Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Correcting Remaining Errors in Authorized

by

I thought the funniest line in Mark Ward’s new book Authorized was his take on a common cliche found in the acknowledgments of many theological books:

All remaining errors—I’ve waited so long to say this—are of course the reviewers’ fault: they either missed the mistakes or failed to persuade me that I was wrong. (142)

Since my name occurs in the preceding list of reviewers, I think it only right to correct one of the errors that slipped through. 🙂

I’m pushing for “their” as a third person indefinite (not specifying singular or plural) pronoun—if that’s what the NOW corpus and other tools prove people are using. (72)

I would argue that since Bible translations are translations of an ancient document, we should preserve as much as possible in the receptor language forms of speech that reflect that of the ancient culture and avoid forms of speech, when possible, that obscure the ancient culture. I’m not arguing that the Bible should be made to sound archaic by using older forms of English. I’m arguing that the Bible should not read like a newspaper article. For instance, I’m reading the Aeneid right now. I’m reading a modern translation because I don’t want the additional barrier of working through older English to understand the text. But even in a modern translation, the Aeneid doesn’t sound like the newspaper. I think Mark agrees with this. See page 70.

I would apply this insight to the use of “their.” The Bible was written in a patriarchal society, and there is some value in recognizing that their use of pronouns reflected this aspect of their culture rather than trying to force our cultural sensibilities onto the text. At some point, the generic “his” may disappear from English usage, but at present, it is still in use. On such matters, I think Bible translations should trail the English vernacular.

Mark might respond by pointing out that this is why we have multiple translations. Mark makes a good case for using multiple Bible translations, and he argues that we should give up the quest to find the best translation. I agree with his point to a great degree. I benefit from using multiple translations, and if I were asked to name the best of those that I currently use I might tell you that I really like the ESV in 1 Peter, but not so much in 1 Corinthians, where I prefer the HCSB. I really enjoy reading the Psalms in the Lexham English Bible because it translates יהוה as Yahweh, but I don’t like its translation of Genesis 1:26-27. So I do get Mark’s point. And yet, there is a benefit to settling on a default translation that you primarily memorize from or for a church to select a translation that it will primarily use in its services. There are some versions that are more suitable for this role and others that should play a niche role. I would argue that versions that tend toward the more formal side of the translation scale are better suited for this role. I think Mark might agree with this since he noted at one point that more formal translations have a kind of logical priority over functional ones.

 

Review for Mark Ward’s Authorized

by

The following is the Amazon review that I wrote for Mark Ward’s new book Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible. I wrote it with a KJVO reader in mind with the hope that such a review might encourage him to pick up the book.

What role should the King James Version play in your life and in your church at present? This the question Mark Ward answers in Authorized. For those who use the King James Version as their primary or even only translation, this book is a must read. Though Mark holds argues against a King James Only position, he does so with respect. He wrote this book while developing personal friendships with leaders of King James Only churches and institutions, seeking their input and coming to understand their viewpoints better. Even if not persuaded to use a vernacular translation, Mark’s discussion of the challenges that readers of the KJV face today will be valuable. Awareness of the kinds of changes in the English language that impede understanding of Elizabethan English is especially important for those who make the KJV their primary or only translation. Three other features of Authorized should be noted. First, Mark avoids debates over textual criticism. Those who adhere to the KJV because they believe the Textus Receptus is the best text type get no argument from Mark (though that is not his position). They do get an exhortation to use or develop a translation from the TR that people today can readily understand. Second, Mark’s motivation for writing this book shines through: he loves the body of Christ, and he wants all Christians to be able to understand God’s Word. Third, this book is enjoyable to read. I had read a pre-publication version of this book, so when I sat down to write this review I didn’t plan to re-read the whole book. I was just going to glance through it to refresh my memory. But it was so engaging that I ended up re-reading the entire book in a single sitting.

Shepherd of Hermas and the Canon

by

Steenberg, M. C. “Irenaeus on Scripture, Graphe, and the Status of Hermas,” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 53, no. 1 (2009): 29-66.

In Against Heresies 4.20.2 Irenaeus identifies a quotation from Shepherd of Hermas as γραφη. Scholars have debated whether Irenaeus is referring to the quotation simply as a writing, as he does in some other instances, or as Scripture. Steenberg surveys all of the uses of γραφη in Against Heresies. He observes that Irenaeus does sometimes use γραφη to refer to a particular writing, but in those cases, there is some contextual marker that identifies which particular writing is being referred to. Irenaeus also uses γραφη frequently to refer to the Scriptures or to Scripture texts. Steenberg makes a persuasive case that this is the use of γραφη in AH 4.20.2 since the usage matches the other instances where Irenaeus refers to Scripture and since the quotation from Hermas is grouped with other Scripture quotations. Less convincing was the theory of Irenaeus’s view of the canon that Steenberg also developed in this article.

