Theology for the Masses

I came across a wonderful Christian satire site, Tom in the Box News, today.   The Better Bible’s Blog turned me on to it today, aleting me to the plight of some poor missionaries who are having a hard time translating “thees” and “thous”.  Here is a sample of their wonderfulness.

Dr. Simmons lamented along a similar theme, saying, "Our struggle is how to get the language of the King James Version into Luyana. We want these folks to be able to read the pure, undistorted Word of God. We do have plans in the future to teach them English so they can read the Authorized Version for themselves. However, in the mean time we want to get the KJV translated into Luyana. Unfortunately, we can’t seem to get words like thee, thou, ye, hitherto, and goads to translate into Luyana with any meaning for these people. It just doesn’t work. I don’t know what we are going to do. Some well-meaning friends from back in the USA suggested that we use the original Hebrew and Greek to help us, but we certainly don’t want to introduce any false teaching into this tribe. We’re stuck."

Here is some more from Man Can’t Figure Out KJV – Rejects Christianity:

As Jim listened intently, the teacher began to expound on how the KJV is the only true bible because it contains the all-important phrase, “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.” The teacher looked straight at Jim and said, “This is why we must study the KJV only. All other versions will lead you astray. We may not know what Jesus meant when he said this, but we sure know it is true. Beware the other versions.”

Should you translate ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ as “the kingdom of God” or “the rule of God?” I favor rendering it as “the kingdom of God,” but technically, I think you can do it either way.  If you have an interest in this topic, or know Greek, I encourage you to read what Hank has to say and contribute to the convo over there.

Jews or Judeans? There has been some debate as to whether or not the use of the term “Jews” is an appropriate translation of Ἰουδαῖοι.  There are  a slew of posts on this topic over at ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ on this topic. See Judean and Syrian, and Being a ‘Jew’ or a ‘Judean’.  Elsewhere you can find John H. Elliott’s article on Jesus the “Israelite” and Was there such a thing as ancient “Judaism”?: Steve Mason’s recent article on “Judeans” (Ioudaioi) in antiquity.  Me?  It depends on the context and who is writing.  I think that most of the time "Judeans" should be used in the gospels, but in other sources, such as Paul’s letters, "Jews" should prob be used.

If Jesus is the “Word,” [1] and we don’t want to be sloppy with our language and steer ourselves away from confusing the Word with the Bible, then what ought we call the Bible to emphasize it’s nature as God-breathed scripture?

I don’t like using “the word of God” because it confuses the Bible and Jesus and I want to stay as far away from that as possible.  Using the word “scripture” is what I end up doing, but it just does not carry the weight that I want it to carry.  The closest thing that I can think of for the Bible internally referring to itself (and I recognize the problems with even typing that sentence) is in 2 Timothy 3:16 where the author refers to writings that are inspired of God. [2]

So, it Bible and Scripture the best terms to use for the collection of books that we Christians consider to have been inspired by God?  What other options are there?  What do you use?

1. ‘Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. –> In [the] beginning was the Word, and the word was beside the God, and God was the Word. – John 1:1 [↩]
2. The author of 2 Timothy uses γραφή (gra-phay), lit – “a writing” a term that can mean anything from sacred writing, to a painting, to a legal document.  The author equates these “writings” with Θεόπνευστος (theh-o-neus-tahs).  This is a curious word, which only shows up in the NT and LXX here in 2 Tim 3:16 and is a combination of θεο + πνευστος, or God + spirit.  Thus, Θεόπνευστος becomes “inspired by God” or “[having] ( since in this context there is an “is” before the word because we have two nominatives being equated.) the spirit of God.” [↩]

It has been four days since I asked if Biblical Complimentarians ever use Jesus to suppor their claims.  So far no one has chosen to respond.  I find this interesting.  I don’t want to win an argument because of silence, but I am starting to wonder.  I know you guys are out there, I see the links to the Council of Biblical Manhood out there.  I don’t see any responses.  Maybe you all are busy; maybe you all don’t care.  I am curious if there is any support in the teachings or actions of Jesus to deny women the roles that BCs deny them.

