Through Immigrant's Eyes? Reading the Bible from Various Perspectives

Institute of Biblical Research is a premier biblical studies fellowship guided by evangelical principles. IBR sponsors morning devotions at the annual meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature, and an annual lecture.

This year's annual lecture was entitled "Reading the Bible through Other Lenses: New Perspectives and Challenging Vistas," and given by Denver Seminary professor M. Daniel Carroll. The premise was that we can discover valid new interpretations of the Bible if we look through the eyes of the diaspora community. By diaspora community, Prof. Carroll refers to those who migrate to other countries, such as Latinos crossing the border into the U.S. It was very stimulating, but ultimately I have some serious disagreements.

In recent decades, we've been challenged to look at the Bible from various perspectives. How would our interpretation of various passages change if we read the text from the perspective of a woman, of an African, or of a slave? No doubt our own experiences often prevent us from hearing the word of God from these other perspectives.

Prof. Carroll gave some examples. He suggested that Abraham's lie about his wife being his sister might be understood differently if we looked at it from the eyes of an "undocumented worker" (no doubt he meant to say "illegal immigrant”). Accordingly, Abraham was an immigrant who was responsible for feeding his clan, and so desperate to do so during the famine that he was willing to risk Sara. Such risks, Prof. Carroll said, must be taken during desperate times, as reflected in the plight of many immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexican border.

Prof. Carroll also pointed out to Joseph, Prince of Egypt, who adopted Egyptian customs, but still named his children with "Hebrew" names, retained his native language, and insisted on being buried in his home country. Prof. Carroll then asked if this might have implications for the requirement of learning English in the U.S.

A third example (although there were several more) was Ruth. He suggested that we might be able to understand the book of Ruth if we read it from the viewpoint of an immigrant.

Now for my disagreements.

Let me first pass on an urgency of Gordon Fee's, that we must do exegesis in the context of the Church. By exegesis, I refer to the process of interpretation whereby we ascertain the interpretation that the author meant to convey. Prof. Fee was saying that he, as a Pentecostal, desperately needs to hear what Presbyterians and Baptists and Methodists and Anglicans, etc. have to say about the text. As a Baptist, I spot things in the Bible that a Presbyterian might overlook. Since I'm not a Pentecostal, I might overlook a valid concern in the biblical text that a Pentecostal might see. So, Dr. Fee is right to say that we need each other to help hear the biblical text.

All this is true of the other perspectives as well. In a sermon series through 1 Timothy, I remember giving a short shrift treatment to the text of 1 Tim 5 dealing with widows. And then on the following Monday when re-thinking the Sunday service, I realized that a good portion of the church consisted of widows—I missed an important text simply because I made no attempt to understand it through someone else’s experience. Consequently, when we look at the biblical text, we should attempt to read it from multiple perspectives.

But ultimately, since exegesis is all about determining the author's original intention, the one set of glasses that is all important is that of the author. For the Pauline letters, we must put on the glasses of a first century Hellenistic Jew. For Micah, we must put on the glasses of an 8th century Israelite.

I think it is improbable that the book of Ruth was written from the viewpoint of an immigrant. Historically, reading Ruth with the eyes of an immigrant might help us understand how Ruth felt, but this does not help us understand how the author wanted us to understand the book. I suspect that the author’s perspective was that of a Hebrew living in Israel looking at the immigrant, which is quite different from the converse situation.

Likewise, the story of Abraham and his lie was not written to be read from the eyes of an immigrant. Consequently, it is all-together irrelevant for the interpretation of the story what the motive for Abraham’s lie was. The reality, according to the biblical author’s perspective, was that Abraham risked the Covenant Promise by giving the mother of his future progeny to the Egyptian king, and so failed in his faith. Reading the text from an immigrant’s perspective might make one more sympathetic with Abraham, but this was extraneous to the author’s intention.

If I may be capricious—for the sake of looking on the other side of the equation…, one of Dr. Carroll’s examples lends itself to be read from the perspective of an American capitalist. Joseph the immigrant came into Egypt, learned the Egyptian language, and adopted Egyptian customs, and achieved the highest possible success as an Egyptian. As the leader of his country, his first obligation was to protect his own citizenry. This is why he sold wheat to non-citizens for a profit, and did not indiscriminately allow foreigners to deplete Egypt’s resources.

