But does it make sense?

Modernized Bibles may mislead people, but the other alternative—ancient forms of the Bible—would repel them. Translators, interpreters and publishers knowingly accommodate the Bible’s ancient dimensions into language and forms that make more sense in the twenty-first century. But it’s not a straightforward process; multitudes of decisions have to be made about how best to translate the words and the culture of the Bible into understandable forms for modern audiences. And it’s an imperfect process; some of what the Bible meant to the original hearers is inevitably lost.—The Lost World of Scripture, page 129

<idle musing>
I remember hearing someone from Wycliffe Bible Translators telling me many years ago that they originally held quite strictly to a literal translation philosophy. He said they have warehouses full of translations that are accurate—but unintelligible. And consequently, useless.

If it doesn't make sense to the target audience, then it isn't accurate. The purpose of translation is to make the original text understandable to the target audience. Yes, stuff gets lost. But the alternative is that everything gets lost...it's a tradeoff, as they say above. I guess that's why translation is as much art as science...
</idle musing>

Whatcha readin'?

I've been doing quite a bit of reading lately; most of it won't ever be seen on the blog for various reasons—partially because I would be spending more time posting than reading! Anyway, here's a sampling, with special thanks to our 5-star library for their assistance on Inter-Library Loan.

While we were in Milwaukee visiting Debbie's parents back in November, I managed to spend a bit of time at a Barnes & Nobles bookstore. We're a bit lacking in large bookstores up here, so it was nice to spend some time there—not enough, but is it ever? I looked over quite a few interesting books, made notes, and once we got back home, I ordered a few via ILL.

The first was My Beef With Meat from Rip Esselstyn. Rip is the son of one of the leaders in the Whole-Foods, Plant-based diet, a former firefighter, and a champion triathlete. He's written a few books about what he calls a "Plant-strong" diet. In this book, he addresses the questions he is inevitably asked about why a plant-based diet is healthier than the standard American diet (SAD). As always, he is an entertaining author, but, again as always, I don't like his attitude. He seems to be trying to prove he's just as much a "man" as a meat-eater. Right. Consequently, you find profanity and tough-guy stuff throughout. That might appeal to some who are insecure in themselves (or more accurately, in who they are in Christ), but it keeps me from recommending his stuff. You would be far better off reading The China Study or either the book or DVD of Forks Over Knives. Another good resource is Keep It Simple, Keep It Whole.

Another book I discovered there was Straw Bale Gardens. This is actually an expansion of a shorter book he self-published, entitled Straw Bale Gardening. I've read both of them now, and the newer one is definitely worth the extra $5.00. Straw Bale Gardening sounds like a fascinating concept. I wish I had easier access to affordable bales around here. In Indiana, I paid about $3-5.00 per bale; up here, the going rate is closer to—hold on—$20.00! There is no way I'm going into this in a big way at that price! But the concept is fascinating and has potential. I'm going to try it in a small way next summer and maybe use it as a season extender idea in the 8' x 8' greenhouse that Dave built.

Another book I ran across quite by accident is The Four Season Farm Gardener's Cookbook. It's a beautiful book with marvelous photography. I read it mainly for the 200+ pages of gardening wisdom from Eliot Coleman—anything he writes on gardening is worth reading and this book was no exception. There's another 200 pages of recipes, which are good, but not Whole Foods, so of minimal use to me. There are some good ideas, but that's about it.

Finally, on Christmas Eve I read The Secret Race. It's basically a confession by world-class cyclist Tyler Hamilton of how he doped—and how all the professional cyclists dope. When it first came out, Lance was still claiming he didn't dope, so Tyler caught a good bit of flack. The version I read (an e-book via ILL) included an afterword from after Lance's Oprah appearance. I used to say that I figured 80% of the riders doped— the top 40% and the bottom 40%. The top ones did it in order to win, the bottom ones in order to stay professional.

I was wrong! About 99% of professional riders dope. And Tyler explains why and how. Basically, it's the same reason that everybody does anything wrong: you put someone or something other than Jesus Christ at the center of your life. As I was reading, I couldn't help but draw parallels to the fall of Evangelical leaders. Anytime you place something other than the person of Jesus Christ at the center—and that includes "ministry in Jesus name"—of your life, you will fail. No question of if, just a question of when. It took over 10 years to out Lance, but he was outed. How long did Tiger Woods live a double life? How long has Mark Driscoll been guilty of plagiarism? Your sin will find you out!

