Psalm 6:4-5:
Hebrew (5-6): "Turn, LORD; deliver my life [nephesh]. Help me because of your faithfulness [chesed]. For in death there is no remembrance of you, in Sheol who will praise you?" [the last phrase is really neat--who will "throw" to you, an idiom for giving God thanks and praise]
LXX (5-6): "Turn, Lord, rescue my life [psyche]. Save me because of your mercy. For in death there is no one who remembers you, and in Hades who will confess you?"
It seems impossible to know the original context, date, and other particulars of this psalm. Many commentators think of it as a "psalm of sickness" (although it is one of seven penitential psalms of Christian liturgy). Yet to me the psalm seems more about fear because of enemies than sickness.
While some argue for a dependence of the psalm on Jeremiah, others argue that the turns of phrase are traditional enough formulations that no literary dependence can be proved. The author of the psalm clearly connects his (likely a he) sickness with God's anger.
By the way, I do not personally believe we have enough evidence to know whether David himself authored a psalm such as this one. The titles came later than the composition of the psalms themselves, and the expression they use ("mizmor ledavid") is itself a bit odd. I'm sure it can be translated something like "a psalm [attributed] to David." But it does not seem to me the most natural way to say a psalm of David.
In the end, it does not seem that we can date this psalm with any certainty to before or after the exile or or link it to the temple or determine any of these things we would like to know. Its presence in Book 1 of the Psalms may indicate an earlier rather than later date and in principle I am not opposed to it coming from David's mouth.
The most straightforward way to take this verse is that the psalmist does not believe that the dead are conscious of their shadowy existence. The dead do not "remember" God, and they do not "throw praise" His way. So the author asks God to rescue him from death, and affirms in faith that he will (6:9).
Friday, October 21, 2005
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Afterlife Snippets: Introduction
I'll try to post a more interesting entry by Monday, but you may find me doing some sketches on the afterlife here for a little while. I have a proposal for a book in relation to my Fulbright research that I have floated with a couple publishers. Both felt I would find a publisher for it, but claimed their dockets were full. Perhaps they were being straight with me.
But I feel a weakness of the proposal as it stands is the fact that the sample chapter is merely the introduction rather than one of the more substantive chapters. I find myself unhappy with the material I wrote in Germany (I actually spent half my time there finishing the Philo book, frankly). So I need to carve out a little time to write a more substantive chapter that I'm happy with before I send the proposal to another publisher--at least that's how I feel. And this blog is the place where I find it easiest for me to write small pieces that quickly add up.
The sample chapter I have chosen is tentatively titled, "From the Psalms to the Sadducees," and its unifying feature is a tradition in Second Temple Judaism that does not envisage any personal, conscious afterlife. My goal for these snippets is to write or proto-write (since I am at home and can't footnote very well) portions of this chapter that in a month or two I can combine to become the sample chapter. Routledge is currently my next publisher target.
But I feel a weakness of the proposal as it stands is the fact that the sample chapter is merely the introduction rather than one of the more substantive chapters. I find myself unhappy with the material I wrote in Germany (I actually spent half my time there finishing the Philo book, frankly). So I need to carve out a little time to write a more substantive chapter that I'm happy with before I send the proposal to another publisher--at least that's how I feel. And this blog is the place where I find it easiest for me to write small pieces that quickly add up.
The sample chapter I have chosen is tentatively titled, "From the Psalms to the Sadducees," and its unifying feature is a tradition in Second Temple Judaism that does not envisage any personal, conscious afterlife. My goal for these snippets is to write or proto-write (since I am at home and can't footnote very well) portions of this chapter that in a month or two I can combine to become the sample chapter. Routledge is currently my next publisher target.
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Fireside Romans Chats: Romans 1:16-17
More on Romans:
To me these are the key verses of Romans that are particularized at least in the first 11 chapters.
"For I am not ashamed"--honor/shame language we often pass over but that meant something in the first century. Hays thinks Paul may be echoing some OT passage like Isaiah 50:7-8 where the prophet says "I know that I shall not be ashamed because the one who justifies me is near" (Echoes)
"of the gospel"--the good news, as Wright points out, is the good news about what God has been doing for Israel and the world through Christ (What Saint Paul Really Said).
"for it is the power of God to salvation"--Salvation for Paul primarily refers to something that will happen most literally on the Day of Judgment when we escape God's wrath revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of humanity (cf. Rom. 5:9)
"to everyone who has faith, the Jew first and also to the Greek"--We remember that the verb to believe, (pisteuo), is simply the verb form of "faith," (pistis). The Jew first and also to the Greek reminds us that Romans is all about Paul's defense of God justifying the Gentiles by faith. His basic argument is, that's how Jews are justified too.
Therefore, Romans 9-11, which talk about the ultimate salvation of the Jews vis-a-vis the Gentiles, are not a diversion but the very climax of the first part of the letter and the playing out of this principle.
"For in it the righteousness of God is revealed"--the overwhelming majority of Romans scholars now see the righteousness of God in reference to God's righteousness in this phrase, although some connect it more to God's covenant faithfulness to Israel (Wright, Hays) and others to God's universal action to justify the world (Kaesemann, dead now about seven years or so). I've mentioned at least one Psalm Hays thinks Paul may have in mind. The second half of Isaiah is also replete with parallels between God's righteousness and His salvation (e.g., 42:6-7; 46:13; 51:6; 56:1; 59:16; etc...).
This doesn't mean that righteousness for humans isn't a part of Paul's thought or even less does it mean that righteousness for humans isn't a part of the Christian theological equation. Here we are merely asking what Paul is likely to have meant by this phrase, and here the case seems fairly well stacked toward God's righteousness.
"out of faith into faith"--difficult phrase. There seem to be two main interpretations: 1) that it is intensive a la NIV: "by faith from first to last"; 2) that there is some sort of progression here, from x's faith leading to y's faith. The majority position here is "starting from God's faithfulness and leading to our response in faith" (Dunn, Hays, etc...). Here we reference the first part of Romans 3 and the faithfulness of God mentioned there (e.g., 3:3), along with the sense that the righteousness of God is related to His faithfulness.
Some, however, (e.g., Douglas Campbell) would argue that it is "from Christ's faithfulness to our faith response." Possible, but I'll leave it at that.
"As it is written, 'The one who is righteous on the basis of faith will live.'"--Habakkuk 2:4. Hays thinks Paul may have understood this as a prophecy about the Messiah: "The Righteous One will be resurrected on the basis of His faithfulness." It just doesn't seem to me that we have enough evidence to conclude this idea with any certainty at all, although it is possible. I personally take the "on the basis of faith" passages more with Dunn in Romans and Galatians as references to the basis by which humans are justified before God.
To me these are the key verses of Romans that are particularized at least in the first 11 chapters.
"For I am not ashamed"--honor/shame language we often pass over but that meant something in the first century. Hays thinks Paul may be echoing some OT passage like Isaiah 50:7-8 where the prophet says "I know that I shall not be ashamed because the one who justifies me is near" (Echoes)
"of the gospel"--the good news, as Wright points out, is the good news about what God has been doing for Israel and the world through Christ (What Saint Paul Really Said).
"for it is the power of God to salvation"--Salvation for Paul primarily refers to something that will happen most literally on the Day of Judgment when we escape God's wrath revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of humanity (cf. Rom. 5:9)
"to everyone who has faith, the Jew first and also to the Greek"--We remember that the verb to believe, (pisteuo), is simply the verb form of "faith," (pistis). The Jew first and also to the Greek reminds us that Romans is all about Paul's defense of God justifying the Gentiles by faith. His basic argument is, that's how Jews are justified too.
Therefore, Romans 9-11, which talk about the ultimate salvation of the Jews vis-a-vis the Gentiles, are not a diversion but the very climax of the first part of the letter and the playing out of this principle.
"For in it the righteousness of God is revealed"--the overwhelming majority of Romans scholars now see the righteousness of God in reference to God's righteousness in this phrase, although some connect it more to God's covenant faithfulness to Israel (Wright, Hays) and others to God's universal action to justify the world (Kaesemann, dead now about seven years or so). I've mentioned at least one Psalm Hays thinks Paul may have in mind. The second half of Isaiah is also replete with parallels between God's righteousness and His salvation (e.g., 42:6-7; 46:13; 51:6; 56:1; 59:16; etc...).
This doesn't mean that righteousness for humans isn't a part of Paul's thought or even less does it mean that righteousness for humans isn't a part of the Christian theological equation. Here we are merely asking what Paul is likely to have meant by this phrase, and here the case seems fairly well stacked toward God's righteousness.
"out of faith into faith"--difficult phrase. There seem to be two main interpretations: 1) that it is intensive a la NIV: "by faith from first to last"; 2) that there is some sort of progression here, from x's faith leading to y's faith. The majority position here is "starting from God's faithfulness and leading to our response in faith" (Dunn, Hays, etc...). Here we reference the first part of Romans 3 and the faithfulness of God mentioned there (e.g., 3:3), along with the sense that the righteousness of God is related to His faithfulness.
Some, however, (e.g., Douglas Campbell) would argue that it is "from Christ's faithfulness to our faith response." Possible, but I'll leave it at that.
"As it is written, 'The one who is righteous on the basis of faith will live.'"--Habakkuk 2:4. Hays thinks Paul may have understood this as a prophecy about the Messiah: "The Righteous One will be resurrected on the basis of His faithfulness." It just doesn't seem to me that we have enough evidence to conclude this idea with any certainty at all, although it is possible. I personally take the "on the basis of faith" passages more with Dunn in Romans and Galatians as references to the basis by which humans are justified before God.
An Interesting Distinction
I had one of those "aha" moments while reading a response from my Asbury Romans class. I know that at some point during my education I started reading the words of the Bible differently, trying to read them in context, but I can't fully remember how I read them before. Sometimes I find words to express the difference.
A couple of conversations with students both at IWU and at Asbury have clarified yet another way to conceptualize the difference between:
pre-modern vs. modern
as Scripture vs. as contextual texts
with universal application vs. with local application
Here it is: my students at Asbury and some here come to the text asking "What is true?" not "What did Paul mean here?" For example, when it comes to a question like, what did Paul mean by the phrase "the righteousness of God" in Romans. 1:16, I ask, "What specific meaning or meanings did Paul understand by these words?" But my students come to the phrase asking, "what is true about the righteousness of God?" So I say something like, "Given the background of this phrase in Judaism, Paul was almost certainly thinking about God's righteousness rather than human righteousness when he used this phrase." The student says, "Both are true, maybe the text means both: God's righteousness and a righteousness from God."
I'm not sure I'm presenting the distinction very clearly. I've been working with an anonymous IWU student (you know who you are) on N. T. Wright's view of justification in Paul. The student frequently wants to approach this question as "What do Christians believe about justification?" But that's not the original meaning question and that's not how Wright is approaching Paul. The question Wright is asking is how did Paul use this word, with the question of what we should believe about justification being a slightly different one. We find many theological meanings that are fine theology, but they're not the way Paul put it. They may not contradict Paul, but they are not Paul in the same way James is not Paul.
So I find the way IWU professors and the evangelical milieu uses Scripture is in this pre-modern way. They are looking for absolute truth in the words--the "biblical" perspective on whatever issue. I am not saying that this is bad. What I'm pointing out that Paul did not originally understand himself to be writing for all times and all places. Originally, his words had specific meanings in the light of specific situations... When Christian communities use the words of the Bible as the source of their beliefs, most of the time they are working out modern theology and speaking far afield of what Paul originally had in mind.
Well, enough of that...
A couple of conversations with students both at IWU and at Asbury have clarified yet another way to conceptualize the difference between:
pre-modern vs. modern
as Scripture vs. as contextual texts
with universal application vs. with local application
Here it is: my students at Asbury and some here come to the text asking "What is true?" not "What did Paul mean here?" For example, when it comes to a question like, what did Paul mean by the phrase "the righteousness of God" in Romans. 1:16, I ask, "What specific meaning or meanings did Paul understand by these words?" But my students come to the phrase asking, "what is true about the righteousness of God?" So I say something like, "Given the background of this phrase in Judaism, Paul was almost certainly thinking about God's righteousness rather than human righteousness when he used this phrase." The student says, "Both are true, maybe the text means both: God's righteousness and a righteousness from God."
I'm not sure I'm presenting the distinction very clearly. I've been working with an anonymous IWU student (you know who you are) on N. T. Wright's view of justification in Paul. The student frequently wants to approach this question as "What do Christians believe about justification?" But that's not the original meaning question and that's not how Wright is approaching Paul. The question Wright is asking is how did Paul use this word, with the question of what we should believe about justification being a slightly different one. We find many theological meanings that are fine theology, but they're not the way Paul put it. They may not contradict Paul, but they are not Paul in the same way James is not Paul.
So I find the way IWU professors and the evangelical milieu uses Scripture is in this pre-modern way. They are looking for absolute truth in the words--the "biblical" perspective on whatever issue. I am not saying that this is bad. What I'm pointing out that Paul did not originally understand himself to be writing for all times and all places. Originally, his words had specific meanings in the light of specific situations... When Christian communities use the words of the Bible as the source of their beliefs, most of the time they are working out modern theology and speaking far afield of what Paul originally had in mind.
Well, enough of that...
Saturday, October 15, 2005
Wesleyan View of Communion
Sunday night the 16th I'm supposed to give a brief summary of the Wesleyan view of communion. My first thought was, "What is the Wesleyan view of communion?" And, after all, there are all kinds of ways you could approach it: a) what is in the Wesleyan Discipline, our manual of identity, 2) what was John Wesley's view, 3) what view do the people in the Wesleyan pews have of communion, or even 4) what view do I want the Wesleyans to have (my view) and how can I manipulate the church into adopting it by presenting it as our position to people who don't know what it is :) Of course that's not my style... (until they elect me to some office--just kidding).
Wesleyan Discipline
If we have an official view, it should be found here. Here's what we find:
"We believe that the Lord's Supper is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death and of our hope in His victorious return, as well as a sign of the love that Christians have for each other. To such as receive it humbly, with a proper spirit and by faith, the Lord's Supper is made a means through which God communicates grace to the heart" (paragraph 242).
Here are instructions to ministers (aside from how often it is to be done [3 months] and that you can't use fermented wine :):
"It is expected that Wesleyan ministers shall carefully admonish the people that only those who are in right relations with God and with their neighbors should come to the Lord's table, and that others should come only if in so doing they are expressing repentance and seeking forgiveness" (para. 5605).
