Archive

Reflections on the messianic daughter and the image of God

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on September 23, 2008
in bible verses, books, quotes, theology and wisdom
. 2 Comments

In his book, In the End - The Beginning, Jürgen Moltmann writes that in contrast to the tradition of the Messiah as a male child as written in Isaiah 9.6 (”to us a child is born, to us a son is given”, there is another messianic tradition in scripture, the Wisdom tradition, that “identifies the child of promise not as son, but as daughter.” He cites Proverbs 8, where Wisdom is depicted as feminine, “the daughter who was beside God before creation”:

When he set the heavens in their place I was there,
when he girdled the ocean with the horizon,
when he fixed the canopy of clouds overhead,
and set the springs of ocean firm in their place,
when he prescribed the limits for the sea
and knit together earth’s foundations.

Then I was at his side each day,
his darling and delight,
playing in his presence continually,
playing on the earth, when he had finished it,
while my delight was in mankind. (8.27-31)

Wisdom, Sophia, the divine daughter, is a child playing next to her Father as he creates the world.

If we understand wisdom not just as a human virtue but in the first place as a presence of God in creation, then we understand why Jesus is presented in the New Testament both as Israel’s messiah and as the Wisdom of creation, so that the Christ mystery is both male and female. When the Gospel of John calls the divine mystery of Jesus the Logos, the Word of God, [then] Sophia, the Wisdom of God is meant too. Jesus is the incarnate Sophia, Jesus is the incarnate Logos — both Sophia and Logos given human form. (p.12)

With this in mind, perhaps when we run across a translation like the TNIV in Philippians 2.6-8:

[Jesus] Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a human being,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death-
even death on a cross!

We should not howl in protest that Jesus is being made into some androgynous, genderless figure, but perhaps reflect that:

God created human beings in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Jesus incarnate as the perfect human being, reflecting the complete image of God as Word and Wisdom, both male and female, flesh and spirit. And when we, as Christians, declare our faith and trust in Christ and are filled with the Holy Spirit, perhaps then we too are becoming complete human beings, reflecting the image of God in physical flesh and spiritual wisdom. Our flesh can be male or female, but without Wisdom, the Spirit of God, Goethe’s eternal feminine (Ewigweibliche), we are an incomplete image of God.

Lux aeterna luceat eis Domine

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on September 22, 2008
in prayer
. 0 Comments

“The righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” (Matthew 13:43)

Lux aeterna luceat eis Domine
cum sanctis tuis in aeternum:
quia pius es.

Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine;
et lux perpetua luceat eis.

Rest in peace, Pam, rest in peace…

More on the relationship between OT and NT

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on September 21, 2008
in bible translation, hermeneutics and prophecy
. 11 Comments

As a bit of a followup to the quiz I linked to in my previous post, I’ll point you to a post written a few days ago that I’ve just discovered. Written by Ray McCalla on his blog, Sinaiticus, the article is titled “More Than One Way To Skin A Cat” and addresses the question, “how do we translate the Old Testament (OT) in light of what the New Testament (NT) says?”

This is a question I’ve spent a little bit of time pondering lately, especially on separating translation issues from faith practice or application issues. That is, can I hold onto a position whereby OT translation should primarily focus on the original intent and context, while at the same time believing Christ to be the complete fulfillment of some of those OT passages and understanding that to read the OT and NT scriptures together as a Christian often means reading Christ back into the OT?

After working through examples from Psalm 51 and Genesis 12, Ray comes to his conclusion:

From my perspective, the intertextual approach is most consistent with Christian tradition.  Excising Christ from the OT is a curious innovation of the past 200 years in the West.  To my knowledge, nearly all of the early church fathers read the OT christologically–that is, through Christian eyes, seeing shadows and types (see Hebrews 8:5) of Christ, the church, the Holy Spirit, the sacraments, and eternal life.

It is unfortunate that Christian translators have emphasized the disunity of the Bible in recent years.  It has led to a fragmenting of the church into those who read a Christian Bible unified by the work of the Holy Spirit, and those who read a book made up of various witnesses from various historical and theological viewpoints that may or may not be related to each other.

Certainly, when it comes to producing a Bible in English, there is more than one way to skin a cat.  But how we do the skinning comes with tremendous responsibility to not just translate words and phrases, but to be faithful in our presentation of God’s Word to the world.

