Post by Josh on Feb 18, 2007 16:35:05 GMT -8
Originally posted on 2/8/06:
We talked this week (2/7/06) about how most supposed "errors" (and problems with interpretation) in the Bible are really from a failure to recognize:
THE AUTHOR'S:
Selectivity, Intent and Context, Audience, Perspective, and Choice of Literary Form
Use of paraphrase, hyperbole, approximation, generalities, figures of speech, symbolism
OR:
Other Relevant Cultural/ Linguistic Information
What follows is short summary of how we defined each of these, and some Scriptural examples of each. These are my titles, you might find other classifications useful, but these general principles are crucial for both the resolution of many supposed errors as well as in your daily Bible study.
SELECTIVITY: Keep in mind that all authors reporting on history select certain things to include and other details to highlight. Each author has their own focus, so when you have two or more authors writing about the same events, one might include radically different details than another, but this doesn't necessarily make them contradictory. A classic case in point is the 'supposed' contradiction between what the different Gospels authors say in regard to how many angels were at the tomb on Easter morning (1 or 2). Just because one focused on one angel speaking, doesn't mean that author is saying there was exclusively one angel present. He just hasn't bothered to mention the second one. Other examples include, among many, how many donkeys rode into Jerusalem with Jesus, or difference in details in Jesus' birth, etc..
INTENT/CONTEXT: It's important to ask "what did the author intend to mean?" when he wrote this. The author may be making a complex point that if taken out of its context, might yield a completely opposite interpretation than what was intended.
Here are a couple of really obvous examples of passages, that, stripped of their context might lead the reader into all kinds of strange conclusions:
Psalm 14:1b
"There is no God!"
Ecclesiastes 1:2
"Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless."
Judges 19:29
When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel.
AUDIENCE: We must also keep in mind the intended audience of the author. Most books of the Bible were originally intended for a very specific audience, with certain inherent biases which aid the recipients in understanding what the writer is communicating.
For instance, is it a contradiction when, in parallel passages, Luke says the crowd shouted "Glory in the highest!" while the other synoptics say they shouted, "Hosanna!"?
PERSPECTIVE: This has to do the importance of determining the author's frame of reference, also a very important factor in scientific inquiry. Things can appear quite differently depending on one's vantage point.
For instance, when the Bible says that the 'sun rises and sets', is that an error? Scientifically, yes, that is innacurate. From the perspective of an observer in outer space, it is, of course, the earth that is doing the moving. But from our perspective, it is the sun that appears to move, and so we still continue to use this phrase to this day.
Perspective issues come up fairly frequently in Scripture. A good example, which you can research further later is the supposed contradictions between the creation account of Genesis 1 and that of Genesis 2, which require consideration of perspective to resolve quite nicely.
LITERARY FORM: Next, in order to understand the text and clear up apparent errors, we must ask ourselves what kind of literature we are reading- and the Bible contains them all. Historical record, prophetic utterance, poetry, proverb, biography, personal correspondance, etc.. of course, but don't forget Genealogies, 'Prayer Journals', Fantasy Literature, Allegory, and much more.
Each of these forms of Literature (and by the way, it's not always a peice of cake to figure out which kind you're reading- some sections of the Bible defy a positive designation) has it's own 'rules' and assumptions.
For instance, we don't look for historical verification of most of Jesus' parables. It wouldn't be a challenge to faith if we found that there hadn't really been an actual individual that the prodigal son story was based on. In fact, we know there wasn't because we recognize that Christ is delivering a parable. Conversely, if it were shown that Jesus had never existed, then our faith would be useless because the Bible speaks about His life in historical/ biographical literature most of the time.
But some books of the Bible are not so clearly dileneated or perhaps contain a blend of history and fiction. Of course, this is hotly debated and I'm not writing here to convince anyone of my particular views, but I lean towards viewing the books of Jonah and Job as primarily having been intended to be fictional accounts highlighting important truths about God (though not entirely fictional in the case of Job). I think there are clues in the texts themselves to support this. Still, it's no open-shut case. Yes, let the emails come...
