What Bible(s) Will I Give My Kids?

My fiancée thinks it’s a bit amusing (but also sweet, she’d say) that I think so often about this, but I really do: What Bible(s) will I give my kids?

Let’s tick through the options:

• KJV: I want them to be familiar with it for its cultural value (both in American culture and in evangelical culture going back through Spurgeon to earlier times), but not at the expense of misunderstanding God’s words. Because the latter is so weighty to me, the KJV is probably out—though they can read it when they get to exegesis courses in home school =) because of its relevance to the history of interpretation.
• ESV: I like it. It’s my main version. There are lots of editions. The editors and backers are generally people I can trust for sound hermeneutics. This translation is catching on, I think, better than the NAS has. And Crossway has become a wonderful conservative publisher.
• NAS: Wooden, sure, but not so bad. Already I think it’s available in fewer editions—and certainly fewer adventurous or innovative ones—than the ESV, despite being substantially older. I plan to have my kids make regular use of this translation.
• NIV: I want even my youngest readers to read the Bible. For that reason, I’ve considered the NIV (and the TNIV). A little of the old irrational fear of the NIV persists in my heart, grabbing at me from the early 1990s. And I can’t shake the feeling I get from reading the regular criticism of the NIV in, of all places, the Expositor’s Bible Commentary. The EBC is based on the NIV, and the commentary’s authors often find what they consider poor renderings.
• NLT: The NLT goes a bit too far afield into interpretation for my tastes, even for young readers, but I admit that making the Bible text easier to read necessitates interpretation. The translators for the NLT were some real theological heavy-hitters: Carson, Bock, etc.
• NET: Great for strong readers who have some experience asking questions of the Bible text. I know I would have loved to have those notes when I was in 7th grade and beyond. I really imbibed the notes in my King James Study Bible during those days. I could have soaked in some good advanced hermeneutics if I’d had a NET.
• HCSB: Not sure what to think here yet. Seems similar to the NIV.

Probably I’m just going to be eclectic, to have each child read one translation per year and to have them all using different ones at any given time. A regular feature of family devotions will be low-level comparison of translations. I want to inoculate my children against any kind of -Onlyism. NAS-Onlyism or NIV-Onlyism is just as bad as KJV-Onlyism. It’s just not as popular or virulent.

A Little Benefit From The Books of the Bible, TNIV

I’m almost done with Deuteronomy now in my now-not-so-new-looking TNIV edition, The Books of the Bible. I’m enjoying reading the Bible unencumbered by chapter and verse divisions.

One little benefit has come up now several times in my reading of the Pentateuch: I’m surprised when I finish a book! Normally chapter numbers chart my progress for me whether I want them to or not. And, let’s admit it, many of us find ourselves wondering how much longer Leviticus is going to last… With The Books of the Bible, I reached the end without ever thinking that.

I did, however, think several times that the weight of those laws and stipulations and procedures was so overwhelming as to be almost crushing. Indeed, it was a yoke that Peter admitted “that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear.” So I wondered: what if Israel had said, “Oh, Lord, we know we cannot obey such laws unless you change us from the inside! Have mercy on us!” How might God have responded to such a plea?

Why Don’t More Conservatives Get Ph.D.’s?

An article in the Chronicle of Higher Education mentions some of the findings from a study done by a mixed-political-affiliation couple asking why conservatives don’t get Ph.D.’s as often as liberals. The couple, Matthew Woessner and April Kelly-Woessner issued their findings in a report titled, “Left Pipeline: Why Conservatives Don’t Get Doctorates.”

There was some evidence that the already overwhelming number of liberals and moderates in the professoriate (90%, the article says) is self-replicating, but that’s not where the Woessners focused their answer.

Instead the Woessners looked at differences in interests and personality. They found that in a variety of ways, conservative students were less interested than liberals in subject matter that often leads to doctoral degrees, and less interested in doing the kinds of things that professors spend their time doing.

I find this to be a little too convenient:

For example, liberal students reported valuing intellectual freedom, creativity, and the chance to write original work and make a theoretical contribution to science.

But this was interesting and plausible:

They outnumbered conservative students two to one in the humanities and social sciences—which are among the fields most likely to produce interest in doctoral study. Conservative students, however, put more value on personal achievement and orderliness, and on practical professions, like accounting and computer science, that could earn them lots of money.

And this stuck out to me the most:

The Woessners also found that conservative students put a higher priority than liberal ones on raising a family. That does not always fit well with a career in academe, where people often delay childbearing until after they earn tenure.

I find that to be fairly persuasive. I myself am about to enter my first year of marriage while working on a dissertation. It’s not likely to be easy. And I’ve seen others drop out of our Ph.D. (or other graduate) programs because of wife and marriage, baby carriage.