Hill, C. E. “The Debate Over the Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon,” Westminster Theological Journal 57, no. 2 (1995): 437-51.

This article reviews a book by Geoffrey Hahnemann which argues that the Muratorian Fragment should be dated in the fourth century rather than the late second/early third century, which is the traditional date. If the Muratorian Fragment is from the late second/early third century, it is the earliest known canon list, and its listing “has the same ‘core’ of writings which were later agreed upon by the whole church,” though there are some missing books and the Wisdom of Solomon is included. Hahnemann holds to a theory that claims the canon was not established until the fourth century. The early dating of the Muratorian Fragment is an obstacle to Hahnemann’s theory and motivates his attempt to re-date it. Hill effectively demonstrates the numerous problems with Hahnemann’s arguments.

I read the article because the Muratorian Fragment speaks to the canonicity of the Shepherd of Hermas:, not that it was “written very recently in our times in the city of Rome by Hermas, while his brother, Bishop Pius, sat in the chair of the Church of Rome [139–154 AD]. And therefore it also ought to be read; but it cannot be made public in the Church to the people, nor placed among the prophets, as their number is complete, nor among the apostles to the end of time.” Hill observes: “Irenaeus’ use of the Shepherd forms an entirely plausible setting for the Fragment’s specification that it should be read but cannot be classed with the Scriptures and read in public worship” (439). Hill also notes, “Tertullian tells us that the Shepherd’s standing had at least by the second decade of the third century been considered by several councils, with unanimously negative results…. That these councils declared Hermas not only to be apocryphal but “false” may indicate an indictment as false prophecy, or the reputation of a claim made for the identity of its author” (439-40). (This is relevant to Hill’s argument because the Muratorian Fragment’s claim that Hermas was written “very recently” at the time of a second-century bishop of Rome is a clear obstacle to Hahnemann’s re-dating.)

Review of Biblical Authority after Babel by Kevin Vanhoozer

by

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Biblical Authority After Babel: Retrieving the Solas in the Spirit of Mere Protestant Christianity. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2016.

Kevin Vanhoozer’s Biblical Authority after Babel was written on the five-hundredth anniversary of the Reformation in defense of the Reformation. Vanhoozer takes seriously critiques of the Reformation made popular by Christian Smith and Brad Gregory, namely, that the Reformation led to interpretive chaos (and thus to an increasingly splintered Christianity) and secularism.

Vanhoozer rejects these claims. For instance, he observes that secularization is not a result of the Reformation. It is the result of reading the Bible in an academic, critical way rather than as Scripture. In other words, secularism is directly contrary to the Reformation approach to Scripture. Furthermore, Vanhoozer demonstrates that neo-scholastic Thomism was more amenable to secularism than the theology of the Reformation (this is a point also made by Roman Catholic Ressourcement theologians in the mid-twentieth century; see Rowland, Ratzinger’s Faith [Oxford University Press, 2008], kindle loc., 486-603).

Perhaps more plausible is the claim that Protestants cannot agree on their interpretations of Scripture, which is a problem that leads to fragmentation. However, Vanhoozer argues that “Mere Protestant Christians” actually agree on the fundamentals of the gospel story. This does not make disagreement unimportant, but it does reveal a fundamental unity that lies back of that disagreement.

Nevertheless, Vanhoozer does not leave the matter there. He engages with the issue of epistemology. He rejects an epistemology based on the church’s magisterial authority. He also rejects epistemologies based on the authority of the scholar or the autonomous individual. Instead, he argues for an epistemology based on the testimony of Scripture as self-authenticating through the work of the Spirit. As already noted, Vanhoozer by this is not advocating a raw individualism. Like the Reformers, tradition plays an important role in his theological and exegetical method. Tradition does not exercise magisterial authority, but it does serve the interpreter. The Bible alone is the final authority, but tradition gives important testimony regarding right interpretation.

So how does the preceding impact church polity and unity? Vanhoozer argues that local churches are given authority to make judgments regarding right belief and practice. They have the responsibility to rule on what Scripture teaches in these matters for the sake of “the integrity of the gospel.” (Churches typically exercise this responsibility by adopting confessions of faith and catechisms.) Vanhoozer further argues that these “local churches have an obligation to read in communion with other local churches.” (This can be seen by the way different local churches adopt the same confessions as other churches or adapt the confessions of other churches.)

