TP 13

I was reminded of a piece of advice - or should I say wisdom - our OT professor in my previous studies gave us. He said that anyone could become a world authority on OT by learning really well three books:

• Hebrew (/Aramaic) Old Testament
• BDB Hebrew&Aramaic OT Lexicon
• GKC Hebrew Grammar

I am sure he was exaggerating - but not much! He stressed the point that the Hebrew Bible is the primary source, and therefore it would make perfect sense to know it inside out.

My colleague shared a few weeks ago that his advisor had instructed him to be reading the particular book over and over again that he is going to do his dissertation on. That means no commentaries, nothing but the Bible and it in its original language(s) - the whole semester!

Another instructor, whom I had several years ago when I was doing my BA, said that he belongs to the generation of scholars who still know their Bible. He did not want to critique younger scholars because of their youth (he was about 55 at that time), but because he had seen that it was possible to "theologically shine" just by knowing your commentaries.

Since theology means words about God, why would you want to concentrate on the secondary sources? I understand it as kind of a temptation of a scholar, when the tempter takes you to the Tyndale House at Cambridge, and offers you a great career and extensive knowledge (and the books, of course). Jesus resisted the tempter by quoting the Bible that he knew by heart. I guess quoting the commentaries would not have had the same effect (and everybody marveled since he taught with authority, and not like the pharisees and the scribes). Therefore I have determined to do what it takes to familiarize myself with the primary source(s), and to do it in the original languages, no matter what it takes.

TP 12

Often times the small words are the most important ones. You probably are familiar with the old saying: "whenever you see a therefore in the text you have to see why it is there for." This of course applies only to those bible readers who would respect the meaning of the context.

Consider Matthew 6:25 (ESV) as an example of this: "Therefore I (Jesus) say to you: do not be being anxious about your life, neither with what you might eat nor with what you should clothe your body..."

The Greek text (Διὰ τοῦτο) suggests a more wooden wording: "For this reason... / because of this..." Therefore, our text is not an independent saying and command not to be anxious; it is an application of what has just been said by Jesus about serving two masters.

It is impossible to serve two masters, especially if they are God and Mammon. Worrying about food and clothes suggests that one is actually worshipping a different god. One's anxiety reveals that he is not trusting in God. How disturbing it is that worshipping idols requires only our distrust. On the other hand, how reassuring it is that Jesus teaches us to relax and trust in His providence. In neither one of the cases is any action required from us - it is all in the attitude.

TP 11

The relationships between history and faith is not an easy topic. Especially so if we are talking about sacred writings, about the Bible. Some would disregard the whole book as totally non-historical, and in doing so would only show how ignorant they are about the study of history on a general level. It is easier to prove that Jesus existed than to prove that Julius Caesar existed.

This does not necessarily lead to say that the Bible as a history book - it is not! Bible is historical, but it is not history book. Its purpose has never been to present a history of mankind, of Jesus, of the Church... Think about all the literary genres in the Bible: would you say that poems are history? that epistles are history writings?

It is different to be as certain about the Gospels. The Gospels seem to have been compiled as histories, but the Western idea about chronology seems to be less important factor.Think about Luke who begins:

1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

Luke follows certain order, as he says in v3. It appears that his account is historical and trustworthy, as he refers to sources he used, and explains a bit about his methodology. But then it gets complicated: can a history have a motive, a purpose?

I would say that all histories have a purpose, and that all historians have their motives and presuppositions. Somehow supporting someones faith with historical grounding is more ugly motive than receiving a paycheck from a dictator or using the opportunity to present the history in a way that promotes ones agenda (even if by a tiny bit). What Luke does is that he puts his motives in there quite bluntly - at least he is an honest historian!

ESV's use of 'narrative' is noteworthy. It could also be translated as 'account', but narrative translates the idea better. Luke narrates the historical story by placing bits and pieces together from multiple sources. He explains what Jesus did, how did people react to that, what people were thinking, and reveals sometimes what was happening behind the curtains - in the Spiritual realm or in the temple where the religious elite was plotting against him. This is what any honest historian would do - gather as many sources as possible and put them together them in a meaningful way that has a message to people that they would want to read.

