What's Next in My Ongoing Studies

 In the summer of 2020, I decided, for various reasons, to abandon my efforts to earn a second M.A. degree. I had been engaged in the M.A. in Biblical Studies program at Trinity Western University starting in September 2018. While there were many things I enjoyed about my studies in the Religious Studies Department at TWU, the main draw was building new relationships with some truly exceptional people--faculty, staff, fellow grad students and undergrads. Truly, TWU, was the single most friendly place I've ever had the privilege to study and work. Then came the pandemic and my studies and my teaching--Introduction to the New Testament--had to go online. That, combined with the fact that my supervisor moved from Langley to Calgary to pursue other academic pursuits, meant there was nothing to hold me at TWU. 

However, whether formal or informal, my studies continue. I am in the process of getting a website up and running by mid to late January 2021, titled, "The Musings of a Skeptical Believer." Sound familiar? The website will be found @ www.skepticsbelieve.com. There will be short posts/articles to read on a variety of "all things biblical" topics and texts. There will be book reviews and recommendations for other deeper study resources, such as podcasts, online courses, etc. There will be classes offered, hopefully both as audio (with pdfs) and as videos recordings (narrated slide decks). The first one that I'm working on is a weekly series on "The Fourth Gospel." I don't want to simply regurgitate what I have already studied and learned, so I am continuing to study "all things biblical" informally, but with much self-imposed structure that is requiring significant self-discipline. 

With my soon-to-be website, I am trying to reach and support as specific niche audience: those who have a faith--or are open to having a faith--but who are experiencing significant cognitive dissonance due to unresolved doubts, concerns, questions about matters related to the nature and will of God, the biblical claims regarding the divine nature of Jesus, the discrepancies found within the biblical texts, inconsistencies with extra-biblical scientific and/or historical information, troubling interpretations expressed by various forms of Christianity, etc. 

For those who hold to the Bible as the inerrant word of God and confident about what they have chosen to believe, my website will not be helpful. As is also true for those who have chosen to not believe and are not interested in exploring faith possibilities.  I respect that such individuals have chosen their convictions and are comfortable with their faith, or lack thereof. My goal is not to challenge or attack them, but to support and encourage those who have (or desire to have) a faith but are struggling to see how they can believe and yet doubt, have convictions and yet uncertainties. 

As I continue to educate myself, here is a list of books I am reading (or completed reading in 2020) and courses of study to which I am listening. My goal is not to impress anyone. Rather, my hope is that this gives those who might be interested in my website a picture of the kinds of topics that I will be addressing in its early days and/or plan to deal with if reader response justifies.  The main conviction behind all that I am doing is simply this: "Any faith that is not questioned is a faith that is not worth having." 

Books which I am currently reading or have recently read:

1. Religious Refugees by Mark Karris
2. The Apocryphal Gospels: A Very Short Introduction by Paul Foster
3. The Gospel of John by F. F. Bruce
4. How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture Then and Now by James L. Kugel
5. Mind the Gap by Matthias Henze
6. Love Matters More by Jared Byas
7. The Bible With and Without Jesus by Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Brettler
8. Genesis 1–11 by Edwin M. Good
9. Genesis for Normal People by Peter Enns & Jared Byas
10. Origins by Douglas Jacoby & Paul Copan
11. Republican Jesus by Tony Keddie
12. The Meaning of the Bible by Douglas Knight & Amy-Jill Levine
13. The Hebrew Bible: a Translation with Commentary by Robert Alter
14. The Canonical Gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke & John
15. Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi by Amy-Jill Levine
16. How the Bible Actually Works by Peter Enns
17. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Very Short Introduction by Timothy Lin
18. The Uncontrolling Love of God by Thomas Jay Oord
19. God Can’t by Thomas Jay Oord
20. When Christians Were Jews: The First Generation by Paula Fredriksen
21. When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible by Timothy Michael Law
22. The Bible Now by Richard Elliott Friedman & Shawna Dolansky
23. Ecclesiastes by Peter Enns
24. Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives by Phyllis Trible
25. Sex Difference in Christian Theology: Male, Female and Intersex in the Image of God by Megan K DeFranza
26. A High View of Scripture by Craig Allert
27. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel by R. Alan Culpepper
28. Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliott Friedman
29. Wrestling with God & Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition by Rabbi Steven Greenberg
30. Neither Complementarian nor Egalitarian: A Kingdom Corrective to the Evangelical Gender Debate by Michelle Lee Barnewall

Great Courses (via Audible.ca) with which I am currently engaged:

1. Ancient Mesopotamia: Like in the Cradle of Civilization––Professor Amanda H. Podany
2. The Old Testament––Professor Amy-Jill Levine
3. The New Testament––Professor Bart D.Ehrman

My Problems with Joshua and Judges, Resolved.

In another group that I meet with weekly (via Zoom), we are reading James L. Kugel’s How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now. Kugel is an Orthodox Jew who taught for years a Harvard University and then Bar Ilan University in Israel. As one reviewer of Kugel’s book noted: “Kugel's How to Read the Bible, [is] an awesome, thrilling and deeply strange book. Kugel, an emeritus professor of Hebrew literature at Harvard and, mark this, an Orthodox Jew, aims to prove that you can read the Bible rationally without losing God.” 

