That's nice, but what IS it?

“Despite the rapid and widespread rise in interest in theological interpretation, its theoreticians and practitioners (among whom the present author should be counted) sometimes quip that no one knows exactly what it is. That is not quite true, but there is in fact great diversity of opinion about what constitutes theological interpretation or exegesis. One thing that seems to be generally agreed upon, however, is that theological interpretation is not primarily about exegetical methods but about exegetical goals. What is the goal, or telos, of biblical exegesis? If the exegete is seeking only to understand a biblical text as an ancient text, as a purely human text—whether using diachronic or synchronic methods—that exegete is not doing theological interpretation. On the other hand, if the exegete seeks to understand a biblical text in order to appropriate its message as a guide for contemporary belief and behavior within a community of faith (either Christian or Jewish)—whether that goal is achieved with historical-critical, social-scientific, narrative, or other methods—that exegete is doing theological interpretation.

"...Christian theological interpretation is interpretation in, with, and for the church so that the church may in fact be the kind of church in the world that is appropriate to the Christian gospel."—The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, pages 145-146, 148

<idle musing>
I can get behind that description and goal very easily.
</idle musing>

Why study the Bible as scripture?

“Christians read the Bible as Scripture because they seek to find in it the mind of Christ, and thus they do so prayerfully, no matter how academic the task is at the moment. A hermeneutic of trust guides exegetical practice that acknowledges God as the ultimate source of good interpretation and acknowledges faithful living before God as the ultimate goal of good interpretation. Such exegetical practice is one form of embodying the biblical injunction to love God with one’s mind as well as one’s heart.”—The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, page 143

<idle musing>
Yep.
</idle musing>

I didn't know that...

the word hermeneutic is derived from the Greek god Hermes, the messenger/interpreter of the gods. At least, that is what Gorman in The Elements of Biblical Exegesis says on page 140...

Quote for today

Search the Scriptures, not as though thou wouldst make a concordance but an application.—John Donne [ in The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, page 139]

The via media

“Although the notion that meaning is created exclusively by the recipient of a communication is a misguided overreaction to the claim that meaning is limited to authorial intent, this kind of reaction does rightly acknowledge the fact that various people receive various messages from a single communication. Human communication is polyvalent.”—The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, page 136

<idle musing>
Yes, the via media, or middle way. Avoid both extremes, because human communication has many voices; we all bring our presuppositions with us, as well as our previous interactions with individuals and texts. These will exert a profound influence on our exegesis.
</idle musing>

Quote for the day

“Bible study is never complete until it results in worship.”— Hebrew for the Rest of Us, page xiii

Review of "Hebrew for the Rest of Us"

Thanks to Jesse at Zondervan for the copy of Hebrew for the Rest of Us, which is meant to be a companion volume to Greek for the Rest of Us, also from Zondervan. Both of these volumes are intended to teach people how to use the tools of the languages without actually knowing the languages, or as this book puts it, you are learning “pre-Hebrew.”

The whole concept of pre-Hebrew raises questions in the mind of a language junkie like myself, or, as a commenter recently called me on another blog, a snob. The big danger is that a little knowledge can be more dangerous than no knowledge. At least when you don't know anything about the language, you know you don't know. If you have the beginnings of knowledge, you might think you know more than you do. I still find that a danger for myself after 30 years of reading Greek and Hebrew; we need to be humble about how much we do and don't know, and about how much we even can know.

With that in mind, I must admit I approached the book with a bias against it, but I was delighted to see on pages x-xi of the introduction a list of what to expect, and far more importantly, what not to expect:

Here are two things you should not expect. (1) After you finish this course, you should never tell anyone that you know Hebrew. You will not know Hebrew, unless you take a full-fledged Hebrew course. (By the way, my ulterior motive in writing HRU is to inspire students to study full Hebrew.) (2) You will not be able to dispute scholars on the basis of your knowledge of Hebrew, but you can ask questions and better follow the arguments of various scholars with different views, helping you make informed choices. As Mounce says in GRU[Greek for the Rest of Us] (p. x), it's not a little bit of knowledge that is a dangerous thing, “it is a little bit of arrogance that is dangerous.” Knowing everything is this book will not make you an expert.—Hebrew for the Rest of Us, page x

I must admit that this disarmed many of my fears and allowed me to look at the book from a more nearly neutral starting point. That this same caveat is repeated at page 158 in different words was also reassuring. In fact, page 162 has a wonderful warning: ...you must not forget that this is not a full Hebrew course. Even a student who completes a two-year course in biblical Hebrew is not knowledgeable enough to engage in exegesis completely independent from the work of professionals. However, you are in a position to make more detailed observations of the text and better understand commentators and translations.” This phrase should be emblazoned on the forearms, chests, foreheads, etc., of everyone who ever says, “What the Hebrew/Greek really says is...,” as if 2000+ years of translation history missed it, and you suddenly discovered it with Strong's dictionary and the Internet!