What do you think? Can a Christian read the Holy Bible as a unified document and maintain sensitivity to the original meaning or context of the OT? Or does our faith demand that we interpret the OT texts in a specific way?

NT use of the OT: Fuller Meaning, Single Goal

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on September 20, 2008
in blogging, prophecy and scripture study
. 7 Comments
NT Use of the OT — Test Your View!
Fuller Meaning, Single Goal view

You seem to be most closely aligned with the Fuller Meaning, Single Goal view, a view defended by Peter Enns in the book “Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament” (edited by Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde, Nov. 2008). Since the NT writers held a single-minded conviction that the Scriptures point to and are fulfilled in Christ, this view suggests that the NT writers perceive this meaning in OT texts, even when their OT authors did not have that meaning in mind when they wrote. It should be noted, however, that advocates of this view are careful not to deny the importance of the grammatical-historical study of the OT text so as to understand the OT authors on their own terms. For more info, see the book, or attend a special session devoted to the topic at the ETS Annual Meeting in Providence, RI (Nov. 2008); Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Darrell L. Bock, and Peter Enns will all present their views.

Fun quizzes, surveys & blog quizzes by Quibblo

HT: Several, but I came across it first in Jeff’s Scripture Zealot blog.

The folks at Zondervan recently developed a short quiz that tests “your view of the New Testament Use of the Old Testament” and ties the answer to their new book “Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament” (edited by Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde, Nov. 2008). Disclaimer: I don’t know anything about this book and this post should not be read as an endorsement of such.

In any event, I was scored as having the “Fuller Meaning, Single Goal” view. As I noted in TC’s blog a few days ago, I believe that everything in the four gospels was recorded in the context of Jesus’ post-resurrection explanations of his fulfillment of scripture, cf. Luke 24:27, 44-47. We should not read through the gospels as if we were getting “daily dispatches from the front”; instead, these texts were crafted after Jesus’ physical resurrection and reflect careful thought and discernment in light of his entire ministry on earth.

For me, this aligns with the quiz result that “the NT writers held a single-minded conviction that the Scriptures point to and are fulfilled in Christ [...] even when their OT authors did not have that meaning in mind when they wrote.” Their single-minded conviction came from Jesus himself who “opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.” (Lk. 24:45)

I agree completely with the result summary that we should be “careful not to deny the importance of the grammatical-historical study of the OT text so as to understand the OT authors on their own terms.” Since the OT authors were not necessarily writing about Jesus, it’s important to understand their original context, to better see how Christ is the fuller fulfillment, in both word and deed.

Looking at Peter Enns’ published works on Amazon, his book “Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament” looks interesting - anyone want to recommend it?

An Alaskan translates the Bible…

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on September 16, 2008
in bible translation
. 7 Comments

With a wary acknowledgement of the current political proceedings in America, I want to jump back to a post that Doug Chaplin made back in May. Looking at John 6:60, he notes that the NEB is “an example of creative translation that is hard to defend on any technical theory, since it is neither formally nor dynamically equivalent. It does, however, seem to me to verge on the inspired.”

Many of his disciples on hearing it exclaimed, “This is more than we can stomach! Why listen to such talk?”

A more literal rendering of the underlying Greek metaphor is captured by the NRSV: “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” In the comments, Peter Kirk offered, “this teaching leaves a nasty taste in the mouth” as a possible idiomatic English alternative, while another reader noted the translation in The Message: “This is tough teaching, too tough to swallow.”

Building on these, I will offer the verse rendered in idiomatic Alaskan English:

The cheechakos among his disciples heard this and complained, “This teaching is full of gristle and makes us choke!”

Is the HCSB “too safe”?

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on September 15, 2008
in bible translation
. 9 Comments

TC recently took a look at the HCSB’s footnotes (or lack thereof) for two common conservative evangelical “prooftexts”: Genesis 1:2 (”Spirit of God”) and Isaiah 7:13 (”virgin”).

He labels the HCSB as “too safe” for failing to footnote possible alternatives in these verses. I think that “too safe” is a loaded term, because it depends on the context you’re evaluating it from. Clearly in these examples, the HCSB shows itself to be a conservative evangelical translation that reads the NT back into the OT. For conservative evangelicals, this is the way it (the Bible) is supposed to be. However, someone reading the HCSB from a different (non-evangelical) perspective might label the translation as “too aggressive” in its NT-centric interpretation of the texts.