He begins with Genesis and works his way through the entire Hebrew Bible comparing and contrasting the interpretations of Second Temple Jews and the early Christians with the interpretations of modern biblical scholars (over the last 200 years). As the final chapter of his book demonstrates, it is quite the ride; one that each member of our group is challenged by and yet enjoying immensely.

In the last couple of weeks, we have read chapter 22, “Joshua and the Conquest of Canaan” and chapter 23, “Judges and Chiefs.” I have been a Jesus follower for more than 43 years and these two biblical texts, Joshua and Judges, have proven to be the most difficult for me to accept as “God-breathed.” This has been demonstrated by the fact that in my 35 plus years of preaching and teaching I have hardly mentioned, let alone taught, from these books. The number one reason for my reticence in endorsing these texts is the way they consistently portray the God of Israel (i.e., Yahweh) as an angry, vengeful, vindictive, warrior god who calls for and/or condones the slaughter of thousands upon thousands people (men, woman and children). The second reason, not separate from the first, is the choice of many of the so-called “judges” of Israel–some of whom are mentioned in Hebrews 11 as examples of faithful lives–specifically, Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah. First, there is Gideon, the idolator (Judges 8:22–28). Then there is Barak, the coward (Judges 4:1–10). Worse yet is Samson, the arrogant, immoral womanizer (all of Judges 14–16). And probably worst of all is Jephthah who made an impulsive vow to Yahweh and thus had to sacrifice his daughter as a burnt offering (Judges 11:30–40)! 

How is any of this consistent with the teachings of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels and specifically in the so-called “Sermon on the Mount” (Matthew 5–7). Read, again, what Jesus taught here and tell me how the books of Joshua and Judges reconcile with Jesus’ teachings:

• “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” (5:9). 
• “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40 and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41 and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. 42 Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you” (5:38–42)
• “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (5:43–48)
• “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors…For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; 15 but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” (6:12, 14)
• “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. 2 For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. 3 Why do you see the speck in your neighbour’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your neighbour, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbour’s eye” (7:1–5).
• “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets” (7:12).

Jesus' life and teachings are the reasons I became a Christian 43 years ago. I’m glad that at that time I didn’t know anything about the books of Joshua and Judges and/or that I wasn’t challenged to believe that all the biblical texts are word-for-word from the mouth of God or that the Bible as a whole is inerrant–i.e.,without historical, scientific or theological error, inaccuracy or contradiction. Had that been a criteria for me being baptized into Christ, and had I known about the books of Joshua and Judges, I may not have become a Christian! 

If Jesus is the Word become flesh––i.e., that Jesus is the image of the invisible God and the exact representation of his being (and I have chosen to believe that)––then I cannot accept that the god who is revealed in the books of Joshua and Judges, is the true God. Rather, the god of Joshua and Judges, and many other portions of the Hebrew Bible, has more in common with the Canaanite storm god Baal than he does with Jesus. I cannot believe in a god who commands and/or condones violence as a means to accomplish his goals in this world. I cannot believe in a god who is vengeful, petulant, wrath filled, and who commands humans to slaughter or capture and enslave other humans. I cannot believe in a god who is so dramatically inconsistent in character and action with Jesus’ life and teachings. If God in the flesh calls his followers to be peacemakers, to turn the other cheek, to forgive those who sin against us, to not judge others and to do to others what we would have them to us–and he does–then the invisible God must do the same! This is not the god who is on display in the books of Joshua and Judges. Instead, the God whom the Word became flesh has made known to us through Jesus’ life and teachings, is the God I choose to believe in and will strive to imitate and obey. 

Kugel's book, as well as many others like his, have helped me identify the cognitive dissonance I began to experience part way through my life as a Christian but denied and/or buried for many years. Finally, I allowed my confusion and disagreement to rise to the surface so I could resolve it, either by giving up my faith in Jesus entirely or by giving up my faith in an inerrant, word-for-word God-breathed Bible. I chose the latter and not the former. As Kugel, and others, have helped me see, one can read the Bible rationally without losing God!

Paul's Letter to the Romans: It Can Be Understood

 In one of my weekly small group meetings we have been reading and discussing Paul’s letter to the Romans, a chapter a week. I’m doing my best to try to read Romans as if I’d never read or even heard of it before. I’m also asking myself, what the Jesus followers in Rome–who would have been mostly illiterate or at best functionally illiterate–would/could have possibly understood as Paul’s letter was read to them. 

Paul knew the people to whom he was writing at least in a general sense, even though he had not preached the gospel there. There is little doubt that the make up of the Roman ecclesia* would not have been much different than the demographics of any of the ecclesiae* that Paul was  more intimately acquainted with. Paul did not write this letter, or any other that we possess, so that only the fully literate and well educated could understand what he was saying. Paul wrote so that the common people, often less than literate, could grasp his meaning.  I am convinced that his letter to the Romans must have been understandable to the “masses” and not just to the elite and educated. Yet, many modern day theologians refer to Paul’s letter to the Romans as a great theological treatise. But, is that really what Paul wrote? If it was not readily understandable to masses, of what use would it have been? 