PARAPHRASING: As theologian Millard Erickson says,
"...we should not expect that the standards of exactness in quotation to which our age of the printing press and mass distribution is accustomed would have been present in the first century."
This is most apparent in the Gospels, where we can compare Jesus' saying and notice slight differences in wording among the authors. Much of this has to do with the fact that the writer is often 'paraphrasing' the dialogue-communicating the ideas accurately but not getting hung up on recording word-for-word facsimiles.
Note (and this also applies to the AUDIENCE consideration above) such things as how the centurion at Christ's death says in Matthew and Mark, "Surely this was the Son of God", whereas in Luke he says, "Surely this was a righteous man" (or The Righteous One, which may be a better translation). We need not see this as a contradiction. What we have here is paraphrase intended to communicate the same idea to widely different audiences (Gentile or Jewish, depending).
Note also the words reported to have been written above Jesus head on the cross:
In Matthew we are told they were "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews"
In Mark, "the King of the Jews"
Luke has, "This is the King of the Jews"
and John has, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews"
Again, this is no real discrepancy. We all recognize the valid use of paraphrase in reporting.
However, in this case, see John 19:20 for another possible explanation.
Yet another illustration might be found in Acts where Luke has Paul telling his "road to Emmaus story" several times, each time slightly differently, demonstrating some acceptable license in paraphrasing.
HYPERBOLE: Hyperbole is defined as, "A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton."
Hyperbole is frequently used in Scripture and is important to recognize. But first it must be said that hyperbole is ideally used by a person not to merely exaggerate, but to point out a serious truth that may be deeper than words. This is how hyperbole is used in Scripture. By identifying hyperbole, we should not be trying to 'explain away' the point of a passage, but uncover the seriousness the author is getting at.
Some examples:
Galatians 5:11-12
Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
Paul here uses hyperbole to underscore how much he detests the arguments of the "Judaizers", those who wanted to require Gentile converts to obey the full Jewish body of laws. Although he doesn't really mean that their castrations should be encouraged, he is trying to show how serious their error is.
Or how about when Jesus says that if our eye causes us to sin, we should gouge it out, or cut off an offending hand? Though He is using hyperbole, He is trying to get at a very real, very serious principle- namely, that sin should be a horror to us, and that sin leads ultimately to hell, which is a reality much worse than missing limbs.
APPROXIMATIONS: If I was discussing a medieval battle that involved 9,476 soldiers and I reported it as 10,000 would I be within the bounds of credibility? What if I reported 9,000, or 9,500, or 9480, or 9475? (example taken from Millard Erickson's Systematic Theology) All of these, although approximations, would stand the test of reliability in ordinary life, as they do in the Scriptures.
Rounding off numbers was much more necessary in the ancient world anyway, as it was much more difficult to arrive at precise measurements.
With this is mind, the following two passages don't really present a difficulty:
Numbers 25:9
“….but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000.â€
1 Corinthians 10:8
“We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died.â€
nor should the simplification of pi found in 2 Chron. 4:2.
Really, these are just not things we should be concerned about, although particular (and arguably, extreme) views of Inspiration might lead one to think we should.
GENERALITIES: Another thing to consider is the Bible's (especially the Old Testament) frequent use of 'general principles'. Consider these passages for example:
Proverbs 12:11Â
He who works his land will have abundant food, but he who chases fantasies lacks judgment.
Proverbs 12:13
An evil man is trapped by his sinful talk, but a righteous man escapes trouble.
We know that not EVERYONE who works his land well will always have food. We know that not all evil men are tripped up by their words, or that all good people avoid trouble. But these are generalities, think that usually hold up in reality, but not always.
Proverbs especially is full of these generalities. They are rules of thumb to live by, but shouldn't be construed as covering every contigency, or as having been originally intended to. (Interestingly, the other wisdom literature books known as Job and Ecclesiastes deal with all of the exceptions to the rule, so we have a pretty balanced approach to wisdom in Scripture).