Update: Parableman and Hank have gotten some things roling there.

The latest Christian Carnival is up over at Diary of One.  Here are some of the posts that stuck out at me.

• Postmodern Philosophy for the Rest of Us–Part 1
• My NLT Odyssey: A Bible translation story
• Bible Study: Jesus’ Use of Q & A

I love reading apocryphal literature.  Too many awesome and hilarious things happen in them not to read them.  Take chapter 17-22 in the Acts of Thomas.  In chapter 17, Thomas has been sold as a slave to an Indian merchant by good ole Jesus and finally having an audience with the king.  After showcasing his talents, the King says: “Will you build me a palace?”  “Oh yeah,” says Thomas, as he is sketching the plans for a grand palace on the ground, “Just give me the money and I’ll build you your palace.”  So the king gives Thomas a bunch of money and leaves.  He even sends him more silver and gold from time to time.  This is where we pick up the text in chapter 19:

But Judas was going about in the villages and cities and was ministering to the poor, and was making the afflicted comfortable, and was saying: “What is the king’s shall be given to the King and many shall have rest.”  And after a long time, the king dispatched messengers to [Thomas], and sent [the following] message to him: “Send me word what you have done and what I shall send you.”  And Judas send him word:“The palace is built, but its roof is wanting.”  Then the king sent to [Thomas] silver and gold, and sent him word: “Let the palace be roofed.”  And the Apostle was glorifying our Lord and saying: “I thank you Lord who died that you might give me life, and who sold me that I might be a liberator of many.”  And he did not cease to teach, and to relieve those who were afflicted, saying: “May your Lord give you rest, to whom alone is the glory; for he is the nourisher of the orphans and the provider of the widows, and he ministers unto all those who are afflicted."

In chapter 20 people start getting word to the king that Thomas isn’t building anything and that instead, Thomas was giving to the poor, teaching them about a new God and healing the sick among other things.  “And when the king heard these things, he smote his face with his hands, and was shaking his head.”  In chapter 21 the king calls Thomas over and is like: “Thomas, my son (I called him son), have you built me my palace?” Thomas says: “I have built you the palace.”  Then the king is like: “When can we go see this awesome palace you built for me with my money?”  Thomas responds: “You can not see it now, but when you have departed this world.”

That is just great.  What an excellent tale about viewing material wealth as a means to minister to those in need and to further the kingdom of God on earth wrapped in hilarity.  What an powerful metaphor, considering helping those in need as building palaces of the Kingdom of God on earth; to envision the kingdom of God, not as a political kingdom, nor a physical one, but as the just lives of people living in peace, harmony, and for the Lord.  While this tale is certainly noncanonical and is not binding in the least, it does aid in teaching me a godly truth.

John 18:38:

Jesus answered, “My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world.”

Two things come to mind as questions to think about:

1. What does this mean for Christians and governments?
2. Is the kingdom of god that we hear so much about on earth now?  Or is it just something that comes later?

What is the word of God?

1. The Bible in a reader’s native language which is faithful in message to the autographs
2. The autographs of biblical texts
3. The message behind texts we consider inspired
4. Jesus
5. Other

Danny, over at Personman, claims that God is imaginary.  He points his readers to this site which outlines 50 reasons why God is not real.  Danny then takes two examples that be believes demonstrate that the God of the Bible is not an actual God.

The first line of reasoning concerns the body of Jesus – but not in a manner you would expect.  The Bible says that God was once in human form and then withdrew into the heavens.  Humanity has spent quite a bit of time looking in the heavens – no God to be had up there.  We have been to the moon and have peered light-years into the past, yet no we have seen “gold-plated kingdom floating up there. We see only the vacuum of space. But now God and Heaven have moved to ‘another dimension’ or ‘outside of space and time.’”