It never ceases to amaze me how complicated we make Paul’s letter to the Romans, deriving meanings from it and using it as a source of proof text for doctrines that would have been incomprehensible to the Roman Jesus followers. And we do much the same, though to a lesser degree, with the rest of Paul’s letters. It, also, never ceases to amaze me how we strive to complicate, systemize, and thus institutionalize Christianity and thus ensure the need for specially trained professionals who can explain it to the rest of us. 

Certainly we do need lots of help with understanding the historical contexts and the ancient cultures in which the authors/editors and their intended audiences lived. Vital to my understanding of the meaning of the New Testament documents has been the work of historians, linguists and archaeologists rather than has been the work of most theologians. Mostly theologians have confused me, deriving meanings that I simply cannot draw from the texts as I read them. However, by providing as much clarity as possible on the historical and cultural contexts, historians, linguists and archaeologist have helped me to better understand the relatively straightforward gospel message and its implications for my life.

If this resonates at all with you, I would encourage you to “read the Bible again, for the first time.” You and I can understand most of what Paul was communicating to his Jewish and Gentile audiences, as long as we have some basic grasp on the historical and cultural contexts of the first century CE Jewish and Gentiles.**

*************

*ecclesia is the English transcription of the Greek word εκκλησια which means “assembly” (literally “called out”). Sadly it is “translated” in most English translations as “church”. However, the Jesus followers in a specific geographic location who met together are an “assembly.” Note: ecclesiae is the plural of ecclesia, thus “assemblies.” 

**If you want to understand more of what Paul and other NT authors wrote, you must educate yourself on the historical and cultural context of first-century life in the Greco-Roman world. The NT world was so much different in so many respects to the world in which we live now. We can’t afford to ignore the political, economic, social, cultural and religious contexts in which these people lived. Here are some resources to get you started learning about life in the first century CE:

• https://www.ancient.eu/article/637/roman-daily-life/
• https://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/life.html
• https://www.unrv.com/culture/daily-life.php
• https://www.fcusd.org/cms/lib/CA01001934/Centricity/Domain/3209/12b_%20Daily%20Life%20in%20Ancient%20Rome%20Readings.pdf
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIjpx1ymRQ4
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w375OMm5otM

The Biblical Language Center

 Ignore my previous post. In searching for resources, I ran across "The Biblical Language Center" which provides both online, asynchronous courses as well as live video, synchronous classes. You learn the language of your choice by being immersed in it as if it were a living (rather than dead) language. They have been doing this for 20 years or more and have a who whack of well educated and experienced teachers and other staff to provide the online and/or print resources to support their approach. I'm signed in to take the free trial online course in biblical Hebrew (the first 4 of 20 classes), just to see what they do and just how wholeheartedly I can recommend their teaching method. 

Again, I take my offer to teach biblical Hebrew and/or Greek off the table. This has me beat – https://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/

 

You, yes even you, can learn to read biblical Hebrew &/or Greek

 

If you are interested in learning how to read biblical Greek and/or biblical Hebrew, I can help you do that. I'm looking for a few study partners who are willing to commit a couple of hours per week to meeting online in order to immerse themselves in specific texts from the bible. No previous knowledge of Greek or Hebrew is required. If fact, it will probably be better if you've never taken a course in a biblical language.

I have spent many years and countless hours studying these (and other) ancient languages in a very traditionally academic way. Officially, I have completed:

• 4 years of Classical and Koine Greek
• 3 years of Classical Latin
• 3 years of Biblical Hebrew
• 1 year of Biblical Aramaic
• 1 semester of Akkadian

I did this mostly while completing my B.A. in Classics and M.A. in Hebrew Bible and Ancient Judaism at the University of British Columbia. I am very familiar with the academic approach to teaching/learning these languages. And I am grateful for the opportunities I have had. But, unless you're pursuing an academic degree, I don't think it is the best way to teach or to learn biblical languages.

Instead, more people could learn more about these languages and even learn how to read key passages in Greek and/or Hebrew (and Aramaic, if you wish), if we took less of an academic, step-by-step approach and more an immersive approach. Rather than spending most of our time together talking about these languages in English, my plan is to jump into the so-called "deep end" right away with a small group of fellow learners.

• For those interested in Hebrew, in our very first session you'll learn to read this (Genesis 1:1):

 בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃

• For those interested in Greek, in our very first session you'll learn to read this (John 1:1): 

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Yes, there has to be some "memorization" of vocabulary and grammar rules, but we will do so as we progress through each text and encounter new vocabulary and grammar in our readings. And the goal is not memorization per se, so much as it is familiarization, so that you'll not be learning by rote but learning by practice.

For me, there is nothing like reading these incredible texts in the languages in which they were originally written! And along the way we'll talk about how these texts were copied, transmitted and translated and what impact those processes had on the text itself and on our understanding of the texts.