Well, that's a bit longer than I intended it to be, but that's some of the stuff I've read recently...

Thems pretty bad odds

Most Roman Emperors suspected that nearly everyone was plotting against them. And rightfully so. Of the seventy-six emperors who took the throne from the reign of Augustus to the ascension of Constantine, only nineteen died natural deaths. Seven were killed in battle, forty-two were murdered, two others probably were murdered, and six were forced to commit suicide.— The Triumph of Christianity, pages 21-22

<idle musing>
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want the job on the basis of those odds alone...
</idle musing>

Dual citizenship

The cognitive environment of the gospel message was entirely oral. Jesus presented his teachings in oral forms, and his hearers grasped the truths that Jesus proclaimed by aural means. The Evangelist, who recorded Jesus’ words and deeds, preserved the orality of Jesus’ public ministry in their written records. There is no indication that they understood their written texts to somehow be different from or superior to the oral texts.—The Lost World of Scripture, page 127

<idle musing>
The oral and the written existed side-by-side. Bauckham makes a similar claim in his books; the ancient world was an oral one with a written element. But the written element was subservient to the oral element...not the way we see things, is it?
</idle musing>

Baby, it's cold outside!

We're in for a cold week here; this is from yesterday afternoon's prediction. Note that they were wrong about the low last night. It wasn't -18°F—it was -27°F! Yesterday morning, it was -17°F at 7:30 AM; at 9:00 it was -20°F. It did get up to -4°F. We went for a 6 mile walk—beautiful!—and by the time we got back 2 hours later it was down to -10°F...

It is all leading somewhere

The editorial twist of the Gen 1–11 protohistory, and perhaps one of the things that helps set it apart from its ANE counterparts, is that even though humanity advanced culturally and technologically, things were not at all the way they should be between humans and their Creator. Thus, the stage is set for Abraham in Gen 12, and through him and his offspring, the nation of Israel. — Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, pages 239-40

<idle musing>
The narrative has a purpose; it is going somewhere. Indeed, it is eventually going to lead to David, then exile and the hope of restoration, with ultimate fulfillment in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus—and us united to him by grace through faith. That's a long trajectory, but it is foreshadowed by Genesis 1-11. And you thought it was all about creation : )

By the way, that's the final post from this very enjoyable and thought-provoking book. Next up: The Triumph of Christianity, and older book, but with some interesting tidbits.
</idle musing>

Folk theologian?

Nor should we think of Jesus’ style of communication as second rate or shallow. He was not a country boy spinning tales to the delight of barbershop friends. Jesus’ communication was truth-telling at the highest level. While anyone could appreciate Jesus’ stories and stand in awe of the authority with which he spoke (Mk 1:27), the most educated and intelligent in the audience could ponder Jesus’ parables for a long time and still never probe their depths. The Pharisees and Sadducees often felt the sting of Jesus’ stories but went away sputtering because they couldn’t think of anything to say that wouldn’t sound stupid.—The Lost World of Scripture, page 112

<idle musing>
Far cry from a folk theologian, isn't it?
</idle musing>

We hold these truths to be less than self-evident...

If other ancient Near Eastern material is any indication, our material in Gen 1–11 might be arranged literarily to communicate its relevance in very specific ways, even if that relevance is lost or diminished today. It may not have transpired exactly how it is described, and it may also contain anachronisms. We have already spoken of the possible significance of the numbers found in the genealogies of Gen 4 and 5, which should suggest even more strongly the possibility of literary arrangement (and, by implication, a less-than-exact correspondence to reality). Numbers were often used to convey different “truths,” as we have said. — Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, page 236

<idle musing>
This should be self-evident, but it isn't because we import our own presuppositions into the text. We are the measure of all things (thanks for that, Protagoras!), therefore, whatever we want to find, we find there. And if you don't agree with me, then you are wrong! Genesis 3 all over again, eh?
</idle musing>

Thought for today

...when He thwarts men's plans, they are bent on misunderstanding Him. They will think that He is reckless of their welfare, and they are blind to the precious truth that He shapes all His ways toward them in love and kindness. He would lead us to judge thus, that if God spared not His own Son, but gave Him up freely for us all, then He will much more give us all things else most freely.—Charles Finney

But can they read it?