The second line of reasoning examines prayer.  Quoting Mark 11:24 and John 14:14, Danny establishes that if the Bible is true and there is a God, then prayers must be answered. Given this, the effects of prayer in human lives should be verifiable. However, Danny lists three scientific studies that demonstrate that it is not – Study 1, Study 2, Study 3.

Because prayer does not work and God, through the Bible says it will, and the Bible describes Jesus as physically going up to heaven and there is no physically visible heaven, then God is imaginary.

Danny issues a challenge to his readers at the end of the post – and this is the strongest portion of the post.  He says that if you cannot come up with concrete proof that our God exists, then “can you claim that your beliefs are any more rational than Islam, FSM or Scientology?”

I have a few problems with his arguments.  Firstly, he is operating from a purely empirical and rationalist standpoint.  We posit a spiritual God that is hidden.  Because of this, setting up a falsifying experiment (looking for a physical Jesus in a physical heaven) that does not test for what you are looking for is just bad reasoning.  Secondly, the prayer experiment does not test for a God, it only shows a non-positive correlation between two phenomena – outcomes of heart surgery (as in the last study) and prayer for that outcome to be positive.  It really does not show anything about God from an existential standpoint.  Lastly, and this is the most important point, if, on the one hand, you assume from the beginning that God does not exist the studies only confirming what you already think is the case; if, on the other hand, you assume beforehand that it does exist, then all you say is that it is not easily swayed to act as humans want it to act and that the study has wrongly interpreted those two naked sentences from the Bible.

Why does a presupposed spirit God have to be physically observed? I submit that we see indirect evidence of God everyday.  Wondrous mountains, the fibonacci sequence in nature, beautiful star factories, and the eyes of my niece all serve as indirect evidence of God’s hand in the world.

“Does God exist” is an unanswerable question from a purely empirical standpoint. We can interpret the observable phenomena as evidence for a creator/God or as natural and random processes.  What it comes down to is that Danny’s interpretive framework does not allow for a god who hides himself – mine does. It is a difference in framework.

What remains is Danny’s last challenge – why the God of the Bible?  To quote my good friend JR, “We have the best story.”  When I consider what I can see, what I can deduce, what I can reason, the story found in the Bible is the best one.  Buddhism has a nice one, but I don’t have their givens.

What do you all think?  I highly encourage you to respond to Danny at his blog.

With the new style we somehow lost the ability to comment on pages. The following was a conversation I have consequently moved from our Greek New Testament Page.

Nice. I was just browsing for Luke 11:2. It is too bad that you can’t copy and paste from here. Since I’m here – how is it that we translate hmwn as “our father”? was is there in the sentence that makes us “our father” instead of just “abba” or pater? Is the “our” just part of the context? The Vulgate translation doesn’t say “nostro” or anything that looks like “our father”… Thanks in advance, and remember I don’t know greek so I”m just wondering.

E. I. Sanchez

EI,
I am a novice, but this is how I would translate this verse on its own:
And [Jesus] said to them: “Every time you [all] pray, say: ”Father, may the name of yours [your name] be holy; may the kingdom of yours [your kingdom] appear;’”
When it comes to the word pater (πάτερ) , or father, it is in the vocative, indicating that it is the thing being addressed. The feeling is that if you are addressing someone as father, it is perfectly fine to say “our father.” The NLT, ESV, and NRSV all leave out the word “our.”
For our resident Greek experts, Cheapham and Hank, if I am wrong about any of this, please let me know.

Honzo

I would agree that saying “Our Father” even though is not in the text because this is a model prayer and we can adapt it for a community setting. I am wondering if the imperative mood could come out more in the translation than what Honzo suggested. I’m not sure. When I pray, I also address Him as “My Father” or even “my Daddy.”

Hank

Hank, Which imperative? Aren’t there three imperatives here: say, be holy, and arrive? The last two are third person singular imperatives – I know to translate those as “lets” or “mays”.
How else can you do them? With that 2 person plural imperative “say” I thought about saying “[you all are to] say…” to capture the imperative flavor a little more. However, Jesus telling us to say something is technically just as imperative.