Theological Scholarship in Fundamentalism

Kevin Bauder recently wrote a series of articles for his “In the Nick of Time” column “Fundamentalism and Scholarship.”

This paragraph stood out to me as one of the key areas of my own weakness:

If we want to produce theological scholars, then we must provide training in the skills that scholars require. This is the role of academic institutions and Ph.D. programs. During graduate and especially postgraduate education, would-be scholars must learn to navigate the literature within their disciplines, master the skills required for scholarly research, and develop those powers of presentation that will be essential for functioning in the scholarly community. During the years of preparation, future scholars must also make their first forays into the academic arena, attending and offering presentations for the learned societies that service their disciplines. Simultaneously, they will begin to develop the networks of relationships that will lead to publishing opportunities. Most importantly, future scholars must begin to focus attention upon the areas of specialization in which they hope to advance the scholarly conversation and thereby to expand the scope of human knowledge.

Fundamentalism has not always been comfortable with such prescriptions. For most of our history, it hasn’t been on our radar screens. But that reticence has been eroding, as evidenced by the new writing and publishing program going on now at my own Bob Jones Seminary.

May the Lord help us to go far and high in scholarship but not in our own estimation of it. May our scholarship instead be a means of increasing our understanding and admiration of the Lord.

All Things to All People

The largest Anglican church in Canada has pulled out of the national church and put itself under the authority of a parallel conservative body. The “tipping point” was their diocese’s support of same-sex blessings, but I was very pleased with this National Post article for letting the putative dissidents explain their rationale: they left because of their view of Scripture and not because of homophobia.

In that light, this quotation from a liberal partisan really struck me:

Paul Feheley, principal secretary to Archbishop Fred Hiltz, head of the Canadian Church, said Anglicanism has always contained wide areas of opinion and there is no reason for anyone to leave.

“We’re not holding our noses and pretending this is not happening, but at some point we can’t be all things to all people.”

Someone who persists in such a laissez faire attitude toward Bible doctrine is the appropriate object of the kind of separation Paul calls for in 2 Thessalonians 3:

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us….
If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

St. John’s has done right in pulling out, and according to the article, they did it soberly without glee. That’s quite a feat. I applaud them.

Textual Optimism

In my previous post on Textual Optimism: A Critique of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament by Kent W. Clarke (part of the JSNT monograph series now edited by Stanley Porter), I summarized some of Clarke’s statistics on the general upgrade from D to C, C to B, and B to A in the variant rating system.

In my subsequent reading, Clarke has charged that the overall upgrade in textual quality is made even more stark because the letter rating definitions themselves were upgraded from the-glass-is-half-empty to the-glass-is-half-full.

Here are the UBS3 definitions:

• {A} The text is virtually certain.
• {B} There is some degree of doubt.
• {C} There is a considerable degree of doubt.
• {D} There is a very high degree of doubt.

Here are the UBS4 definitions:

• {A} The text is certain.
• {B} The text is almost certain.
• {C} The editors had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text.
• {D} The editors had great difficulty arriving at a decision.

Note that the majority of the UBS1-3 rating definitions were related to doubt while the UBS4 definitions are related to certainty. So you would actually expect some A’s in USB3 to go to B’s in UBS4, some B’s to C’s, and so on. Instead, you see the opposite. It’s almost as if the certainty of the editors’ choices got a double upgrade from UBS3 to UBS4.

Clarke is not saying we should ditch the UBS, or even the UBS4. He’s simply warning that the letter ratings should be used with caution and full knowledge—and he’s implicitly asking the committee in charge of the UBS to give a fuller explanation for their choices.

Avery Cardinal Dulles

What is the Catholic view of salvation? Not all Catholics agree, and, sadly, the great majority of Catholics I have met simply do not know what their church’s (official) view is. But Avery Dulles, S.J., a cardinal and a professor of religion at (Jesuit) Fordham University, is as authoritative a voice as any but the pope, I would think.

Dulles has this to say about salvation in a recent First Things article:

“Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God’s saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted.”

Dulles’ article is mainly about how Christians over the centuries have viewed the fate of the unevangelized. He’s glad that he need not be limited by the NT when theologizing on this topic (emphasis mine):

“We seem to have come full circle from the teaching of Paul and the New Testament that belief in the message of Christ is the source of salvation. Reflecting on this development, one can see certain gains and certain losses. The New Testament and the theology of the first millennium give little hope for the salvation of those who, since the time of Christ, have had no chance of hearing the gospel. If God has a serious salvific will for all, this lacuna needed to be filled, as it has been by theological speculation and church teaching since the sixteenth century. Modern theology, preoccupied with the salvation of non-Christians, has tended to neglect the importance of explicit belief in Christ, so strongly emphasized in the first centuries. It should not be impossible, however, to reconcile the two perspectives.”

What in the World!