With that in mind, I want to spotlight a few more verses from the HCSB that I haven’t seen discussed yet and see if they are appropriate (”too safe”) for its target audience:

And not only that, but also when Rebekah became pregnant by Isaac our forefather (for though they had not been born yet or done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to election might stand, not from works but from the One who calls) she was told: The older will serve the younger. (Romans 9:10-12)

“He said to me, ‘I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting!’ Now those who were with me saw the light, but they did not hear the voice of the One who was speaking to me. (Acts 22:8b-9)

Grace and peace to you from the One who is, who was, and who is coming; from the seven spirits before His throne; and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead and the ruler of the kings of the earth. (Revelation 1:4b-5)

Similar examples can be found in Revelation 2:1, 8, 12; 3:1, 7; 4:9, 10; and 5:1, 7, 13. According to my source article, the HCSB is more likely to translate masculine participles that refer to God in a gender-neutral manner than the TNIV. Even the the NRSV uses masculine language in two of the three examples above (the Acts passage matching the HCSB).

I wonder what conservative evangelicals think about references to God being translated with gender-neutral language? I doubt that “too safe” would be the first response…

HT: biblicalrecorder.org

Mystic pizza

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on September 13, 2008
in blogging and miscellaneous
. 6 Comments

One of the last memes that Peter Kirk passed along was “what type of pizza are you?” Now he’s back with another, this time a “Spiritual Types Test“. But while Peter scores as a Sage, I’ve come in as a Mystic:

You are a Mystic, known for your imaginative, intuitive spirituality. You value peace, harmony, and inner silence. Mystics are nurtured by walking alone in the woods or sitting quietly with a trusted friend. You may also enjoy poetry, meditation, wordless prayer, candles, art, books, and anything else that helps you connect with God.

Mystics experience God best through rich images and symbols. You are contemplative, introspective, intuitive, and focused on an inner world as real to you as the exterior one. Hearing from God is more important to you than speaking to God. Others may attribute human characteristics to God, but you see God as ineffable, unnamable, and more vast than any known category. You are intrigued by God’s mystery.

Mystics want to inspire and persuade others, and need to live lives of significance. At times you push the envelope of spirituality, helping the rest of us imagine who we might become if we followed your lead.

Sometimes you may feel a bit guilty about your need for solitude and silence. If so, you probably have bought into the American myth that says being alone and doing nothing is lazy, antisocial, and unproductive. Stop it — now. Give yourself permission to retreat and be alone. It’s essential for your well-being.

On the other hand, don’t get so carried away retreating that you become a recluse. That only deprives the world of your gifts and deprives you of the lessons that come from being with others. Some Mystics may have a true vocation for solitary prayer, but the rest of you need to alternate retreat time with involvement and interaction.

I’ve emphasized the bits that resonated more with me - obviously a boilerplate description won’t match any one individual, but it’s interesting to read nonetheless.

Once upon a time in the east…

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on September 11, 2008
in bible translation and creation
. 8 Comments

Genesis 11:1-9 (NEB) –

Once upon a time all the world spoke a single language and used the same words. As men journeyed in the east, they came upon a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. They said to one another, ‘Come, let us make bricks and bake them hard’; they used bricks for stone and bitumen for mortar. ‘Come,’ they said, ‘let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and make a name for ourselves; or we shall be dispersed all over the earth.’

Then the LORD came down to see the city and tower which mortal men had built, and he said, ‘Here they are, one people with a single language, and now they have started to do this; henceforward nothing they have a mind to do will be beyond their reach. Come, let us go down there and confuse their speech, so that they will not understand what they say to one another.’ So the LORD dispersed them from there all over the earth, and they left off building the city. That is why it is called Babel¹, because the LORD there made a babble of the language of all the world; from that place the LORD scattered men all over the face of the earth.

¹That is Babylon.

I’ve been reading Peter Lopez’s blog, beautyofthebible.com, lately, especially his post, “Genesis 1:1 and God’s Great Ambiguity“. Peter has spent one whole year (!) studying the inherent ambiguity of this verse and how various translations have treated it. In his post, Peter offers a number of different styles of translation, all built on the ambiguity of the underlying Hebrew text. The one that caught my attention was a translation he called “The Narrative”:

1 The beginning: God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void and darkness was over the abyss. God breathed on the surface of the waters and they started to vibrate. 3 And God said to light “you will exist,” and light existed.

