no problem in Christian theology reading back into this passage some reference to redemption, but that is not the point in its original context. The passage here simply explains why snakes are considered dangerous, looked down on, and crawl on their bellies. They did a bad thing here and they are paying for it! Women have a feud with them. This is hardly the serpent of Revelation 12, cast down from heaven, or the great Leviathan, conquered by God.


    16To the woman he said, “I will make childbearing much more difficult for you. You will bear children in pain, yet you will desire your husband, and he will rule over you.”

    Again, a description of real life in the real world of that time at least. It doesn’t mention good pain medications or women’s liberation, but the equality of male and female is something promised in Jesus, after all, and not that much a reality in the history of the world thus far.

    My wife tells me that if men had to experience the pain of childbirth there would be no humanity, and I pretty much agree with her. Somehow women keep undergoing the torture and propagating the species.


    17To the man he said, “Because you listened to your wife’s voice, and you ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat from it,’ the ground will be cursed on account of you. You will eat from it only by hardship as long as you live, 18and it will bring forth thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat vegetables from the field. 19You will get bread to eat by laboring until you sweat until you return to the ground, because you were taken from it. Dust you are, and you will return to dust.”

    The man gets to work hard to produce food. But I think there is a spiritual dimension to this in that having given up total dependence on God he becomes dependent on himself. From now on he must make his own moral decisions as well as producing his own food, building his own shelter, and clothing himself and his family. Independence comes at a price.


    20So the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all people who were alive.

    21Then YHWH God made coats of skins for the man and his wife, and he dressed them.

    It’s interesting that Adam just now notices that Eve is the mother of all living. Perhaps it was of less importance before they were aware of their situation. In any case, to cover their nakedness, and prevent shame now that they were aware of it, they are clothed.

    22And YHWH God said, “Look! The human has become like one of us, understanding good and evil, and now, [we need to take action] lest he should take also fruit from the tree of life, and eat it, and live forever.”

    23So YHWH God sent him out of the Garden of Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. 24And he dispossessed the man and made him live to the east of the Garden of Eden, and he placed Cherubim with flaming swords turning this way and that to guard the way to the tree of life.

    This is another “magic fruit” instance. There is a tree which God must prevent the human couple from reaching, otherwise they may become immortal contrary to God’s will. Surely this is not intended as narrative history! Symbolically, this says that God does not provide eternal life to those who are operating in complete independence from him, but the fact that the couple do not die, even though God had said they would, shows that he graciously extends life.

    Let me recommend three excellent commentaries on Genesis:

  • Isaiah 24-27 – Starting Form Criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • First Reaction to ‘The Scriptures’ Bible Translation

    Someone kindly e-mailed me a question about this Bible version, so I decided to take a look for myself. This is just a preliminary look, but you can find my notes at The Scriptures, and you can compare my results on this version with others using my Bible Translation Selection Tool.

    I would say that this version is a specialty Bible, specifically aimed at the Messianic Jewish audience, and those gentile believers who have a strong interest in it. The extremely literal style, and the use of transliterated Hebrew names, as well as the tetragrammaton and the Hebrew version of the name of Jesus, printed in Hebrew characters, will probably drive away many other users.

    One very positive point is that the translators/publishers are very straightforward about just what they are trying to do. You can read their own preface to the translation at Institute for Scripture Research. If you read their list of features and think you will like it, very probably you will. I do hope to spend some more time with this version, as it has interesting characteristics. It would be nice to work through a few chapters and critique them in detail. I’ll try to do that as I have time.

  • Reading Psalm 46

    I’ve been reading Psalm 46 in my devotional time, and have gone through it numerous times now. I’ve blogged about some of the things I’ve been thinking about while working with this Psalm at Threads from Henry’s Web, in an article entitled Translating Psalm 46. Reading poetry is a bit different from reading prose, particularly theological prose. Some people derive theology from the Psalms much too easily. One should pay attention to the genre. (See my article Interpreting Poetry for some ideas.)

    But first let me call attention to some alternate ways of looking at Psalm 46. Martin Luther’s hymn, A Mighty Fortress is our God, translated into English long ago, is built on this Psalm.

    A mighty fortress is our God, a trusty shield and weapon;
    He helps us free from every need that hath us now overtaken.
    The old evil foe now means deadly woe; deep guile and great might
    Are his dread arms in fight; on Earth is not his equal.