Let me mention some scattered comments in the Wesleyan liturgy (Ha--don't shudder, ye Wesleyans, for that is what it is!) that seem pertinent:
"You who are walking in fellowship with God, and are in love and harmony with your neighbors; and you who do truly and earnestly repent of your sin and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from this time in His holy ways, draw near with faith and take this holy sacrament to your comfort; and meekly make your confession to Almighty God (para. 5615)."
"we commemorate the suffering of our Lord"
The above are if communion is part of a service. What follows pertains to if it is the whole service:
"giving it to his disciples as a means of remembering Him until He comes again, and as the seal of the new covenant between God and man" (sic: 5635)... more comments on contrition.
"We come today to remember once again how Christ obtained our salvation. And as we do, we ask that the Holy Spirit shall search our hearts..." [more comments on contrition]
"You who are walking in fellowship with God, and are in love and harmony with your neighbors; and you who do truly and earnestly repent of your sin and intend to live a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from this time in His holy ways, draw near to God..."
"we may become partakers of His body and blood..."
So what is the Wesleyan position on communion? I discern two main functions here:j
1. Rememberance of Christ's atoning death and
2. "means through which God communicates grace to the heart"
As far as I can tell, there's a strong element of "penance" in the Wesleyan liturgy, probably the only place in our worship that targets this part of Christian worship and life. Functionally, the Discipline gives the impression that this is the primary function of communion for us--a time to hit the reset button on your relationship with God.
This is the way I remember communion. Ironically, some people don't even come to communion because they aren't sure they're right enough with God to escape His wrath (now I'm talking more about things I heard about in college). They think of 1 Corinthians 11 and Paul's comments that some people had died from partaking of the Lord's Supper unworthily. But these mis-impressions of the Lord's Supper are dreadfully unfortunately, for the better view of the Lord's Supper is that of the second, namely, as a means of grace.
Of course not all Wesleyans experience communion this way. Coach Drury remembers thinking of it as a kind of "passion play," retelling the story of Christ's death and celebrating our atonement. That's a whole lot better! And yet, is there even more....
John Wesley
No one would be surprised that in addition to the rememberance, Wesley considers communion a means of grace. The language of the shorter service in the Discipline reflects this idea too, but I would suggest the idea is underdeveloped in actual practice. If we really believe that communion is a sacrament, then we believe it actually can do something to you. In some mysterious way--not just some banal you think about it, you repent, you commit more--but in some mysterious way, partaking of this spiritual food makes it more likely that you will come closer to God than you were before.
The Wesleyan View
So let me declare by fiat :) the Wesleyan view of communion. It seems to me it is two-fold.
1. In remembrance, we watch the passion of Jesus played out before us. We focus on its atoning significance and thus appropriately reflect on our own sin. Taking communion is thus a declaration of our desire to be in communion with God and our neighbor. We repent of our sins and hit the "reset button" on our justification.
2. It is a means of grace, by which God mysteriously draws us closer to Him and makes His prescence and grace known to us. The person seeking God should "put themselves in the way of the means of grace," and this is the most significant one on this score.
What I'll Say:
1. Introduction (what is the Wesleyan view...)
2. The two functions mentioned above
3. How often: "at least" once each three months, the Discipline says. We do it every week in the "cathedral service" at College Wesleyan.
Then I'll try to challenge them that these kinds of services don't have to be "empty" ritual or "vain repetition" any more than the "liturgies" they do three times a week at the PAC or the "old fashioned fifties liturgies" they do at some of the Wesleyan churches in the countryside. The Nicene Creed can bless someone as much as singing the hymn "Hallelujah, I have found Him."
Wesleyan Discipline
If we have an official view, it should be found here. Here's what we find:
"We believe that the Lord's Supper is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death and of our hope in His victorious return, as well as a sign of the love that Christians have for each other. To such as receive it humbly, with a proper spirit and by faith, the Lord's Supper is made a means through which God communicates grace to the heart" (paragraph 242).
Here are instructions to ministers (aside from how often it is to be done [3 months] and that you can't use fermented wine :):
"It is expected that Wesleyan ministers shall carefully admonish the people that only those who are in right relations with God and with their neighbors should come to the Lord's table, and that others should come only if in so doing they are expressing repentance and seeking forgiveness" (para. 5605).
Let me mention some scattered comments in the Wesleyan liturgy (Ha--don't shudder, ye Wesleyans, for that is what it is!) that seem pertinent:
"You who are walking in fellowship with God, and are in love and harmony with your neighbors; and you who do truly and earnestly repent of your sin and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from this time in His holy ways, draw near with faith and take this holy sacrament to your comfort; and meekly make your confession to Almighty God (para. 5615)."
"we commemorate the suffering of our Lord"
The above are if communion is part of a service. What follows pertains to if it is the whole service:
"giving it to his disciples as a means of remembering Him until He comes again, and as the seal of the new covenant between God and man" (sic: 5635)... more comments on contrition.
"We come today to remember once again how Christ obtained our salvation. And as we do, we ask that the Holy Spirit shall search our hearts..." [more comments on contrition]
"You who are walking in fellowship with God, and are in love and harmony with your neighbors; and you who do truly and earnestly repent of your sin and intend to live a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from this time in His holy ways, draw near to God..."
"we may become partakers of His body and blood..."
So what is the Wesleyan position on communion? I discern two main functions here:j
1. Rememberance of Christ's atoning death and
2. "means through which God communicates grace to the heart"
As far as I can tell, there's a strong element of "penance" in the Wesleyan liturgy, probably the only place in our worship that targets this part of Christian worship and life. Functionally, the Discipline gives the impression that this is the primary function of communion for us--a time to hit the reset button on your relationship with God.
This is the way I remember communion. Ironically, some people don't even come to communion because they aren't sure they're right enough with God to escape His wrath (now I'm talking more about things I heard about in college). They think of 1 Corinthians 11 and Paul's comments that some people had died from partaking of the Lord's Supper unworthily. But these mis-impressions of the Lord's Supper are dreadfully unfortunately, for the better view of the Lord's Supper is that of the second, namely, as a means of grace.
Of course not all Wesleyans experience communion this way. Coach Drury remembers thinking of it as a kind of "passion play," retelling the story of Christ's death and celebrating our atonement. That's a whole lot better! And yet, is there even more....
John Wesley
No one would be surprised that in addition to the rememberance, Wesley considers communion a means of grace. The language of the shorter service in the Discipline reflects this idea too, but I would suggest the idea is underdeveloped in actual practice. If we really believe that communion is a sacrament, then we believe it actually can do something to you. In some mysterious way--not just some banal you think about it, you repent, you commit more--but in some mysterious way, partaking of this spiritual food makes it more likely that you will come closer to God than you were before.
The Wesleyan View
So let me declare by fiat :) the Wesleyan view of communion. It seems to me it is two-fold.
1. In remembrance, we watch the passion of Jesus played out before us. We focus on its atoning significance and thus appropriately reflect on our own sin. Taking communion is thus a declaration of our desire to be in communion with God and our neighbor. We repent of our sins and hit the "reset button" on our justification.
2. It is a means of grace, by which God mysteriously draws us closer to Him and makes His prescence and grace known to us. The person seeking God should "put themselves in the way of the means of grace," and this is the most significant one on this score.
What I'll Say:
1. Introduction (what is the Wesleyan view...)
2. The two functions mentioned above
3. How often: "at least" once each three months, the Discipline says. We do it every week in the "cathedral service" at College Wesleyan.
Then I'll try to challenge them that these kinds of services don't have to be "empty" ritual or "vain repetition" any more than the "liturgies" they do three times a week at the PAC or the "old fashioned fifties liturgies" they do at some of the Wesleyan churches in the countryside. The Nicene Creed can bless someone as much as singing the hymn "Hallelujah, I have found Him."
Fireside Romans Chats: Romans 1:3-4
I'm writing a few short snippets on Romans for an Asbury online class and thought I would share some of them with you. The following are some comments on the meaning of Romans 1:3-4:
For a number of reasons, scholars generally believe that Paul is alluding to earlier Christian tradition in Romans 1:3-4. One reason for thinking Paul is citing earlier tradition is the odd vocabulary and turns of phrase he uses that he uses nowhere else even when he is saying similar things:
1. Except for 2 Timothy (which rightly or wrongly most argue to be pseudonymous), Paul nowhere else refers to Jesus as the Son of David.
2. This use of flesh is not his most usual--more often than not he speaks of flesh as the foothold of sin in a person's body, especially when it is in contrast to spirit.
3. He nowhere else uses "appointed" or "Son of God in power" in this way, although he makes analogous comments elsewhere in relation to Jesus getting the title "Lord."
4. "Spirit of holiness" is completely unique to this passage, as he simply says "Holy Spirit" elsewhere. This seems to be a Hebraism found in the Hebrew of Isaiah and certain Psalms.
When you add to some of these verbal aspects the structure of the statement (relative clauses with parallel affirmations, etc...), it seems more likely than not that Paul is alluding to something he didn't compose but that the original audience knew.
The parallel between body and spirit seems to form the heart of the contrast between verses 3 and 4. Verse 3 presents Jesus according to the flesh; verse 4 presents Jesus in spiritual terms. The parallel is not exact, for the Spirit of holiness is surely a reference to the Holy Spirit rather than Jesus' spirit (and it seems highly anachronistic to see this in some Trinitarian sense since Christians would not start thinking of these issues for at least another hundred years later).
Dunn and perhaps most would see in these verses reflections of a "two stage Christology." The first is the earthly phase: "Son of David." But when Christ rises from the dead, he is enthroned "Son of God in power." The normal use of "appointed" implies that Christ attains a new "state" that he did not have in the "Son of David" phase. However, the qualification "in power" may imply that he was Son of God before--just not Son of God in power.
In NT Survey classes I sometimes point out that the early Jewish Christians got a lot more in a Messiah than they bargained for. They would have been content with a human Messiah who kicked the Romans out of Israel and restored their kingdom. What they got was a cosmic Lord of the universe who reigns over the cosmos.
The appointment/enthronement of Jesus as Son of God in power is attested at several points in the New Testament. Acts 13:33 is a noteable parallel where a sermon considers Christ's exaltation to God's right hand to be the place where God declares Christ "Son." Hebrews similarly at 1:5 locates the designation of Jesus as Son of God to the point of his exaltation. We find also in Acts and Paul indicates that Jesus most meaningfully receives the title "Lord" at his resurrection (e.g., Acts 2:35; Phil. 2 in the hymn; Rom. 10:9).
Some scholars think that the phrase "in power" is a Pauline addition to the pre-existing formula (e.g., Fitzmeyer). Others disagree (e.g., Dunn). I can accept it as original and pre-Pauline because the two statements are not exactly parallel anyway.
Dunn argues that the way the comment "on the basis of the resurrection of the dead" is worded points to a pre-Pauline origin, because it is worded in terms of the general resurrection rather than Christ's specific resurrection. Paul connects Christ's resurrection to the general resurrection of all as well, but by his time they are clearly understood to occur in at least two distinct phases (see 1 Cor.). Originally, Dunn suggests, the first Christians would have seen Christ's resurrection as the immediate or at least very near commencement of the full blown final resurrection of the dead. The pre-Pauline formula would thus embody what we find in Matthew 27 where the resurrection of certain saints of renown occurs in the context of Christ's death--an indication of the beginning of the general resurrection.
But other commentators (e.g., Fitzmeyer) think that this phrase is similarly a Pauline addition to the formula on the basis of Paul's focus on resurrection. If forced to conclude, I would go with Dunn, since the expression does not seem to be Paul's normal way of referring to the resurrection.
This has been a brief fireside chat on Romans.
For a number of reasons, scholars generally believe that Paul is alluding to earlier Christian tradition in Romans 1:3-4. One reason for thinking Paul is citing earlier tradition is the odd vocabulary and turns of phrase he uses that he uses nowhere else even when he is saying similar things:
1. Except for 2 Timothy (which rightly or wrongly most argue to be pseudonymous), Paul nowhere else refers to Jesus as the Son of David.
2. This use of flesh is not his most usual--more often than not he speaks of flesh as the foothold of sin in a person's body, especially when it is in contrast to spirit.
3. He nowhere else uses "appointed" or "Son of God in power" in this way, although he makes analogous comments elsewhere in relation to Jesus getting the title "Lord."
4. "Spirit of holiness" is completely unique to this passage, as he simply says "Holy Spirit" elsewhere. This seems to be a Hebraism found in the Hebrew of Isaiah and certain Psalms.
When you add to some of these verbal aspects the structure of the statement (relative clauses with parallel affirmations, etc...), it seems more likely than not that Paul is alluding to something he didn't compose but that the original audience knew.
The parallel between body and spirit seems to form the heart of the contrast between verses 3 and 4. Verse 3 presents Jesus according to the flesh; verse 4 presents Jesus in spiritual terms. The parallel is not exact, for the Spirit of holiness is surely a reference to the Holy Spirit rather than Jesus' spirit (and it seems highly anachronistic to see this in some Trinitarian sense since Christians would not start thinking of these issues for at least another hundred years later).
Dunn and perhaps most would see in these verses reflections of a "two stage Christology." The first is the earthly phase: "Son of David." But when Christ rises from the dead, he is enthroned "Son of God in power." The normal use of "appointed" implies that Christ attains a new "state" that he did not have in the "Son of David" phase. However, the qualification "in power" may imply that he was Son of God before--just not Son of God in power.
In NT Survey classes I sometimes point out that the early Jewish Christians got a lot more in a Messiah than they bargained for. They would have been content with a human Messiah who kicked the Romans out of Israel and restored their kingdom. What they got was a cosmic Lord of the universe who reigns over the cosmos.
The appointment/enthronement of Jesus as Son of God in power is attested at several points in the New Testament. Acts 13:33 is a noteable parallel where a sermon considers Christ's exaltation to God's right hand to be the place where God declares Christ "Son." Hebrews similarly at 1:5 locates the designation of Jesus as Son of God to the point of his exaltation. We find also in Acts and Paul indicates that Jesus most meaningfully receives the title "Lord" at his resurrection (e.g., Acts 2:35; Phil. 2 in the hymn; Rom. 10:9).
Some scholars think that the phrase "in power" is a Pauline addition to the pre-existing formula (e.g., Fitzmeyer). Others disagree (e.g., Dunn). I can accept it as original and pre-Pauline because the two statements are not exactly parallel anyway.
