For those about to fast, I salute you!

Well, today is Ash Wednesday!

So, for those of you who will be choosing to fast from something for the next 40 odd days I wish you nothing but the best.  I hope you (and I) will be be challenged, strengthened, and encouraged.

And to get you thinking here is a stanza from T. S. Eliot's poem, "Ash Wednesday":

And pray to God to have mercy upon us
And pray that I may forget
These matters that with myself I too much discuss
Too much explain
Because I do not hope to turn again
Let these words answer
For what is done, not to be done again
May the judgement not be too heavy upon us



And I only mention this because it may effect you as a reader of this blog, but a part of what I will be fasting from will be all things blog related.  Obviously, that will include this blog, so don't anticipate any new posts until after we celebrate the resurrection!

Don't Ever Interrupt Me

Some of you have probably already seen the latest offering from the delightfully bizarre and unceasingly creative Julian Smith:

Aaah, so true!

It also reminding me of a quote from Adam S. McHugh's book Introverts in the Church:

"Many introverts do not do well with interruptions, either when we are speaking or reflecting... Introverts may become even more frustrated when people mislabel their internal processing: One of the big mistakes Extraverts make is to assume that if someone is not engaged with another person, that individual is simply not busy. So, it's okay to interrupt someone sitting and reading because that person is probably reading only because there's no one else with whom she can talk. You can only imagine what an Extravert thinks of someone who is sitting there not even reading but merely reflecting. Clearly that person needs to be put to some more useful task -- such as listening to the Extravert's thoughts of the moment."

So, let this be a friendly reminder to all of you: DON'T YOU EVER INTERRUPT ME WHILE I'M READING A BOOK! :)

Serpents, Sirens, Scripture, and Starbucks

What is your favourite Starbucks drink?

I've been doing some prep for a study I'm going to be leading through the book of Micah. As part of my prep I was reading through Micah in the Septuagint (LXX). For those of you unfamiliar with the LXX, it is (in simple terms) the Ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament.

Why would anyone study the Greek OT when we have the Hebrew OT?

Well, most importantly, it is well documented that the Early Church used the LXX as their scriptures! The LXX was

the "Bible" for the vast majority of Christians during the apostolic era and beyond (in fact, the Greek Orthodox Church still uses the LXX as their OT). So, if we want to understand what the early Christians believed it is obviously very helpful to read and understand the scriptures that they were using. There are other compelling reasons to study the LXX, but I'll leave it at that for now.

Anyway, as I was comparing the LXX to my ESV (based on the Hebrew text) I ran across this:

Micah 1:8 (ESV) ⁸ For this I will lament and wail; I will go stripped and naked; I will make lamentation like the jackals, and mourning like the ostriches.

...versus...

Micah 1:8 (NETS - LXX) ⁸ For this she shall lament and wail; she shall go unshod and naked she shall make lamentation like that of dragons, and mourning like that of the daughters of sirens.

For those of you who might care:

wJV drakovntwn (hōs drakontōn: of serpents) ... yes,

dravkwn

/ drakōn, "serpent" is where we get our word “dragon” from!

wJV qugatevrwn seirhvnwn (hōs thugaterōn seirēnōn: of the daughters of sirens)

Without getting into the details of why the Hebrew and Greek are so different, what struck me (I was quite shocked!) was the appearance of sirens in scripture (and dragons for that matter! Although "serpent" is probably a better translation) .

For those of you who might not be familiar with sirens, they are legendary figures from Greek mythology. Supposedly they were beautiful sea women who would lure men to their deaths with their beautiful voices. They would sing their irresistible songs and sailors would then seek out the source of the music only to crash their ships on the rocks and drown.

Probably the most famous encounter with sirens is in Homer's Odyssey (book 12... portrayed here in this picture) where

Odysseus plugs his men's ears with wax so that they can't hear the voice of the sirens while he straps himself to the mast so that he can hear their beautiful song without the danger of succumbing to it.

So, while this is certainly an extremely loose translation of the original Hebrew text, it definitely portrays a very vivid picture of the mourning prophesied by Micah.

There is very little doubt that "serpents/dragons" and "sirens" were not part of the original text written down by Micah (or his scribe) however, as I already mentioned, this is what the people of the early church would have read and thought of as scripture during the first few centuries of Christianity.

Just imagine! Thousands upon thousands of Christians... for literally centuries had serpents and sirens used as similes in their scriptures! What might the Apostle Paul have said about this text had he been preaching from Micah?

What do you make of pagan, mythological figures showing up in scripture?