    With might of ours can naught be done, soon were our loss effected;
    But for us fights the Valiant One, Whom God Himself elected.
    Ask ye, Who is this? Jesus Christ it is.
    Of Sabbath Lord, and there’s none other God;
    He holds the field forever.

    Though devils all the world should fill, all eager to devour us.
    We tremble not, we fear no ill, they shall not overpower us.
    This world’s prince may still scowl fierce as he will,
    He can harm us none, he’s judged; the deed is done;
    One little word can fell him.

    The Word they still shall let remain nor any thanks have for it;
    He’s by our side upon the plain with His good gifts and Spirit.
    And take they our life, goods, fame, child and wife,
    Let these all be gone, they yet have nothing won;
    The Kingdom ours remaineth.

    In dealing with translation I tried pouring the content into the form of an Italian sonnet, just for fun (Psalm 46 as an Italian Sonnet). When interpreting poetry, there are many ways to try to “feel” the result, and the feeling is often more important than the theology. In fact, those who have suffered trouble, both Jews and Christians, may wonder about God being “an easily found help in trouble.” People who trusted in God have not always found their help in the form of physical rescue. Often they find strength to endure the trial, or even to go to their deaths, but they are not always saved.

    But this Psalm is a resounding affirmation of God’s power and protection over those who trust in him, and of his presence with his people.

    Textual Issues

    Let me note one textual issue here. Some commentaries add the refrain from verses 7 and 11 between verses 3 and 4 as well. No translations have taken up this conjecture, and it is built entirely on structural considerations. I would suggest that this addition is forcing the text to fit a theory on the structure of the text. It also breaks an extremely eloquent contrast between verses 3 and 4. In verse three we have the chaotic waters roaring and behaving in a destructive way, but in verse 4, the waters are under control and are the source of life.

    Interpretation

    This psalm is usually viewed as a cultic hymn, and indeed it may have found its setting in that context, but I think one needs to get a little bit more specific. This is a community response to trouble based on the most fundamental theology about God. Yes, we can express this confidence in the cult, but the specific situation from which it grows is one of threatening danger, specifically of invasion.

    Verses 1-3 speak of God as creator. Elements here reflect the creation division of the water and the land, the flood as a sense of cosmic destruction (the feel of the P source), and God’s protection of his city. I would place this Psalm before the exile, so I don’t see Ezekiel as a source, but he is surely pulling from the same body of imagery in describing the river of Ezekiel 47.

    That same sense of moving from the God whose power is over all, and who is still in charge even in the midst of chaos is presented here by the stark contrast between verses 3 and 4. Raging waters become life-giving, controlled streams in God’s city. God is present there, it’s his sanctuary. It is the same creator God who is in charge, who sits on the flood (Psalm 29:10-11), who also dwells peacefully with his people and will protect them.

    Verse 7 introduces the refrain, and then verses 8-10 reflect God’s authority over the nations. The nations are in chaos like the sea (see the imagery of Daniel 7), but God is in control there. God is powerful and capable of destruction. God brings his own people peace. For a discussion of this dual imagery, applied to Jesus, see Jesus as King and Priest.

    The God of our parents is with us.

  • Translating Psalm 46

    One of the things I find difficult to present to lay audiences is the range of options that a translator has in dealing with any passage. In particular poetry offers may options. One is not presented with just a couple of binary yes/no choices; rather, one is presented with a huge range of options, each of which will convey some of the meaning and feel of the passage and ignore other elements.

    Hebrew poetry is a good example of these problems. This week I was led to Psalm 46 in my devotions, and after spending some time studying it in Hebrew I started to play with translation options.

    I’m not going to discuss this extensively, as I’ve discussed most of the questions in my book (What’s in a Version?), or in materials on my web site about translation (Bible Translation Selection Tool is a good starting place). Here I simply want to link to some translations and also provide some of my own showing what Psalm 46 looks like based on some of these possibilities. Please bear with me as these are part of my own devotional work and are not designed to be literary masterpieces. In fact, one good thing to comment about would be suggestions for improvement, which could help me (and other people) get an idea how to convey this type of thought.