But, I digress. the layout of the book is very student-friendly. The tables and charts are helpful and assist greatly in the understanding of concepts. He goes into enough detail to give the pre-Hebrew student a basis to understand the basic problems and challenges of the Hebrew verbal system. This is reinforced in the exercises, which frequently have you compare several translations, with an eye to understanding why they differ.

After laying out all the basics of Hebrew grammar with a good deal of syntax along the way, the book turns to putting it all together in exegesis. The list of word study pitfalls to avoid on pages 229-230 is excellent. If you get nothing else from the book, this is worth the price of admission. He includes a chapter on resources, and how to choose them. The book concludes with a chapter on Hebrew prose, and another on Hebrew poetry.

Still, I am left wondering at the end of it, why not learn Hebrew? If all I knew were the things in the book, I would be left wishing I had more knowledge. You are left totally dependent on analytical tools for parsing, concordances for roots, or, if you prefer, the electronic texts that are tagged. I would find that endlessly frustrating. In the end, it seems that you would save more time over the long-haul investing your time in actually learning the language. It would be like trying to read Tolstoy in Russian with only a grammar and dictionary; you could do it, but the time required...

What about the self-learner? I would say, forget it. This book is designed to have a teacher who knows Hebrew supplement the materials (although he does have a website which I did not check). If you really want to learn enough Hebrew to get through the materials, you are better off learning first year Hebrew from one of the traditional (modern!) grammars, such as Futato, Seow, Ross, Pratico, Kelley, etc., which either contain an answer key, or have an annotated answer key available.

<idle musing>
Now for the shocker: Not everybody should learn Hebrew (or Greek—double shocker!). Contrary to what you might gather from language snobs/elitists, such as myself, the translations available are quite good! Sure, there are nuances, and the depth of meaning is greater in the original, but will that make you a “better Christian?” Chances are pretty good that it won't! In fact, if you are prone to pride, unless God calls you to learn the language (and even then), you will be on a very dangerous slope with a thin lifeline!

When you get to the “pearly gates,” God won't ask you to parse a verb or decline a noun. He won't ask about the concords or word order. He isn't concerned about your head knowledge except as it causes you to fall in worship at his feet. And you don't need Greek or Hebrew to do that. In fact, throughout most of history, most people couldn't even read, yet they managed to know God quite well...

So, Jesse, are you sorry you gave me the book to review? :)
</idle musing>

Would that it were so...

“The process of “educated guessing” should result in your formulation of a working thesis about the meaning of the text. This working thesis will be constantly revised and reformulated as your exegetical work continues. Scholars and good exegetes willingly seek out facts and details that might disconfirm their hypotheses. In fact, therefore, your final interpretation of a text may be quite contrary to your preliminary educated guess.”—The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, page 65

<idle musing>
Would that it were true! Too often we get wed to our initial thesis and only let go of it with kicking and screaming. Perhaps a little (or, more likely, a lot) of humility would go a long ways here...
</idle musing>

Interlinears

An appropriate post for Christmas? I think so :)

One popular middle ground between an English translation and a Hebrew Bible or Greek Testament is the “interlinear Bible,” in which a very wooden translation of each word is placed above or below the line of Hebrew or Greek text. For readers who have some familiarity with the original language and use this tool as a way to refresh their memories, it may have a useful function if employed cautiously. However, a little bit of knowledge of Hebrew or Greek can be dangerous, and combining such knowledge with the peculiar English renderings found in an interlinear Bible can be disastrous. People who do not read the original languages with some degree of competence should stay clear of interlinear Bibles and rely on good translations and solid research for their exegesis.”—The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, pages 38-39

<idle musing>
Amen! In fact, I would go even further and outlaw the use of an interlinear...
</idle musing>

Quote for today

A real translation is in the main an interpretation.—James Moffatt, Bible translator (1870–1944) (from The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, page 35)

What can I contribute?

“because of each reader’s own unique experiences and “location,” he or she will have insight into the Bible that no one else will have. Each reader can learn to bring together literary and historical perspectives as well as personal experience to understand a written text in a way that is unique to that individual and that contributes to the ongoing conversation about the text.”—The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, pages 24-25

<idle musing>
This insight is at the heart of why we need to listen to everyone—and why everyone can teach, although maybe not formally. God speaks to everyone, and everyone hears that voice in a unique way. As we share together what God is saying to each of us, we all grow.