He describes this as “the ultimate campfire story”, narrated to Moses by God, and comments that it “fits with the Toledoth (Hebrew for “generations,” translated “the generations of…”) structure of Genesis, and has that ‘Once upon a time’ feel.” Speaking of which, here’s my “Bulwer-Lytton” narrative translation:

Once upon a time God created the heavens and the earth. It was a dark and stormy night and the earth was a formless abyss. [okay, okay, maybe that's a bit much...]

Ironically, I was skimming through Genesis in the NEB this morning and happened on the story of Babel - and what should I see but “Once upon a time…” (I seem to recall another translation that used this idiom, possibly even for Genesis 1:1, but it’s escaping me at the moment.) Now granted, this phrase has perhaps been corrupted by overuse in childrens’ fairy tales, but isn’t it still equally ambiguous as an English idiom: laced with the mists of ancient history, perhaps fable or myth, while still introducing a story with roots in observable human behavior.

I think this is a marvelous way to introduce the story of Babel, otherwise wedged into the genealogies that span the years from Noah to Abram. It’s as if the author inserted this “fairy tale” as a break in the action, echoing a campfire story told to Moses in the shadows of Sinai. “Did I tell you about the time…”

* * * * *

P.S. Why don’t more translations use “babble” as a translation for the Hebrew verb balal, “to confuse”, in verse 9? This seems a perfect way to capture some of the literary flavor with an equivalent English pun.

Blog update

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on September 10, 2008
in blogging
. 11 Comments

The careful observer will note that this blog has a new web home - after a year and a half of residence at “heissufficient.net“, I’ve been able to secure “heissufficient.com” for immediate use!

The previous owner’s registration expired a few months ago and I was contacted by some holding company, offering a “once in a lifetime” deal to purchase the domain for several hundred dollars. I didn’t bite and evidently no one else did either… I looked again this afternoon and it was available for general registration. So here we are…

The primary blog domain has been changed to the new address, but all old .net links will continue to work, at least for the next year or two. That said, if you have me blogrolled and you get a moment to update your links, that’d be great! On a related note, the old “heissufficient.wordpress.com” address will no longer automatically forward readers to the current domain(s) - if you still have that one bookmarked, I’d really appreciate you updating your links.

Thanks!

What makes a Bible translation authoritative?

Published
by
ElShaddai Edwards
on September 10, 2008
in bible translation
. 14 Comments

In the aftermath of my recent post on the NEB’s literary treatment of James 3, I’ve been having an interesting discussion with Kevin Sam about the authority of Bible translations. This is an issue separate from the typical discussions of the “accuracy” of formal vs. functional translations.

What does it mean to be authoritative? There seem to be at least two sides to measuring “authority”, reflected in the following web definitions of “authoritative”:

  • having ascendancy or influence
  • highly accurate
  • definitive
  • in a commanding manner
  • supported by evidence and accepted by most experts
  • of recognized authority or excellence
  • sanctioned by established authority

First, there is the subjective sense of popularity or influence. The more people use a translation, the greater credence it has as an authoritative translation. To this end, Kevin noted that:

These days, the NIV, NKJV and NLT seem to be gaining the most authority in evangelical churches.  But it’s funny how we tend to ignore the NKJV on our circle of bibliobloggers, and we also tend to think that the NIV is way out-of-date.  Nevertheless, they are still authoritative.

Second, there is an objective measurement of excellence, in which translations are evaluated by various parameters, including literary style, accessibility, readability, accuracy (however you define it), external citations, etc. The authority of a particular translation will depend on what contextual parameter is most important to an audience. For example, we can say that the NRSV is accepted as “authoritative” in academic settings, even while conservative evangelicals reject it for various theological or cultural reasons.

The example of the NIV vs. TNIV was discussed - while the latter is undeniably recognized as containing many improvements that increase the accuracy and readability of the translation, Kevin felt that the NIV is still viewed by most as a more authoritative translation, especially with respect to “how often a translation is quoted by teachers, pastors and Christian publications of any sort.” I’ve been experiencing some of this “authority” in my current church, which is standardized on the NIV as its pew/pulpit Bible translation.

All that said, how do *you* measure authority with respect to Bible translations? I’m not looking for an appeal to the original languages - I applaud those who can refer to the Greek and Hebrew, but the vast majority of Christians across the world read the scriptures in translation and view them as authoritative to their lives.

* * * * *

*Update* Kevin has posted his own thoughts on this topic, including his “authoritative” rankings.