Vanhoozer grants that there is a tension sometimes between unity and the purity of the gospel. As a result, he rejects ecumenism and sectarianism. He affirms denominations that hold strongly to their beliefs and that also can cooperate with denominations that differ with them.

In the end, I think that Vanhoozer successfully defends the Reformation from recent critiques. I also think his model for church unity and diversity in the present age is correct. However, based on what I know of Vanhoozer’s ecclesial situation, our judgments about implementation differ. I think this demonstrates that models can only take us so far. Spiritual wisdom is always needed to apply the model.

Hans Madueme Reviews Three Books on Adam

by

Madueme, Hans. “Adam and Eve: An Evangelical Impasse?” Christian Scholar’s Review 45, no. 2 (Winter 2016): 165-183.

Madueme reviews three books on Adam: Karl Giberson’s Saving the Original Sinner, William VanDoodewaard’s The Quest for the Historical Adam, and John Walton’s The Lost World of Adam and Eve.

Madueme finds the strength of Giberson’s book its study of the history of varied interpretations regarding Adam. He also finds instructive the chapter on racism, which recounts why belief in the historical Adam did not prevent racism, as it ought to have, namely, becuase racists held the view that non-Europeans had degenerated from a superior white race. Nonetheless, Madueme finds problems in Giberson’s account. He notes that Giberson’s use of one frequently cited book “is hard to square” with what that source actually says. Giberson also misreads the early church’s view of original sin prior to Augustine. Most significantly, Giberson holds that the Bible itself must submit to “challenge from the advancing knowledge of the present.” Thus Paul is in error. Finally, Madueme notes that Giberson critiques creationist popularizers but fails to interact with creationists who are “reputable scientists (such as Leonard Brand, Arthur Chadwick, Paul Garner, Andrew Snelling, Kurt Wise, Todd Wood) and respected theologians (such as Douglas Kelly, John Mark Reynolds, Iain Duguid, Todd Beall, John Frame).” A critic should always critique his opponents where they are strongest.

Madueme holds out VanDoodewaard’s book as an example of excellent young earth creationist writing. Madueme notes that “of the three books under review, VanDoodewaard’s is the strongest theologically.” He praises VanDoodewaard’s critique of the claim that the creationist tradition is due to the literalist hermeneutic of Seventh Day Adventism. VanDoodewaard shows a heritage with roots in Scottish Presbyterianism, Southern Presbyterianism, the Dutch Reformed, and Lutheranism (both Missouri and Wisconsin synods). Madueme’s critiques are largely that he wishes VanDoodewaard had written a different or an expanded work. He wishes VanDoodewaard had interacted with the writings of more scholars outside the Reformed tradition. He also wishes that VanDoodewaard’s argument regarding a link between the denial of a historical Adam racism also dealt with the racism that existed among literalists. Finally, Madueme wishes that VanDoodewaard had provided more social context in his historical sections. The most substantive critique has to do with VanDoodewaard’s use of the term literalistic. Madueme thinks that adoption of this term both unnecessarily plays into the hands of critics and reflects that fact that VanDoodewaard sometimes sets up a false dichotomy.

Madueme is unconvinced by Walton’s continued work in the opening chapters of Genesis. A foundational premise of Walton’s is that the creation narrated in these opening chapters is functional rather than physical. Madueme thinks this sets up a false dichotomy. Being formed from the dust can both be a literal, historical statement as well as maintain some symbolism. But Walton will only see it one way or the other. Madueme sees it particularly devastating to Walton’s thesis the concession that aside from Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, the New Testament does not treat Adam as an archetype. This shows to Madueme that the dichotomy between first historical human and archetype should not be maintained. Madueme is also concerned that Walton’s approach amounts to an embrace of Stephen Jay Gould’s Non Overlapping Magisterium. While “Walton insists, repeatedly that we should read the Bible on its own terms without imposing modern scientific questions,” the approach is driven (though not “solely” driven, Madueme hastens to add) by scientific concerns. Finally, Madueme is troubled by Walton’s view of accommodation. “On this view, God accommodated his Word to the erroneous beliefs of the biblical authors.” Thus “the background beliefs” of Paul—even as expressed in the text—can be rejected though his “explicit statements” cannot be. But, Madueme notes, “ancient people believed in God or gods, that they exist, that they act in the world, that they engage with humanity, and so on. [Walton] is counseling readers of Scripture ex hypothesi to dismiss those portions as an incidental part of their cognitive environment. Presumably Walton would reply that his methodology only applies to those parts of the Bible that relate to scientific questions; that is, issues in cosmology, biology, and so on. But that proves my point—modern science is having an undue influence. Is this biblical scholarship with a Kantian twist, Scripture within the bounds of a naturalistic science?”