Reportedly, two-thirds of the world’s population in the twenty-first century can’t, won’t or don’t read and write.—The Lost World of Scripture, footnote on page 95

<idle musing>
What does that do to those who have a bibliocentric view of Christianity? How can these people be saved?
</idle musing>

We've lost it

Essentially, history was arranged in such a way as to communicate its significance as effectively as possible, and often this significance is lost on us today, or at least somewhat veiled. — Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, page 235

<idle musing>
I'm wondering how the doctrine of perspicuity fits into all this...any ideas?
</idle musing>

Significance

The significance attached to certain characters in our texts might seem puzzling to us, because our understanding of significance is defined by our culture. More often than not, protohistory was more concerned with the first “significant” generation rather than the actual first generation. This seems to be a reflection of the ancient concern for function as opposed to material significance. — Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, page 233

<idle musing>
Which we also hold, but don't realize it. For example, who built the first home computer? I suspect you answered either Apple or IBM. Wrong on both counts. Both of those were early populizers—the first significant ones, if you will. We could go on...think Xerox, Kleenex, Band-aids, to name but a few.
</idle musing>

Taking it to the limit--and beyond

Scientific investigation, for its part, cannot either affirm or deny theological beliefs such as God’s role in creation, the origin of sin, the spiritual nature of humans or the image of God in us. These are theological beliefs not in the purview of science. In the same way the naturalistic operations of the material world and the investigation of its mechanics are matters for science and are not determined by the biblical text.—The Lost World of Scripture, page 54

<idle musing>
Do you really believe that? People mouth it all the time, but then turn around and act as if it isn't true, or say something that totally denies it...
</idle musing>

This is a problem

The problem with this approach [reading modern scientific understandings back into the text] is that it assumes the text is offering modern scientific information to the ancient audience, even though this principle cannot be applied consistently. This approach is selective in where it attempts to extrapolate modern science from the text, and where it does so it is often at the expense of the meaning the ancient audience would have understood. Overall it assumes something about the nature of Scripture’s revelation that cannot be hermeneutically defended or consistently executed. It misunderstands the nature of the Bible in that it assumes the Bible is vesting its authority in scientific statements.—The Lost World of Scripture, page 52

<idle musing>
"This approach is selective in where it attempts to extrapolate modern science from the text, and where it does so it is often at the expense of the meaning the ancient audience would have understood." That's a problem...we don't assume the "windows of heaven" when it rains—but it's almost heretical to suggest that a day in Genesis 1 might not be a 24 hour day. Of course, I have yet to meet anyone who wants the "day of the LORD" to be only 24 hours long...
</idle musing>

And we've changed in what way?

...the Mesopotamians believed that humankind was initially barbaric and primitive. Civilization, consisting of cities, kingship, arts, sciences and technology, among other things, was a gift from the gods, given to humans by the gods. Once humans received these civilizing elements from the gods, they moved beyond their initial state of primitivism and became civilized. For many of these cultural rudiments, the creator god and god of wisdom Enki is said to have passed them to humans, and the apkallu were often the instruments of this transmission. The Mesopotamians spoke of these cultural components as the me, a term used to quantify in concrete terms their conception of the various aspects of civilization. — Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, page 226

<idle musing>
The cynic in me wants to remark, "Initially barbaric and primitive? What about now?!" But I won't—oh, wait, I just did : )
</idle musing>

Review of Walton and Sandy's Lost World of Scripture

I recently received a copy of The Lost World of Scripture compliments of IVP Academic (thanks Adrianna!).

The book was co-written by two Wheaton professors, John Walton and Brent Sandy, in response to questions they inevitably receive as a result of students’ paradigms about inerrancy being shattered. The book is laid out as a series of propositions (twenty-one of them), which can be viewed here.

The basic premise of the book is that the cognitive environment of the ancient world—and scripture by extension—was oral. Given that our cognitive environment is written (they call it the “Gutenberg Galaxy”), we have a difficult time understanding how something oral can be authoritative and accurate. We unconsciously import the presuppositions of written culture into our reading of the text. When the text falls short of our expectations, as it will, we begin to doubt the authority of scripture. This is especially true for those who hold to some form of inerrancy. This book attempts to adjust our expectations and rewrite what inerrancy means.