Dunn argues that the way the comment "on the basis of the resurrection of the dead" is worded points to a pre-Pauline origin, because it is worded in terms of the general resurrection rather than Christ's specific resurrection. Paul connects Christ's resurrection to the general resurrection of all as well, but by his time they are clearly understood to occur in at least two distinct phases (see 1 Cor.). Originally, Dunn suggests, the first Christians would have seen Christ's resurrection as the immediate or at least very near commencement of the full blown final resurrection of the dead. The pre-Pauline formula would thus embody what we find in Matthew 27 where the resurrection of certain saints of renown occurs in the context of Christ's death--an indication of the beginning of the general resurrection.
But other commentators (e.g., Fitzmeyer) think that this phrase is similarly a Pauline addition to the formula on the basis of Paul's focus on resurrection. If forced to conclude, I would go with Dunn, since the expression does not seem to be Paul's normal way of referring to the resurrection.
This has been a brief fireside chat on Romans.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Denominations: To Be or Not to Be
I've been picking up on a real trend against the very idea of denominations of late. It seems to me that this feeling is particularly strong among emergents, but I know boomers too who are changing their church signs from "Wesleyan Church" to "Community Church."
I think I know at least in part what these trends are reacting against, and I think it is in part the same reason why "religion" has become a dirty word. For all intents and purposes, denominations used to think that their group alone had the truth. If pushed, they might admit that some people from other denominations might make it to heaven. But obviously these distant others didn't quite have things right. Either they didn't have enough "light" and were just ignorant, or they were perverse and wilfully believed the wrong things. This mindset also witnessed the countless founding and refounding of endless splinter groups who finally had the "true" variation on the parent theme.
But it's hard to hold to this philosophy if you actually know a few Christians from some other groups. It's hard to be quite so anti-catholic if you know a few spirit-filled catholics who nevertheless look at things differently than you do.
The problem as I see it is that if churches simply become islands of the universal, invisible church, there is no telling what they will become. I see two main alternative paths:
1. They will move increasingly toward the common denominator of all Christians out there. This has already happened to a large degree. The current evangelical non-denominational church is an baptistified Arminian-flavored mix with little attachment to historical orthodoxy but a fairly conservative Republican politic. The Bible is a controlling factor, but (as I have often argued) as somewhat of a mirror--the group finds in the words what it thinks it should find.
A non-denominational "core" tends to water down the flavors of Christendom to a blase, pretty tasteless mix.
2. It will slip back into ideosyncratic individual groups--this time without any denominational organization--each of which thinks it has the truth.
I have some thoughts on the "bastion of truth alone" concept of churches, Christian universities, seminaries, etc... the idea that individual churches should just follow the truth, that we should forget denominations but let them all just be Christian churches. This is the idea that Christian colleges, Christian seminaries, that they should just be Christian colleges and seminaries untied to denominations, that they should just be Christian and follow the truth.
The main problem I have with this approach is that it is exactly the philosophy that led to the splintering of Protestantism into ten thousands of denominations with that "truth." Non-denominations like the "Disciples of Christ" or the "Church of Christ" or the "Church of God, Anderson" sure have particular ideas and traditions like denominations that actually call themselves denominations.
Or, alternatively, this is the path that Harvard and Yale took back when they were church schools. The naked quest for truth without any traditional mooring almost always walks right out the door of Christianity.
So what do I advocate? Denominations as sociological groups with traditions that recognize they are just a small piece of the Christian puzzle. Does the Church of the Brethren want to foot wash? Great! Do it, maybe even require it of your churches--I'm fine with that as long as you acknowledge that this tradition is something God has given to your group and that it doesn't make you any more Christian than groups that don't foot wash--you're the "feet" in the body of Christ.
So Wesleyans don't drink. Does the Bible forbid drinking? Of course not. Are there Christians who drink in moderation who are just as spiritual as teetotaling Wesleyans? The correct answer is, "Of course there are" (visit England some time). Is it still legitimate for Wesleyans to say, "It is part of our identity not to drink"? It is, as long as we don't think we are better than other Christians for it. We are the liver in the body of Christ, the Nazirites of Israel. :)
As I see it, Christianity is a lot more potent and alive with diversity of this sort, with denominations that have traditions and are to some degree constituted as sociological groups. Do I think that Wesleyan theology is more accurate than Baptist theology? I do, but I don't think I'm more spiritual than a Baptist, and I suspect there are elements of Christian theology that they do better than Wesleyans do. Could we really capture the whole of God without some degree of paradox?
So I celebrate denominations. Are there too many? Sure. I would love to see Wesleyans and Free Methodists and a few other churches become a single church, for a start.
Do denominations take themselves too seriously? Sure.
But I think if we can see our denominations as "specialists" within the body of Christ, then Christendom is the richer. And if we don't band together in some way, then we will get a whole lot less done in the world for the kingdom.
I think I know at least in part what these trends are reacting against, and I think it is in part the same reason why "religion" has become a dirty word. For all intents and purposes, denominations used to think that their group alone had the truth. If pushed, they might admit that some people from other denominations might make it to heaven. But obviously these distant others didn't quite have things right. Either they didn't have enough "light" and were just ignorant, or they were perverse and wilfully believed the wrong things. This mindset also witnessed the countless founding and refounding of endless splinter groups who finally had the "true" variation on the parent theme.
But it's hard to hold to this philosophy if you actually know a few Christians from some other groups. It's hard to be quite so anti-catholic if you know a few spirit-filled catholics who nevertheless look at things differently than you do.
The problem as I see it is that if churches simply become islands of the universal, invisible church, there is no telling what they will become. I see two main alternative paths:
1. They will move increasingly toward the common denominator of all Christians out there. This has already happened to a large degree. The current evangelical non-denominational church is an baptistified Arminian-flavored mix with little attachment to historical orthodoxy but a fairly conservative Republican politic. The Bible is a controlling factor, but (as I have often argued) as somewhat of a mirror--the group finds in the words what it thinks it should find.
A non-denominational "core" tends to water down the flavors of Christendom to a blase, pretty tasteless mix.
2. It will slip back into ideosyncratic individual groups--this time without any denominational organization--each of which thinks it has the truth.
I have some thoughts on the "bastion of truth alone" concept of churches, Christian universities, seminaries, etc... the idea that individual churches should just follow the truth, that we should forget denominations but let them all just be Christian churches. This is the idea that Christian colleges, Christian seminaries, that they should just be Christian colleges and seminaries untied to denominations, that they should just be Christian and follow the truth.
The main problem I have with this approach is that it is exactly the philosophy that led to the splintering of Protestantism into ten thousands of denominations with that "truth." Non-denominations like the "Disciples of Christ" or the "Church of Christ" or the "Church of God, Anderson" sure have particular ideas and traditions like denominations that actually call themselves denominations.
Or, alternatively, this is the path that Harvard and Yale took back when they were church schools. The naked quest for truth without any traditional mooring almost always walks right out the door of Christianity.
So what do I advocate? Denominations as sociological groups with traditions that recognize they are just a small piece of the Christian puzzle. Does the Church of the Brethren want to foot wash? Great! Do it, maybe even require it of your churches--I'm fine with that as long as you acknowledge that this tradition is something God has given to your group and that it doesn't make you any more Christian than groups that don't foot wash--you're the "feet" in the body of Christ.
So Wesleyans don't drink. Does the Bible forbid drinking? Of course not. Are there Christians who drink in moderation who are just as spiritual as teetotaling Wesleyans? The correct answer is, "Of course there are" (visit England some time). Is it still legitimate for Wesleyans to say, "It is part of our identity not to drink"? It is, as long as we don't think we are better than other Christians for it. We are the liver in the body of Christ, the Nazirites of Israel. :)
As I see it, Christianity is a lot more potent and alive with diversity of this sort, with denominations that have traditions and are to some degree constituted as sociological groups. Do I think that Wesleyan theology is more accurate than Baptist theology? I do, but I don't think I'm more spiritual than a Baptist, and I suspect there are elements of Christian theology that they do better than Wesleyans do. Could we really capture the whole of God without some degree of paradox?
So I celebrate denominations. Are there too many? Sure. I would love to see Wesleyans and Free Methodists and a few other churches become a single church, for a start.
Do denominations take themselves too seriously? Sure.
But I think if we can see our denominations as "specialists" within the body of Christ, then Christendom is the richer. And if we don't band together in some way, then we will get a whole lot less done in the world for the kingdom.
Monday, October 10, 2005
Paul and Sexuality
I have some impressions of what I might conclude if I did a more thorough study of Paul and sexual sin, but I've never actually done it. I thought I might blog in brief on the subject.
The point of real exploration is not so much about what acts Paul considered to be inappropriate as why he considered them to be so. To the extent to which such perspectives are unexpressed in the text--indeed, Paul himself may not have been completely aware of the forces on his thinking--to that extent this is an exercise about which our conclusions will remain somewhat uncertain even after we have explored all the evidence we have.
Additionally, it is not clear to me that it is Paul's underlying thinking that gives us the meaning of these texts as Scripture. That meaning seems to me something the church discerns from the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, the more we know, the freer we are to make good choices.
I might begin with 1 Thessalonians 4:3: "This is the will of God, your sanctification, for you to abstain from porneia." The crucial question here is what exactly Paul means by "porneia." The meaning of porneia for Paul was obvious to him. Perhaps it was obvious to the Thessalonians as well. I have suggested elsewhere that Leviticus 18 perhaps gives us the best summary of what Paul included in this word.
In 1 Thessalonians, Paul does give us the flavor of what porneia is. He equates abstaining from porneia to "each of you possessing your own vessel in holiness and honor" (4:4). He equates this comment with "not possessing it with the passion of desire like the Gentiles who do not know God also do" (4:5) and "not to offend and defraud your brother in this matter." The words used in this last statement have overtones of "taking over" (hyperbaino) and "taking more than your due" (pleonekteo). In short, I think Paul must primarily have either adultery or sleeping with someone promised to another in view.
By the way, this word does not refer exclusively or even primarily to pre-marital sex, as the KJV translation "fornication" is sometimes taken. It probably includes pre-marital sex, as one possible interpretation of this passage indicates.
I believe the following statement to be true: There is no act of sex outside marriage that Paul does not consider to be sin. But what is interesting is that Paul, and all the other biblical writers, do not argue that such sex is sin because it is outside marriage. In other words, biblical authors argue that various kinds of sex outside marriage are sins, but they never argue that they are sins because they take place outside marriage. They do not argue that a person can only have sex within marriage and that any sex a person has outside marriage is a sin, although this is what their position amounts to. Rather, they argue that specific types of sex are sins and they do this with nearly every specific type of sex other than the act of sex within marriage. This is a major difference between Paul's sexual paradigm and the current evangelical one.
Let us go through the various sexual sins that the Bible discusses to demonstrate this claim:
1. Sex with a Prostitute (1 Corinthians 6)
I start with this category because Paul's comments on this issue are instructive. Paul makes it clear to the Corinthians that they should not join their "members" to a prostitute. The reason is that they defile the body both of Christ and of themselves. Here we note that Paul does not say that the act of sex defiles because it is sex outside marriage. It defiles because of who you are becoming "one flesh" with.
Note the distinction: Paul does not argue that you shouldn't have sex with a prostitute because you have become one flesh with your wife (and Paul's arguments are male-oriented). This would be the way a contemporary evangelical would argue the prohibition. Rather, Paul argues that you should not have sex with a prostitute because you become one flesh with her! (and she's "icky")
2. Adultery
Adultery is consistently understood to be a sin in the Bible. However, the Bible never says that it is sin because any sex outside marriage is a sin. In the categories of both Leviticus and the New Testament world, adultery shames the husband of the wife with whom a man sleeps. Adultery is thus argued to be wrong because it is shameful and has incredible social consequences. The woman seems to get a raw deal here--the ancient world didn't speak of committing adultery against a wife. Adultery seems to have always been formulated as an offence against a man.
In Leviticus 18, almost every act prohibited follows the pattern Do not uncover the nakedness of x (a man) by sleeping with y (a woman who stands in some honor-shame relationship with x). The NIV, as many translations, has eliminated the honor-shame language of nakedness. Again, in none of these places does the text locate the problem as one of sleeping outside your marriage. The problem comes from who you are sleeping with and, thus, from the fact that you are shaming some man.
And here we remind ourselves again that God has moved His church to a more perfect understanding of so many of these things. So I can reiterate that I think the current evangelical way of arguing these things is possibly the way God wants us to argue them. But in the ancient world, adultery was understood as the shaming of a man by lying with his wife. In that sense, the OT would not have defined what Judah does with Tamar in Genesis as an act of adultery. Tamar is of course his daughter-in-law, and she dresses as a prostitute because Judah has not had his youngest son go in to her to raise seed for her dead husband (long story). She gets pregnant from her father-in-law. The Genesis story treats her as righteous in her actions.
What is interesting is that Judah is not condemned in the story for visiting a prostitute, which would not have been considered adultery in his day because he was shaming no man by sleeping with one. We remind ourselves that Paul prohibits sleeping with a prostitute in the NT, but such a prohibition was not on the books (there were no books) at the time of Judah. But this act would not have been classified as adultery even in Paul's day. Paul considered it sinful and defiling, but would not have called it adultery.
Jesus' words in Matthew 5 and 19 are thus shocking, because he suggests that a man commits adultery against himself when he divorces his wife. Normally, divorcing your wife would not be considered adultery. But as usual, Jesus is being provocative. A man who divorces his wife, in effect forcing her to marry another man (how else would she survive?), causes her to commit adultery against himself. Jesus' words set in motion a process that reaches full bloom with us, for we rightly believe that a man commits adultery against his wife when he sleeps with anyone but her. But I do not think you will not find this concept clearly articulated anywhere in the Bible.
Homosexual Sex
A previous string of entries have made it clear that Paul considered the act of sex with someone of the same gender to be shameful and defiling. What he nowhere argues, however, is that the act is defiling because it is outside marriage.
Premarital Sex
I believe it was the assumption of Paul's world that a woman should be a virgin when she marries. He never argues this, but he assumes it throughout 1 Corinthians 7. It is so deep an assumption of Paul's world that he doesn't even think to argue it. As far as a man is concerned, what avenue of sex is there outside marriage that Paul would allow? He prohibits sex with a prostitute, sex with someone's wife, homosexual sex, etc... What is left?
Paul implies that pre-marital sex is inappropriate in two ways. First, he says it is better to marry than to burn (with passion). This statement appears in 1 Corinthians at a place where Paul is arguing that celibacy is not for every man. He argues that if you cannot control your passions, you should marry. Second, this argument is similar to what Paul has said in 1 Thessalonians 4: don't possess your vessel with the passion of desire. Pre-marital sex implies an inability to control your "passion" and "burning."
