Jesus, History, and the Greek NT

Here's a great little clip (OK, it's about 10 min.) of BW3:

Jesus and History from CPX on Vimeo.

Yes, this is funny

Michael F. Bird strikes again!

Here he's doing a silly little promo for the SBL's (Society of Biblical Literature's) new critical Greek Text of the New Testament. They are doing their best to give the NA27/UBS4 a run for their money! And yes, in case you weren't sure, this is funny.

And while we're at it, I want to share a link with you that may prove to be extremely valuable for those who care. Here (yes, click here) is a website that someone has put up listing EVERY SINGLE CHANGE in the various forms of the NIV (NIV'84 - TNIV - NIV'11). This is an insane amount of information! So, if you want to know how these various updates differ, this is the place to go.

Ah, good ol' Joshua:

Yesterday Ben Witherington posted an interesting discussion between himself and colleague Lawson Stone. Drs Witherington and Stone are both Profs at Asbury Theological Seminary. Witherington is Professor of New Testament Studies and Stone is Professor of Old Testament Studies. Here they get into a gracious debate about the nature of violence in the Bible and the idea of God as a Warrior. If you've ever struggled with the violence in the Bible or the whole issue of war, non-violence, and pacifism you should check this out. Very interesting.

They both posted the discussion:

Witherington's Page (here)

Stone's Page (here)

New Testament Poetry

All of us who are Bible readers are pretty familiar with poetry in the scriptures. However, for most of us, our experience with Biblical poetry is pretty much limited to the Psalms. We probably also understand that sections of Job, the prophets, etc are also done as Hebraic poems, but honestly, the only way we really get that is 'cause our English translations indent the text in a way that says to us: "THIS IS POETRY."

Without having at least a basic understanding of Hebrew or Greek there's no way we'd know that certain sections are poetry. This is where having a GOOD commentary helps immensely.

Recently I've been walking through Paul's letter to the Colossians with a group of guys.

Colossians just happens to be one of the New Testament books with a strong poetic presence. There isn't a lot of poetry in the New Testament (although there is likely a lot more than we usually make note of; ex. 1Tim3:16; 2Tim2:11-13; etc) and with the language barrier, what poetry is there we often miss.

One of the most amazing, powerful, and beautiful images of who Christ is, is provided for us in the form of the poem in Col. 1:15-20. Maybe in another post I'll break this one down, because I love it and think it's amazing! ...

... but this isn't the kind of poetry/literary device that I'm talking about. With this poem we can see it's structure and form even in English and can, as such, identify it as poetry. There are also sections of Colossians that are chiastic (don't know what a chiasm is? Click: here). These can also be identified in English.

But there's so much more going on within the text that we just can't see without the help of either a good commentary or a knowledge of (in this case) Greek.

Here are a couple of examples:

Alliteration:

Colossians 2:1-2 (ESV) ¹ For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, ² that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, which is Christ...

It was Ben Witherington's Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Colossians that pointed out to me that the phrase "all the riches of full assurance" is, in fact, an alliteration: pan ploutos tes plerophorias.

Rhyme:

Here's where Witherington's emphasis on rhetoric really comes into it's own (speaking of Col. 2:16-19):

"Again, this section can best be appreciated if heard and not read. For example the end rhyme sets the cadence in 2:16 with brosei, posei, and merei and in vv. 18 and 19 with thelon, ton angelon, embateuon, kraton, ton haphon, syndesmon, and then epichoregoumenon and symbibazomenon. The length of the terms goes from two syllables to three to seven and six. By the very sounds of the rhetoric, Paul is building to a conclusion and the most polysyllabic terms, those that make the biggest impression, are served up last" (pg 151).

I know that this might look and sound a little technical, but surely you can see how (even if you don't know a lick of Greek) these groups of words rhyme with each other and that the rhyming words are grouped together by the number of syllables.

Punning?:

Colossians 2:8 (ESV) ⁸ See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

In N.T. Wright's commentary on Colossians (his IVP/Tyndale commentary, not the "for everyone" commentary) he proposes that the Greek verb for "take captive" (sylagogein) is a pun off of synagogue (synagoge). This makes perfect sense providing you agree with his thesis that the threat to the Colossian church is one with Jewish roots (ie. don't get "taken captive" into a "synagogue").

So, obviously not many of us will ever learn the original languages of the Bible in a way that we would be able to catch these subtle (or not so subtle) poetic/literary devices, but we are all capable of picking up a good quality commentary! Unfortunately, the more accessible the commentary, the less likely it will pick up on stuff like this... it's the more difficult-to-read, scholarly commentaries that will make note of this.