Questions I'm sure you have:

1. What is the cost? We'll start with 4 meetings that I will offer "free of charge." For those interested in continuing after the first 4 sessions, we will together negotiate what we all agree is a reasonable fee.
2. When will we start? We'll work that out when a few people express their interest, but it is my hope to start meeting regularly by mid to late October.
3. Will there be homework between online sessions? Yes, there will be some, but mostly focused on you practicing reading the texts that we are reading together in the group and on familiarizing yourself with new vocabulary and grammar rules.
4. What do you have to lose? Nothing, that I can see.
5. What do you have to gain? So much, including the satisfaction and enjoyment of reading biblical Hebrew and/or Greek and an increased understanding of these amazing ancient texts.

If this sounds interesting to you, please contact me, brian.felushko@gmail.com, before October 1, and let's see what we can work out in terms of making either a biblical Hebrew and/or biblical Greek RDG (Reading and Discussion Group) happen.

"Tales of the Earliest World"

I'm engaged in a long term personal project of reading "again for the first time" Genesis 1–11. As a major part of that project, I'm reading translations that come from the minds of scholars who are not, consciously or unconsciously, wanting to support a particular theological worldview. Rather, these scholars are experts in the ancient Hebrew language and are attempting to translate Genesis as an ancient Hebrew literary text.

To that end I have already found Robert Alter's translation to be enjoyable to read/listen to (I have at the audio book as well as the printed text), as well as informative. I've also benefitted from reading Richard Elliott Friedman's translation of the Torah.

Today, I began reading Edwin M. Good's translation of Genesis 1–11. As he states in his Preface and Introduction, I can so identify with his purpose in reexamining this text in the latter years of his life. He died on Sept. 12, 2014 at the age of 86, while his book, Tales of the Earliest World, was published in 2011, when he was 83! So far I've only read his translation of Genesis 1:1–2:4, yet it has been so helpful in both challenging and confirming my own translation attempts.

The posting about his death by his Stanford University (where he was on the faculty of the Religious Studies department and the Classics department from 1956–1991) included the following comments (emphasis is mine): "Known for his translations of and literary commentary on the Hebrew Bible, Good approached the text as a collection of ancient stories. He traced their origins in the oral tradition and their connections with one another."

Let me draw now on a few quotes from Good's preface and introduction which explain very clearly a perspective regarding this amazing literary text with which I wholeheartedly identify and/or agree.

1. "My point is not to set forth the Final Truth about these chapters. I am pretty well convinced that there is no Final Truth to them, which is not to say that they have no truth in them...One of my aims is to assist people to read with care and to make up their own minds more clearly."

My complaint with regard to many popular and scholarly books and articles about the portions of the biblical text is that they often present their conclusions as the right or the "most right" truth. With the popular books there is little effort to show how the author arrived at his/her conclusions, and they often skip the step of what the text may have meant to its author and the intended original leaders. In many scholarly efforts, there is so much detail that only experts in the original language, history and archaeology can possible follow their argumentation. Surely, there has to be a happy middle ground, with the goal of presenting the author's perspective in a such way that it encourages the readers to seek out their own.

2. "Not that I will be shy about saying what I think. But I deeply desire readers to understand that my intention is not to provide them with a pre-digested “true perception” of these stories, but to show what in my own ways I have perceived. I have no difficulty with the idea that one outcome of that reading may be a level of disagreement with me. Fine. Use your own eyes and mind with all their capabilities and qualities, and see what you see."

The key to me, here, is what we call "humility." This allows one to come to new and fresh conclusions and to hold to them without the defensiveness that comes from arrogance. It is a challenge, but one that can be achieved, to hold to one's conviction with humility.

3. "In fact, one of the surprises in pushing my way through the thickets of these chapters was how my perceptions have changed since I wrote earlier on the same material. There are some statements here that I could not have made twenty or thirty years ago. On the present trip through these texts I saw a good many things that I simply never noticed before, and I think some of them were for me at those times unthinkable thoughts. Other things I thought back then prevented my seeing some of what I see now. I am grateful to whatever elements of life and experience have made possible such change."

I can so relate to this, almost word for word. I, too, am grateful for the people and experiences that have encouraged me to stop being defensive (i.e., arrogant and/or insecure about my faith) and thus to approach the text with renewed humility and curiosity. The result was that the scales fell from my eyes.

4. "As the Old Testament, it is the first volume of a two-volume Christian book, and a great many people suppose they are very comfortable with reading Christian books. The New Testament, however, is also the product of an ancient culture, or a combination of them, Jewish, Greek, and Roman, of the first centuries of the Common Era. As products of their times, both volumes think in unfamiliar ways. Many are quick to gloss over this strangeness, partly because there is a long theological tradition of a doctrine of divine inspiration, which says that God made the book so it would bring us truth."

The first step in interpreting the biblical texts is to do so in ways that are consistent with their original contexts. To hold to a view of inspiration that necessitates biblical inerrancy is to put twenty-first century knowledge and understanding into the minds of both the authors and their intended audience. No where is this more true than in the first eleven chapters of Genesis. To quote another of my newly favourite translators, that is simply an absurd approach. These texts had to make sense to the ancients who wrote them, read them and believed them.