For example, in an oral culture, what does authorship mean? If the stories have been repeated for generations before being written down, to what degree are they still the same story? And does it matter?

Walton and Sandy appeal to speech-act theory in an attempt to answer these questions. Their thesis is that God has an illocution (intended meaning) which is translated into a locution (the current text) by the “author,” resulting in a perlocution (action or response) on the part of the intended audience. A chart illustrating this is shown on page 41. They maintain that the illocution is the focal point of inspiration, with the locution being the speaker’s culture-bound attempt to get that message across.

The majority of the book is spent explaining how an oral culture operates. The Old Testament (part one) is the focus of the first four propositions, while the New Testament (part two) is the focus of the next nine. Part Three discusses four propositions about literary genres in the ancient world, three relating to the Old Testament and one to the New. Part Four has four final propositions which are their attempts at applying what orality means for the authority of scripture in general, and inerrancy in particular. The book concludes with a set of conclusions on what it is safe and not safe to believe concerning the nature of scripture and its authority/accuracy.

It would be easy for me, not working from a position of inerrancy, to throw stones. I am not employed in an environment that requires me to subscribe to inerrancy, so I can simply say to jettison it. I recall the “Battle for the Bible” of the 1970s and ‘80s. I didn’t subscribe to inerrancy then and don’t now. I’ve always felt it was a misguided attempt to bring scientific certainty into matters of faith—the result of the church subscribing to the rationalism of modern society. That being said, Walton and Sandy do a very good job of explaining the ancient world and its environment. Their attempt at redefining what inerrancy should mean is admirable. The section delineating the differences between inerrancy, inspiration, and authority was very well done, as well.

Nonetheless, throughout the book, I couldn’t help but keep asking myself if it wouldn’t be better to just jettison the term…but I also have to be a realist. The fight about inerrancy isn’t going to disappear; you only need to pick up a copy of Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society to see what I mean. I picked up one while I was working at Eisenbrauns that dated from the 1980s and compared it to one from 2011. Same debates. Same arguments. Same conclusions. Same anathemas being hurled around…it just isn’t going to disappear. In an environment as toxic as that, this book could be a real asset. But, I suspect not. Michael Bird recently pointed out that it is a strictly North American construct. (If you subscribe to inerrancy, you owe it to yourself to read that post, by the way.)

The introduction does a good job of putting the whole question of inerrancy into perspective:

It [the Bible] is a literary masterpiece, a magnum opus, a stellar performance. But there’s more to the story. The ultimate importance of the Bible lies elsewhere: it is the inspired revelation of Almighty God, a heavenly treasure in a world of impoverished ideas, a sparkling mountain stream in the driest of deserts. Our point, however, is not to worship the Bible; we worship the God of the Bible…

Christians may forget or not take seriously that the Bible is the one and only, absolutely authoritative book, that it demands our utmost attention. Living out its truths is the highest of callings. If we fail to show the Bible the respect it is due, we are to be shamed. And it’s more than theory; it’s the practice of bringing our thoughts and lives into line with God’s thoughts and life.

We hold a very high view of Scripture. We confess that the Bible is God’s self-disclosure. The Old and New Testaments are the literary deposit of divine truth. The ultimate revelation is Jesus himself. The central message is creation, fall, redemption and restoration. (page 12)

I can agree with all of that, although I would remove the sentence on shame and added that all is possible only through the power of the Holy Spirit living within us. And I would have stopped there, but they continue in the next sentence:

We affirm inerrancy…Among other things, the evidence assembled in this book inevitably leads to the question of inerrancy. While we wholeheartedly affirm what the Bible itself reveals about its origin, authority and truthfulness, we recognize that there is always a bit of uneasiness when discussing inerrancy and related concepts in fresh ways. This is sacred turf, but the truth of the matter is, no term, or even combination of terms, can completely represent the fullness of Scripture’s authority. (pages 12, 13)

A hearty amen to all of the thoughts there except for the statement about affirming inerrancy!

If you are from a faith tradition that subscribes to inerrancy, you really should read this book. People whose faith has been shaken because of exposure to academic biblical studies would also benefit from it. Even if, as I, you don’t affirm inerrancy, you can learn a great deal about the cognitive environment of the biblical world.

A few random thoughts:
They really should have used the Oxford/serial comma. There are several places where it would have clarified a statement.