What other literary devices can you think of that show up in the NT?

How important do you think it is that we are able to identify these literary devices?

How do the existence of poetic/literary devices in a text influence how we interpret/translate a passage of scripture?

Do you ever read commentaries? If so, which ones?

No Rapture Here!

Matthew 24:37-42 (ESV)
³⁷ As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. ³⁸ For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, ³⁹ and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. ⁴⁰ Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. ⁴¹ Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. ⁴² Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.

As I've mentioned before (and as you can see in the side-bar) I've been reading Ben

Witherington III's book The Living Word of God. In his chapter, "Truth Telling as an Art-Form" BW3 uses the above passage as an example of how certain texts are often abused.

For years these 6 verses have been used to describe "the Rapture." As I read BW3's interpretation of this passage I felt like I was slapped across the face! What is described here is so NOT rapturous! In fact, it is very much the opposite of what we picture when we think of the rapture. After thinking through this I was very much frustrated that I had never really read this passage properly before.

Often it is only verses 40-42 that are quoted from this passage and what is left out is the context of the analogy that Jesus is using: Noah.

"As were the days of Noah...they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."

What is described in the following verses where two people are side-by-side and one person is "taken" has nothing to do with 1 Thess 4 or any other passage that supposedly describes the Rapture. What Jesus describes here is the opposite.

Two people will be side-by-side and the people who will be "taken" will be those who (as in the days of Noah) are"swept away" in the flood of judgement.

After all, that's exactly what happened with Noah. The righteous (Noah and his family) were left behind to restart God's creation while the unrighteous were destroyed.

And so, it is not the righteous who will be taken away... it is the righteous who will be left behind! It is the unrighteous who will be swept away.

So, if you want to keep your ideas of the Rapture you'll have to use different scriptures than this one!

I don't know why I had never thought of this passage this way before. Now it seems so obvious, and it makes way more sense in the full context of Jesus' teachings on end times... too much dispensationalism in my Sunday School I guess!! :)

So, what do you think:

What do you think about this interpretation of Mt. 24?

Have you ever had something like this happen where you've thought of a certain passage a certain way most of your life only to have it flipped around on you?

What other passages do you think are often misinterpreted?

In the beginning...

So, my main point from last week was that we need to let the Bible serve its own agenda rather than us pushing our agenda onto it. We need to come to the scriptures and let them shape us; let them tell us what they are designed to say.

One of my biggest beefs with "creationists" is that in many (...but not all...) cases I don't think they use the Scriptures properly. Week hermeneutics = poor theology.

Maybe I'm a heretic but I honestly don't think that the point God is trying to make through Genesis 1 is an historical (by modern standards...), chronological account of how He created.

If He thought it was important to let us know the exact "how", He would have given us more specifics. As it is, Genesis 1 is VERY unspecific (scientifically/historically speaking). Genesis 1 is moving; it is beautiful; it is powerful... it is theological... but it is not scientifically or historically precise.

If God wanted it to be, He would have made it that way.

If God wanted Gen. 1 to be scientifically/historically accurate He would have explained how there was "light" & "dark" (Day 1) before there was sun, moon, stars (day 4).

If God wanted Gen. 1 to be scientifically/historically accurate He would have explained how there was "evening" & "morning" (every day) before He had created the sun and moon (day 4).

In fact, how were there "day"s before day 4? How were they measured? Were these metaphorical days (day/age theory... Heb. "yom")? Were they 24 hr. periods (the Hebrew is rather ambiguous)?

There is just as much theory and speculation in creationism as there is in evolution.

Please do not read anything into the picture below: it's a joke! :)

As I mentioned last week, Genesis 1 is a Hebraic poem.

The 6 "days" of creation in Genesis 1 follow an ABC - ABC formula (with "day" 7 providing the "D" conclusion):

Day 1. A

Day 2. B

Day 3. C

Day 4. A

Day 5. B

Day 6. C

Day 7. D

Each of the "days" has a parallel.

A breakdown of the structure of Genesis 1 is as follows:

A. Day 1: Light and Dark || Day 4: Sun, Moon, Stars

B. Day 2: Sea & Sky || Day 5: Fish & Birds

C. Day 3: Fertile Earth || Day 6: Land Animals (including Mankind)

D. Day 7: Rest

In the first half of the parallel God creates something and then in the second half He populates it: ie. Day 2 - God creates the sea; Day 5 God creates Fish.