In Paul's day it "defrauded" the father and perhaps appointed spouse as well. It also cheapened the virgin, making her an object of shame. Couples who cannot wait for marriage today often experience a similar shame and compromising of value in the church today as well--which is in continuity with the biblical world.
Masturbation
I add this section at the request of a colleague. As far as I can tell, there is no biblical passage that addresses this topic. Some use the passage about Onan in Genesis, but it has nothing to do with it. Onan was required to raise seed for his dead brother and he didn't. He was more than happy to have sex with Tamar, but not willing to climax with her so that she would get pregnant, even though that was his duty. He didn't want the rights of his own first born to be assigned to his dead brother. In short, this passage is about a whole lot of things that aren't masturbation.
I doubt very seriously that any biblical author would have considered maturbation under the heading of "sex," so in some ways it doesn't fit in this discussion. Paul might address it under the "passion of desire" clause.
So under the "I too have the Spirit of God" category, let me suggest a few things:
1. What makes masturbation dangerous and sinful for a Christian is what you are thinking. Are you lusting after someone? Then it comes under the Matthew 5 heading--don't do in your mind what you shouldn't do in real life. Ask yourself, "How would this girl react if she knew I was thinking this?" Lust cheapens the person you are lusting after. I have known guys who have claimed not to lust while doing this, and I believe it is possible. God is ultimately the judge of intentions (1 Cor. 4). Sometimes we feel like we have to be able to catch those who are lying or rationalizing, but no one ever fools God. He is the judge.
2. "Moderation in all things." That's the Golden Mean. A man's body has a cycle like a woman's--it just isn't tied to a regular sequence of days. Let's say about every three weeks or so the male body gets to a certain point where thinking is not involved.
Well, enough on that... Run away...
Conclusion
So we can add these individual prohibitions and come to the conclusion that "sex is only appropriate within marriage." That is the current evangelical position. But notice that Paul did not formulate it the way we do. Paul prohibited all the various avenues of sex outside marriage. Our formula is much simpler and reaches the same conclusion: Christians should only have sex within marriage. I think God has helped the church progress in this formulation, for it treats the woman equally to the man in every way, and I'm convinced that this is God's way.
Hermeneutical Epilogue:
To wend my usual wares, I make my usual observations:
1. To read the Bible the way we know we need to read it, we must often go beyond what it actually says and means. The Bible alone could be used to support a world where a man can sleep with someone who isn't his wife without committing adultery.
2. Christians extend the biblical meanings in this way all the time. Although there is no passage anywhere in the Bible that says "Do not have sex with anyone but your spouse" or "It is a sin to have sex with anyone but your spouse," most Christians would insist it does say this. This is the implication of the biblical teaching, but the Bible nowhere says this.
3. It is the "Bible-as-churched" that is authoritative for Christians, not simply the original meaning. It is the meaning these words take on when we bring a "Christian dictionary" to bear on them, and this dictionary is the dictionary provided by the communion of saints through the ages, in whom the Spirit of God dwells. Such a dictionary is usually in continuity with the original meaning, but it is usually a little different and often quite different.
The point of real exploration is not so much about what acts Paul considered to be inappropriate as why he considered them to be so. To the extent to which such perspectives are unexpressed in the text--indeed, Paul himself may not have been completely aware of the forces on his thinking--to that extent this is an exercise about which our conclusions will remain somewhat uncertain even after we have explored all the evidence we have.
Additionally, it is not clear to me that it is Paul's underlying thinking that gives us the meaning of these texts as Scripture. That meaning seems to me something the church discerns from the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, the more we know, the freer we are to make good choices.
I might begin with 1 Thessalonians 4:3: "This is the will of God, your sanctification, for you to abstain from porneia." The crucial question here is what exactly Paul means by "porneia." The meaning of porneia for Paul was obvious to him. Perhaps it was obvious to the Thessalonians as well. I have suggested elsewhere that Leviticus 18 perhaps gives us the best summary of what Paul included in this word.
In 1 Thessalonians, Paul does give us the flavor of what porneia is. He equates abstaining from porneia to "each of you possessing your own vessel in holiness and honor" (4:4). He equates this comment with "not possessing it with the passion of desire like the Gentiles who do not know God also do" (4:5) and "not to offend and defraud your brother in this matter." The words used in this last statement have overtones of "taking over" (hyperbaino) and "taking more than your due" (pleonekteo). In short, I think Paul must primarily have either adultery or sleeping with someone promised to another in view.
By the way, this word does not refer exclusively or even primarily to pre-marital sex, as the KJV translation "fornication" is sometimes taken. It probably includes pre-marital sex, as one possible interpretation of this passage indicates.
I believe the following statement to be true: There is no act of sex outside marriage that Paul does not consider to be sin. But what is interesting is that Paul, and all the other biblical writers, do not argue that such sex is sin because it is outside marriage. In other words, biblical authors argue that various kinds of sex outside marriage are sins, but they never argue that they are sins because they take place outside marriage. They do not argue that a person can only have sex within marriage and that any sex a person has outside marriage is a sin, although this is what their position amounts to. Rather, they argue that specific types of sex are sins and they do this with nearly every specific type of sex other than the act of sex within marriage. This is a major difference between Paul's sexual paradigm and the current evangelical one.
Let us go through the various sexual sins that the Bible discusses to demonstrate this claim:
1. Sex with a Prostitute (1 Corinthians 6)
I start with this category because Paul's comments on this issue are instructive. Paul makes it clear to the Corinthians that they should not join their "members" to a prostitute. The reason is that they defile the body both of Christ and of themselves. Here we note that Paul does not say that the act of sex defiles because it is sex outside marriage. It defiles because of who you are becoming "one flesh" with.
Note the distinction: Paul does not argue that you shouldn't have sex with a prostitute because you have become one flesh with your wife (and Paul's arguments are male-oriented). This would be the way a contemporary evangelical would argue the prohibition. Rather, Paul argues that you should not have sex with a prostitute because you become one flesh with her! (and she's "icky")
2. Adultery
Adultery is consistently understood to be a sin in the Bible. However, the Bible never says that it is sin because any sex outside marriage is a sin. In the categories of both Leviticus and the New Testament world, adultery shames the husband of the wife with whom a man sleeps. Adultery is thus argued to be wrong because it is shameful and has incredible social consequences. The woman seems to get a raw deal here--the ancient world didn't speak of committing adultery against a wife. Adultery seems to have always been formulated as an offence against a man.
In Leviticus 18, almost every act prohibited follows the pattern Do not uncover the nakedness of x (a man) by sleeping with y (a woman who stands in some honor-shame relationship with x). The NIV, as many translations, has eliminated the honor-shame language of nakedness. Again, in none of these places does the text locate the problem as one of sleeping outside your marriage. The problem comes from who you are sleeping with and, thus, from the fact that you are shaming some man.
And here we remind ourselves again that God has moved His church to a more perfect understanding of so many of these things. So I can reiterate that I think the current evangelical way of arguing these things is possibly the way God wants us to argue them. But in the ancient world, adultery was understood as the shaming of a man by lying with his wife. In that sense, the OT would not have defined what Judah does with Tamar in Genesis as an act of adultery. Tamar is of course his daughter-in-law, and she dresses as a prostitute because Judah has not had his youngest son go in to her to raise seed for her dead husband (long story). She gets pregnant from her father-in-law. The Genesis story treats her as righteous in her actions.
What is interesting is that Judah is not condemned in the story for visiting a prostitute, which would not have been considered adultery in his day because he was shaming no man by sleeping with one. We remind ourselves that Paul prohibits sleeping with a prostitute in the NT, but such a prohibition was not on the books (there were no books) at the time of Judah. But this act would not have been classified as adultery even in Paul's day. Paul considered it sinful and defiling, but would not have called it adultery.
Jesus' words in Matthew 5 and 19 are thus shocking, because he suggests that a man commits adultery against himself when he divorces his wife. Normally, divorcing your wife would not be considered adultery. But as usual, Jesus is being provocative. A man who divorces his wife, in effect forcing her to marry another man (how else would she survive?), causes her to commit adultery against himself. Jesus' words set in motion a process that reaches full bloom with us, for we rightly believe that a man commits adultery against his wife when he sleeps with anyone but her. But I do not think you will not find this concept clearly articulated anywhere in the Bible.
Homosexual Sex
A previous string of entries have made it clear that Paul considered the act of sex with someone of the same gender to be shameful and defiling. What he nowhere argues, however, is that the act is defiling because it is outside marriage.
Premarital Sex
I believe it was the assumption of Paul's world that a woman should be a virgin when she marries. He never argues this, but he assumes it throughout 1 Corinthians 7. It is so deep an assumption of Paul's world that he doesn't even think to argue it. As far as a man is concerned, what avenue of sex is there outside marriage that Paul would allow? He prohibits sex with a prostitute, sex with someone's wife, homosexual sex, etc... What is left?
Paul implies that pre-marital sex is inappropriate in two ways. First, he says it is better to marry than to burn (with passion). This statement appears in 1 Corinthians at a place where Paul is arguing that celibacy is not for every man. He argues that if you cannot control your passions, you should marry. Second, this argument is similar to what Paul has said in 1 Thessalonians 4: don't possess your vessel with the passion of desire. Pre-marital sex implies an inability to control your "passion" and "burning."
In Paul's day it "defrauded" the father and perhaps appointed spouse as well. It also cheapened the virgin, making her an object of shame. Couples who cannot wait for marriage today often experience a similar shame and compromising of value in the church today as well--which is in continuity with the biblical world.
Masturbation
I add this section at the request of a colleague. As far as I can tell, there is no biblical passage that addresses this topic. Some use the passage about Onan in Genesis, but it has nothing to do with it. Onan was required to raise seed for his dead brother and he didn't. He was more than happy to have sex with Tamar, but not willing to climax with her so that she would get pregnant, even though that was his duty. He didn't want the rights of his own first born to be assigned to his dead brother. In short, this passage is about a whole lot of things that aren't masturbation.
I doubt very seriously that any biblical author would have considered maturbation under the heading of "sex," so in some ways it doesn't fit in this discussion. Paul might address it under the "passion of desire" clause.
So under the "I too have the Spirit of God" category, let me suggest a few things:
1. What makes masturbation dangerous and sinful for a Christian is what you are thinking. Are you lusting after someone? Then it comes under the Matthew 5 heading--don't do in your mind what you shouldn't do in real life. Ask yourself, "How would this girl react if she knew I was thinking this?" Lust cheapens the person you are lusting after. I have known guys who have claimed not to lust while doing this, and I believe it is possible. God is ultimately the judge of intentions (1 Cor. 4). Sometimes we feel like we have to be able to catch those who are lying or rationalizing, but no one ever fools God. He is the judge.
2. "Moderation in all things." That's the Golden Mean. A man's body has a cycle like a woman's--it just isn't tied to a regular sequence of days. Let's say about every three weeks or so the male body gets to a certain point where thinking is not involved.
Well, enough on that... Run away...
Conclusion
So we can add these individual prohibitions and come to the conclusion that "sex is only appropriate within marriage." That is the current evangelical position. But notice that Paul did not formulate it the way we do. Paul prohibited all the various avenues of sex outside marriage. Our formula is much simpler and reaches the same conclusion: Christians should only have sex within marriage. I think God has helped the church progress in this formulation, for it treats the woman equally to the man in every way, and I'm convinced that this is God's way.
Hermeneutical Epilogue:
To wend my usual wares, I make my usual observations:
1. To read the Bible the way we know we need to read it, we must often go beyond what it actually says and means. The Bible alone could be used to support a world where a man can sleep with someone who isn't his wife without committing adultery.
2. Christians extend the biblical meanings in this way all the time. Although there is no passage anywhere in the Bible that says "Do not have sex with anyone but your spouse" or "It is a sin to have sex with anyone but your spouse," most Christians would insist it does say this. This is the implication of the biblical teaching, but the Bible nowhere says this.
3. It is the "Bible-as-churched" that is authoritative for Christians, not simply the original meaning. It is the meaning these words take on when we bring a "Christian dictionary" to bear on them, and this dictionary is the dictionary provided by the communion of saints through the ages, in whom the Spirit of God dwells. Such a dictionary is usually in continuity with the original meaning, but it is usually a little different and often quite different.
Friday, October 07, 2005
Bush's Supreme Court Pick
I read an MSNBC article today about Miers, Bush's newest Supreme Court pick. It was about how frustrated conservatives were about the pick, since they know so little about her legal philosophy.
I found the article both encouraging and frustrating at the same time. I found it frustrating because it spoke of conservatives as a single, monolithic body. It glided quite subtly across, what I believe, are different kinds of conservative. So I sensed at least three types of conservative in the course of the article:
1. strict constructionists when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, like Clarence Thomas.
2. Gary Bauer was mentioned, who would be the religious, Dobsonian wing of conservatism.
3. small government capitalists, economic conservatives, almost libertarians.
These are not necessarily the same person! I have deep issues with how Christians in category number 2 so mindlessly glide into the other two, indeed into 4. Republicanism in general. So someone opposes gun control because they're anti-abortion. What sharp minds the typical American has!
So while I don't know what Miers will be like, I am at least hopeful. I figure if Clarence Thomas doesn't like her, that's a relief. As far as I'm concerned Thomas represents a legal philosophy that has no spirit--I'll call it zombie jurisprudence. The "prepared" conservative jurists the right wanted him to pick to me are as bad as any liberal judge "making law from the bench." The difference is they allow inhumanity because of lack of law or immoral law.
As far as Bush's spending, my main problem is with the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, there's not much that can be done about that now. The financial levee on that one broke when Bush invaded. I suppose in theory I prefer smaller government to bigger, but the ideal size for me is whatever is necessary for government to do what it needs to do. I think New Orleans should be rebuilt smartly. A good president would find ways to do it without breaking the bank. And since I have no idea how to do that, Bush and I are on about the same level.
As far Bauer, Dobson, and friends, Dobson has hesitantly endorsed Miers. That works for me for now--mostly because of the hesitancy. If he endorses her hesitantly, then maybe she's my kind of moderate conservative. I'll call it a "Methodist conservative" for now. That's probably about where I am.
Time will tell...
I found the article both encouraging and frustrating at the same time. I found it frustrating because it spoke of conservatives as a single, monolithic body. It glided quite subtly across, what I believe, are different kinds of conservative. So I sensed at least three types of conservative in the course of the article:
1. strict constructionists when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, like Clarence Thomas.
2. Gary Bauer was mentioned, who would be the religious, Dobsonian wing of conservatism.
3. small government capitalists, economic conservatives, almost libertarians.