Am I advocating relativism here? Absolutely not! The voice of God will not contradict scripture, but it will cause us to see things in a fresh way. This is one of the strengths of small group meetings, be they house churches, or informal bible studies.

Besides,...
</idle musing>

...as Rudolf Bultmann, the great German biblical scholar of the first half of the twentieth century, said, there is no exegesis without presuppositions[“Is Exegesis without Presuppositions Possible?” in Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultmann (trans. Schubert Ogden; New York: Meridian, 1960), 342–51]. We all come to the text with interests in it, maybe even an agenda. Biblical texts compel us to ask not only “What?” but “So what?” Historical and literary critics we may be, or wish to become, but we are also human beings seeking an encounter with truths and realities to
which sacred texts point.

Refusing to consider responsible reflection on and with the text as an aspect of exegesis is shortsighted and unnecessary. Most exegetes have their eyes on “two horizons”—the horizon, or world, of the biblical text itself, and the horizon, or world, of their own personal and corporate experience.—The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, page 27

But, how far do we go?

“It should be noted that some contemporary theological exegetes zealously advocate the overthrow of most modern or critical, especially historical-critical, approaches to the Bible (those developed largely since the Enlightenment) in favor of premodern or precritical (pre- Enlightenment) exegesis. Such ancient methods (including, for example, allegorical reading of the text) had their appropriate pride of place in their day, and they still have much to teach us. It is unlikely, however, that we can or should simply return to premodern ways of reading and ignore the contributions of modern scholarship. Ironically, some advocates of precritical approaches employ very modern philosophical understandings of language and meaning to justify their rejection of modern critical methods.”—The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, page 21

More ice pictures

These were taken Saturday.

The willow tree in the back yard:


The backyard looking toward the creek:


One of the bushes by the house, the others all look about the same:


The view from the front yard, right outside my study window:


The elm tree in our front yard. It lost 4 big limbs on one side:


The barn:


One of our lilac bushes didn't fare so well:

Elements of Biblical Exegesis

Bobby at Hendrickson recently (well, not so recently anymore!) gave me a copy of Gorman's The Elements of Biblical Exegesis to read. He thought I would enjoy the section on theological interpretation, since Eisenbrauns publishes JTI. He was correct, but I enjoyed more than that, so how about you join me in a ride through the book for the next 2 weeks or so?

Let's start with the introduction

...arguably the most important development in the field of biblical studies since the turn of the twenty-first century has been the turn (or, rather, return) to the theological interpretation of Scripture. This development expresses a deep desire on the part of many biblical scholars and theologians to explore and articulate ways of biblical interpretation that attend to the biblical text primarily as theological text, as vehicle of divine revelation and address. To many outside the theological guild but inside the church (and perhaps even outside it), such a focus is altogether self-evident and natural. To many inside the guild, however, years of exposure to nontheological interpretation have made reading the Bible as Scripture seem almost abnormal, and those of us who wish to change this bias are aware of the challenges before us as we attempt to move forward in the appropriately theological task of biblical interpretation...

...despite the location of the extended discussion of theological interpretation near the end of the book, readers should not conclude that theological interpretation is an afterthought,
or that it takes place only after all the “real work” of critical or scientific (historical and literary) exegesis is finished. Rather, theological interpretation involves an attitude, a modus operandi, and a goal (telos) that permeate the entire process. In sum, theological interpretation means reading the scriptural text as closely and carefully as possible, employing the best methodologies available, because theological interpreters believe that during and after that process they can hear God speak in and through the text.—The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, page 1, 2

<idle musing>
I like the way he put that, theological interpretation is the telos of exegesis, with the ultimate goal of transformed hearts and lives. This can only come as we listen to the voice of God speaking to us as we wrestle with the text.

He adds an important caveat: “Exegesis, then, is investigation, conversation, and art. As conversation and art, exegesis requires an openness to others and to the text that method alone cannot provide.”—The Elements of Biblical Exegesis, page 12.

This is vital! Openness, especially to those who disagree with us! It is boring reading only those who agree, there is no stimulus, no fresh thought, no new blood. We need someone who disagrees, or at least sees things differently, to shake us from our complacency and set way of reading the text. The Holy Spirit can, and does, do that, but frequently it is through using others.
</idle musing>

And then there were three...