Madueme concludes that Giberson’s book has the advantage of avoiding conflict with the present scientific consensus but suffers from the fatal defect of reconfiguring Christianity in the process. He appreciates VanDoodewaard’s book but finds it too parochial. He urges evangelicals to show young earth creationists more academic respect and for these creationists to argue for their positions without attacking other evangelicals. He thinks that Walton’s book at its best shows “that evangelical biblical scholarship has the resources to engage difficult questions raised by modern science.” But, “at its worst, the picture that emerges is a theologically anemic, hermeneutical mirror dancing to the scientific consensus.”

Mansfield and Winthrop on Philosophy of Translation

by

Because I’m interested in philosophies of Bible translation, I pay close attention to translator’s notes for other books. Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop have produced a highly recommended translation of Tocqueville’s Democracy in America. I think their comments on translation contain wisdom for translators of Scripture.

Our intent has been to make our translation of Tocqueville’s text as literal and consistent as we can, while still readable. By ‘readable’ we mean what can easily be read now, not what we might normally say. Of the two extremes in translating, staying as close as possible to the original and bringing it as close as possible to us, we are closer to the former. A book as great as Tocqueville’s should inspire a certain reverence in translators, not only because it is so intelligent or because its style is so perfect but also because the intelligence and the style go together and need as much as possible to be conveyed together in English. Precisely to bring Tocqueville to us requires an effort, both in translating and in reading, to get close to him, and to become familiar with his terms, his rhetorical flights, his favorite expressions.

Recognizing that translation is always imperfect, we have sought all the more to be modest, cautious, and faithful. Every translator must make many choices, but in making ours we have been guided by the principle, admittedly an ideal, that our business is to convey Tocqueville’s thought as he held it rather than to restate it in comparable terms of today. By refraining as much as possible from interpretation, we try to make it possible for readers to do their own thinking and figure out for themselves what Tocqueville means. As translators we respect the diversity of interpretation best when we do not offer one ourselves. Tocqueville wrote the following reproach to Henry Reeve, his friend and author of the first English translation of Democracy in America: ‘Without wishing to do so and by following the instinct of your opinions, you have quite vividly colored what was contrary to Democracy and almost erased what could do harm to Aristocracy.’ We are not likely to receive such an authoritative message, but we hope very much that we do not deserve one. . . . We do provide notes meant to be helpful, identifying events and allusions no longer familiar in our day. We also specify Tocqueville’s references to other places in his own text. . . . We have kept Tocqueville’s long sentences and short paragraphs.

Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop, “A Note on Translation,” in Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, trans. and ed. Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop (Chicago: Univeristy of Chicago Press, 2000), xci-xciii.

The Incarnation as Revelation of God

by

This is truly the grand mystery of godliness: ‘God manifest in the flesh’ (1 Tim. 3:16), ‘For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily’ (Col. 2:9), so that He is both God and man in the same person.

Perhaps this mode of exhibiting the divine attributes in humanity may be of unspeakable importance to all intelligent creatures in heaven. It may have given them an opportunity of knowing much more of God than they ever knew before, or could know in any other way. The doctrine of redemption is not only useful to the redeemed, but to all the hierarchy of heaven. No creature can know anything of the nature of God but what He is pleased to reveal; and the method by which He makes Himself known is by His works and dispensations.

Archibald Alexander, Brief Compendium, 55-56 cited in Garretson, ed., A Scribe Well-Trained: Archibald Alexander and the Life of Piety, 69.

R. R. Reno on David Brooks on the norms necessary for helping the poor

by

He recounts the difficulties facing young people growing up in the dysfunctional family cultures of poor and working-class America. We need to respond to their hard circumstances with sympathy. ‘But it’s increasingly clear that sympathy is not enough. It’s not only money and better policy that are missing in these circles; it’s norms. The health of society is primarily determined by the habits and virtues of its citizens. In many parts of America there are no minimally agreed upon standards for what it means to be a father. There are no basic codes and rules woven into daily life, which people can absorb unconsciously and follow automatically.’ This loss of social capital didn’t just happen. Norms for decent behavior ‘were destroyed by a plague of nonjudgmentalism, which refused to assert that one way of behaving was better than another.’ Care about the poor and vulnerable in America? Step one is to combat the plague of nonjudgmentalism.