Here’s another item from the latest What in the World! newsletter.
Luke Timothy Johnson seems to be one of those “liberals” of the Bruce Metzger ilk, someone whose work conservatives can appreciate for its fairmindedness. Notably, he has resolutely opposed the Jesus Seminar. But some of his positions are liberal after all, and this quotation—fairmindedly—shows that.

Luke Timothy Johnson, New Testament professor at Emory University, has openly admitted what few liberal Christian defenders of homosexuality will: “I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us.” (FirstThings.com, 1/4/08)

Planet Narnia

“Planet Narnia: The Seven Heavens in the Imagination of C. S. Lewis” (Michael Ward)

I’m still skeptical. A secret thematic organizing principle for the Chronicles of Narnia?

But I’m open, and I’m listening.

Michael Ward’s opening arguments can be summarized as follows:

1. I know that charlatans, ne’er-do-wells, and cranks love to write about Lewis, but I promise I’m not one of them! (His careful style and broad footnoting have persuaded me that he’s telling the truth.)
2. Many other sound literary critics have proposed different underlying themes for the Narniad, including Christology and the seven deadly sins. Perhaps they’re on to something.
3. Lewis was known to be secretive and even playfully misleading. It should be no surprise, then, that he might hide a major theme in the Narniad. Per George MacDonald, an artist who has to write, “THIS IS A HORSE” underneath a picture he’s drawn is no artist.

Ward spends a lot of time on number three, and interestingly, his first chapter is called “Silence.” Indeed, his argument is partly, by necessity, one from silence. For example, Ward (no relation) must deal with one of the most famous quotations Lewis gave about Narnia, namely that it all started with an image of a faun in a wood (and, ergo, not as a planned septet). Several times I found myself reacting to a claim by Ward with, “Hmm… That could go either way.”

I plan to read the rest of his book to see whether or not it will indeed go his way.

The Real Truth about the Chronicles of Narnia

Just picked up a book via the new free inter-library loan program in South Carolina.

It’s one of those crazy books with a crazy premise that only crazy people would write (or, ahem, read…).

I’m told that it says that each of the Chronicles of Narnia was written based on the theme of a particular body in the solar system. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, for example, was written on a sun theme.

Ha!

Right? …ha ha? Why does Lewis attract so many crazies?

Well… No. Apparently not this time. This book was published by Oxford University Press, written by a good friend of Phil Ryken, and is receiving a preliminary hailing around the blogosphere. It’s not actually crazy.

I’m intrigued!

Can’t wait to jump in!

Textual Optimism: A Critique of the UBS4

I’m on the plane to Tampa and I’m reading Textual Optimism: A Critique of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament by Kent W. Clarke, part of the JSNT monograph series now edited by Stanley Porter,

The opening chapter on the history of (mainly modern) textual criticism is a fine summary, and it would make an excellent class reading assignment. Westcott and Hort get the most space, but that material is readily available elsewhere. Those familiar with it may want to skip to the history of the UBS GNT (and how it relates to the Nestle-Aland series of GNTs).

The focus of this work starts in the second chapter. Here Clark examines the textually optimistic shift in the A-D rating system from UBS 1-3 to UBS4.

Did you follow that? Briefly, the UBS GNTs rate each textual variant unit with the following system:

• {A} The text is certain.
• {B} The text is almost certain.
• {C} The editors had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text.
• {D} The editors had great difficulty arriving at a decision.

The remarkable set of statistics Clark has compiled show clearly that while the overall number of treated variants went down slightly from UBS3 to UBS4 (1444 to 1431), the number and percentage of A and B ratings went up significantly while C ratings dropped significantly. The D rating is now almost non-existent: the 144 D’s in UBS3 have decreased to just 9 in all of UBS4.

This could be because the UBS4 has chosen to treat different variants, but Clark rejects that as a sufficient explanation. Here are some of his key summary statements:

“There is…an astonishing upgrade in the UBSGNT4 and, therefore, a newly proposed quality of text.” (90)

“There is a strong tendency for each biblical book (excluding Mark) to move towards an increasing degree of certainty regarding debated readings, and thus, an overall upgrade in the quality of text. These UBSGNT4 modifications progress at an inconsistent rate and are incongruent with those alterations made throughout [previous editions].” (90)

Here are some key stats detailing the shift from UBS3 to UBS4 (the number of ratings is followed by the percentage of the total):

• {A} ratings: 126 / 9% to 514 / 36%
• {B} ratings: 475 / 33% to 541 / 38%
• {C} ratings: 699 / 48% to 367 / 26%
• {D} ratings: 144 / 10% to 9 / 1%

More exciting statistics to come, D.V.

A Clear and Present Word by Mark D. Thompson

I’ve been reading a fantastic book called A Clear and Present Word: The Clarity of Scripture by Moore Theological College’s Mark D. Thompson. It’s part of the New Studies in Biblical Theology series, edited by D.A. Carson.