Honzo

In the Roman world, within the household, the position of child is the lowest in terms of power and hierarchy.  Taking this into account, consider Mark 10:15:

I tell you the truth, anyone who doesn’t receive the Kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.

Rather than assuming our standard in pouring of innocence and naiveté into the phrase “like a child,” perhaps we are better served with assuming a Roman view of children, of powerlessness over others into this phrase.

Also consider Luke 22:25-27

Jesus told them, “In this world the kings and great men lord it over their people, yet they are called ‘friends of the people.’  But among you it will be different. Those who are the greatest among you should take the lowest rank, and the leader should be like a servant. Who is more important, the one who sits at the table or the one who serves? The one who sits at the table, of course. But not here! For I am among you as one who serves.

Here again we see the same theme – the relinquishment of dominance as a command of Jesus to his followers, to the members of the Kingdom of God.

If we do not relinquish culturally inherited claims of dominance over others and see them as true equals then ours is not the Kingdom of God.

Seeing people as the imago deis involves the complete removal of claims of dominance and superiority.  This must be applied in terms of race and gender.  It is a command to give up our claims of dominance over others.

The latest Christian Carnival (CCXVI) is up over at Crossroads: Where Faith and Inquiry Meet. Check it out.

Christian Carnival CCXVI–At Crossroads Today

Here are some of the highlights:
John 18:1-4 – Getting Christological Perspective – A good post on the dangers of looking through scripture with a singular, forced perspective from Deep Bible Study. (Hint: the danger is heresy)

Why This Friday is so Good – As Good Friday approches, Brain Cramps for God looks 50 fifty reasons the Bible gives for Jesus’ coming to die. (We’ll forgive the use of Piper! ;) )

A different view of Scripture by Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength – A “||” reading of scripture.

The ESV Blog posted on Duncan Forbes’ new way of doing devotions: he uses his Greek New Testament. He is currently blogging about this idea and I must admit, I am very much drawn to it. I think When I come to a break in my devotion plan, I am going to do this. I think this applies equally as well with Hebrew and reading the BHS (or the LXX if you can only read Greek). Here are Duncan’s posts so far.

Part 1: Introduction/Encouragement

Part 2: The Slowdown Factor

Part 3: Seeing the Perfect Tense (seeing all the tenses I would say).

Part 4: Spotting Word Plays

Part 5: Spotting Jesus’ Nuances

A while ago Hank did a five part post series on his translation process of John 3:16. I was translating the verse again tonight and came across some questions while I was trying to knock the participle in the side to give it legs. [1] I thought I would give ole Hank’s translation another look over for some help in this department.

Here is the verse:

οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον (link to zhubert version)

Do you think the ὁ before the participle πιστεύων is indicating that the participle is in the attributive position relative to πᾶς and means that we need to translate the present active participle as a relative clause for πᾶς, clarifying everyone of what group we are talking about (Smyth 2050A) (i.e. everyone who is believing in him)?

Also, the participle is timeless, it either will denote the stage of action (here continuous because it is present) or action relative to the main verb (here at the same time as God giving and loving, because they are both in the aorist) when used in indirect discourse (Smyth 2043). I am thinking it is not in indirect discourse, but I really don’t know what indirect discourse means for Smyth. So, I think that the participle here is only indicating aspect, not time. Therefore, the participle here is indicating that everyone that is continually trusting in Jesus are the members of the world which are being given everlasting life.

I wonder how that impacts the H/C/A/O debate?

What do you all think? I am one week into the Greek participle, so I am pretty green here.

1. Sorry to everyone that is not being taught Greek by Dr. DesRosiers for the inside joke. [↩]

The audio from the Theology Weekend is up at the Karis Blog. Dr. Tom Schreiner from Souther Baptist Theological Seminary spoke on the person and work of Jesus. I ended up only going to the Friday event with Honzo and JR. We had good times of fellowship before, during, and after. Check it out here.