5. It seems to me that recent decades have newly seen the Bible, whether Hebrew or Christian, as an artifact in the public and secular possession rather than as the exclusive property of the pious. My issue in any case is not the search for contemporary relevance. As a longtime student of antiquity, I am most impressed by the fact that the Hebrew Bible, and therefore the book of Genesis, was not written for us. I suspect the thought that their work might ever be translated into any other language never came to the storytellers’ minds." 

The texts that make up the entirety of the Christian Bible are truly ancient, written a long time ago, in a culture far away and radically different from virtually anything that we modern-day readers have experienced or even observed. Words did not mean to them what those same words mean to us, even if one is trained to read ancient Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. There are numerous examples of words, phrases, grammatical structures and idioms that we can only guess at what they meant because we have so few examples of their usage in other contexts. Translators must interpret to translate, but that doesn't mean there are alternative translations that would be justified.

As I continue with this long term project, I will, no doubt, glean many important and often challenging insights from the likes of Good, as well as Altar, Friedman and others, whose expertise and attempts to be as objective as possible, I trust.

"That's Just Your Interpretation."

 "That's just your interpretation," is what I hear or read when someone doesn't agree with what another person says about the meaning of a biblical passage. Of course it is their interpretation! All thoughts about what any biblical text means involves interpretation. And the different meaning that "someone" gives is "just their interpretation." Interpretations are all that we've got.

There is no biblical passage that simply "means what it says," because every reader of that passage must interpret in order to know what it says. Even what appear to be the most straightforward passages require interpretation and thus "mean" a variety of different things to different people. Some interpretations may seem more reasonable than others, but even that evaluation of interpretations is an interpretation.

Take, "Love your neighbour as yourself." That seems straightforward enough, right? Yet, it isn't straightforward at all, if by straightforward we mean that the meaning is so clear that interpretation is not required. The reality is that every word/phrase in this briefly stated command requires interpretation. What is "love"? Who is "your neighbour"? What does it mean to "love [another person] as yourself"?

"Well, if we just go back to the original language, the meaning is plain, right?" Actually, no! Reading biblical passages in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, still requires interpretation and often demonstrates greater ambiguity than reading the translation. What did that word/phrase mean in this ancient language and in this ancient culture? Translators must make those decisions when choosing the appropriate which word/phrase in the modern language best represents the ancient word/phrase. In the translation, we have several layers of interpretation.

The most concerning thing about this to me is that we often take the translation we are reading and we assume it best represents what the original language and what the actual author meant. And it seems the more emotional a topic is the more we're are sure that our own translation and our own interpretation (or that of our denomination or favourite modern author) is the only right (or even the best) understanding of what the meaning that was intending by the ancient author of the text!

Not only do we then reject other interpretations as not the best, we often label and vilify other interpretations as intentionally false and even impugn the motives of those whose interpretation we disagree.

We all interpret. We are all, even experts, interpret. We have no other option. But what I think we must do is that we must come to and hold to our interpretations with a large dose of humility. In other words, "This is what I think Paul was talking about in (say) Romans 1:18–32, [a passage I am currently digging into] but I realize that is my interpretation, and therefore, I am open to considering other interpretations." Now, considering other interpretations does not mean that I have to throw away my own. On the one hand, hearing other interpretations may have the effect of strengthening my own without invalidating theirs. On the other hand, having an open mind may help me see where my interpretation was less than the best.

How I wish I could sit down with the apostle Paul and ask him to explain what he was trying to say when he wrote each and every passage in each and every one of his letters––especially, right now, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6––but that isn't possible. So, all I've got in the end is my interpretation. And all you've got is your interpretation.

And when our interpretations disagree with others' interpretations we can either choose to assert that our own interpretations are the correct ones and theirs are wrong. Wow! That's pretty arrogant, isn't it, that only we know (or I know) what Paul actually meant?

So, disagree with my interpretations if you choose. But realize, please, that's just your interpretation!

Genesis 1:1–3a "Again, for the First Time"

 What do I see when I read Genesis 1:1–3a “again, for the first time?”

1.     Note various translations

a.     Friedman: “In the beginning of God’s creating, the skies and the earth––when the earth was shapeless and formless, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and God’s spirit was hovering on the face of the water—God said, “Let there be light.”

b.     Alter: “When God began to create heaven and earth, and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God’s breath hovering over the waters, God said, “Let there be light.”

c.     NRSV: “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. Then God said, ‘Let there be light.’”

2.     What I see in the opening words to Genesis is that before God began creating the “earth was formless and void and darkness was over the face of the deep.” In other words, when God said, “Let there be light,” there wasn’t “nothing” but rather the “earth” existed in a state of chaos. This is not creatio ex nihilo (i.e., creation from nothing), but rather creation from something, the watery chaos that was the formless and shapeless earth!

a.     Note, please 2 Peter 3:4b–5, “For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!” They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water.”

b.     The author of 2 Peter wrote that “earth was formed out of water…”! That’s exactly what Gen 1:1–3a says.