Time for an update on the cats, so for those of you who don't care about cats, stop reading :)

For most of the summer we had 2 adult cats and 3 kittens that were hanging around our place. Toward the end of September, someone dropped off a young tiger-striped male. He seemed friendly enough, so we let him stay. So then there were six.

But, after about a week, he got mean and started driving the other cats away. We had to take him to the animal shelter. So then there were five again.

A few weeks later, one of the kittens disappeared. From what we gathered, he was adopted by someone on the other side of the creek. So then there were four.

As it started getting colder, one of the kittens got sick. We had called her “Puff” because she was just a little puff of fur. Once she got sick, she started losing weight fast, and one Saturday, about 2 weeks ago, she died. So, then there were three.

Right now, there are three cats, two living in the barn, and one in a shelter by the back porch. They are all healthy and it looks like that will be our cat population through the winter, although yesterday I saw a black and white striped male go into the barn, so maybe there will be four...

Ice!

We had an ice storm last night/this morning. It really is pretty, with all the trees coated with ice. But, some people are without electricity and more than a few tree limbs have fallen. In fact, about 11:00 this morning we heard a crack and thud which shook the front half of the office. The top of a tree had snapped off from the weight of the ice and landed on the roof—almost on top of my office! It didn't damage anything, just scared us half to death.

Here are few pictures from just outside the office:
Looking to the south


The front of the office, you can see part of the Eisenbrauns sign:


This is a small flower right by the front door.

Soloviev and Theosis

“Divinization for Soloviev does not mean monastic self-cultivation, but human participation in the divine project of transforming persons, institutions, society, and even the physical world.”—Theosis, page 171

<idle musing>
That seems to be a recurrent theme in this book. Divinization/theosis/deification is intended to be something that is lived out as part of life. It is not something just for the secluded monk in a monastery somewhere, but it is something God does in the life of every believer. A good thought to take with us throughout life!
</idle musing>

Theosis and the Trinity

“Theosis is the work of the Triune God in making human persons participate in or partake of the divine nature, a participation in the Triune communion or perichoresis. Through being united to Jesus Christ the God-man, we are united to his divinized humanity and through that relationship we enjoy fellowship with God.”—Theosis, page 167

Torrance, again

“Through the appeal to justification as involving both declaration and deification Torrance anticipates the move within Lutheran scholarship to see Luther's doctrine of justification as more than a declaratory 'legal fiction,' but as actually involving the making righteous of the sinner through deification. Like Torrance, Luther does not separate the person of Christ from his work. Rather, Christ himself, both his person and his work, is the ground of Christian righteousness as the believer participates in the divine nature through Christ. As we have already noted, this became a hallmark of Luther's own theology: Christ is really present in the faith of the Christian (in ipsa fide Christus adest).”—Theosis, page 165

<idle musing>
Too bad that aspect of Luther's theology has not gotten more attention. Until I read this book, I had not heard this, but then, I don't read a lot of Luther.
</idle musing>

Eisenbrauns' Christmas party

Last Thursday night we had our annual Christmas party. You would expect something a bit different at an Eisenbrauns party, wouldn't you? Well, we had a limerick contest. The object was to come up with a limerick that was either about Christmas or Eisenbrauns. In case you don't remember, a limerick is five lines, the 1, 2, and 5 lines rhyme and are 8 syllables. The 3 & 4 line rhyme with each other and are 5 syllables long. We had five teams, and I managed to snag some of the results:

Each morning we know Mike's around
When we hear that bean grinding sound
His java he brews
His fresh fruit he chews
and soon our IT woes are drowned

Michael is our IT guy, and he makes freshly ground coffee each morning. He drinks that along with eating a huge plate of fresh fruit, hence the limerick.

There once was a worker named Dave
Who cut corners in order to save
Then along came Big Jim
Who gave kudos to him
And the whole office crowd did “the wave”

Dave is our business manager, and he has recently been coming up with some money saving ideas.

There once was a Merna and Jim
packed with books in a trailer so slim
a logos' appeal
drawn from cylinder seal
and so Rex the Ibex begins

Merna and Jim started Eisenbrauns in their trailer while Jim was a graduate student at the University of Michigan. The Eisenbrauns logo, the ibex, was chosen from a book of cylinder seal impressions. He didn't have a name until about 3 years ago, when Robin decided to name him Rex. It stuck, so now we have Rex the Ibex.

There once was a bookman named Jim
Eisenbrauns was the brainchild of him
He publishes in Greek,
Hebrew, German, and geek
While growing a beard needing trim

The funniest part of this one is that the person who composed it has a beard longer than Jim's :)

Can you come up with a limerick about Eisenbrauns?