Ultimately, Kenneth E. Bailey's works on understanding the Bible through Middle Eastern eyes is so much more valuable for interpreting the Bible.

Which Bible Translation Is the Best?

English is privileged above all other languages to have many excellent translations. In the Bible translations wars, it is embarrassing that we fight so vigorously over which one is the best, when in fact any of our top five translations are better than any Spanish or Chinese or Russian or Indian version. Few of the 4 million Nagas in the Himalayan foothills have access to a version in their native language. Thus, it is with some embarrassment that I dare give my opinion on English translations.

Task Oriented Translations

Preliminarily, I deny that there is such a thing as the BEST English translation. The issue for English versions is which one is best for the particular job. We have to ask, Which version is best for…

• Evangelism or new converts? (New Living Translation)
• Detailed word-for-word study? (English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, American Standard Version 1901)
• Public reading? (New International Version)
• Intensive reading programs such as read-the-Bible-in-a-year programs? (New Living Translation)
• Children? (New International readers’ Version—NIrV)
• Adults with reading disabilities or difficulties? (New International readers’ Version—NIrV)
• Solemn or stately occasions? (KJV; New King James Version)
• The most powerful vocabulary to convey difficult concepts found in the Greek? (New English Bible)
• Memorization? (New International Version)
• Artistic, high impact rendering (The Message)

While Bible users should settle on one primary version, they should recognize that some translations are more effective for certain tasks.

Formal Equivalent vs. Dynamic Equivalence

Translations can be placed between two extremes. On the far left are those versions which attempt a word-for-word equivalence. This is called “formal equivalence.” This approach attempts to give exact representation to the Greek and Hebrew syntax, and to reduce vocabulary down to its most common meaning (not nuanced meaning). So, if the Greek has five words, it will try to use five English words in translation. Greek idiomatic expressions are represented literally, instead of idiomatically. Word order and order of clauses are retained as much as possible. English style is not prioritized. The most extreme examples of formal equivalence yield an English text which sounds like “translation English,” much as a foreign diplomat with poor English skills would talk. (King James Version does have some archaic elements in it, but much of its peculiarity derives from its formal translation of the Greek and Hebrew—it is translation English!)

On the far right are those versions which attempt to convey accurately the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew, without being slavish to the syntax of the original languages. This is called “dynamic equivalence.” There is no concern for exact representation of syntax, and biblical idioms are put into natural English language. Priority is given to English style so that there is no hint of the awkward elements in the original language which might otherwise adversely affect the translation.

Here are some contrasting examples between formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence (the two lists correspond to each other):

Formal Equivalence

1. he lifted up his eyes to Jesus
2. bowels and mercies
3. Jesus said to him, saying
4. And the LORD said to Abram
5. And they, having heard the king, went
6. And opening his mouth, he taught them saying
7. And it came to pass, sitting at meat, he spoke

Dynamic Equivalence

1. he looked at Jesus
2. compassion and mercies
3. Jesus said to him
4. Now, the LORD said to Abram
5. After hearing the king’s instructions, they went
6. He began to teach them. He said
7. Later, while eating, he said

The advantage of formal equivalence is that it gives the Bible student a good idea of the exact wording of the original language. This approach is excellent for careful, detailed analysis of the text. Conversely, the advantage of dynamic equivalence is that it is easy to read, for it conveys the message in natural English.

Specific Versions

Of the standard English versions, the most formal equivalent translation is American Standard Version 1901 (widely available on-line and in most Bible software). Less rigid formal equivalent versions are English Standard Version and New American Standard Bible (1995 update).

Today’s most popular and best dynamic equivalent version is New Living Translation. Additionally, Today’s English Version (= Good News Bible) was widely popular in the last quarter century, and remains useful. Since these versions prioritize English style, they are excellent for those who might spend an hour or longer of (non-contemplative) straight-through Bible reading. They are also useful for evangelism, or to introduce the Bible to people who are unfamiliar with biblical lingo.