These are not necessarily the same person! I have deep issues with how Christians in category number 2 so mindlessly glide into the other two, indeed into 4. Republicanism in general. So someone opposes gun control because they're anti-abortion. What sharp minds the typical American has!
So while I don't know what Miers will be like, I am at least hopeful. I figure if Clarence Thomas doesn't like her, that's a relief. As far as I'm concerned Thomas represents a legal philosophy that has no spirit--I'll call it zombie jurisprudence. The "prepared" conservative jurists the right wanted him to pick to me are as bad as any liberal judge "making law from the bench." The difference is they allow inhumanity because of lack of law or immoral law.
As far as Bush's spending, my main problem is with the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, there's not much that can be done about that now. The financial levee on that one broke when Bush invaded. I suppose in theory I prefer smaller government to bigger, but the ideal size for me is whatever is necessary for government to do what it needs to do. I think New Orleans should be rebuilt smartly. A good president would find ways to do it without breaking the bank. And since I have no idea how to do that, Bush and I are on about the same level.
As far Bauer, Dobson, and friends, Dobson has hesitantly endorsed Miers. That works for me for now--mostly because of the hesitancy. If he endorses her hesitantly, then maybe she's my kind of moderate conservative. I'll call it a "Methodist conservative" for now. That's probably about where I am.
Time will tell...
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
CV ("Canonical Version): Psalm 97 (that's 98 to you and me)
A Psalm for David
Sing to the Lord a new song, because the Lord has done marvelous things. His right hand has saved him, and His holy arm.
The Lord has made known his salvation before the Gentiles; He has revealed His righteousness. He has remembered His mercy to Jacob, and His truth to the house of Israel. All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God.
Shout to God, all the earth, sing and rejoice and sing psalms. Sing psalms to the Lord on the harp, with harp and the voice of a psalm, with metal trumpets and a horn trumpet. Shout to the Lord before the king. Let the sea and its fulness be shaken, the inhabited world and those who inhabit it. Rivers will clap with hands in one accord; the mountains will rejoice. For He comes to judge the earth. He will judge the inhabited world in righteousness and peoples with straightness.
Now how do you think Paul would have read this psalm? Hays suggests we might have it in mind as we read:
"I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who has faith--to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed from faithfulness leading to faith, as it is written, 'The person who is righteous on the basis of faith will live.' For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of humanity..." Hmmm.
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Mapping Sin
This is a short entry on levels of sin in the life of believers. I proceed from several preliminary presuppositions:
1. Before we come to Christ, all sin may as well be the same--"All have sinned and lack the glory God intended them" (Rom. 3:23). "The wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23). "Both Jews and Greeks are all under sin" (Rom. 3:9).
2. After we are justified by grace through faith and have received the Holy Spirit, intentional sin is avoidable (1 Cor. 10:13). We never lose to temptation but that, through the power of the Holy Spirit, we might have overcome it.
3. Related to the above, all intentional sin is unjustified. Even if we allow for levels of sin after faith, all intentional sin damages our relationship with Christ and endangers our ultimate salvation.
4. Sin in the life of a believer can break one's relationship with Christ, a teaching that permeates the New Testament (e.g., Mark 3:28-29; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 9:26-27; Heb. 10:26; 2 Pet. 1:10; etc.).
Now to address matters of sin's intensity. Ethicists talk in general of four ethical domains: acts themselves, motives behind actions, consequences of actions, and the character of the person doing the action. Let us briefly consider how these domains relate to the intensity of sin in the life of a believer.
Motives
Intention is the primary ethical domain of our day. The Wesleyan tradition in particular places such primacy on intention that we hardly even mention or account for the biblical category of unintentional sin. Our theologians believe, however, that unintentional sin must have atonement just as intentional sin must. But the general sense is that Christ's blood takes care of our unintentional sin as we maintain an attitude of repentance and alignment with God's will.
We might similarly mention the Old Testament category of corporate sin. There is a place within Christianity for corporate confession of sin in addition to our confession of any individual sin.
However, it seems common sense to us that intentional sin is more serious and more damaging to our relationship with Christ than unintentional sin. Of course inintentional patterns with which we do not deal can become matters of intention. We might also mention that intention can be matters of comission and omission. One might split hairs and argue that sins of omission are slightly less serious than sins of comission, but I will not argue it.
I believe the biblical way of dealing with sin indicates that, on the whole, intentional sin is more damaging than unintentional sin (although see below under "The Act Itself"). And while parts of the OT consider corporate sin just as damning as individual sin, the traditions that emerge after the Babylonian captivity move somewhat away from this idea (Jeremiah 31:29-30; Ezekiel 18:2-4). I would argue that individual sin is thus more damaging to a person's relationship with Christ than corporate sin.
Without much substantiation, I would suggest that motive remains the most important factor when it comes to the relational damage caused by sin. The stronger one's motives are in contradiction to God, the more damaging the sin is to one's relationship with God.
A person might thus sin unintentionally despite good motives, for motive is not the only domain of sin.
Character
Under this heading I want to consider the matter of trajectory. In what direction were you headed when you sinned? Did you sin while running toward Christ or while running away from him? I would again submit as a matter of common sense (and thus we'd better be careful) that sins committed while running toward Christ do less damage to your relationship with him than sins committed while running from him--even if they are the same exact act.
Here we consider the distinction between a single act of sin and a matter of habitual or a lifestyle of sin. This is of course my understanding of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. The types of people that Paul has in mind are repeat offenders, not those who sin once or twice and then repent. This is the "dog returning to his vomit" principle.
So I believe Paul would have considered a person with a lifestyle of a particular sin to be in greater danger of losing out on salvation than a person who sinned once and repented. Similarly, Hebrews does not threaten its audience because of one sin, but because of the fact that "the water has often given drink to the land" (Heb. 6:7) and the sin has been done not only willfully but it has continued (Heb. 10:26, present tense; cf. present tense of 1 John 3:9).
The Act Itself
It is in this category where we find unintentional sins. These are sins even if one's motives and intentions are not intentionally bad or harmful. There are, for example, duties I have toward my wife--largely because of the consequences of failing at them. I may not intend to miss our anniversary, but I have sinned against my wife if I miss it because I have failed at a duty. There are other things that are sins in themselves because of the consequences. I may not intend to hurt anyone if I were to drive drunk, but if I run over someone unintentionally, I have still sinned, despite my intentions.
The Bible also has a category for sins that are not sins because of consequences; they are just sins in themselves without clear rationale. This is the most difficult domain for the modern mind to fathom. How can an act be sinful regardless of intention or consequence? This domain seems the one dominated by matters of holiness, purity, and impurity. A person under the old covenant became unclean just by touching something that was unclean.
Uzzah is immediately struck dead despite the fact that he is only trying to steady the ark--a good intention. We immediately try to rationalize why God would do such a thing. But ultimately, he is an unclean person touching something that is holy. His intentions did not matter. The same was the fate of any animal that might touch Mt. Sinai while God's presence was on it.
Rightly or wrongly, the classic study of these matters is Mary Douglas' Purity and Danger. She has suggested in great detail how we might understand the purity codes of Leviticus in the light of these kinds of things. Her famous definition of uncleanness is aptly summarized in the saying "Dirt is matter out of place." She proceeds to suggest ways in which we can understand the various food laws and restrictions concerning blood in terms of "matter out of place."
Things in the sea should have fins and scales. Therefore eels are out of place in the sea and accordingly unclean. Things on the land should walk, not crawl. Therefore snakes are out of place and accordingly unclean. Birds should fly, so birds that cannot even lift off even a little bit are out of place and accordingly unclean. Pigs are the provenance of other peoples with their other gods and are thus out of place in Israel and accordingly unclean (cf. the Egyptians finding the Israelites unclean because they were shepherds; Gen. 46:34)
Given our cultural glasses, we try to come up with consequences that might explain these rules--trichinosis in pork, for example. But it seems rather that the acts themselves were considered defiling regardless of intent or consequence. The New Testament changes some of the purity rules with regard to food, but not with regard to sexuality. My hunch is that part of the reason for this retention is because sexual matters involve significant consequences beyond matters of clean and unclean.
Since "act alone" sins are difficult for us to get our heads around, we tend to consider such sins less damaging to our relationship with God than those that involve motive or consequence. This is the position I find myself wanting to take. Yet I must acknowledge that the OT sometimes treats such sins even more seriously than intentional ones. Sometimes such acts, regardless of motive, evoke the most devastating responses from God's Holiness. Such responses are often portrayed as impersonal and unstoppable forces (plagues of serpents and after censuses, the destroyer in Egypt). This is food for thought and for the examination of our cultural common sense.
Consequence
I think our general common sense is that consequence does not determine the intensity of our sin actions. If I try to kill someone and fail, have I sinned less than if I try and succeed?
However, it makes sense to us to see consequence as one of the two greatest factors in why God commands or prohibits something in the first place (the other being matters of purity and impurity). Does this explain why 1 Corinthians 7 prohibits a divorced woman from remarrying (1 Cor. 7:11) while allowing a divorced man to remarry (1 Cor. 7:27--read something other than the NIV)? Was it because the consequences in the ancient social structure were greater when a woman remarried than when a man did?
I might add that, from a John Wesleyan perspective, the intensity of sin is different in relation to each other than in relation to God. If I cause the death of someone else because I chose to drive without having nearly enough sleep, it likely is a far greater sin against my neighbor than it is against my relationship with God. God looks on the heart; humans on the outward consequences (isn't that what Jesus said? :)
Again, briefly, some thoughts for your consideration, critique and correction...
1. Before we come to Christ, all sin may as well be the same--"All have sinned and lack the glory God intended them" (Rom. 3:23). "The wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23). "Both Jews and Greeks are all under sin" (Rom. 3:9).
2. After we are justified by grace through faith and have received the Holy Spirit, intentional sin is avoidable (1 Cor. 10:13). We never lose to temptation but that, through the power of the Holy Spirit, we might have overcome it.
3. Related to the above, all intentional sin is unjustified. Even if we allow for levels of sin after faith, all intentional sin damages our relationship with Christ and endangers our ultimate salvation.
4. Sin in the life of a believer can break one's relationship with Christ, a teaching that permeates the New Testament (e.g., Mark 3:28-29; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 9:26-27; Heb. 10:26; 2 Pet. 1:10; etc.).
Now to address matters of sin's intensity. Ethicists talk in general of four ethical domains: acts themselves, motives behind actions, consequences of actions, and the character of the person doing the action. Let us briefly consider how these domains relate to the intensity of sin in the life of a believer.
Motives
Intention is the primary ethical domain of our day. The Wesleyan tradition in particular places such primacy on intention that we hardly even mention or account for the biblical category of unintentional sin. Our theologians believe, however, that unintentional sin must have atonement just as intentional sin must. But the general sense is that Christ's blood takes care of our unintentional sin as we maintain an attitude of repentance and alignment with God's will.
We might similarly mention the Old Testament category of corporate sin. There is a place within Christianity for corporate confession of sin in addition to our confession of any individual sin.
However, it seems common sense to us that intentional sin is more serious and more damaging to our relationship with Christ than unintentional sin. Of course inintentional patterns with which we do not deal can become matters of intention. We might also mention that intention can be matters of comission and omission. One might split hairs and argue that sins of omission are slightly less serious than sins of comission, but I will not argue it.
I believe the biblical way of dealing with sin indicates that, on the whole, intentional sin is more damaging than unintentional sin (although see below under "The Act Itself"). And while parts of the OT consider corporate sin just as damning as individual sin, the traditions that emerge after the Babylonian captivity move somewhat away from this idea (Jeremiah 31:29-30; Ezekiel 18:2-4). I would argue that individual sin is thus more damaging to a person's relationship with Christ than corporate sin.
Without much substantiation, I would suggest that motive remains the most important factor when it comes to the relational damage caused by sin. The stronger one's motives are in contradiction to God, the more damaging the sin is to one's relationship with God.
A person might thus sin unintentionally despite good motives, for motive is not the only domain of sin.
Character
Under this heading I want to consider the matter of trajectory. In what direction were you headed when you sinned? Did you sin while running toward Christ or while running away from him? I would again submit as a matter of common sense (and thus we'd better be careful) that sins committed while running toward Christ do less damage to your relationship with him than sins committed while running from him--even if they are the same exact act.
Here we consider the distinction between a single act of sin and a matter of habitual or a lifestyle of sin. This is of course my understanding of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. The types of people that Paul has in mind are repeat offenders, not those who sin once or twice and then repent. This is the "dog returning to his vomit" principle.
So I believe Paul would have considered a person with a lifestyle of a particular sin to be in greater danger of losing out on salvation than a person who sinned once and repented. Similarly, Hebrews does not threaten its audience because of one sin, but because of the fact that "the water has often given drink to the land" (Heb. 6:7) and the sin has been done not only willfully but it has continued (Heb. 10:26, present tense; cf. present tense of 1 John 3:9).
The Act Itself
It is in this category where we find unintentional sins. These are sins even if one's motives and intentions are not intentionally bad or harmful. There are, for example, duties I have toward my wife--largely because of the consequences of failing at them. I may not intend to miss our anniversary, but I have sinned against my wife if I miss it because I have failed at a duty. There are other things that are sins in themselves because of the consequences. I may not intend to hurt anyone if I were to drive drunk, but if I run over someone unintentionally, I have still sinned, despite my intentions.
The Bible also has a category for sins that are not sins because of consequences; they are just sins in themselves without clear rationale. This is the most difficult domain for the modern mind to fathom. How can an act be sinful regardless of intention or consequence? This domain seems the one dominated by matters of holiness, purity, and impurity. A person under the old covenant became unclean just by touching something that was unclean.
Uzzah is immediately struck dead despite the fact that he is only trying to steady the ark--a good intention. We immediately try to rationalize why God would do such a thing. But ultimately, he is an unclean person touching something that is holy. His intentions did not matter. The same was the fate of any animal that might touch Mt. Sinai while God's presence was on it.
Rightly or wrongly, the classic study of these matters is Mary Douglas' Purity and Danger. She has suggested in great detail how we might understand the purity codes of Leviticus in the light of these kinds of things. Her famous definition of uncleanness is aptly summarized in the saying "Dirt is matter out of place." She proceeds to suggest ways in which we can understand the various food laws and restrictions concerning blood in terms of "matter out of place."