Remember, most scholars agree that it was Moses who wrote Genesis. This was written so that it could be read to (not by) the people of God: it was an oral culture. Things were written so that when they were read they could be remembered (hence the Hebrew emphasis on REPETITION).

This was written to a people who did not know or value science. It was written to a people who needed to know who God was, what He had done, and how they were called to live in response to that.

These words still speak powerfully to us today but we cannot impose our western/modern cultural expectations onto an ancient religious text. When we do that we come up with some wacky stuff!

In the end I believe that what we are intended to know is simply this: GOD CREATED.

God created all that is.

God created us:

A. in His image

B. as the climax of His "good" creation

C. to live in unity with Him & the rest of His creation.

I am not trying to say that really getting into creation-science is wrong or bad, 'cause it's not. I think it is important to have "specialists" in all areas of Biblical scholarship... but it should be just that: people who are passionate about the theology of Genesis, not people who are passionate about reading science into the text.

Exegesis not eisegesis.

That's all for now. Let me know what you think!

Asking the right questions?

"Asking the [Bible] the right sort of questions, and avoiding asking the wrong ones, is a key not only to understanding the Bible as a written expression of God's Word, but it also prevents us from creating more troubles in interpretation than are necessary" (Ben Witherington III; The Living Word of God, 25).

** ** ** **

I have provided, as bookends for this post, two quotes that I hope can emphasize the point I am trying to make:

I hope that in post-modernism we as Christians may be able to regain a view of the Bible that was damaged during the modern era. Following the Enlightenment much of Western Christianity bought into the worldview of modernity. One of the results of this was an emphasis on "Systematic Theology." Systematic Theology was a way of approaching theology that followed the scientific method. Observe the following quotes from two prominent Christian Systematic Theologians:

“…the theologian must be guided by the same rules in the collection of facts, as govern the man of science.” - Charles Hodge

“the laws of methodology are as essential in the science of systematic theology as in any other science” - L.S. Chafer

“... the Bible contains the truths which the theologian has to collect, authenticate, arrange, and exhibit in their internal relation to each other” - Hodge

I won't take the time and space right now to argue with these quotes other than simply saying that I think this approach to theology has had some very destructive results (if you want some of these ideas just ask and I can comment on them). One of these results is, in my opinion, the largely pointless debate of creationism/evolutionism.

One of the biggest follies Christians have committed is attempting to claim scientific truth in the scriptures. Just ask Copernicus, Galileo, etc...

Obviously this is a hugely dense topic with a tonne of baggage so there's no way I can deal with this with any justice in a blog post but for now I will just highlight one or two points.

Genre, people... genre. In most cases it is not very difficult to identify the genre of any given passage of scripture. For example, to argue that the earth is flat because Ps. 135:7 talks about the "ends of the earth"; or to say that the sun goes around the earth because Ps. 104:22 says that "the sun rises"... to argue these points is just plain silly. Why? (aside from the fact that science has clearly proven otherwise) Because it is poetry! Why on earth would one attempt to derive scientific fact from a sacred poem? Maybe it's just me, but you'd think that a religious poem would be trying to address something other than the natural sciences.

Here's the thing: the Bible has it's own agenda. In a sense it is providing us answers to questions that we may not be asking. So part of the interpretive task for any and every Christian is to find out what questions we need to be asking it (see top & bottom quotes). When we come to the scriptures with our own questions/hypothesis we are almost guaranteed to be misinterpreting it.

It is coming out of this that "Biblical Theology" has risen. The emphasis in Biblical Theology is to read the Bible as a whole and to discern what God's agenda is in the written Word and then yield our agenda's to His.

In short: Systematic Theology starts with our questions and looks to the Bible to answer them while Biblical Theology starts with the Bible's answers and asks us to change our questions.

[This is not to say that all Systematic Theology is bad or that all Biblical Theology is good; nor is it saying that Systematic Theology isn't Biblical or that Biblical Theology isn't in some sense systematic. They are just two different approaches]

So, if we are to even begin to address the creation/evolution debate we need to come to the creation account with no agenda (as much as is possible) on our own part. Or maybe I should say, our only agenda needs to be to hear the answers that God provides us with and then ask if we've been asking the right questions.

I'd like to keep going but I'm not sure how much more you poor readers will keep reading... maybe more next week.

Please provide me with your thoughts and comments :)

** ** ** **

"Even when only partly understood, the Bible remain(s) bigger than the niches to which it (has been) relegated. For it requires that we be hearers of the Word,

listening for what it asks us, not bringing our questions to find the Bible's answers, but prepared to have our current questions revised or even discredited by its own" (James McClendon; Ethics, 37).