Luke's immediate audience was Theophilus, and he wanted to ground his faith in facts, not in fairy tales. We do not know who he was, nor do we know how successful Luke was in helping him. However, even going back to the 1st Ct, we can learn that facts (and history) are not opposite to faith. Bible does not promote faith that would not be well grounded. This should challenge every believer to work on the foundations of his faith. We have been called to be wise as serpents, not stupid as cows (Matt. 10:16).

TP 10

I was translating Genesis 3 from Hebrew (BHS) today when something struck me hard. I must have read the passage dozens - if not hundreds - of times, but have never noticed what is there - perhaps because the translations always smooth it out. I am not blaming the translations, but being hyped because of the possibility we still have to learn and be able to read ancient texts in a language that was basically dead!

Now I am teasing my readers, but the point is that even though many translations are really great they cannot possibly convey the original idea fully. My finding today?

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise,she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate (Gen 3:6, ESV).

No matter how many times I would read this text I probably would not be able to draw the connection the narrator wants to make. My observation is just few simple words in the text: "...she saw that the tree was good..." In Hebrew it goes:

תֵּ֣רֶא הָֽאִשָּׁ֡ה כִּ֣י טוֹב֩

Now a portion of text just a chapter and few verses before:

וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־טֽוֹב

In English 3:6 should go "and woman looked at the tree and she saw that it was good" to make the same connection to the phrase that reoccurs again and again in the Creation story. Thus the narrator draws our attention to God's judgment, and contrasts it with our judgment that is lacking. When God saw and said that something was good, it was good. When woman saw the tree and its fruit were good and beautiful, she was dead wrong.

My purpose is not to ridicule women but to point out to the fact that human beings were lacking in their discernment even before the Fall. This was one of the hooks the serpent used: you will be like God, knowing good and evil. Even they realized that their understanding was not on par with God, and they envied.

This brings us to the modern day application. How often we have heard: I know what is best for me? How often have we said something along those lines ourselves? How can we know whether we are right? Perhaps we are not right. Perhaps we are so lost that we do not have a clue what would be best for us. Look around and think. Ask yourself a question: does this place seem perfect?

TP 9

I recently came across some advice/opinion from a biblical theology professor. A lot of what he said made a lot of sense. Some of it triggered positive ideas in my mind. Some of them I found hard to agree with. However, what he said and how he said it, helped me to accept the idea that I might be(come) an academic one day too!

Since it is quite late at the moment, I will reflect only on few things:

1. Do not publish online. It will not help you to tenure. It can only be used against you. (he also said something about blogging. I am omitting his name here, if he would one day accidentally google his name and stumble upon my blog :))
2. Do not publish your thesis until you have spent at least five years editing it to make it worth publishing.
3. As a biblical scholar, wait until you are at least 50 before synthesizing.
4. As a biblical scholar, if you do not have an exceptional skill in Hebrew, you need to get out of business. If you do not have an exceptional skill in Greek, you need to get out of business. If you do not have an exceptional skill in Aramaic, you need to get out of business. It does not matter whether you are a NT or OT scholar, you need to master these three languages exceptionally well (among other tools).

One other thing he spoke a lot was the idols, or examples. He mentioned two by name, and they both were exceptional in the languages - even to the point of memorizing huge chunks of the Bible in near-eastern languages. He also marveled the skill of being able to read the texts intuitively. I know what he was talking about. I have one idol like that of my own - who perhaps is not on par with the two names mentioned today, but what I have seen in him I can tell that he is definitely heading in that direction. And his example and what I heard today inspires me to pursue the same goal: to be able to read the Bible in original languages by sight.

TP 8

Today's Think Piece is about reading the Greek New Testament, and about one particular grammatical/syntactical aspect. The passage is Matthew 5:20, and I've laid it out for you in English, in two main Finnish translations, and in Greek.

Sillä minä sanon teille: ellei teidän vanhurskautenne ole paljoa suurempi kuin kirjanoppineiden ja fariseusten, niin te ette pääse (then you cannot enter) taivasten valtakuntaan. (Finnish Chuch Bible 1933/38)
Minä sanon teille: ellette te noudata Jumalan tahtoa paljon paremmin kuin lainopettajat ja fariseukset, te ette pääse (you cannot enter) taivasten valtakuntaan. (Finnish Church Bible 1992)
For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (ESV)
Λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ περισσεύσῃ ὑμῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη πλεῖον τῶν γραμματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. (NA27)

The structure here is "Emphatic Negation Subjunctive," and it "is the strongest way to negate something in Greek." It does not only deny the action of the verb; it denies even the "potentiality" of the action happening! (Wallace 1996, 468.)