Can you think of any other examples of this type of content showing up in scriptures?

Anyway, over the course of history different Greek authors and poets adapted the sirens and eventually they became mermaid-like creatures... always singing their irresistible song and luring people to their demises. Understandably they came to represent indulgence and temptation.

And so I find it appropriate that Starbucks uses a siren as their logo. It's not quite as clear on their newer logo, but their original logo shows the siren quite clearly.

... mmmmm... Starbucks...

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?

New Stephen R. Lawhead novel

So, as a big Stephen R. Lawhead fan, I'm pretty pumped that he has just come out with the first book in a brand new series. The book is, The Skin Map; the series is the Bright Empires Trilogy.

Also, I was surprised that they put out a "book trailer" for this new book. Check it out!

The trailer's a bit cheesy... but kinda cool. So far the reviews on amazon.com have been pretty strong too!

Who wrote Hebrews?

So, I have a pretty busy week going on here and don't have time to do a proper post... sorry.

Instead I will leave you in good hands. Here is an interview from the Euangelion Blog that I read recently talking about the authorship of Hebrews. Michael Bird provides us will a little preface and then conducts the interview:

The authorship of Hebrews is a funny question. The eastern church attributed it to Paul, Origen was ambivalent about it, suggestions have included Barnabas and Apollos, but a small cohort of scholars have suggested Luke's authorship of Hebrews or else Pauline authorship via Luke. There has been interesting proposals on this topic of late. One contribution is David Allen, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, forthcoming 2010) - which I have not read yet. The other contribution to the subject is an essay by Andrew W. Pitts and Joshua F. Walker entitled "The Authorship of Hebrews: A Further Development in the Luke-Paul Relationship" which is forthcoming in S.E. Porter (ed.), Paul's Social Relations (Pauline Studies 7; Leiden: Brill, 2010). I spoke to Andrew Pitts about their essay and he answers my questions below:

1. What started your thinking about the Pauline "source" of Hebrews?

We began working on this project during the 2008 annual meeting of the ETS-SBL meetings in Providence and Boston. At the meetings, we talked about the different features of Hebrews that point to authorship—style, vocabulary, its apparent oral qualities, theological viewpoints and manuscript tradition, among others. We had always thought that a Luke-Paul collaboration was possible and so we set out to examine various strands of evidence to see what direction they might point in. The somewhat recent trend toward understanding Hebrews in an oral context seemed to have some significant implications for authorship. If Hebrews is a speech, then it may have had stenographer (speech recorder). The content and manuscript (external) evidence pointed to Paul while the linguistic and literary (internal) evidence seemed to us to indicate Lukan involvement. This theory seemed to handle the bulk of the evidence presented on this matter, evidence which was often dichotomized into Luke only and Paul only data. But both sets of data, to our mind, seemed significant and neither could be easily side-stepped. We found, then, that a Pauline origin best explained the main content of Hebrews, accounting for elevated style of the document via Luke’s involvement.

2. What is the basic thesis of your chapter on the authorship of Hebrews?

The evidence we examine suggests that Hebrews likely represents a Pauline speech, probably originally delivered in a Diaspora synagogue, that Luke documented in some way during their travels together and which Luke later published as an independent speech to be circulated among house churches in the Jewish-Christian Diaspora. From Acts, there already exists a historical context for Luke’s recording or in some way attaining and publishing Paul’s speeches in a narrative context. Luke remains the only person in the early Church whom we know to have published Paul’s teaching (beyond supposed Paulinists) and particularly his speeches. And certainly by the first century we have a well established tradition within Greco-Roman rhetorical and historiographic stenography (speech recording through the use of a system of shorthand) of narrative (speeches incorporated into a running narrative), compilation (multiple speeches collected and edited in a single publication) and independent (the publication of a single speech) speech circulation by stenographers. Since it can be shown (1) that early Christians pursued parallel practices, particularly Luke and Mark, (2) that Hebrews and Luke-Acts share substantial linguistic affinities and (3) that significant theological-literary affinities exist between Hebrews and Paul, we argue that a solid case for Luke’s independent publication of Hebrews as a Pauline speech can be sustained. We don’t claim to have “solved” the problem of authorship in terms of absolutes or certainties, but we do think that this is the direction that the evidence points most clearly.

So, what do you think?

If you find this interesting and want to read more, please do so. The interview continues: here

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!

The Bible as Literature: Chiasm

I hope last week's post inspired you all to learn the Biblical Languages! Having even a basic grasp of the languages that the scriptures were written in makes such a huge difference in interpretation. Often we miss out on what the author was trying to say because things just don't translate well. The Biblical writers frequently used literary devices that are very difficult to translate (ie. Ps 119 is an alliteration... doesn't really work when translated).