3.     But what about Hebrews 11:3, doesn’t it say that the universe was created out of nothing? Actually, no it doesn’t.

a.     Hebrews 11:3 reads, “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.”

b.     This verse does not teach that “the worlds” were created out of nothing, but that which is visible was created out of that which was not visible. Since “darkness was over the face of the deep” and there was no light yet, obviously the formless and shapeless earth was not visible.

c.     What can you see, when there is absolutely no light? Nothing…absolutely nothing. But just because you cannot see anything does not mean that something does not exist.

4.     Bottom line, the beginning of the creation story in Genesis 1, is consistent with all other ancient Near East creation stories, where the gods (or a god) does not create the world out of nothing, but rather he creates by turning what exists in chaos (usually immersed in water) into that which is ordered and structured. For the ancients, the seas represented chaos, so taming/defeated/stilling the seas demonstrated the power of the god/gods.

5.     The authors/editors of Genesis wanted its readers to know that it was Elohim (God) who created order out of chaos. Compare Job 26:12–13.

6.     https://peteenns.com/petes-bible-trivia-bonanza-11-2-peter-was-clearly-written-by-a-godless-liberal-but-i-mean-that-in-a-good-way/

"God Will Protect Us." Really?!

Before reading my thoughts, check out this article from the Toronto Star.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2020/08/17/god-will-protect-us-alberta-prayer-event-now-linked-to-at-least-17-covid-19-cases.html

I have been a Christian for more than 43 years now. I spent 35 plus years working in the full-time ministry. My life and career has been about meeting together with other Christians face to face, individually and in groups, small and large. We would greet one another with hugs. We would have conversations together, pray together, sing to one another, instruct and encourage one another. None of these things have we been able to do for more than five months now. I am starving for human connection that is real life, not virtual. Virtual meeting together is like being incredibly thirsty and yet all I can do is see a glass of cold, pure water, but can not touch it.

But I, and a number of my closest friends have underlying, chronic health conditions. So meeting together is out of the question, for now and the foreseeable future. 

Yet I see video after video of groups of Christians meeting together without any regard for physical distancing, not wearing masks, singing, etc. Now, that is their personal choice...I get that, even if they are choosing to disregard their health officials’ regulations and guidelines. But what about their family and friends who are physically compromised? Are they choosing to stay away from those people or, at the very least, staying physically distant and/or masking when they are together?

I get that some believe the pandemic is a hoax/conspiracy, that it doesn’t exist, or that it is no worse than the flu and that the health authorities and governments have either overreacted or are purposely trying to misrepresent the reality of this ‘minor’ virus. Others believe that even if the virus is real, they have the right to live as they choose and run the risk of contracting the virus and thus passing it on to others. Or maybe they believe that the COVID virus is part of God’s plan to test us and see whether we will "obey God rather than man" (Acts 5:29). Since God is in control, and thus he has either caused or allowed this virus to impact the lives of billions, there is no sense trying to resist him (Acts 5:39). And anyway, as Christians, true believers on the only narrow path, God will protect us as we stand for our democratic right to meet together (Psalm 91). So it should be “church” as normal. And those who call themselves Christians but choose to live in self-protective separation, they are living in fear and not by faith.

But I don’t accept any of that. However, according to the COVID conspiracy theorists and the COVID minimalists, the millions who are like me are simply weak-minded, weak-willed, weak of faith, and/or intellectually challenged and thus we are being deceived into believing the far-left socialist propaganda. As one of the world’s most prominent conspiracy theorists recently said, the far left is trying to, “Take away your guns, destroy your Second Amendment. No religion, no anything. Hurt the Bible. Hurt God.” And after all, there are those who regard this person as a true believer and follower of Jesus. So he, and others like him, must be speaking the truth.

Maybe those who say they care about the Bible should listen more closely to what the Bible says about those who claim to speak for God.

“But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.” You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?” If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.” (Deuteronomy 18:20-22)

The Bible – Try Reading It Again for the First Time.

In the late 80s and early 90s one of the leading cereal companies, Kelloggs, initiated a new marketing approach to revive sales of its oldest flake cereal, Corn Flakes. The tag line was this: Kelloggs’ Corn Flakes. Taste them again for the first time! 

Click on this link and watch their 30 second spot that aired during the 1992 Super Bowl: https://adage.com/videos/kelloggs-corn-flakes-taste-corn-flakes/1090

 

The 30 second spots in this ad campaign follow the same script regardless of the actor. They comment on how boring the cereal looks because “it’s just flakes”. There are no nuts, no fruit, no marshmallows, nothing but simple flakes. But then they taste the cereal and are immediately impressed with its simplicity.

 

Corn Flakes had been around a long time and probably almost every American had eaten them, but they were completing against a lot of cereals that specialized in adding nuts, fruit, marshmallows, frosting, etc. Kelloggs reverted to selling simplicity, honesty and integrity to convince people that Corn Flakes didn’t need to be dressed up. If people would taste them again, for the first time, they would be reminded of how good they were.