First Things, (May 2015): 69.

Accommodating Evolution and the Problem of Evil

by

I recently provided a guest post at the BJU School of Religion blog about Evolution and the Problem of evil. My main point was that evangelicals often seek to harmonize Scripture with Evolution for apologetic reasons. But the consequences of the proposed harmonizations create further theological and apologetic problems. 

Read the whole thing here.

Critique of Paul Seely’s Hermeneutical Approach to Genesis 1:10

by

Seely, Paul H. "The Geographical Meaning of ‘Earth’ and ‘Seas’ in Genesis 1:10," Westminster Theological Journal 59, no. 2 (Fall 1997): 231-55.

The upshot of this article is that truly grammatical-historical exegesis of Genesis 1:10 must recognize that the earth spoken of there is a flat disc that floats on the single sea that surrounds the land since this is the view of all ancient peoples.

In a very brief postscript Seely raises the question of whether interpreting these verses "according to their historico-grammatical meaning impinge negatively on the biblical doctrine of inspiration?" (155). He appeals to Warfield to argue that it does not: "A presumption may be held to lie also that [Paul] shared the ordinary opinions of his day in certain matters lying outside the scope of his teachings, as, for example, with reference to the form of the earth, or its relation to the sun; and it is not inconceivable that the form of his language, when incidentally adverting to such matters, might occasionally play into the hands of such a presumption" (Warfield, "The Real Problem of Inspiration," in Works, 1:197).

It is important to note that Warfield makes two points in this quotation. Before the semi-colon Warfield is referring to what Paul thought apart from what he wrote in Scripture. Warfield is clear in the preceding context that Paul can err in his thinking in any number of ways , including his view of "the form of the earth, or its relation to the sun." After the semi-colon Warfield is referring to what Paul wrote in Scripture. Here he makes the more limited claim that Paul’s erroneous views could affect the wording of Scripture. Warfield does not say that Paul introduces error into Scripture on this account (since that is precisely what he is arguing against). Rather Warfield is saying the wording could be understood in harmony with the error while not actually being in error itself (this is the import of the phrase "play into the hands of such a presumption"). In other words Warfield is teaching that God did not correct all the popularly-held (but erroneous) opinions of the day held by the biblical writers and that some of the wording of Scripture could fit some of those views, while not affirming those views and thus remaining free from error. (It is important in this regard to remember that the Bible teaches that the text of Scripture is inspired and not that the authors were inspired.)

This reading is substantiated by Warfield’s earlier discussion of accommodation in the same article. There he notes, "It is one thing to adapt the teaching of truth to the stage of receptivity of the learner; it is another to adopt the errors of the time as the very matter to be taught. It is one thing to refrain from unnecessarily arousing the prejudices of the learner, that more ready entrance may be found for the truth; it is another thing to adopt those prejudices as our own, and to inculcate them as the very truths of God" (ibid., 1:194).

In this article Seely argues for the latter: he argues that the errors of the time are taught by the text when interpreted in a grammatical-historical manner. For this reason alone Seely’s interpretation must be rejected as inconsistent with the Bible’s own teaching regarding its inspiration. Seely’s interpretation should also be rejected for limiting grammatical historical interpretation to the human plane. The words of Genesis 1:9-10 are not merely the words of Moses written within his own cultural milieu. These are also the words of God. This is an especially relevant factor in interpreting Genesis 1 since the events of this chapter lie beyond human observation; God alone could reveal these truths to Moses. There is little reason therefore to insist that these words can only be rightly interpreted when understood strictly as someone of Moses’s time would have understood them. If the prophets did not always understand the spiritual import of what they wrote (1 Peter 1:10-12), must we insist that they always understood the physical import? Their words may "play into the hands" of an erroneous understanding from their time (though I think that would be an overstatement in this case), but they do not demand of the reader to be read in light of such an understanding.

Importantly, Seely’s argument is not that Genesis 1:10 necessitates this reading on the textual level, but rather that given that all ancient cultures held to belief that the earth was a flat disc surrounded by an ocean, modern interpreters must read the Bible through this ancient lens. To the contrary, historical background must play an ancillary role to the Scripture; it is the servant of the text rather than its master. Otherwise the sufficiency of Scripture is undermined just as surely as when tradition moves from an ancillary role to that of master. The historical background that Seely introduces provides a helpful window into the worldview of ancient peoples, but it does not determine the meaning the divine Author intended for Genesis 1:10. To say otherwise undermines both the doctrines of the inerrancy and the sufficiency of Scripture.