FIGURES OF SPEECH: We must also be aware of figures of speech uses in the Bible that we might not be immediately familiar with: "he knew his wife", the "eye of the needle", "loosening the thong" (which could be misinterpreted horribly), etc.. We must not read such statements with 'wooden literalism'.
A great example is the Bible's frequent use of the phrase, "the whole world" or "all over the world" in passages we know are really (from our perspective) intending to mean "the known world of that time". There are tons of these, but see these few: 1 Sam. 17:46, 1 Kings 10:24, John 12:19, Acts 24:5, Romans 1:8, and Col. 1:6. Here's Romans 1:8 as an example:
"First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world."
SYMBOLISM: First it must be said that we should identify ourselves as people who interpret the Bible Literally or peple who interpret the Bible Symbolically. The fact of the matter is that the Bible uses both 'literal' and 'symbolic' communication, which is sometimes easy to identify, and at times difficult to distinguish.
The Bible is full of metaphor and simile. God is said to be a mother hen, He is said to have eyes that roam throughout the earth, but we know this is symbolic language. Symbolic doesn't mean less than literal. Actually, it's a way in which we describe a reality that we can't totally grasp- if you will, a reality more real that normal reality.
Read Revelation 12, which tells us of a woman clothed with the sun, with stars on her head, and a dragon pursuing her, and you will have no doubt you are reading fantasy literature designed to represent real facts, but facts we need help understanding.
We must remember to let one Scripture help us understand another. Almost all the symbolism in Revelation (and the Olivet Discourse), for example, comes to us from the Old Testament. Whereas we might read a passage about "the stars falling from the sky" or the "sun not giving light" as literal astronomical events, we might at least in some cases be misunderstanding the intent of the text. See Joel 2:10-11 or Ezekiel 32:7-8 where such language is applying to the fall of Empires in days past- events which did not entail the actual falling of stars, but did entail massive changes in spiritual realities, symbolized with powerful hyperbole in these passages.
Here's another good one (keep in mind I'm not saying it's always easy to dileneate between what is meant metaphorically or literally):
Revelation 14:19-20Â
19The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the great winepress of God's wrath. 20They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses' bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia. (180 miles: length of Palestine)
To imagine that kind of blood in a literal sense stretches credulity beyond the breaking point. But it's obvious what John is saying: the warfare in Palestine will be beyond severe. We know the sickle is symbolic, and the grapes, and so is the volume of blood- symbolic hyperbole to try and capture the horrors that lay ahead.
CULTRUAL/ LANGUAGE ISSUES: When Scripture says Jesus is the son of David, the son of Abraham, we must understand that in Hebrew and Greek 'son' can mean descendant.
We must understand that the word day in Hebrew ('yom') can literally mean 3 different things: a 12 hr. period, a 24 hr. period, or an indefinitely long duration of time.
This is no case of symbolic interpretation versus literal. If we learn as much as we can about the language of the Bible and the customs of the Bible, we can learn the array of possible, LITERAL meanings of just one word.
Another example might be how years are reckoned. In an age before super accurate record keeping, years were often reckoned in the ancient world by counting generation. If a generation was considered as 20 years on average, then "400 years" might simply mean 20 generations averaged.
There are so many cultural considerations to take into account when studying the Bible (manners and customs type stuff) that I couldn't begin to comment thoroughly one them here. This is where commentaries are extremely useful in Bible studies, resolving apparent contradictions and helping us more fully intrepret the Bible.
CONCLUSION: All that said, one might encounter what still appears to be a contradiction. Or one might still feel that certain passages are, what I call, "fishy" (meaning of questionable origin or what-have-you). It's okay to be honest about that stuff (at least in our Church) and I would suggest weighing your feelings about a particular passage you find dubious with the entire track record of Scripture.
What you're hung up on may not be a real contradiction: you may yet find resolution, you may not. And should it seem indeed to be the genuine article, ask yourself how important it is in relation to the major claims of the Bible and the demonstrably miraculous portions that you have come to recognize. I think you'll find that Bible provides more than enough to bank on.