 

When it comes to the Bible, lots of ministries have tried to dress it up, spin it, add things to it because they perceive that people think the Bible is boring. It’s so old—in fact, it is ancient—and thus how could it possibly be interesting to the “average” member or seeker? Church leaders are convinced they have to add nuts, fruit, marshmallows and/or frosting to the Bible in order to awaken interest in it. They buy into the idea that people want to taste the flakes and are only interested in the creative additions. I’ve personally witnessed pastors apologizing for reading from the Bible anything longer than a verse or two and, at times, even stating that this will be boring. The presentation of biblical texts is often paraphrased passages used as prooftexts or as jumping off points from which to present more interesting, more relevant material. Members and guests alike at worship services are encouraged to repeat or memorize one-liners that summarize the preacher’s main point but are seldom encouraged to reread and further deliberate on the biblical text itself.

 

In contrast, I am convinced that those of us who teach the Bible, need to read more of the biblical text publicly as Timothy was encouraged to do: “Until I arrive, give attention to the public reading of scripture, to exhorting, to teaching” (1 Timothy 4:13, emphasis is mine). And then we need to call people to actually read the biblical texts and to do so, as much as possible, from a fresh perspective—that is, as if they were reading them for the first time. I have heard many Christians state, in one way or another, that reading the biblical texts is “boring.” It has lost its freshness and its power to speak to our hearts and our lives. There are many reasons for that, but mainly I believe it is because our perspective on the biblical texts leads to a very restrictive interpretation that limits what the Bible teaches to things we already know.

 

Recently, I’ve been listening to the recorded lectures by Dr. Dale B. Martin of Yale University as he taught an introductory course to the New Testament. In the first lecture he challenges his students to “attempt to scrape our brains clean of what we think we know about the New Testament and try to approach it from the outside, as something new and strange.” But his challenge goes deeper than most Christians would agree to, as he explains how he approaches his teaching “from a self-consciously secular, non-confessional point of view. That means approaching the New Testament not as “scripture” but simply as ancient documents produced by the movement that eventually became Christianity.” In his accompanying textbook (published by Yale University in 2012), Martin writes, “Therefore, readers are urged to leave behind their preconceived notions of the New Testament and read it as if they had never heard of it before. This involves understanding the historical context of the New Testament and imagining how it might appear to an ancient person.” He champions the “historical-critical” approach to the New Testament which “anchors ‘the meaning’ of the text in its ancient context: what the original authors ‘intended’ or the original readers likely ‘understood.’” I truly am convinced that without an understanding of what the biblical texts meant in their original contexts, to their original hearers/readers, then we limit what we can learn from these amazing creative texts.

But to read the biblical texts from a fresh perspective, as if we are reading them for the first time, is quite a challenging task, for any and all of us who have been reading/hearing these texts for many years. I am convinced, as well, that the historical-critical method is the best way to get not only a fresh perspective but an accurate perspective. As one of my New Testament professors wrote, “The search for what the writings meant should be an indispensable part in the spiritual search for what they are taken to mean today” (Thomas R. Hatina). By going back to trying to understand what the original author’s intent might have been and what these writings would have meant to the original hearers/readers, one can gain many fresh perspectives and one’s excitement and enthusiasm for reading and reflecting on these texts can be reinitiated.

 

If you’ve read this far, then I’m thinking you are interested in reading the Bible again for the first time! To that end, I highly recommend Dr. Martin’s lectures and textbook. Here are the links you will need:

 

·      Audio: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/introduction-to-new-testament-history-literature-audio/id341652017

·      Video: https://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152

·      Textbook: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B007R5DCF6/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

 

 

 

There is NO "most accurate" version of the Bible

No One Version of the Bible is THE Most Accurate or THE Only True Version

 

When you are reading your favourite version of the New Testament (NT)—be it the NIV, the KVJ, the NRSV, the NASV, the ESV, etc.—do you know what you are reading? You are reading one version of the NT and not the true, the only, or even the most accurate (etc.) version of the NT. There are three reasons why your favourite version of the NT is not “the true, the only, or even the most accurate version of the NT.

 

1.     We do not possess any of the twenty-seven original writings that make up the New Testament—nothing that is really close to the originals.

2.     There are literally thousands of ancient manuscripts (mostly partial, and some just tiny fragments) of the books of the New Testament available which textual critics have spent their lives examining (down to the smallest letter and the least stroke of the pen) in order to produce what they think might be represent the original writings.

3.     Experts in first century Greek use these “reconstructed Greek texts” from which to translate Greek into English (or any other modern language), and there is no such thing as a “word-for-word” correspondence between Greek and any other language.

 

Further Explanation is Needed

 

Textual critics invest the majority of their adult lives making what they believe are the best decisions about which of the many options provided by the thousands of partial, and often fragmentary, Greek manuscripts, are most likely to best represent the original. But textual critics disagree, among themselves, all the time on which choices are the best ones. Thus, their recreated Greek texts are full of footnotes that explain why they made the decisions that they did in each and every case.