But what we often miss out on is that there are literary techniques used by the Biblical writers outside of the Poetic Books (ie. Ps, Pr, Ecc, Job, etc...). Sometimes a basic knowledge of Greek or Hebrew is required to catch them (like in the case of alliteration) but here is one that we can all catch if we are looking for it: chiasm.

The chiasm (or chiasmus) is named after the letter "chi" in the Greek alphabet (Gk: X; Eng: ch).

It is a literary form used often in the ancient world and there are many examples of it in Hebrew (the OT), Greek (Homer, the NT), and Latin (Seneca, Virgil). It is named after "chi" because the structure follows the > angle of that letter. A chiasm has inverted parallel statements with the most important concept sandwiched between them. Thus it will often have this type of structure: ABBA or ABCBA or ABCDCBA, etc.

Here is an example from 1 John 3:9 (ESV): No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.
A - No one born of God
--B - makes a practice of sinning
----C - for God's seed abides in him
--B - and he cannot keep on sinning
A - because he has been born of God.

So you can see, the "A" and "B" statements parallel each other while the key concept is literally central. Verses like this one are relatively easy to spot but some authors (like Paul) create really big, long, intricate chiasms. For example: 1 Cor 13:8-13 (this is just the structure)
A - love
--B - 3 things: prophecies, tongues, knowledge
----C - things we only know in part
------D - ... I put aside childish ways...
----C - things we only know in part
--B - 3 things: faith, hope, love
A - Love
As you can see, the "parallel" statements simply need to echo each other, they don't have to be exact replications of each other.

Here is another famous example from Isaiah 6:10:
A - Make the heart of this people dull
--B - and their ears heavy
----C - and blind their eyes
----C - lest they see with their eyes
--B - and hear with their ears
A - and understand with their hearts...

The reason that I brought this up is because during our whole "soulless" discussion I was wondering about Matthew 22:37 (and thus also Deuteronomy 6:5).

As I was thinking about these passages I realized that they might be chiastic!
Matt 22:37, 38:
A - "You shall love the Lord your God
--B - with all your heart
----C - and with all your soul
--B - and with all your mind
A - This is the first and greatest commandment."

This same chiastic structure can be seen in the original text that Jesus is referring to,
Deut 6:4-6:
A - Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one
--B - You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart
----C - and with all your soul (NEPHESH)
--B - and with all your might.
A - And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart.

If we can agree that when the Bible is talking about our souls it is really talking about our entire being (physical and spiritual) then it makes sense that the central point in the chiasm would be NEPHESH sandwiched by the other aspects.

Do these verses fit together with our soul discussion?
What other chiasms can you spot in the Bible?
What other literary forms do the Bible writers use?
How do you feel about God using poetic forms to teach us about Him?

The Bible as Literature

So last week I was talking to someone who had read my last post. They had noticed that when I quoted the verse from Judges that says the Hebrew slingers could spit hairs with their stones, I thought that this was an exaggeration.

But what about the inerrancy of scripture?

What do you think? Could these guys literally split hairs with their slings?

This is a constant struggle in interpreting scripture. The Bible is literature. Huge sections are written in various forms of poetry (be it epic, acrostic, chiastic, etc...). As such it is full of literary devices: metaphor, simile, hyperbole, personification, anthropomorphism, repetition (a Hebrew favourite), and so many more, especially if you know the original languages, cultures, and literary characteristics.

So, could these slingers actually split hairs or was it hyperbole (literary exaggeration)?

Does Jesus actually want us to hate our families (Luke 14:26)?

Is God really a rock (Deut 32:4)?

I think we need to acknowledge what the Bible is and what it is not.
The Bible is: a series of poems, letters, first person accounts, oral traditions, etc... of how God interacts with His creation. Based on this we can see who God is; God's Character.

The Bible is not: a science text-book. Some people have taken the idea of inerrancy (there is literally no errors in the Bible, everything is to be taken at word value) way too far by claiming that the "science" in the Bible is inerrant. That's why the church got into trouble with Galileo and Copernicus.

This could really be expanded... but not today. The point is that the Bible's value comes not from the words themselves but the person who those words point to. Behind every word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, chapter, book, and testament lies a God who wants to know us. A holy, awesome, transcendent... and personal God.

The Bible isn't authoritative just because "it's the Bible". It is the character of God that is authoritative. It is because that character is revealed to us in His Word that the Bible has authority to speak into our lives.