We talked this week (2/7/06) about how most supposed "errors" (and problems with interpretation) in the Bible are really from a failure to recognize:
THE AUTHOR'S:
Selectivity, Intent and Context, Audience, Perspective, and Choice of Literary Form
Use of paraphrase, hyperbole, approximation, generalities, figures of speech, symbolism
OR:
Other Relevant Cultural/ Linguistic Information
What follows is short summary of how we defined each of these, and some Scriptural examples of each. These are my titles, you might find other classifications useful, but these general principles are crucial for both the resolution of many supposed errors as well as in your daily Bible study.
SELECTIVITY: Keep in mind that all authors reporting on history select certain things to include and other details to highlight. Each author has their own focus, so when you have two or more authors writing about the same events, one might include radically different details than another, but this doesn't necessarily make them contradictory. A classic case in point is the 'supposed' contradiction between what the different Gospels authors say in regard to how many angels were at the tomb on Easter morning (1 or 2). Just because one focused on one angel speaking, doesn't mean that author is saying there was exclusively one angel present. He just hasn't bothered to mention the second one. Other examples include, among many, how many donkeys rode into Jerusalem with Jesus, or difference in details in Jesus' birth, etc..
INTENT/CONTEXT: It's important to ask "what did the author intend to mean?" when he wrote this. The author may be making a complex point that if taken out of its context, might yield a completely opposite interpretation than what was intended.
Here are a couple of really obvous examples of passages, that, stripped of their context might lead the reader into all kinds of strange conclusions:
Psalm 14:1b
"There is no God!"
Ecclesiastes 1:2
"Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless."
Judges 19:29
When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel.
AUDIENCE: We must also keep in mind the intended audience of the author. Most books of the Bible were originally intended for a very specific audience, with certain inherent biases which aid the recipients in understanding what the writer is communicating.
For instance, is it a contradiction when, in parallel passages, Luke says the crowd shouted "Glory in the highest!" while the other synoptics say they shouted, "Hosanna!"?
PERSPECTIVE: This has to do the importance of determining the author's frame of reference, also a very important factor in scientific inquiry. Things can appear quite differently depending on one's vantage point.
For instance, when the Bible says that the 'sun rises and sets', is that an error? Scientifically, yes, that is innacurate. From the perspective of an observer in outer space, it is, of course, the earth that is doing the moving. But from our perspective, it is the sun that appears to move, and so we still continue to use this phrase to this day.
Perspective issues come up fairly frequently in Scripture. A good example, which you can research further later is the supposed contradictions between the creation account of Genesis 1 and that of Genesis 2, which require consideration of perspective to resolve quite nicely.
LITERARY FORM: Next, in order to understand the text and clear up apparent errors, we must ask ourselves what kind of literature we are reading- and the Bible contains them all. Historical record, prophetic utterance, poetry, proverb, biography, personal correspondance, etc.. of course, but don't forget Genealogies, 'Prayer Journals', Fantasy Literature, Allegory, and much more.
Each of these forms of Literature (and by the way, it's not always a peice of cake to figure out which kind you're reading- some sections of the Bible defy a positive designation) has it's own 'rules' and assumptions.
For instance, we don't look for historical verification of most of Jesus' parables. It wouldn't be a challenge to faith if we found that there hadn't really been an actual individual that the prodigal son story was based on. In fact, we know there wasn't because we recognize that Christ is delivering a parable. Conversely, if it were shown that Jesus had never existed, then our faith would be useless because the Bible speaks about His life in historical/ biographical literature most of the time.
But some books of the Bible are not so clearly dileneated or perhaps contain a blend of history and fiction. Of course, this is hotly debated and I'm not writing here to convince anyone of my particular views, but I lean towards viewing the books of Jonah and Job as primarily having been intended to be fictional accounts highlighting important truths about God (though not entirely fictional in the case of Job). I think there are clues in the texts themselves to support this. Still, it's no open-shut case. Yes, let the emails come...
