It’s Raining Cats and Dogs…Run For Your Lives!!!
Consider this fictitious journal entry:
“I had a horrible day today. This morning I lost my job. I went out to lunch with my girlfriend, and when I began telling her about it, she interrupted me and told me she wanted to break up. On my way home from that wonderful lunch, I lost control of my car and spun off the road into a ditch. To make matters worse, it was raining cats and dogs.”
Now let’s imagine that 2,000 years in the future, archaeologists discover this journal. As various groups of people read this journal entry, they will form individual and divergent conclusions. Some will say that this account could not possibly be factual, because the author says that animals fell from the sky. Others may assert that it is a factual account of real events, and that animals don’t fall from the sky anymore, but at one time they did.
Some may discount the record due to its seemingly contradictory statements. The author begins the entry declaring it was a “horrible” day, but then says he had a “wonderful” lunch. Since the event at lunch could hardly be described as wonderful in a truthful sense, this could be a separate entry, edited by a later contributor. Another group might conclude that the word “wonderful” had a different meaning than it does today, and back then it was synonymous with repugnant.
This situation of interpretation, both good and bad, is similar to how some people approach the Bible.
We often forget that the Bible was first for a specific time and a specific people. This means the language will have nuances that we (as later readers) might not instinctively know, and that limits our understanding. When we read the Bible with our own preconceived expectations, the probability of missing the author’s point increases. While we cannot completely set aside our expectations and experiences, we must be aware of them and hold them loosely when we read the Bible.
When it comes to the Bible, good interpretations and bad interpretations abound. Consider Jesus’ parable about the great banquet (Luke 14). For some, Jesus might seem to condone the coercion of those outside the city gates to come to the banquet (verse 24). Those outside the city gates are analogous to those who do not know God. This “compulsion” spoken of was horridly used as a proof text for the methods and tactics used during the Inquisition. However, this is an exceptionally poor reading of what is meant by “compel.” This form of compulsion has nothing to do with torture or even someone forcing someone else believe in Christianity. Placing the word in the context of the parable’s situation, a complete stranger from inside the city is asking a complete stranger from outside the city to take advantage of a hospitality that can in no way be returned. Imagine how many times the host of the party would have to request the reluctant stranger to join in the festivities before they felt at ease in saying “yes.” This is the type of compelling being spoken of, not torture.
Because it is right for everyone to desire to be understood on their own terms, it is appropriate for someone to assert that a reading of the Bible is poor if it neglects the intent of the author.
For example, anyone would have every right to tell me my belief that the “alien” reference in Deuteronomy 1:16 refers to extra-terrestrials is ludicrous
Responsible discussion about a biblical text requires us to keep each other accountable in maintaining the integrity of an author’s intended meaning.
Posts
Of course, deciphering the author’s intention can be difficult if the text is unclear (or, worse, if there are multiple and in some cases unknown authors!).
This something I often wonder about. When the Bible was first written (okay, compiled), it was presumably fairly easy for people of the time to understand. Yet as we get further away from that era, it’s just going to get more and more difficult to interpret it. Thankfully the books of the Bible were all written in languages we actually know how to translate, but there’s no escaping the fact that nobody today speaks aramaic as it was used back then, ancient Greek or Latin as a first language. It would be impossible for most people to read the Bible in its ‘original’ form, even in cases where we possess complete copies of certain books. The cultural issues just make it even more confusing, as you pointed out above.
If the Bible is God’s message to humanity, why is it so rooted to one time and place? Are we ever going to get an ‘updated’ version that’s more clear for the modern reader? I know for a fact that the Bible’s cultural bias is one of the major things that leads many atheists to conclude that it’s entirely a human creation. Shouldn’t it truly be timeless and able to transcend culture?
Lifelessons,
You have a way of getting at the crucial material! I find that always makes for the best discussion.
“Of course, deciphering the author’s intention can be difficult if the text is unclear”
True. This leads us to a thing people call the Hermeneutical Spiral, a fancy phrase that illustrates how we can never be 100% certain we have the author’s intent “down” (so to speak), but we can get ever closer and closer.
Whenever I think about this, I think about how Zeno disproved the possibility of motion by halfing a particular distance continuously. So if someone were walking over to me to punch me in the face, and I made them take half the distance between us with every step, according to Zeno they would never get to me. Yet if I thought I had gained the upper hand on them, I would be rudely awakend by a fist in the face! I give this example because even though we can never be 100% certain about a particular text, we can be certain enough to “get a punch in the face”
“Shouldn’t it truly be timeless and able to transcend culture?”
Actually, I am okay with it being seated nicely into a particular context and time. It shows that God has actually come down and left His fingerprint in time.
I see this is catalogued under inerrancy - do you believe the bible is without errors? Because inerrancy as a term is not within the biblical pages at all. It’s a question that might spark some debate - so I thought I would ask.
However I will give one example of a difference in 2 texts that exist in the bible for example’s sake.