    Here are the options I’ll be illustrating:

    • Interlinear (my translation)
    • Literal (ESV)
    • Modernized (my translation)
    • Modernized and simplified (CEV)
    • Rewritten in poetic form in target language (my translation, if it can be called a translation)

    I recommend reading it in The Message, but I do not have an online source to link to, and due to copyright considerations I’m not going to quote that much here. It is nicely modernized, but somewhat less daring than some of Peterson’s other translations. Before you start reading these various versions, re-read the Psalm in your favorite version just to fix in your mind what you’re used to.

    Interlinear

    Hebrew transliteration is using my loose transliteration system. This is not intended to be precise, but just enough to hang the interlinear on.

    in the earth

    lamenatseach libney qorach al-;alamoth shir
    To the director, for the sons of Korah, on high notes, a song.
    elohiym lanu machaseh wa;oz  
    God for us a refuge and strength  
    ;ezrah betsaroth nimtsah meod  
    (a) help in trouble found much  
    ;al-ken lo niyra behamiyr erets  
    on this not we will fear when moved the earth  
    ubemot harim beleb yamim  
    or when moved mountains in heart of seas  
    yehemu yechmeru memayw  
    roar are troubled waters-its  
    yir;ashu hariym begaawathow selah  
    will shake mountains at sound-its —  
    nahar pelagayw yesamchu ;iyr elohiym
    (there is) a river streams-its make glad city of God
    qodesh mishkeney ;elyon
    holy (place) of sanctuary(ies) of (the) most high  
    elohiym beqirbah bal timot  
    God in middle-its not it will be moved  
    ya;zereha elohiym lipnowth boqer  
    shall help her/it God before morning  
    hamu goyim matu mamlekoth  
    were troubled nations were moved kingdoms  
    nathan beqolo tamug arets  
    he gave with voice-his melts earth  
    YHWH tsebaoth immanu  
    YHWH of hosts (is) with-us  
    misgab lanu elohey ya;aqob selah
    place of refuge for us (is) God of Jacob —
    lechu chezu mip;aloth YHWH  
    come see wonderful works of YHWH  
    asher sam shamoth baarets  
    which he set desolations  
    mashbiyth milchamoth ;ad qetseh haarets
    making cease wars up to end of the earth
    qesheth yeshabber weqitsets chanith  
    bow he will shatter he will break spear  
    ;agaloth yisrof baesh  
    chariots he will burn with fire  
    harpu ude;u kiy anokiy elohiym
    be quiet/still and know that I (am) God
    arum bagoyim arum baarets  
    I will be exalted in the nations I will be exalted in the earth  
    YHWH tsebaoth immanu  
    YHWH of hosts (is) with us  
    misgab lanu elohey ya;aqob selah
    refuge for us God of Jacob —

    ESV

    The ESV rendering of Psalm 46 is comfortably conservative and will sound fairly familiar to those acquainted with the KJV. The reason is that the translation philosophy and most of the approach of the ESV is similar to that of the KJV.

    My Modernized Translation

    I’m still following the general structure of the Hebrew, and not introducing elements of English poetry, except for trying to keep the lines a bit similar in length. I’ve taken liberties with repeated words and been fairly free with rewording, and in one case reordering lines.

    (To the director, for the order of Korah, on high notes, a song)
    1God is our safe hiding place,
    Easy to find when danger strikes.
    2We won’t fear

    When the world is broken,
    When mountains crash into the sea.
    3When roaring waves crash over us,
    As mountains shake at the sound.

    4There is a river, with streams that make God’s city glad,
    The holy place where lives the Highest God.
    5God is there, right in town!
    The city won’t be moved.
    Early in the morning,
    God will help.
    6Nations are troubled!
    Kingdoms totter!
    God shouts!
    Earth trembles!

    7YHWH is here with his army.
    Our parents’ God is our high ground.

    8Come! See what YHWH has done!
    The kinds of places he’s wiped out.
    9He stops wars anywhere-now!
    He splinters bows and breaks spears!
    He burns chariots!
    10Calm down. Know that I’m God.
    All nations will know that I am boss.
    The world will know that I am in charge.

    11YHWH is here with his army.
    Our parents’ God is our high ground.

    Modernized and Simplified (CEV)

    The key element of the CEV is simple vocabulary, simple structure, and a close attention to ease for public reading. I find the style a little bit informal, but some will like that.

    Psalm 46 as an Italian Sonnet

    For this you need to go to my poetry and fiction blog, the Jevlir Caravansary, where I have posted the sonnet version. I think I got most of the thoughts into the sonnet, though of course the form is substantially different, and things are not in the same order.