Josh wrote:Particularly alarming is how Jesus or the Epistles mis-quote the Old Testament, including using the Septuagint (when we all know the MT is a better text). One could very well question if Jesus or Paul had a good hermeneutic.
It is certainly a different hermeneutic than we would espouse today. Nevertheless, we shouldn't expect 1st century Jews to ascribe to our modern views of hermeneutics, nor discount their writings because they don't follow our hermeneutics (not that I think that is what you are saying we should do). Nor do I think they were as concerned about word-for-word quotes as we are today.
The use of the LXX by Jesus and Paul is similar to the use of KJV today. Most (not all) would say that there are more accurate translations based on better source texts, yet people still use the KJV more than any other translation, and it has a powerful effect on those who read it with an open heart. I think it is wonderful that God's Word is powerful even through imperfect translations (and every translation is imperfect).
Bootstrap wrote:Growing up, I was told that entire letters of Paul would be read in one sitting to a church. I haven't examined the evidence on this, but this is how I think of it still.
It doesn't even take that long to read the epistles this way. Most of them can be read from beginning to end in well under half an hour.
And as an ear person, I find that listening to books of the Bible like this on audio is a great way to do it. One of the best ways to use a smartphone.
Adam wrote:The use of the LXX by Jesus and Paul is similar to the use of KJV today. Most (not all) would say that there are more accurate translations based on better source texts, yet people still use the KJV more than any other translation, and it has a powerful effect on those who read it with an open heart. I think it is wonderful that God's Word is powerful even through imperfect translations (and every translation is imperfect).
Amen.
But you never see them claiming that "in the original Hebrew" a text had some obscure meaning that isn't obvious in the LXX, or doing the kind of legalistic parsing of Scripture that is so common in some churches today. And maybe that should tell us something.
Richard Hays explores the way they interpret the Old Testament in two books: Reading Backwards (easier to read) and Echoes of Scripture in Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels, Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness, and Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. I haven't read the first, and I found the third one hard reading, but the second is excellent. My guess is that the first is even better - he was still struggling with some of this when he wrote the third book, I think, he had a clear idea in mind but was not as good at expressing it as he was later. I'm delighted to see that the first book came out, he was struggling with pancreatic cancer and did not know if he would be able to complete it.
Bootstrap wrote:But you never see them claiming that "in the original Hebrew" a text had some obscure meaning that isn't obvious in the LXX, or doing the kind of legalistic parsing of Scripture that is so common in some churches today. And maybe that should tell us something.
Yes, Sometimes I wonder if our view of inspiration is too focused on individual words rather than on the larger message of Scripture. I am not saying that individual words aren't important, but the message is even more important, which is why, even in translation, God's Word is powerful. As a translator working with a language that is nothing like Greek, Hebrew, or English, we are always faced with the challenge of communicating the meaning well even when it is nearly impossible to have anything like a one-to-one correspondence of the words of the source language and target language.
We could go a step farther and have Bibles without spaces or lowercase letters.
I honestly could not tell. Sarcasm doesn't always come through clearly in internet posts. I am assuming your comment about spaces and lowercase letters is also sarcastic since the point of the Reader's Bible is not to return it to how it looked in uncial manuscripts but to make it as easy to read as possible without visual distractions.
I also want to add that I think sarcasm is something that is best avoided on a forum like this. Sarcasm is 'the use of irony to mock or convey contempt'. God's Word does not speak highly of mocking and conveying contempt. I think it is okay to joke and have fun, and I love many of the humorous posts on MennoLight, but usually sarcasm has more to it than just joking around. There is often something mean-spirited below the surface. And even if it is not intended, it can be taken that way by others.
I make these comments as someone who has been prone to sarcasm in my own life. Speaking about myself, I often used sarcasm as a way to put others down or show myself to be superior, but it was always done in such a way that I could play it off as a joke and accuse the other person of being too sensitive if they were hurt by what I said. Again, I am speaking in reflection of my own tendencies in the past (although if I am not careful I can still let sarcastic words slip out from time to time).
Adam wrote:I also want to add that I think sarcasm is something that is best avoided on a forum like this. Sarcasm is 'the use of irony to mock or convey contempt'. God's Word does not speak highly of mocking and conveying contempt. I think it is okay to joke and have fun, and I love many of the humorous posts on MennoLight, but usually sarcasm has more to it than just joking around. There is often something mean-spirited below the surface. And even if it is not intended, it can be taken that way by others.
I also want to add that I think sarcasm is something that is best avoided on a forum like this. Sarcasm is 'the use of irony to mock or convey contempt'. God's Word does not speak highly of mocking and conveying contempt. I think it is okay to joke and have fun, and I love many of the humorous posts on MennoLight, but usually sarcasm has more to it than just joking around. There is often something mean-spirited below the surface. And even if it is not intended, it can be taken that way by others.
I make these comments as someone who has been prone to sarcasm in my own life. Speaking about myself, I often used sarcasm as a way to put others down or show myself to be superior, but it was always done in such a way that I could play it off as a joke and accuse the other person of being too sensitive if they were hurt by what I said. Again, I am speaking in reflection of my own tendencies in the past (although if I am not careful I can still let sarcastic words slip out from time to time).
Well said, Adam.
Our own CCC calls sarcasm a grave sin for the same reasons you cite.
Adam wrote:I recently received a copy of the ESV Reader's Bible, Six-Volume Set. If you are a fan of the ESV, I can't recommend this more highly. Having all chapter numbers, verse numbers, notes, references, and most section headings removed from the text draws you deep into the text and makes it come alive in a new way. Instead of reading a chapter at a time and then getting distracted by all the notes, you just read the text almost like a novel. And because it is printed in six volumes, the paper is very thick and has no ghosting. The section headings that do remain are major level headings (such as 'Sermon on the Mount'), and it helps you to see the major divisions in a book while also letting you see the connections between the smaller units that we often miss because of the minor section heading breaks. A similar set is put out by Bibliotheca using the ASV revised to remove archaic language. I imagine this same sort of formatting will be coming out for other translations in the not too distant future because of the great reception these two sets have received.
As many of you probably know, chapter numbers were added to the Bible in 1227 and verse numbers in 1551 (NT) and 1555 (OT). So when you read without verses at least, you are reading the same way the early Anabaptists read.
P.S. Hopefully Bibles without chapters and verses won't end up as a line item on the Christian Fads post! I hope they are here to stay, although I don't ever see them replacing chapter and verse Bibles.
I've always found the versification of the books of the bible to be a distraction, aside from totally destroying the context. At one point in time I used the New English translation simply because it was available without the chapter and verse divisions. And when we published our "stealth" gospel of Luke ("An account of the life of Jesus written by a first century physician") we got permission from the publisher of the NIV to remove all chapter and verse numbers as well as cross references and notes.
I'll have to check out the ESV Reader's Bible. Thanks for mentioning it. I've been thinking about reviving the stealth gospel project again and that would be a great version to use.