Things in the sea should have fins and scales. Therefore eels are out of place in the sea and accordingly unclean. Things on the land should walk, not crawl. Therefore snakes are out of place and accordingly unclean. Birds should fly, so birds that cannot even lift off even a little bit are out of place and accordingly unclean. Pigs are the provenance of other peoples with their other gods and are thus out of place in Israel and accordingly unclean (cf. the Egyptians finding the Israelites unclean because they were shepherds; Gen. 46:34)
Given our cultural glasses, we try to come up with consequences that might explain these rules--trichinosis in pork, for example. But it seems rather that the acts themselves were considered defiling regardless of intent or consequence. The New Testament changes some of the purity rules with regard to food, but not with regard to sexuality. My hunch is that part of the reason for this retention is because sexual matters involve significant consequences beyond matters of clean and unclean.
Since "act alone" sins are difficult for us to get our heads around, we tend to consider such sins less damaging to our relationship with God than those that involve motive or consequence. This is the position I find myself wanting to take. Yet I must acknowledge that the OT sometimes treats such sins even more seriously than intentional ones. Sometimes such acts, regardless of motive, evoke the most devastating responses from God's Holiness. Such responses are often portrayed as impersonal and unstoppable forces (plagues of serpents and after censuses, the destroyer in Egypt). This is food for thought and for the examination of our cultural common sense.
Consequence
I think our general common sense is that consequence does not determine the intensity of our sin actions. If I try to kill someone and fail, have I sinned less than if I try and succeed?
However, it makes sense to us to see consequence as one of the two greatest factors in why God commands or prohibits something in the first place (the other being matters of purity and impurity). Does this explain why 1 Corinthians 7 prohibits a divorced woman from remarrying (1 Cor. 7:11) while allowing a divorced man to remarry (1 Cor. 7:27--read something other than the NIV)? Was it because the consequences in the ancient social structure were greater when a woman remarried than when a man did?
I might add that, from a John Wesleyan perspective, the intensity of sin is different in relation to each other than in relation to God. If I cause the death of someone else because I chose to drive without having nearly enough sleep, it likely is a far greater sin against my neighbor than it is against my relationship with God. God looks on the heart; humans on the outward consequences (isn't that what Jesus said? :)
Again, briefly, some thoughts for your consideration, critique and correction...
Monday, September 26, 2005
Canonical Version: Psalm 2
Since we know I won't translate the whole Bible, I feel free to skip around. I wanted to do a few "messianic psalms" now and again, as well as passages of special interest to New Testament authors. I suppose most of what we might call messianic psalms were originally royal psalms of one sort or another. But in the canonical version, they are mostly about Christ:
Psalm 2
Why have the nations neighed [chomping at the bit, as it were]
and the peoples prepared for vain [endeavors]?
They lined up side by side [for battle], the kings of the earth did,
and the rulers gathered together in the same [place]
against the Lord and against His Christ
Let us break their bonds
and let us break off their yoke from us.
The One who dwells in the skies laughed loudly at them,
and the Lord mocked them.
Then He will speak to them in His wrath
and in His anger he will throw them into confusion.
"I was installed as king by Him
on Zion, His holy mountain.
announcing the decree of the Lord,
The Lord said to me, 'You are My Son,
I today have given you birth.
Ask from Me, and I will give to you the nations for your inheritance
and the ends of the earth as your possession.
You will shepherd them with a rod of iron,
as a vessel of pottery you will smash them.'"
And now, kings, understand:
Learn, all you who judge the earth.
Serve the Lord in fear
and rejoice at him with trembling.
Cling to [your] discipline, lest the Lord be angry
and you perish from the righteous way.
Whenever His wrath should burn quickly,
blessed are all those who have placed their faith on Him.
There are a number of potential meanings these words could take on. Interestingly, the Greek leads us away from some of the easier messianic readings of the Hebrew (e.g., "kiss the Son"). However, I think Paul might have easily seen in the last stanza the final judgment and justification by faith in the God who raised Jesus from the dead.
Psalm 2
Why have the nations neighed [chomping at the bit, as it were]
and the peoples prepared for vain [endeavors]?
They lined up side by side [for battle], the kings of the earth did,
and the rulers gathered together in the same [place]
against the Lord and against His Christ
Let us break their bonds
and let us break off their yoke from us.
The One who dwells in the skies laughed loudly at them,
and the Lord mocked them.
Then He will speak to them in His wrath
and in His anger he will throw them into confusion.
"I was installed as king by Him
on Zion, His holy mountain.
announcing the decree of the Lord,
The Lord said to me, 'You are My Son,
I today have given you birth.
Ask from Me, and I will give to you the nations for your inheritance
and the ends of the earth as your possession.
You will shepherd them with a rod of iron,
as a vessel of pottery you will smash them.'"
And now, kings, understand:
Learn, all you who judge the earth.
Serve the Lord in fear
and rejoice at him with trembling.
Cling to [your] discipline, lest the Lord be angry
and you perish from the righteous way.
Whenever His wrath should burn quickly,
blessed are all those who have placed their faith on Him.
There are a number of potential meanings these words could take on. Interestingly, the Greek leads us away from some of the easier messianic readings of the Hebrew (e.g., "kiss the Son"). However, I think Paul might have easily seen in the last stanza the final judgment and justification by faith in the God who raised Jesus from the dead.
Saturday, September 24, 2005
Canonical Reading for the Day: Genesis 1:9-13
And God said, "Let the water under the heaven be gathered together into one gathering [synagoge] and let the dry ground appear." And it came to be accordingly. And the water under the heaven was gathered into their gatherings and the dry ground appeared. And God called the dry ground, "Land," and the collections of the waters he called, "Seas." And God saw that it was good.
And God said, "Let the land sprout fodder for food, sowing seed according to its kind and likeness, and [let it sprout] fruit-making tree making fruit, whose seed is in it according to its kind upon the land. And God saw that it was good. And it became evening and it became early morning, the third day.
And God said, "Let the land sprout fodder for food, sowing seed according to its kind and likeness, and [let it sprout] fruit-making tree making fruit, whose seed is in it according to its kind upon the land. And God saw that it was good. And it became evening and it became early morning, the third day.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Version Evaluation 6: New Living Translation
The New Living Translation is, without a doubt, my favorite dynamic equivalence translation. A dynamic equivalence translation aims to translate "thought for thought" rather than "word for word." Even here, dynamic can go off the Richter to where the translation blurs into the application of Scripture. What I mean is that the Bible was written to ancient audiences and most directly meant to address their situations. In that sense, a dynamic equivalence translation, in aiming at translating thought into contemporary thought, becomes a kind of commentary, much as the Aramaic Targums that not only translated the OT into Aramaic, but often paraphrased in a way that became commentary.
FD Scale (formal or dynamic): 4
I'll give it a four because I can imagine a translation that would be even more dynamic than the NLT. Nevertheless, it is very dynamic. Like the NRSV and TNIV, it uses "brothers and sisters" for "brothers."
As an example of its dynamism, take Romans 3:25, that I would translate formally as follows: "whom God put forward as an atoning sacrifice, through faithfulness, by his blood, to demonstrate His righteousness because of passing over the transgressions that had occurred previously."
Here is the NLT's rendition of this "thick" verse: "For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God's anger against us. We are made right with God when we believe that Jesus shed his blood, sacrificing his life for us. God was being entirely fair and just when he did not punish those who sinned in former times."
This translation is a wonderful illustration of a dynamic equivalence translation. See how what is part of one, ongoing sentence in Greek has become three sentences for just this part of the Greek sentence alone! And rather than choose between two alternative translations for the word I translated as "atoning sacrifice," the NLT gives both and then some: 1) taking punishment and 2) satisfying wrath. These are highly debatable interpretations--but it is much clearer than "atoning sacrifice" or the KJV's "propitiation" or the RSV's "expiation."
As usual the danger of a dynamic equivalence translation is that if it is on target, the text will be clearer than ever. But if the translation is off interpretation, the text will be more misleading than ever.
HC Scale (historical versus "catholic" text): 1
I'll go ahead and give it highest original text marks, although it doesn't put the material before 1 Samuel 11 in the main text. But it follows the Dead Sea Scrolls at Deuteronomy 32:8, which it dynamically translates well as "angelic beings" rather than "sons of God."
Drift: 3
As a dynamic equivalence translation, it is no surprise that theology plays a significant role in translation. My quote of Romans 3:25 gives off signals of penal substitution, for example, as an interpretation of Jesus' sacrifice, the idea that Christ took our punishment. While there is truth to this line of thinking, the current overemphasis on some punishment having to be exacted somewhere by God makes the verse come off differently than I think it did originally.
Philippians 2:6 simply says that "Though he was God..." and Colossians 1:15 creatively translates: "He existed before God made anything at all." These are not bad translations by any means, even if they are very interpretive.
Youth Scale (readability): 1
I think the NLT is very readable, almost as readable as you can get without becoming a paraphrase.
I think it's a winner.
FD Scale (formal or dynamic): 4
I'll give it a four because I can imagine a translation that would be even more dynamic than the NLT. Nevertheless, it is very dynamic. Like the NRSV and TNIV, it uses "brothers and sisters" for "brothers."
As an example of its dynamism, take Romans 3:25, that I would translate formally as follows: "whom God put forward as an atoning sacrifice, through faithfulness, by his blood, to demonstrate His righteousness because of passing over the transgressions that had occurred previously."
Here is the NLT's rendition of this "thick" verse: "For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God's anger against us. We are made right with God when we believe that Jesus shed his blood, sacrificing his life for us. God was being entirely fair and just when he did not punish those who sinned in former times."
This translation is a wonderful illustration of a dynamic equivalence translation. See how what is part of one, ongoing sentence in Greek has become three sentences for just this part of the Greek sentence alone! And rather than choose between two alternative translations for the word I translated as "atoning sacrifice," the NLT gives both and then some: 1) taking punishment and 2) satisfying wrath. These are highly debatable interpretations--but it is much clearer than "atoning sacrifice" or the KJV's "propitiation" or the RSV's "expiation."
As usual the danger of a dynamic equivalence translation is that if it is on target, the text will be clearer than ever. But if the translation is off interpretation, the text will be more misleading than ever.
HC Scale (historical versus "catholic" text): 1
I'll go ahead and give it highest original text marks, although it doesn't put the material before 1 Samuel 11 in the main text. But it follows the Dead Sea Scrolls at Deuteronomy 32:8, which it dynamically translates well as "angelic beings" rather than "sons of God."
Drift: 3
As a dynamic equivalence translation, it is no surprise that theology plays a significant role in translation. My quote of Romans 3:25 gives off signals of penal substitution, for example, as an interpretation of Jesus' sacrifice, the idea that Christ took our punishment. While there is truth to this line of thinking, the current overemphasis on some punishment having to be exacted somewhere by God makes the verse come off differently than I think it did originally.
Philippians 2:6 simply says that "Though he was God..." and Colossians 1:15 creatively translates: "He existed before God made anything at all." These are not bad translations by any means, even if they are very interpretive.
Youth Scale (readability): 1
I think the NLT is very readable, almost as readable as you can get without becoming a paraphrase.
I think it's a winner.
Canonical Version: Genesis 1:1-8
You can be sure I won't follow through with this one, but I've been wanting to read the Septuagint anyway, so I thought every once and a while, in a quasi-devotional way, I might post some translations from the Septuagint. I don't plan on spending too much time on it, just as I feel like it for a few minutes every once and a while. So while a class was taking a test, I came up with this:
The Canonical Version
The Law
Genesis
In the beginning, God made the heaven and the earth. But the earth was invisible and un-constructed, and darkness was above the abyss, and the Spirit of God was going over the water.
And God said, “Let light come to existence.” And light came to existence. And God saw the light, that it was good. And God separated between the light and the darkness. And God called the light, “Day,” and the darkness he called, “Night.” And it became evening and it became early morning: day one.
And God said, “Let a foundation come to existence in the middle of the water and let it be separating between water and water." And it came into existence accordingly. And God made the foundation, and separated between the water that was under the foundation and the water above the foundation. And God called the foundation, “Heaven.” And it became evening and it became early morning: second day.
The Canonical Version
The Law
Genesis
In the beginning, God made the heaven and the earth. But the earth was invisible and un-constructed, and darkness was above the abyss, and the Spirit of God was going over the water.
And God said, “Let light come to existence.” And light came to existence. And God saw the light, that it was good. And God separated between the light and the darkness. And God called the light, “Day,” and the darkness he called, “Night.” And it became evening and it became early morning: day one.
And God said, “Let a foundation come to existence in the middle of the water and let it be separating between water and water." And it came into existence accordingly. And God made the foundation, and separated between the water that was under the foundation and the water above the foundation. And God called the foundation, “Heaven.” And it became evening and it became early morning: second day.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
What would a Christian Translation look like?
The question of a Christian translation is an intriguing one. Here I mean a text that reflects the beliefs and practices God has led the church to have rather than the original meanings or texts, which in terms of the OT were "pre-Christian" and in terms of the NT were "pre-orthodox."
What text of the OT would you use? The early Christians did not largely read the Hebrew Bible. Even Paul relied primarily on the Septuagint. I've already mentioned that the Septuagint is what the Greek Orthodox Church considers its OT and not the Hebrew Bible. Would a Christian Bible therefore be a translation of the Septuagint?
On the other hand, if I were Roman Catholic, this question would be easy--an English translation of the Vulgate would be the ticket. So here is the conflict. For the majority of the church's history, the Vulgate has been the Bible of the West. But the Septuagint has been the Bible of the East arguably for even longer!
So I think if I were to make a Christian translation of the OT, I would follow the Septuagint for two reason: 1) it was the OT of the NT and the NT is what makes the OT Scripture and 2) it probably has been the OT for the longest in Christendom, even if the Vulgate may have outrun it in numbers in time. At any points where the NT might have a variant reading, I would follow it.
By the way, that includes the deuterocanonical books, which while they probably should not be accounted equal canonical status to the other books, were considered on a second tier by most Christians throughout history and were variously drawn on by various NT authors.
So what of the New Testament? I would follow the "catholic" text that is largely that of the King James Version. I would include the ending of Mark and the woman caught in adultery in John 8 and Acts 8:37. I'm not sure about the extended reading of 1 John 5:7-8. I think I would include it because 1) it approaches a trinitarian statement and 2) it was in the Vulgate for the bulk of Christian history.
So let's get started translating :) The Canonical Version, translated by Ken Schenck
What text of the OT would you use? The early Christians did not largely read the Hebrew Bible. Even Paul relied primarily on the Septuagint. I've already mentioned that the Septuagint is what the Greek Orthodox Church considers its OT and not the Hebrew Bible. Would a Christian Bible therefore be a translation of the Septuagint?