There are several versions which are in between the two extremes. Preeminent of these is New International Version. It attempts to serve two masters equally—one master being the Greek and Hebrew syntax, the other master being English style. Thus, NIV attempts to mirror the Greek and Hebrew as much as possible, while keeping good English style. This balanced approach makes NIV an excellent translation for memorization and for public reading. As such, it would serve well as anyone’s primary Bible translation. NIV is produced by evangelical translators.

New Revised Standard Version also attempts to be balanced between formal and dynamic equivalent. It is slightly more formal than NIV, and is popular among mainline (less conservative and liberal) denominations. The New American Bible, which was produced by Catholic scholars, also takes a balanced approach.

Comparing Versions

Those researching a given biblical passage should compare several versions for differences in meaning. If only four translations can be used, I recommend using New King James Version, American Standard Version, New International Version, and New Living Translation. If eight translations can be used, I recommend using these four plus English Standard Version (or New American Standard Bible), New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible, and Holman Christian Standard Bible.

Where NKJV differs from the other versions, it may be due to textual issues rather than translational issues.

Southern Baptists, Bible Translations, and the Condemnation of the NIV

A majority of the men at the Southern Baptist Convention today condemned the New International Version on the basis that it is not a faithful translation of the word of God.

At issue is whether men must translate with something like “goodwill to men” rather than “goodwill to people,” or whether men must translate that God wants all men to be saved rather than all people, or whether we must always refer to the Israelites as the “sons of Israel” instead of “children of Israel.”

In formal Greek linguistic categories, the nouns and pronouns in question are in the masculine, but nonetheless convey the inclusion of women. The NIV does not always render these nouns and pronouns with their corresponding masculine forms, but rather with English words which convey the same meaning as the Greek.

Because of NIV’s tendency to render the meaning of the Greek rather than slavishly reproducing formal masculine linguistic categories, certain influential men brought their case against the NIV before the Southern Baptist brethren. The resolution narrowly passed by the votes of a few men.

Ironically, the version most closely associated with Southern Baptist is the HCSB which translates many of these same passages similarly as NIV.

The fault lies with a handful of men, sometimes scholarly ones, who innocently say, “I prefer a more literal version such as the ESV.” Well intentioned laymen and pastors combine this innocent statement with their rightly placed belief in inerrancy, and conclude, mistakenly, that literal versions are theologically preferable, while anything less is liberal.

Let those men who study these issues be more cautious about how they promote certain Bible versions. There’s no such thing as the one best version. There is, however, such a thing as the best version for a particular need:

• literal versions are to be preferred for exact and detailed study involving vocabulary and syntax (ESV ASV NASU)

• dynamic equivalent versions are to be preferred for lengthy or protracted or speed reading, such as reading-the-Bible-in-a-year programs, or for evangelizing men (NLT TEV)

• middle-of-the-road translations for Bible memorization or for public reading (NIV NRSV)

We men who teach the Bible need to stop saying that “literal translations are best for those men who believe in inerrancy.”

Scholarly men need to stop providing fodder for the demagoguery of translation theory, because what they say will produce misguided resolutions such as what was passed at the Southern Baptist Convention today. This is so unfortunate because misguided resolutions trivialize other resolutions that good men might pass at the convention. For example, the men of the Southern Baptist Convention rightly reaffirmed their belief in hell, but they did so while condemning the NIV. How can men take one resolution seriously when the other is so unfounded?

Another unintended consequence of this misguided resolution is to reinforce the KJV-only laymen and churches in their suspicion against “untrustworthy” versions. The resolution sets back churches at least a year or two in the effort to get into the hands of our churchmen a more accurate translation than the 400 year old linguistically outdated KJV.

Just for clarification, all of my aforementioned references to “men” are meant to imply women as well and are included to illustrate that men don’t talk the way that the authors of the resolution expect men to translate.

The Problem with the English Standard Version (ESV) and Theological Demagoguery

The problem with the English Standard Version (ESV) is not with the translation itself, but with the theological demagoguery that its advocates use to promote it and to discredit its competition.

This demagoguery involves thoughtless assertions that the more literal a translation is the better. Accordingly, dynamic equivalence is made suspect as the invention of liberal scholars. The intended conclusion of such demagoguery is that people who believe the Bible should stick with formal equivalent versions such as the ESV. These claims are faulty in so many ways, but in this post, I’ll just point out one.