Psalms 40:6 “Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired; My ears You have opened; Burnt offering and sin offering You have not required”
Hebrews 10:5-6 “SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME; IN WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE TAKEN NO PLEASURE” (in reference to Psalm 40)
How is this one explained? A whole sentence is changed and ’sacrifice’ is added in in the 3rd part…but they are supposed to be the same passage.
“Because it is right for everyone to desire to be understood on their own terms, it is appropriate for someone to assert that a reading of the Bible is poor if it neglects the intent of the author.” (Mike)
This comment could very well be made to the author of Hebrews - who changed a passage to make it mean something they needed it to make. Is Hebrews a poor reading of Psalms?
“Responsible discussion about a biblical text requires us to keep each other accountable in maintaining the integrity of an author’s intended meaning.” (Mike)
Do you truly believe this? If so, then the texts are the determinable factor in doctrine and not the other way around - correct? Can doctrine’s the church holds be flawed on the basis of the very passages they use to prove a point - based in ‘poor’ critique? I am asking - can church doctrine be wrong?
Societyvs,
I do believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, but to quote Indigo Montoya, “I do not think that word means what you think it means.” I am gonna ask you to define it before we go further on that one so we can be on the same page.
Regarding Psalms and Hebrews, understand that you are reading a translation of a translation. The version of Hebrews we have is Greek, and it was in all likelihood quoting the Greek version of the Old Testament, the LXX. This of course was a translation of the original OT which was written in Hebrew/Aramaic. The New Testament authors frequently switch between which text they are quoting, and in some cases borrow the language of the LXX, but correct it because it isnt always the best Greek translation. Also, we are at a point in the history of God’s work that is farther along than the author of Psalms, so it makes sense that the author of Hebrews would have his own interpretation of that text in light of the new revelation he has received about Jesus. All this is to say, your example isnt as simple as you make it sound.
“I am asking - can church doctrine be wrong?”
In short, yes, church doctrine can be wrong, and any responsible scholar will tell you the same thing. The whole point of sola scriptura is that we look to the scriptures to inform our doctrine, not the other way around.
Good post, Mike. Thanks.
“For example, anyone would have every right to tell me my belief that the “alien” reference in Deuteronomy 1:16 refers to extra-terrestrials is ludicrous.”
Not my relatives - this is their exact interpretation!
“I am gonna ask you to define it before we go further on that one so we can be on the same page.” (Mike)
Inerrancy - the bible does not contain errors and that all of the books/letters are one consistent message?
“and in some cases borrow the language of the LXX, but correct it because it isnt always the best Greek translation.” (Mike)
So then they made a mistake? The passages are not only different in essence - they remain different in translation from original languages to English irregardless. So even if they are using Greek and translating it - they should of checked Psalm 40? Because the wording is so different that one has to plainly see the author in Hebrews added in stuff to make a point - changing the original Pslam portion to make a point about sacrifices - and added in ‘a body you prepared for me’ instead of ‘my ears you have opened’ - that’s not even close in interpretation to the original Psalm.
“so it makes sense that the author of Hebrews would have his own interpretation of that text in light of the new revelation he has received about Jesus. All this is to say, your example isnt as simple as you make it sound.” (mike)
New revelation or not it’s a drastic change from Psalm 40 to Hebrews 10 - and has added in words to change a Psalm - which we have a translation of and they are quite different. Now which scholar figured that out and why didn’t they change the Psalm to be more in line with Hebrews 10? Likely because when researched - Psalm 40 was easily shown to have this interpretation all along and Hebrews was changed to suit a purpose (or someone made a mistake).
So basically Heb 10 is an interpretation of Psalms 40? Why is it even in the bible then? It’s just an interpretation and not actual scripture. I can say this with pretty much assurance because I can read Psalms 40 and see the vast differences…so was an interpretation added in and made scripture?
What is very sound is the fact we know we have 2 different translations of the very same passage - no one can doubt that at all. Now we can play the game about translation error and what not - but how do we get 2 different translations in our present time? Who made the neccesary changes to reveal the error in Hebrews?
However, this is also used in Hebrews again - but the integrity is kept - see example:
Psalm 2:7 ” He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.”
Heb 1:5 “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”?”
Heb 5:5 “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”
Uhm - same scripture and same exact teaching - from a Psalm and quoted in Hebrews…and the exact wording is used twice! Yet with the Heb 10 passage you think there was textual translation problems - well the author had no problem quoting Psalm 3 verbatim.
Societyvs,
There are a number of issues that you raise in your response, and I will attempt to address them in short, and I will let you decide which you would like to focus on specifically.
your definition of inerrancy is what I was expecting, and is strongly influenced by Modernism. My definition of inerrancy would be borrowed from 2 Timothy 3:16
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness”
Now regarding New Testament usage of the Old, there needs to be a distinction made between direct quotation, allusion, paraphrase, etc. A good example is Paul’s usage of Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17, Galatians 2:16 and 3:11. Sometimes Paul is directly quoting, other times he is alluding to Habakkuk. Does that make it unscriptural? I dont think so.