 

Translators then take these reconstructed Greek texts and attempt to translate them into a modern language. These translators usually work in teams (i.e., committees) and represent various denominations, so that there is less chance (but not zero chance) of doctrinal bias creeping into the translation. There are also different theories on how best to translate one language into another in a way that best represents what the original authors were trying to communicate. Translation always requires a level of interpretation, since the translators can’t ask the authors directly what their intent was. These scholars spend their lives learning and striving to improve their knowledge and skills.

 

Textual critics and translators are unknown (to most) and unsung heroes. If they did not choose to invest their lives in such scholarly pursuits and a lifetime of learning, we would not have any version of the Bible that we could read. Some of the earliest translators of the Bible were excommunicated, imprisoned, tortured and executed! To imply, that somehow these behind-the-scenes and unappreciated workers are somehow engaged in a conspiracy to misrepresent or edit out portions of the biblical text, could not be further from the truth! Unless you and I could read Greek (and Hebrew and Aramaic) and had access to the ancient manuscripts of the biblical texts, we would have no biblical texts to read today. Think about it. You may prefer one version over another. You may not like how one version is too simplistically translated or how another is too academically worded. However, in the end you have not one version but many versions you, in your own language, that you can read, meditate on and study to your heart’s content!

 From this...                       

 To this...

 

My Opinion as to the Usefulness of Various Versions

 

So, if you don’t read first century Greek—and even if you do—which English versions of the NT might be considered the most trustworthy? From least trustworthy to most trustworthy, here is my opinion:

 

·      Denominationally created “translations” are often full of inaccuracies because the translator’s choices are not based on unbiased or collective scholarship but on doctrinal bias, with the unapologetic intention of promoting their denomination’s unique teaching. Probably the best example of this is the New World Translation completed in 1950 exclusively by and for Jehovah’s Witnesses. Where their translation disagrees with other versions, they claim that theirs is correct and the others are wrong.  Call me a skeptic—because I am—but I avoid any translation that is the result of one denomination’s efforts.

 

·      Paraphrases are the least useful for anything but casual reading because they are not translations of the Greek. A paraphrase is not the same thing as a translation. While a translation attempts to relate what the text of the NT says, a paraphrase attempts to explain the meaning of the translation. Therefore, the paraphrase is more like a commentary. Paraphrased translations use modern language and idioms to try to capture the thought and essence behind the original text. E.g., The Living Bible, The Message, The Good News Bible, Today’s English Version, Easy-to-Read Version, the Amplified Bible, etc. My advice for anyone who uses one of these versions as your favourite, is to also read from at least one or two committee translations (below). Paraphrases attempt to make the very ancient biblical texts modern. But they aren’t modern, they are ancient and need to be appreciated in their ancient contexts before they can be applied in our modern culture.

 

·      Translations by one person lack the “check and balance” that is part of translations undertaken by multi-denominational committees. However, one-person translations are not necessarily inaccurate and sometimes are actually quite refreshing and eye-opening. Recently, I have enjoyed Robert Alter’s translation of the Hebrew Bible. The preface to his translation and the footnotes within help explain both the principles and specifics of his translation choices. One-person translations, in my opinion, vary significantly depending on the knowledge, experience and integrity of the person who is translating.

 

·      Translations by committees of multi-denominational scholars are the safest bet, but at times accommodations that are made sometimes allow for the continuation of traditional translations, which are often not accurate (or even actual translations). My pet peeves include words like “baptism,” “angel,” and “deacon” which are not translations of Greek, but transliterations (see chart below). Examples of other accommodations include translating “ekklesia” as “church,” “doulos” as “servant” and representing the Hebrew tetragrammaton YHWH as “LORD.” There are many others, where non-translations by early English translators are maintained which actually obscure the meaning(s) of the original Greek.

 

Bottom line, my advice for those of us who cannot fluently read and grasp the full significance of first century Greek, (or in the case of the Old Testament biblical Hebrew) is to read from a variety of English translations. My personal suggestion is that everyone should have a copy of the NET Bible (with translator notes). I don’t think this translation is always the best, but it is transparent. There are over 60,000 translator notes that explain why the translators chose the word or phrase that they did and often have a more “literal” or “alternate” translation in the notes. This version is available in both digital and print versions. For more information, see https://netbible.com/

 

Appendix – Examples of Untranslated/Mistranslated Words

 

English Word	Greek/Hebrew Word	Meaning of Greek/Hebrew Word
Baptism	Baptisma – βάπτισμα	immersion, submersion
Angel	Angelos – ἄγγελος	a messenger, envoy, one who is sent
Deacon	Diakanos – διάκονος	minister, servant, one who executes the commands of another
Christ	Christos – Χριστός	anointed = Hebrew “Messiah” which also means “anointed”
Church	Ekklesia – ἐκκλησία	assembly, gathering of citizens
Servant	Doulos – δοῦλος	slave, one who serves in obedience to another’s will
LORD	Yahweh – יְהוָֹה	the proper name of the God of Israel, unpronounced by Jews, sometimes referred to as “the Name” or the tetragrammaton.