On the other hand, if I were Roman Catholic, this question would be easy--an English translation of the Vulgate would be the ticket. So here is the conflict. For the majority of the church's history, the Vulgate has been the Bible of the West. But the Septuagint has been the Bible of the East arguably for even longer!
So I think if I were to make a Christian translation of the OT, I would follow the Septuagint for two reason: 1) it was the OT of the NT and the NT is what makes the OT Scripture and 2) it probably has been the OT for the longest in Christendom, even if the Vulgate may have outrun it in numbers in time. At any points where the NT might have a variant reading, I would follow it.
By the way, that includes the deuterocanonical books, which while they probably should not be accounted equal canonical status to the other books, were considered on a second tier by most Christians throughout history and were variously drawn on by various NT authors.
So what of the New Testament? I would follow the "catholic" text that is largely that of the King James Version. I would include the ending of Mark and the woman caught in adultery in John 8 and Acts 8:37. I'm not sure about the extended reading of 1 John 5:7-8. I think I would include it because 1) it approaches a trinitarian statement and 2) it was in the Vulgate for the bulk of Christian history.
So let's get started translating :) The Canonical Version, translated by Ken Schenck
Version Evaluation 5: English Standard Version
I want at the outset to say two paradoxical things about the ESV. First, it is a pretty good formal equivalence translation. If it had come out fifty years ago under different circumstances, it might even be my favorite translation. But I don't like "it"--not the text itself, but what it represents. I have its text available to me through my Bible software and I believe you can access it online. But I have no intention of ever buying one.
J. I. Packer in an online article describes the origins of the ESV, which came out in 2001 I believe. He says it grew out of dissatisfaction with the RSV and the NIV. In part, I agree here. I agree that the style of the RSV is sometimes lacking and that the NIV is often less literal than I would prefer.
But the "efficient causes" of the translation derived from the erroneous Dobson pact of ignorance and perversion called the "Colorado Springs Guidelines." It is this pact that Dobson's group says Zondervan violated when they made the TNIV. Also, the inaugural group of scholars considered the RSV's translation of the Old Testament "unchristian" and sought to correct it in relation to several prophecies (like Isaiah 7:14 that I have already mentioned). This is nothing less than well-intentioned confusion on these scholars' part, the Achilles' heel of any true scholarship that might exist at Wheaton and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
The ESV translators took (with permission) the 1972 edition of the RSV and revised it in the light of the original languages. With this background, let the evaluation begin:
1. FD Scale (formal or dynamic): 1
The text is very formal in most places, more literal than the RSV in some instances. Some of the texts I have criticized in the NIV appear in their formal form in the ESV:
Colossians 1:15: "firstborn of all creation"
Philippians 2:6: "though he was in the form of God"
1 Corinthians 7:27: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife."
But it does go slightly dynamic for 1 Cor. 7:1: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman" rather than "it is good for a man not to touch a woman."
One thing that I laugh about a little is that the grunt translators of the ESV--not those who egged on the ESV but those who actually did the work--actually did a slight bit of inclusivizing in their translation. J. I. Packer bemoans that the ESV of Romans actually eliminates "man" two or three times and has "brothers and sisters" in its footnotes even though it goes with "brothers" in the main text. He writes that "apart from these few places, the changes of the ESV are a distinct improvement upon the RSV." J. I. Packer, Wayne Grudem, these men have a "zeal without knowledge."
Again, I cannot criticize the overall interpretive moves of the ESV too much. It bugs me that the ESV translates anthropos as "man" when the word is really broader in connotation than that. "What is man that you are mindful of him..." "The Sabbath was made for man..." It is really legitimate to translate these as "What is a human being that you pay attention...," etc. Yet I know the original authors and audiences had a male bias. They probably were thinking primarily of the men, even though women may have been included as an afterthought.
Of course by tampering with the translation of certain OT texts that the NT read prophetically, the ESV deviates from its formal equivalence philosophy. It's translation of these texts is theologically driven and thus less formal than the RSV. But I will mention this under drift.
2. HC Scale (historical or "catholic" text): 2
While it is a little better than the NIV in its use of Dead Sea Scroll insights, it is largely the same. At Deuteronomy 32:8 it has "sons of God" which represents the better text. But it does not include the new material before 1 Samuel 11, and it's note at Mark 16:9 sounds much less conclusive than the NIV.
The NIV at Mark 16:8 reads, "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."
And of course, no textual scholar worth his or her muster believes these verses were original.
The ESV's wording is much more political but, however, softer on those who might be troubled by such issues: "Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include Mark 16:9-20." Try all of the earliest manuscripts.
3. Drift: 2
I'll give it a 2 for low drift, principally in the way it harmonizes its translation of the Old Testament to fit with New Testament interpretations. On the one hand, if it did this intentionally and consistently, it might be the right way to go. In other words, if the translators were to say, "Regardless of the original meaning, the Christian meaning of these texts is the way we're translating them." In that sense, the critics of the RSV are right--the RSV translation is more original but not the "Christian" way of reading the texts.
But in fact the ESV translators are just confused. They confuse the New Testament interpretation of the OT with the original meaning of the OT. On this they are just confused. The New Testament authors read the OT Scriptures spiritually, not in context. They really weren't very concerned about reading verses in context. And contrary to the ultra-modernist ESV translators, those out of context readings are not thereby less authoritative.
Isaiah 7 originally had a young woman and an earthly king in view. The Septuagint translators (inspired?) rendered the Hebrew 'alma in Greek with a word that meant virgin. So Matthew's Greek Bible was all set up to see a prophetic word relating to the virgin conception (an Spirit- inspired interpretation).
Youth Scale (readability): 2
It's pretty readable as a formal equivalence. It is probably more readable than the RSV or NIV. But obviously less readable than the NLT or Message.
J. I. Packer in an online article describes the origins of the ESV, which came out in 2001 I believe. He says it grew out of dissatisfaction with the RSV and the NIV. In part, I agree here. I agree that the style of the RSV is sometimes lacking and that the NIV is often less literal than I would prefer.
But the "efficient causes" of the translation derived from the erroneous Dobson pact of ignorance and perversion called the "Colorado Springs Guidelines." It is this pact that Dobson's group says Zondervan violated when they made the TNIV. Also, the inaugural group of scholars considered the RSV's translation of the Old Testament "unchristian" and sought to correct it in relation to several prophecies (like Isaiah 7:14 that I have already mentioned). This is nothing less than well-intentioned confusion on these scholars' part, the Achilles' heel of any true scholarship that might exist at Wheaton and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
The ESV translators took (with permission) the 1972 edition of the RSV and revised it in the light of the original languages. With this background, let the evaluation begin:
1. FD Scale (formal or dynamic): 1
The text is very formal in most places, more literal than the RSV in some instances. Some of the texts I have criticized in the NIV appear in their formal form in the ESV:
Colossians 1:15: "firstborn of all creation"
Philippians 2:6: "though he was in the form of God"
1 Corinthians 7:27: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife."
But it does go slightly dynamic for 1 Cor. 7:1: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman" rather than "it is good for a man not to touch a woman."
One thing that I laugh about a little is that the grunt translators of the ESV--not those who egged on the ESV but those who actually did the work--actually did a slight bit of inclusivizing in their translation. J. I. Packer bemoans that the ESV of Romans actually eliminates "man" two or three times and has "brothers and sisters" in its footnotes even though it goes with "brothers" in the main text. He writes that "apart from these few places, the changes of the ESV are a distinct improvement upon the RSV." J. I. Packer, Wayne Grudem, these men have a "zeal without knowledge."
Again, I cannot criticize the overall interpretive moves of the ESV too much. It bugs me that the ESV translates anthropos as "man" when the word is really broader in connotation than that. "What is man that you are mindful of him..." "The Sabbath was made for man..." It is really legitimate to translate these as "What is a human being that you pay attention...," etc. Yet I know the original authors and audiences had a male bias. They probably were thinking primarily of the men, even though women may have been included as an afterthought.
Of course by tampering with the translation of certain OT texts that the NT read prophetically, the ESV deviates from its formal equivalence philosophy. It's translation of these texts is theologically driven and thus less formal than the RSV. But I will mention this under drift.
2. HC Scale (historical or "catholic" text): 2
While it is a little better than the NIV in its use of Dead Sea Scroll insights, it is largely the same. At Deuteronomy 32:8 it has "sons of God" which represents the better text. But it does not include the new material before 1 Samuel 11, and it's note at Mark 16:9 sounds much less conclusive than the NIV.
The NIV at Mark 16:8 reads, "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."
And of course, no textual scholar worth his or her muster believes these verses were original.
The ESV's wording is much more political but, however, softer on those who might be troubled by such issues: "Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include Mark 16:9-20." Try all of the earliest manuscripts.
3. Drift: 2
I'll give it a 2 for low drift, principally in the way it harmonizes its translation of the Old Testament to fit with New Testament interpretations. On the one hand, if it did this intentionally and consistently, it might be the right way to go. In other words, if the translators were to say, "Regardless of the original meaning, the Christian meaning of these texts is the way we're translating them." In that sense, the critics of the RSV are right--the RSV translation is more original but not the "Christian" way of reading the texts.
But in fact the ESV translators are just confused. They confuse the New Testament interpretation of the OT with the original meaning of the OT. On this they are just confused. The New Testament authors read the OT Scriptures spiritually, not in context. They really weren't very concerned about reading verses in context. And contrary to the ultra-modernist ESV translators, those out of context readings are not thereby less authoritative.
Isaiah 7 originally had a young woman and an earthly king in view. The Septuagint translators (inspired?) rendered the Hebrew 'alma in Greek with a word that meant virgin. So Matthew's Greek Bible was all set up to see a prophetic word relating to the virgin conception (an Spirit- inspired interpretation).
Youth Scale (readability): 2
It's pretty readable as a formal equivalence. It is probably more readable than the RSV or NIV. But obviously less readable than the NLT or Message.
Version Evaluation 4: New Revised Standard Version
I should have evaluated the Revised Standard Version before the New Revised Standard
... but I didn't want to (I'll somewhat do them together here).
FD Scale (formal or dynamic): 2
I'll give it a 2 because it follows the dynamic practice of using "brothers and sisters" for "brothers" when a biblical author put brothers but really meant both. In this sense the RSV was a little more formal than the NRSV (I would give the RSV a 1 on this one), except insofar that anthropos really meant "person" rather than "man" (see my evaluation of the TNIV).
I probably would still give the NRSV a tie to the English Standard Version in terms of the best formal equivalence translation (maybe I'll change my mind one way or another when I dig into the ESV in more detail).
HC Scale (original text or "catholic" text of the church): 1
I would say that the NRSV is admirable in its incorporation of insights from the Dead Sea Scrolls. In all the instances where I mentioned a failure on the part of the NIV/TNIV tradition, the NRSV incorporates the insights into the text rather than the footnotes.
By the way, I just have to laugh when I see the TNIV putting these things in the footnotes. For over a hundred years from the 1700's to 1800's textual scholars printed the "textus receptus" or what I'm calling the "catholic" text as the main text, even though many of them knew full well that it wasn't as original. They printed variations from the newly discovered and far more ancient manuscripts in the footnotes. It wasn't until Westcott and Hort that the textus receptus was placed in the footnotes in deference to the older manuscripts that were being discovered.
Now the TNIV and NIV are doing the same thing. OT scholars who surely know that the Dead Sea text is better in some of these instances only put its readings in the footnotes to appease their market. I laugh at the observation, not at Zondervan. I think I understand markets. And of course, it is not entirely clear that we should aim at the original text anyway. For example, the Septuagint text was arguably the OT of the apostles--should we follow its text of the OT, like the Greek Orthodox Church does?
Here's Deuteronomy 32:8-9, as in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, and now the NRSV:
"When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods, the LORD's own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share."
Incorporation of Dead Sea stuff gives it a 1 point shift from the RSV, that I might give a 2 for since it did not incorporate these insights.
Drift (1)
I would say that the NRSV doesn't drift much at all, at least for our current state of understanding. Here are a few of its "straight-up" translations:
Genesis1:1-2: "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters."
Philippians 2:6: "who, though he was in the form of God..."
Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation..."
1 Corinthians 7:1: "It is well for a man not to touch a woman..."
7:27: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife."
Psalm 8:4-5: "what are human beings that you are mindful of them... Yet you have made them a little lower than God..."
The RSV was much the same in its lack of drift. Of course the RSV got a lot of flack in the 50's when it came out for translating Isaiah 7:14 with "young woman" instead of "virgin." But it was simply giving the original meaning of the verse. Matthew's use of this passage followed the Septuagint, which has a word that distinctly meant "virgin." So I think I would give a 1 to the RSV as well. I might note that neither ventures to change anything in the light of the "faithfulness of Christ" debate over Romans 3:21 and Galatians 2:16--no doubt this will have to wait until Metzger is no longer on the committee :)
Youth Scale (readability): 2
I'll give the NRSV the same rating here I gave the TNIV for the same reasons. The RSV was less readable in more than one way (3).
I find no fault in the NRSV, although its use of "brothers and sisters" for "brothers" means that I can't "cheat" as well off of it as I could the RSV. When I didn't feel like translating from the Greek or Hebrew, the RSV was my main port of call. With the NRSV, which I don't fault for it, I cannot be sure that a singular hasn't been changed to a plural to make it inclusive or that gender factors haven't altered the original some. But I suppose I would do the same if I were one of their translators. As David Riggs has said at my whining, "What are you using the English for anyway? If you want the original, use your Greek."
... but I didn't want to (I'll somewhat do them together here).
FD Scale (formal or dynamic): 2
I'll give it a 2 because it follows the dynamic practice of using "brothers and sisters" for "brothers" when a biblical author put brothers but really meant both. In this sense the RSV was a little more formal than the NRSV (I would give the RSV a 1 on this one), except insofar that anthropos really meant "person" rather than "man" (see my evaluation of the TNIV).
I probably would still give the NRSV a tie to the English Standard Version in terms of the best formal equivalence translation (maybe I'll change my mind one way or another when I dig into the ESV in more detail).
HC Scale (original text or "catholic" text of the church): 1
I would say that the NRSV is admirable in its incorporation of insights from the Dead Sea Scrolls. In all the instances where I mentioned a failure on the part of the NIV/TNIV tradition, the NRSV incorporates the insights into the text rather than the footnotes.