Moore Theological College brings a few names to my mind: Peter D. O’Brien, Graeme Goldsworthy, and a new name whose work on verbal aspect (the latest volume in the Studies in Biblical Greek series) I have to admit is beyond me right now, Con Campbell. Ah, yes, and John A. L. Lee. He wrote a very entertaining volume in the SBG series on the history of New Testament lexicography. The Brits/Aussies seem to write their academic literature with a bit more verve than we Americans do. Maybe I’m wrong.

Back to Thompson’s book…

Thompson makes probably one major point: God goes with His Word. This truth makes the author-reader relationship for the Bible totally unique. Obviously, this truth does not guarantee that all Bible readers will arrive at the same—correct—interpretations. Sin enters the mix through the Fall’s noetic effects. But we can have real confidence (con+fide; i.e., faith) that God’s word is understandable despite modern and postmodern challenges to that faith.

I hope to make some more comments on the book in future posts.

Answer Not a Fool / Answer a Fool

Prov. 26:4-5, ESV
Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest you be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise in his own eyes.

The Majority View

D.A. Carson, in a long review of three recent bibliology books, says he has often used the verses above “to demonstrate the way proverbs work: they are not universal case law. The formal divergence in this instance powerfully embraces more comprehensive reflection than either proverb alone could have done.”

I agree with his conclusion, but my jury is still out on whether or not these verses are a good example of it.

Under Carson’s view, the warning could be understood two different ways (cf. UBS Handbook on Prov.): “This verse is a warning, either against taking a fool at his own estimation and giving him a serious reply, or perhaps against speaking to a fool in the same foolish way as he has spoken to you. By doing so you share in his foolishness.”

The Bible Knowledge Commentary, too, says it takes wisdom to know when to apply v.4 and when to apply v.5. Likewise Matthew Henry, the New Bible Commentary, and the New American Commentary. Garrett (NAC) summarizes this view well: “On the one hand, one should not deal with a fool on his own terms lest the imitation of folly become habitual. On the other hand, one must sometimes answer fools in the words they understand in order to reprimand them effectively.”

Waltke Weighs In

But Waltke (NICOT) argues for a different position. He specifically opposes the view that sees these as applying at different times (the NLT clearly takes this interpretation, leaving no ambiguity). They both apply absolutely at all times, he says; and both proverbs (v.4 and v.5) actually call for the wise son to reply to a fool. The first one (v.4) warns him not to be like the fool in his answer–that is, don’t be malicious or self-conceited or what have you. The second one (v.5) tells the son to go ahead and answer the fool with wisdom that flips his world upside down: no longer is he the wise one; he is the fool.

Waltke argues this based on the flexibility of the K (kaph) preposition. It points to an element of similarity, but leaves the point of similarity open to some interpretation: “Joshua is like Moses” could be pointing to his likeness as being a leader or as being a prophet. Interestingly, the LXX seems to support Waltke: it uses different Greek prepositions to render the K. I’m not sure what difference that makes in Greek–perhaps “Do not answer a fool with that foolishness [he just used]” and “Answer a fool against his folly”? I just checked out BDAG on προς (v.4) and κατα (v.5), and I’m not at all sure I can land on renderings which support Waltke’s reasoning. However, that’s due more to my inexpertise in pinpointing prepositional meaning (though what expertise I do have leads me to say that context would be the determiner anyway and that Koine doesn’t get that specific), and the point stands that the LXX chose different prepositions to render the exact same phrase.

One other argument that inclines me toward this view is the simple fact that “Do not answer” is qualified by something rather than nothing. It’s like the difference between saying “Don’t cross the street” and “Don’t cross the street without looking first.” Likewise, “Don’t answer a fool” and “Don’t answer a fool with the same kind of reply he typically gives.” The first command in each example is absolute. The second not only allows the action but actually commends or even commands it.

Murphy (WBC) does a good job bringing up parallel passages, but I find him ultimately unhelpful. He points out that in 17:12 the son is warned that it is better to run into a she-bear robbed of her cubs than to run into a fool. This would seem to support the “Don’t answer at all” position, but that can’t work with the very next verse (26:5)! Vv. 4 and 5 need to work together. They can’t be analyzed discretely. In 26:12b there is “more hope for a fool” than for someone who is “wise in his own eyes.” So maybe there is hope for a fool before he becomes wise in his own eyes.

Waltke seems to be the only commentator who bothers with the actual grammar of the passage. Murphy makes a passing reference to it and others tell us what the kaph preposition “literally” means, but that’s another argument in favor of Waltke.

In sum… I’m close to willing to see the LXX as decisive. But because it could have been style or sloppiness or some unnecessarily fastidious translator who chose the two different renderings, I’m in a strait betwixt Waltke and Carson but leaning slightly toward the former.