I have to say that ESV does a pretty good job by inserting the "never," but neither of the Finnish translations fully convey the idea. The whole force would go like this:

... you cannot never enter...
... te ette voi koskaan päästä... / ... te ette voi millään päästä...

It seems a bit harsh, Jesus denying even the slightest possibility, doesn't it? Perhaps in the context of Jesus warning what would happen to those who would omit even a smallest character in the Bible and teach accordingly we should at least consider the stronger translation, even if it would make it more woody. 

---

Source is Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

TP 7

We were reading Origen's First Principles alongside Strauss' Life of Jesus Critically examined. What struck me is that both of them argue that a literal reading of the Bible does not convey its true message. However, with different presuppositions they land on two different planets.

Strauss' presupposition (largely simplified) is that the supernatural in the Bible is a myth. He does not deny God's existence but has almost like a new age belief of every man's inner ability to be in relationship with him (or be saved). He puts a lot of weight in the evolution of human understanding, and regards the men of the antiquities as gullible, naive, even stupid. Thus the Bible is not a product of a people group that tried to lead people astray, but that they truly believed what they wrote. A modern, enlightened person can read the Bible and tell the myth from the fact, and thus get to the gore of it (which has nothing to do with Jesus).

Origen's presupposition on the other hand relies on an omnipotent God. The literal reading of the Bible is thus not enough, but it needs to be read spiritually, aiming for a communion with God. A transcendent God cannot be understood by a literal reading only, but a person who has been educated in a community to a right reading of the text can understand the deeper meaning of the literal text. The hermeneutical principle conveyed is - naturally - allegory.

Therefore, two different presuppositions, two different readings, two different results. Which one is more scientific?

TP 6

I will continue reviewing Strauss' Life of Jesus while reading it (see TP 5).

Strauss writes about myths in the long introduction to his controversial book. There are two kinds of myths to him: Philosophical myths and Historical myths.

Philosophical myths are basically false teaching that has been tried to warrant by the use of a narrative or text in general. The narrative may contain portions that are historically true, but the single focus on one point should make the motive of the writer obvious.

Historical myths, if I have understood correctly, do not have a certain didactic core, but are historically inaccurate stories. The problem with the Bible is that we do not have any second sources to back it up, thus according to Strauss.

This leads us to the main challenge: the greater the gap between any historical occurrence and the written record of it, the greater the chance that the record is corrupted, i.e. it is a myth. It may still have “a residuum of historical fact,” but we cannot fully be sure what it looked like originally.[1] 

Strauss’ theory is based on several presuppositions:

1)    History cannot be transmitted orally in an accurate way.

2)    Strauss: “… it can be shown that for a long period there was no written account of the life of Jesus…”[2]

3)    Therefore: Records of Jesus’ life are mythical; therefore they cannot be true.

a.     They contain some historical truths.

b.    They contain some true teaching.

c.     They are not fully either in historical or philosophical way.

d.    Discerning reader can separate the truth from the fiction.

Who is the discerning reader then who can pinpoint the truth in the Gospels? Where does Strauss ground his argument that it took a long time to compose a written history of Jesus’ life after his death? Would Strauss have changed his manifesto had the Dead Sea Scrolls been found at his time?

Strauss lost his reputation and job at the university because of this book its too liberal theses. He moderated his views for the third edition, which secured a job for him, but then he was put out of office again. He wrote a fourth edition returning to his original stance, and thus revealing his sidestep with the third edition had been a mere effort to gain an academic audience.^[3]

---

[1] Strauss, David Friedrich, 1808-1874; Eliot, George, 1819-1880. The life of Jesus critically examined (London: Swan Sonnenechevin, 1902), Kindle Location 1319.

[2] The life of Jesus, Kindle Location 1208.

^[3] Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall, eds., Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 328 & http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/strauss.htm (accessed Oct 1, 2013).