ESV is marketed as having an eighth grade reading level. This in itself shows that ESV fails in its intended purpose to be formal equivalent. It intends to render all of the Bible at the same reading level, even though some of the individual books and authors of the Bible are easier to read than others.

In the New Testament, the Greek style and vocabulary of John’s Gospel is so simple that an intermediate Greek reader can just about speed read it, while the Greek style and vocabulary of Luke-Acts and Hebrews is so complex that advanced Greek readers struggle mightily therein.

If ESV really felt that formal equivalency were a theological tenet rather than a pragmatic tool, the translators would have translated the easy to read Greek into easy to read English, while those Greek books which are more difficult to read would be translated into more advanced English. As it turns out, the reading levels for the ESV are about the same throughout the Bible. Thus, readers get no sense of the level of difficulty of the Greek behind the English translation.

Of course, the only reason why the publishers cast aside formal equivalence in regard to readability levels is because difficult-to-read Bibles don’t sell. A case in point would be the short-lived New English Bible which, for example, translated the lofty prose of Heb 1:3 as referring to Christ as the effulgence of God’s glory, the impress of his substance. Stuff like this doesn’t sell.

Ultimately, we need to cast aside the notion that translation methods reflect theological commitments. Rather, we should take advantage of the availability of so many very excellent translations, and use the best translation according to the occasion: use the right tool for the job.

Acts 13:48 in Bauer's Greek Lexicon

And as many as were disposed for eternal life believed.

http://jmleonardfamily.googlepages.com/Acts1348BDAGscan.pdf

Graham Stanton Dies

Graham Stanton, towering scholar, Cambridge's Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity, and Fellow of Fitzwilliam College

He died on Saturday (July 18).

He barely knew me, but even when he had his own struggles with cancer, he went beyond all expectations in seeing that my application to Cambridge was considered, and keeping me informed of the process.

I did my Gospel of Matthew thesis (master's, Regent College) at a time when there was hardly any decent secondary literature on Matthew available. During that time, he oversaw the difficult process of getting Allison and Davies' ICC commentary to completion. And he produced the introductory work on Matthew "A Gospel for a New People" http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-New-People-Graham-Stanton/dp/0664254993/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248103838&sr=8-2

More recently, the book "The Gospels and Jesus" http://www.amazon.com/Gospels-Jesus-Oxford-Bible/dp/0199246165/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248103838&sr=8-1... Read more

Thank God for his careful scholarship. The world will be so much less without him. May a new generation like him arise.