PARAPHRASING: As theologian Millard Erickson says,
"...we should not expect that the standards of exactness in quotation to which our age of the printing press and mass distribution is accustomed would have been present in the first century."
This is most apparent in the Gospels, where we can compare Jesus' saying and notice slight differences in wording among the authors. Much of this has to do with the fact that the writer is often 'paraphrasing' the dialogue-communicating the ideas accurately but not getting hung up on recording word-for-word facsimiles.
Note (and this also applies to the AUDIENCE consideration above) such things as how the centurion at Christ's death says in Matthew and Mark, "Surely this was the Son of God", whereas in Luke he says, "Surely this was a righteous man" (or The Righteous One, which may be a better translation). We need not see this as a contradiction. What we have here is paraphrase intended to communicate the same idea to widely different audiences (Gentile or Jewish, depending).
Note also the words reported to have been written above Jesus head on the cross:
In Matthew we are told they were "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews"
In Mark, "the King of the Jews"
Luke has, "This is the King of the Jews"
and John has, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews"
Again, this is no real discrepancy. We all recognize the valid use of paraphrase in reporting.
However, in this case, see John 19:20 for another possible explanation.
Yet another illustration might be found in Acts where Luke has Paul telling his "road to Emmaus story" several times, each time slightly differently, demonstrating some acceptable license in paraphrasing.
HYPERBOLE: Hyperbole is defined as, "A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton."
Hyperbole is frequently used in Scripture and is important to recognize. But first it must be said that hyperbole is ideally used by a person not to merely exaggerate, but to point out a serious truth that may be deeper than words. This is how hyperbole is used in Scripture. By identifying hyperbole, we should not be trying to 'explain away' the point of a passage, but uncover the seriousness the author is getting at.
Some examples:
Galatians 5:11-12
Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
Paul here uses hyperbole to underscore how much he detests the arguments of the "Judaizers", those who wanted to require Gentile converts to obey the full Jewish body of laws. Although he doesn't really mean that their castrations should be encouraged, he is trying to show how serious their error is.
Or how about when Jesus says that if our eye causes us to sin, we should gouge it out, or cut off an offending hand? Though He is using hyperbole, He is trying to get at a very real, very serious principle- namely, that sin should be a horror to us, and that sin leads ultimately to hell, which is a reality much worse than missing limbs.
APPROXIMATIONS: If I was discussing a medieval battle that involved 9,476 soldiers and I reported it as 10,000 would I be within the bounds of credibility? What if I reported 9,000, or 9,500, or 9480, or 9475? (example taken from Millard Erickson's Systematic Theology) All of these, although approximations, would stand the test of reliability in ordinary life, as they do in the Scriptures.
Rounding off numbers was much more necessary in the ancient world anyway, as it was much more difficult to arrive at precise measurements.
With this is mind, the following two passages don't really present a difficulty:
Numbers 25:9
“….but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000.â€
1 Corinthians 10:8
“We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died.â€
nor should the simplification of pi found in 2 Chron. 4:2.
Really, these are just not things we should be concerned about, although particular (and arguably, extreme) views of Inspiration might lead one to think we should.
GENERALITIES: Another thing to consider is the Bible's (especially the Old Testament) frequent use of 'general principles'. Consider these passages for example:
Proverbs 12:11Â
He who works his land will have abundant food, but he who chases fantasies lacks judgment.
Proverbs 12:13
An evil man is trapped by his sinful talk, but a righteous man escapes trouble.
We know that not EVERYONE who works his land well will always have food. We know that not all evil men are tripped up by their words, or that all good people avoid trouble. But these are generalities, think that usually hold up in reality, but not always.
Proverbs especially is full of these generalities. They are rules of thumb to live by, but shouldn't be construed as covering every contigency, or as having been originally intended to. (Interestingly, the other wisdom literature books known as Job and Ecclesiastes deal with all of the exceptions to the rule, so we have a pretty balanced approach to wisdom in Scripture).