I think they go too far in their openness to potential later additions to the prophetic books, but am open to being persuaded. But it would have to be pretty strong evidence (as I suspect it would be for them, as well).

The discussion of joint authorship of the Pauline epistles was fascinating. Sandy suggests that we should take seriously the introductory paragraph of Paul’s epistles where it says they are from a list of people. He suggests that they should be considered co-authors. Fascinating idea!

As I was reading this book, I kept thinking of the fate of Peter Enns. It is a good thing that John no longer teaches at Moody and that Brent is no longer at Grace. I doubt those schools would tolerate this book, irenic and tentative in its conclusions as it is. I hope Wheaton is more gracious and open to their ideas.

I've got to read this book...

Roger Olson has been reviewing Apostles of Reason lately (the link is to the third of a three-part review).

Having grown up in a mainline, Methodist family, I wasn't familiar with much of Evangelicalism's early years. Once I became a Christian in 1972, I started to run in Evangelical circles, but was always uncomfortable there. Now I know why—it was too Reformed...

But that's not why I'm posting. After reviewing the book, Roger offers some suggestions on how to overcome the anti-intellectualism that seems inherent in Evangelicalism. One of his suggestions is "evangelical organizations need to let it be known that conservative donors are not going to call all the shots." Right! That just isn't going to happen.

I went to a Christian liberal arts school with a very conservative donor base. The person who gave the money for the swimming pool said that co-ed swimming was not to happen in that pool. The school also didn't allow beards because of the donor base. The women were required to wear skirts/dresses to class. The men were required to have shorter hair—I believe it was only allowed to touch the collar, not be over it (I don't remember for sure, but I was always getting called on the carpet over that one...). All because of the donor base. Those rules are all gone now, because the donors who required them are dead...

I've seen a few purges at Christian schools in my life. All because the donor base felt the faculty was too "liberal" for them. The Christian radio station one place we lived wouldn't play contemporary Christian music because the donor base would stop giving if they did (not that most of the CCM stuff would have been any better theologically than the drivel they did play!).

It just isn't going to happen...unless God intervenes in the hearts of the people who are making the decisions and in the hearts of the donors...in other words, a revival!

Now that is something to pray for!

An alternate view?

The concept of “the first significant generation” from Shea may also lend itself to a more accurate understanding of Adam in the Genesis text, though this is neither the time nor the place for a thorough comparative analysis. Adam and Eve may represent the Hebrew “Everyman,” and the Eden account may be the symbolic Hebrew account of what was held to be their “first significant generation.” In other words, the significance of the Adapa story to its audience would have been primarily archetypal, as the Genesis accounts would possibly have been for its audience. — Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, page 224

<idle musing>
This sounds a lot like Walton's archetypal view, doesn't it? The main difference is that John believes that Adam and Eve are actual historical people, but this view doesn't require that. Interesting idea...
</idle musing>

He reigned for HOW long?

The SKL [Sumerian King List] is comprised of two different types of material: lists containing the names and provenance of kings and length of their rule, and also epic and legendary material dealing with some of the kings. The amalgamated new “genre” is one of a list of kings and their rule, interspersed with brief legendary comments throughout. Each of the kings in the list has an unusually long reign attributed to him, by far the longest reigns coming in the antediluvian period (most numbering in the tens of thousands of years). After the flood, the lengths of reign diminish significantly but still remain unrealistically large for a while (most reigns are in the hundreds, still others are in the thousands), though as the list nears the present the reigns become progressively more believable. — Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, page 182

<idle musing>
Sounds a lot like the genealogies in Genesis, doesn't it...

Numbers are used symbolically in the Hebrew Bible; they weren't mathematicians and they weren't obsessed with dates the way we are. We need to stop reading our presuppositions back into the text!
</idle musing>

Civilization begins

For example, history became endowed with a greater meaning only once it became civilized. In other words, “absolute beginnings” were not as much of a concern to the ancient mind. Rather, “civilized beginnings” were of extreme importance, and, for the Mesopotamian, civilization did not begin in a sense until kingship was introduced by the gods to the earth. As we will see below, the SKL [Sumerian King List] describes this as when “kingship descended from heaven." — Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, page 181

<idle musing>
Notice where kingship comes from, too. Divine right of kings, anyone...it didn't start in the Middle Ages!
</idle musing>