Concerning the LXX and the Greek NT. I looked at Psalm 40 and compared it to Hebrews 10, and while the english translation of both seem pretty different, it is literally only a 1 word difference in the Greek. Having looked at no commentaries on the switch, I can only say there are many reasons the change was made which could be anything from theological implications dealing with the context to transmission error. Since the context of one is so different from the other, I am gonna lean toward an allusion made by the author of Hebrews that directly impacts his audience in the context of his letter.
Societyvs,
You are raising some pretty good questions that I thought I would follow up with a bit more info. I wrote a paper on Paul’s usage of Habakkuk in Romans that I thought would make a good resource, so either I or Brad will make it available in our resource section and link it here. Sorry that I cant do it right away, I am still not very good using HTML.
“I wrote a paper on Paul’s usage of Habakkuk in Romans that I thought would make a good resource, so either I or Brad will make it available in our resource section and link it here” (Mike)
How about a blog on the question of the paraphrasing and such in the NT - and use some of the paper in the discussion? I am very aware a lot of this was done in the gospels and letters and I would like to hear some of the conclusions you reached with the Habakkuk study.
societyvs,
The referenced paper is now hosted in our “resources” section, if you’d like to check it out.
“How about a blog on the question of the paraphrasing and such in the NT”
That is an awesome idea. We’ll definitely talk about it and figure something out!
I read the paper - I would say Paul does not change the intention from Habakkuk to Romans/Galatians:
Hab 2:4: “But the righteous will live by his faith”
Gal 3:11: “THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH”
Rom 1:17: “BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH”
I would say they are fairly close in comparison and message - and the taking of one text from Habakkuk into Paul’s letters matches his purpose (and is quoted verbatim basically).
As for Hebrews, it has this passage also oddly enough - and again we some changes to something from the Tanakh:
Heb 10:37-38: “FOR YET IN A VERY LITTLE WHILE, HE WHO IS COMING WILL COME, AND WILL NOT DELAY. BUT MY RIGHTEOUS ONE SHALL LIVE BY FAITH; AND IF HE SHRINKS BACK, MY SOUL HAS NO PLEASURE IN HIM.”
Hab 2:3-4: “Though it tarries, wait for it; For it will certainly come, it will not delay. Behold, as for the proud one, His soul is not right within him; But the righteous will live by his faith.”
Maybe Hebrews is a paraphrase but again we see this concept in this book of some changes. ‘It’ turns to ‘he’ and ‘righteous one’ is personalized - also the ‘and if he shrinks back’ line - I am not sure where that comes from yet one would think this line was from that passage as it is quoted.
It does make me wonder why we would consider Hebrews the word of God since there seems to be some changes between the Tanakh and this NT letter - this is twice now I found this - maybe I should do a study in this letter and this changing of passages (or adding to them). Either way, this is a very loose way to play with God’s words - unless this letter is simply a doctrinal code of some sort and not the word of God per se.
Societyvs,
This issue you mention is actually addressed to some degree in my paper. It was the LXX that actually took this verse in Habakkuk to be focused on one person, actually adding to it a Messianic understanding. Hebrews is picking up on that aspect (as far as I can tell without really delving into the passage).
Hebrews is a deep and powerful book that is intimately connected to the Old Testament and Jewish thought in the current day. It shows that Jesus is higher than the angels (combating Jewish angel worship), greater than Moses (seen as the preeminent figure in Judaism because he was the bringer of the Law), Prophet, Priest, and King. Certainly there are a number of textual issues, one of the most interesting being Hebrews’ usage of Jeremiah 31:31-34, but while it can sometimes be difficult for us to understand the nuances in text, mining the depths of the passage for all its meaning is always rewarding. I would encourage you to do the study, but to do so knowing that Hebrews is in our Bible for a reason, and as a result it is useful for all the things Paul tells Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:16.
As far as writing an article on the different usages and interpretation, I would love to write it, but I am already backed up with a list of requested articles. I will get to it, but it may take me a few weeks.
Thanks for the reply Mike - I do understand waht you are saying - but I would ask plainly - does Hebrews contain an error/mistake? I mean, even with the obviousness it does - does it even matter? I don’t think so but I figured I would point this little bit out.
As for Hebrews, it’s a letter. Whatever kind of role we want to assign to that letter I guess has been decided in the councils for Rome. Personally, I am not orthodox by any stretch so I am not going to hold those councils as altogether the place to turn for an answer on the subject - they are entitled to their opinion though. But I see it as a letter explaining some theology from the early communities (when I have no clue) but was written to a group of people to help solidify/strengthen their faith - and I take it as that also. Is it the word of God? Well, it is inspired but then again - so is my blog.