By the way, I just have to laugh when I see the TNIV putting these things in the footnotes. For over a hundred years from the 1700's to 1800's textual scholars printed the "textus receptus" or what I'm calling the "catholic" text as the main text, even though many of them knew full well that it wasn't as original. They printed variations from the newly discovered and far more ancient manuscripts in the footnotes. It wasn't until Westcott and Hort that the textus receptus was placed in the footnotes in deference to the older manuscripts that were being discovered.
Now the TNIV and NIV are doing the same thing. OT scholars who surely know that the Dead Sea text is better in some of these instances only put its readings in the footnotes to appease their market. I laugh at the observation, not at Zondervan. I think I understand markets. And of course, it is not entirely clear that we should aim at the original text anyway. For example, the Septuagint text was arguably the OT of the apostles--should we follow its text of the OT, like the Greek Orthodox Church does?
Here's Deuteronomy 32:8-9, as in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, and now the NRSV:
"When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods, the LORD's own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share."
Incorporation of Dead Sea stuff gives it a 1 point shift from the RSV, that I might give a 2 for since it did not incorporate these insights.
Drift (1)
I would say that the NRSV doesn't drift much at all, at least for our current state of understanding. Here are a few of its "straight-up" translations:
Genesis1:1-2: "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters."
Philippians 2:6: "who, though he was in the form of God..."
Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation..."
1 Corinthians 7:1: "It is well for a man not to touch a woman..."
7:27: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife."
Psalm 8:4-5: "what are human beings that you are mindful of them... Yet you have made them a little lower than God..."
The RSV was much the same in its lack of drift. Of course the RSV got a lot of flack in the 50's when it came out for translating Isaiah 7:14 with "young woman" instead of "virgin." But it was simply giving the original meaning of the verse. Matthew's use of this passage followed the Septuagint, which has a word that distinctly meant "virgin." So I think I would give a 1 to the RSV as well. I might note that neither ventures to change anything in the light of the "faithfulness of Christ" debate over Romans 3:21 and Galatians 2:16--no doubt this will have to wait until Metzger is no longer on the committee :)
Youth Scale (readability): 2
I'll give the NRSV the same rating here I gave the TNIV for the same reasons. The RSV was less readable in more than one way (3).
I find no fault in the NRSV, although its use of "brothers and sisters" for "brothers" means that I can't "cheat" as well off of it as I could the RSV. When I didn't feel like translating from the Greek or Hebrew, the RSV was my main port of call. With the NRSV, which I don't fault for it, I cannot be sure that a singular hasn't been changed to a plural to make it inclusive or that gender factors haven't altered the original some. But I suppose I would do the same if I were one of their translators. As David Riggs has said at my whining, "What are you using the English for anyway? If you want the original, use your Greek."
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Version Evaluation 3: Today's NIV
FD Scale (formal or dynamic): 3 (half and half)
I wrestled a little with this one. On the one hand, I gave the NIV a 3 because of a number of places where its translators (and they would deny it, by the way) let their theology interfere with their translation. The TNIV does correct a few of these (see "Drift" below).
But at the same time that the TNIV gets just a little more formal at some points, it becomes just a little more dynamic in others with its "gender accurate" approach. On the one hand, in some cases this move actually makes it more formal! For example, the Greek word anthropos actually refers more to a person than a male. In this sense, a translation that translates this word as "person" is becoming more accurate. When the TNIV says, "the Sabbath was made for people," it is being more accurate than the NIV's "The Sabbath was made for man" (Mark 2:27).
However, the TNIV at other points goes dynamic in this regard. To translate "brothers" as "brothers and sisters" captures Paul's meaning dynamically--it is legitimate for a dynamic equivalence translation. However, it is a move away from formal equivalence. The same applies to translating "fathers" as "parents." Perhaps parents is really what Paul means, but this is a move toward dynamic equivalence.
So I leave the TNIV at 3. Let me say, however, that this is a 3 with much more integrity and intentionality than the 3 of the NIV!
HC Scale (historical text or catholic text): 2
While the TNIV is aware of insights gained from the Dead Sea Scrolls, in the few prominent instances I looked at, it has not incorporated them into its rendition of the text. By the way, this fact alone is ironic and reflective of what is still a conservative orientation to this translation. This is ironic because the NIV got lambasted when it came out for the way it followed the original text and deviated from the KJV, "catholic" tradition. Now it is following a reactionary stance toward the textual criticism of the Old Testament.
I assume it does this so it won't draw any more fire from conservative groups than it already has. So it continues to translate Deuteronomy 32:8 as "according to the number of the sons of Israel," when the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint both have the much more likely "according to the number of the sons of God." It relegates to a footnote the very helpful transition text that originally appeared between 1 Samuel 10 and 11.
Turn to 1 Samuel 10; read the last few verses; and see if this addition makes the train of thought easier to follow:
[current 1 Samuel 10 ends] "Now Nahash king of the Ammonites oppressed the Gadites and Reubenites severely. He gouged out all their right eyes and struck terror and dread in Israel. Not a man remained among the Israelites beyond the Jordan whose right eye was not gouged out by Nahash king of the Ammonites, except that seven thousand men fled from the Ammonites and entered Jabesh Gilead. About a month later [begin 1 Samuel 11] Nahash the Ammonite..."
Drift: 3 (noticeable drift)
I'll give it a slight improvement over the NIV for drift. So 1 Cor. 7:1 now reads "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." Notice that this is still a somewhat dynamic rendering of "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." But it is the right dynamic equivalent this time, as opposed to the misleading NIV rendition: "It is good for a man not to marry."
And the TNIV at least improves 7:27: "Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife." It's still a cop-out, since Paul is talking about someone who's divorced, but it's a lot more accurate than "Are you unmarried..."
Nevertheless, the TNIV doesn't tamper with Christology and monotheism. Philippians 2:6 and Colossians 1:15 remain evangelical/orthodox, as does Deuteronomy 32:8 and Isaiah 7:14. In all these cases, the TNIV sticks with a translation that does not raise any questions about whether the text was pre-orthodox, as many of you know I believe it was.
Youth Scale (readability): 2
It really isn't that much different than the NIV on this one (I gave it a 3), but I'm going to stake a claim here. The next generation, especially the women, notices and will increasingly notice language that is gender one-sided. When you say "man" these days, it means men, not men and women any more. Brothers means just the guys, not the guys and the girls.
I know that the biblical world was male-preoccupied. That means that even when they included women, it was usually an afterthought. Paul, did you mean to include the sisters here where you just said brothers? "Oh yes, that included the women too." Versions like the TNIV, NRSV, and NLT give us God's perspective in their translation of these instances. It is accurate to what the original author's meant, even if it is slightly more dynamic. I would claim it makes these versions more readable to that extent.
So while the TNIV is less formal in its use of "brothers and sisters," it is at the same time, more readable and, in a very real way, more true to the Christian message.
I wrestled a little with this one. On the one hand, I gave the NIV a 3 because of a number of places where its translators (and they would deny it, by the way) let their theology interfere with their translation. The TNIV does correct a few of these (see "Drift" below).
But at the same time that the TNIV gets just a little more formal at some points, it becomes just a little more dynamic in others with its "gender accurate" approach. On the one hand, in some cases this move actually makes it more formal! For example, the Greek word anthropos actually refers more to a person than a male. In this sense, a translation that translates this word as "person" is becoming more accurate. When the TNIV says, "the Sabbath was made for people," it is being more accurate than the NIV's "The Sabbath was made for man" (Mark 2:27).
However, the TNIV at other points goes dynamic in this regard. To translate "brothers" as "brothers and sisters" captures Paul's meaning dynamically--it is legitimate for a dynamic equivalence translation. However, it is a move away from formal equivalence. The same applies to translating "fathers" as "parents." Perhaps parents is really what Paul means, but this is a move toward dynamic equivalence.
So I leave the TNIV at 3. Let me say, however, that this is a 3 with much more integrity and intentionality than the 3 of the NIV!
HC Scale (historical text or catholic text): 2
While the TNIV is aware of insights gained from the Dead Sea Scrolls, in the few prominent instances I looked at, it has not incorporated them into its rendition of the text. By the way, this fact alone is ironic and reflective of what is still a conservative orientation to this translation. This is ironic because the NIV got lambasted when it came out for the way it followed the original text and deviated from the KJV, "catholic" tradition. Now it is following a reactionary stance toward the textual criticism of the Old Testament.
I assume it does this so it won't draw any more fire from conservative groups than it already has. So it continues to translate Deuteronomy 32:8 as "according to the number of the sons of Israel," when the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint both have the much more likely "according to the number of the sons of God." It relegates to a footnote the very helpful transition text that originally appeared between 1 Samuel 10 and 11.
Turn to 1 Samuel 10; read the last few verses; and see if this addition makes the train of thought easier to follow:
[current 1 Samuel 10 ends] "Now Nahash king of the Ammonites oppressed the Gadites and Reubenites severely. He gouged out all their right eyes and struck terror and dread in Israel. Not a man remained among the Israelites beyond the Jordan whose right eye was not gouged out by Nahash king of the Ammonites, except that seven thousand men fled from the Ammonites and entered Jabesh Gilead. About a month later [begin 1 Samuel 11] Nahash the Ammonite..."
Drift: 3 (noticeable drift)
I'll give it a slight improvement over the NIV for drift. So 1 Cor. 7:1 now reads "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." Notice that this is still a somewhat dynamic rendering of "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." But it is the right dynamic equivalent this time, as opposed to the misleading NIV rendition: "It is good for a man not to marry."
And the TNIV at least improves 7:27: "Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife." It's still a cop-out, since Paul is talking about someone who's divorced, but it's a lot more accurate than "Are you unmarried..."
Nevertheless, the TNIV doesn't tamper with Christology and monotheism. Philippians 2:6 and Colossians 1:15 remain evangelical/orthodox, as does Deuteronomy 32:8 and Isaiah 7:14. In all these cases, the TNIV sticks with a translation that does not raise any questions about whether the text was pre-orthodox, as many of you know I believe it was.
Youth Scale (readability): 2
It really isn't that much different than the NIV on this one (I gave it a 3), but I'm going to stake a claim here. The next generation, especially the women, notices and will increasingly notice language that is gender one-sided. When you say "man" these days, it means men, not men and women any more. Brothers means just the guys, not the guys and the girls.
I know that the biblical world was male-preoccupied. That means that even when they included women, it was usually an afterthought. Paul, did you mean to include the sisters here where you just said brothers? "Oh yes, that included the women too." Versions like the TNIV, NRSV, and NLT give us God's perspective in their translation of these instances. It is accurate to what the original author's meant, even if it is slightly more dynamic. I would claim it makes these versions more readable to that extent.
So while the TNIV is less formal in its use of "brothers and sisters," it is at the same time, more readable and, in a very real way, more true to the Christian message.
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Version Evaluation 2: New International Version
FD Scale (formal-dynamic factor): 3 (in the middle)
To me, the NIV is somewhere in between a formal and a dynamic translation. On the one hand, it doesn't alter the sentence structure of things much or give "brothers and sisters" for "brothers." But largely because of the drift factor below, it does give its own dynamic rendition at a number of points. For example, it has "It is good for a man not to marry" where the Greek has "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Cor. 7:1).
HC Scale (historical-catholic text): 2 (in the middle)
Actually, the NIV follows modern canons of deriving the original historical text. It is thus far more original in its wording than the "catholic" text of the KJV. But since the NIV did not yet take into account developments in our knowledge of the OT text that came from the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, I'll put it in the middle.
Drift (degree to which theology affects translation): 4 (theology affects translation significantly)
A 4 probably isn't fair, since most of the time theology doesn't affect the translation. However, the evangelical theology of the NIV translators is so evident in so many places that the 4 is meant to communicate that fact.
Here are some examples of this theological drift in addition to the example I gave above. In 1 Cor. 7:27-28, later in the same chapter, we have "Are you unmarried, do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned..." The Greek reads, "Are you loosed from a wife, do not seek a wife, but if you do you have not sinned..."
Then we have Isaiah 7:14, "The virgin will conceive..." The Hebrew almost certainly meant, "A young woman will conceive..." The NIV of Philippians 2:6 reads, "Who, being in very nature God" where the Greek reads, "Who being in the form of God." The NIV of Colossians 1:15 reads, "firstborn over all creation," the Greek could mean that, but reads less interpretively "firstborn of all creation..."
Youth Scale (readability): 3 (in the middle)
While the NIV was a massive improvement in readability over the KJV, teenagers today still find it difficult to understand at times. Part of this is the fact that the Bible was written to address ancient situations in ancient categories, so that's no surprise. In other words, the more a translation tries to render the original meaning, the more foreign it is bound to seem.
The NIV is clearly not one of my favorite translations, even if it is the evangelical baby. In my opinion, the TNIV is a vast improvement in many ways.
To me, the NIV is somewhere in between a formal and a dynamic translation. On the one hand, it doesn't alter the sentence structure of things much or give "brothers and sisters" for "brothers." But largely because of the drift factor below, it does give its own dynamic rendition at a number of points. For example, it has "It is good for a man not to marry" where the Greek has "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Cor. 7:1).
HC Scale (historical-catholic text): 2 (in the middle)
Actually, the NIV follows modern canons of deriving the original historical text. It is thus far more original in its wording than the "catholic" text of the KJV. But since the NIV did not yet take into account developments in our knowledge of the OT text that came from the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, I'll put it in the middle.
Drift (degree to which theology affects translation): 4 (theology affects translation significantly)
A 4 probably isn't fair, since most of the time theology doesn't affect the translation. However, the evangelical theology of the NIV translators is so evident in so many places that the 4 is meant to communicate that fact.
Here are some examples of this theological drift in addition to the example I gave above. In 1 Cor. 7:27-28, later in the same chapter, we have "Are you unmarried, do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned..." The Greek reads, "Are you loosed from a wife, do not seek a wife, but if you do you have not sinned..."
Then we have Isaiah 7:14, "The virgin will conceive..." The Hebrew almost certainly meant, "A young woman will conceive..." The NIV of Philippians 2:6 reads, "Who, being in very nature God" where the Greek reads, "Who being in the form of God." The NIV of Colossians 1:15 reads, "firstborn over all creation," the Greek could mean that, but reads less interpretively "firstborn of all creation..."
Youth Scale (readability): 3 (in the middle)
While the NIV was a massive improvement in readability over the KJV, teenagers today still find it difficult to understand at times. Part of this is the fact that the Bible was written to address ancient situations in ancient categories, so that's no surprise. In other words, the more a translation tries to render the original meaning, the more foreign it is bound to seem.
The NIV is clearly not one of my favorite translations, even if it is the evangelical baby. In my opinion, the TNIV is a vast improvement in many ways.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