2 seconds ago · Delete

That I Might Know Him

Phil 3:1-11
North Wales Baptist Church, Pennsylvania
Nov 9, 1997

In today's text which Paul has so passionately given us, we find three important points. To start with, Paul is contrasting two opposing means of attaining righteousness. One way which he and others had failed at was Jewish observances; he argues here and elsewhere that if holiness could be attained through Jewish observances, then Christ would have never needed to die. Instead, the only way to attain holiness is through faith in Jesus Christ.
Consequently, Paul lets us know that knowing and experiencing and understanding Christ through faith is his all consuming passion. His goal is to attain the holiness for which he was created, and thus he is willing to sacrifice any and every thing which would prevent or hinder him from knowing Christ. He gives it all up in order to grow in his intimacy with Jesus. And he urges his readers to do the same.
What is our all consuming passion? If we had the means, money, and wherewithal, and if we had none of our mundane, day to day obligations, how would we be spending our time? Where would we be devoting our energies and creativity? What do we live for? When the bills are paid, and we clock out at work, and we have some free time that we've eeked out of our schedule, what do we do, where do we go, what things do we long for? What is our treasure? Where are our hearts?
More often than not, my obsession is on the hiking trail in the mountains of West Virginia, or rather more ideally, in the North Cascades of Washington state. Unfortunately, my work schedule is so tight and I've gotten so fat, that all I can do is read hiking magazines and watch TV movies with mountain scenery and whine to my wife, "Why can't we live there in the mountains?" I'm afraid though, that many Christians misplace or forget what their all consuming passion should be. Paul's all consuming passion was to intimately know Jesus Christ, and thus become more like him.
In today's text, Paul provides two implicit reasons as to why knowing Christ is so important. First of all, knowing Christ through faith not only saves us from the wrath of God, but it also rescues us from our sins. Certainly, faith saves us from Hell, but it is also the God-given means of delivering us from the enslaving power of sin. The law and other Jewish observances could never do that. When we grow in our personal intimacy with Jesus, then the sins which so often enslave us lose their strength so that we really do become free. Test my words to see if they are true: Think of the particular sins against which you have struggled over the years. Do you recall how impotent they became when you were regularly praying and worshiping God in your private devotional life? The words of the gospel song echo this idea: You are to praise the Lord in your personal worship, for the chains that seem to bind you serve only to remind you that they drop powerless behind you when you praise him. So then, we learn from this text that knowing Christ rescues us from the enslaving power of sin.
The text also teaches that knowing Christ is the means whereby we get on the right track toward attaining holiness. Look back over your life. You younger Christians may be only able to look back a few months or maybe a year. Some of us may be able to evaluate the past five or ten years of our lives as Christians. Others of us may be able to look back over the better part of a century to consider our progress in the Christian life. However long you can look back, I want you to ask yourself how much you have grown in holiness. Is your life any different than it was last year, or 10 years ago, or fifty years ago? I've been a Christian now for 30 years. I preached my first sermon 20 years ago. But not too long ago, I took a good, long look at myself, and realized that many of the same sins I struggled with 20 years ago are still plaguing me. And this is tragic, because the gospel promises deliverance from the power of sin. Of course, Paul writes in this very passage that he hasn't attained sinless perfection, but he emphatically states that he is pressing on to attain the goal. And the means of growing in holiness is through growing in intimacy with Jesus. Paul explains elsewhere that as we gaze upon Jesus, he transforms us so that we become more like him. "As we gaze on his kingly brightness, So our faces display his likeness, Ever changing from glory to glory, Mirrored here, may our lives tell the story, Shine on Me, Jesus, Shine on Me." And this is the very reason why Jesus has taken hold of us.
The final thing that I want to stress from this passage is how vastly more important knowing Christ is. Paul gives up everything in order to know, experience, and understand Christ in personal intimacy. In fact he counts everything else as repulsive refuse in comparison to knowing Christ. After all, what gain do we have if attain the whole world but fail to grow in holiness. We have to own the words of that great gospel song for ourselves: "Jesus is all the world to me." Or what about that other gospel song, "I'd Rather Have Jesus than Anything This World Affords Today."

One of my favorite spirituals is the song, "Give Me Jesus."
In the morning when I rise, give me Jesus,
In the dark midnight was my cry: give me Jesus,
Just about the break of day, give me Jesus,
O when I come to die, give me Jesus.
Give me Jesus, give me Jesus, you may have all this world, but give me Jesus.

I'm sure we would all agree intellectually that knowing Jesus is of far surpassing value than anything else this present evil age can afford, but although Jesus is calling us to greater intimacy with him, we fill the empty spaces of our lives with more and more and more dryness. One poet wrote,
Shall we buy a new guitar, shall we drive a more powerful car
Shall we work straight through the night, shall we get into god-awful fights
Leave the lights on, drop bombs
Do tours of the east, contract the beast
Bury bones, break up homes, send flowers by phone
Take to drink, go to shrinks
Give up meat, rarely sleep
Race our horses for bets
Train dogs, test rats
Fill the attic with cash
Bury treasure, spend our leisure
Do anything at all
So we cannot hear his call

Jeremiah writes, "My people have committed two sins: They have forsake me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water. Now why go to Egypt to drink water from the Shihor? And why go to Assyria to drink water from the Euphrates?" But Isaiah extends the invitation to the people of God today, "Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters. Why spend money on what is not bread, and your labor on what does not satisfy? Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good. Give ear and come to me; hear me, that your soul may live."
It is time for God's people to re-prioritize their lives, to revitalize their private worship time so that we grow in our relationship with Jesus and thus become more like him. By a fluke of the English language, our Bible translation reads, "Lord, teach us to pray." Perhaps we know a little of how to pray, but the request is, "Lord, teach us to pray.