FIGURES OF SPEECH: We must also be aware of figures of speech uses in the Bible that we might not be immediately familiar with: "he knew his wife", the "eye of the needle", "loosening the thong" (which could be misinterpreted horribly), etc.. We must not read such statements with 'wooden literalism'.
A great example is the Bible's frequent use of the phrase, "the whole world" or "all over the world" in passages we know are really (from our perspective) intending to mean "the known world of that time". There are tons of these, but see these few: 1 Sam. 17:46, 1 Kings 10:24, John 12:19, Acts 24:5, Romans 1:8, and Col. 1:6. Here's Romans 1:8 as an example:
"First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world."
SYMBOLISM: First it must be said that we should identify ourselves as people who interpret the Bible Literally or peple who interpret the Bible Symbolically. The fact of the matter is that the Bible uses both 'literal' and 'symbolic' communication, which is sometimes easy to identify, and at times difficult to distinguish.
The Bible is full of metaphor and simile. God is said to be a mother hen, He is said to have eyes that roam throughout the earth, but we know this is symbolic language. Symbolic doesn't mean less than literal. Actually, it's a way in which we describe a reality that we can't totally grasp- if you will, a reality more real that normal reality.
Read Revelation 12, which tells us of a woman clothed with the sun, with stars on her head, and a dragon pursuing her, and you will have no doubt you are reading fantasy literature designed to represent real facts, but facts we need help understanding.
We must remember to let one Scripture help us understand another. Almost all the symbolism in Revelation (and the Olivet Discourse), for example, comes to us from the Old Testament. Whereas we might read a passage about "the stars falling from the sky" or the "sun not giving light" as literal astronomical events, we might at least in some cases be misunderstanding the intent of the text. See Joel 2:10-11 or Ezekiel 32:7-8 where such language is applying to the fall of Empires in days past- events which did not entail the actual falling of stars, but did entail massive changes in spiritual realities, symbolized with powerful hyperbole in these passages.
Here's another good one (keep in mind I'm not saying it's always easy to dileneate between what is meant metaphorically or literally):
Revelation 14:19-20Â
19The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the great winepress of God's wrath. 20They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses' bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia. (180 miles: length of Palestine)
To imagine that kind of blood in a literal sense stretches credulity beyond the breaking point. But it's obvious what John is saying: the warfare in Palestine will be beyond severe. We know the sickle is symbolic, and the grapes, and so is the volume of blood- symbolic hyperbole to try and capture the horrors that lay ahead.
CULTRUAL/ LANGUAGE ISSUES: When Scripture says Jesus is the son of David, the son of Abraham, we must understand that in Hebrew and Greek 'son' can mean descendant.
We must understand that the word day in Hebrew ('yom') can literally mean 3 different things: a 12 hr. period, a 24 hr. period, or an indefinitely long duration of time.
This is no case of symbolic interpretation versus literal. If we learn as much as we can about the language of the Bible and the customs of the Bible, we can learn the array of possible, LITERAL meanings of just one word.
Another example might be how years are reckoned. In an age before super accurate record keeping, years were often reckoned in the ancient world by counting generation. If a generation was considered as 20 years on average, then "400 years" might simply mean 20 generations averaged.
There are so many cultural considerations to take into account when studying the Bible (manners and customs type stuff) that I couldn't begin to comment thoroughly one them here. This is where commentaries are extremely useful in Bible studies, resolving apparent contradictions and helping us more fully intrepret the Bible.
CONCLUSION: All that said, one might encounter what still appears to be a contradiction. Or one might still feel that certain passages are, what I call, "fishy" (meaning of questionable origin or what-have-you). It's okay to be honest about that stuff (at least in our Church) and I would suggest weighing your feelings about a particular passage you find dubious with the entire track record of Scripture.
What you're hung up on may not be a real contradiction: you may yet find resolution, you may not. And should it seem indeed to be the genuine article, ask yourself how important it is in relation to the major claims of the Bible and the demonstrably miraculous portions that you have come to recognize. I think you'll find that Bible provides more than enough to bank on.