Keeping Your Greek: From the Archives…

Con Cambell (of Moore College Sydney) has a series of fantastic posts on keeping your Greek alive and active on his blog Read Better, Preach Better. His disciplines may be tough however, they are essential if we want to continue in our formation in the original languages. I have added some of my thoughts to each post title below and a concluding reflection.

01 Read Daily! This first posts sets the scene for the rest of the series. A very encouraging place to begin (that is how all NT Greek lecturers suck you in at at first)

02 Burn your inter-linear! I would preface this by saying, “If you have done absolutely no NT Greek! Remember, a Strong’s concordance does not count!

03 Use software tools wisely! Hmmm, I am not 100% convinced of some of Con’s suggestions but then again I might just be lazy!

04 Keep you vocab! This is a tough one for busy ministers, and is where software can become a crutch. I have tried to remember a word a day since finishing my course. I often forget and the word falls out of mind once the day begins, nevertheless I pick it up and put it back in my mind.

05 Practice your parsing! Ouch! This one hurt because parsing is a killer. It is very easy to let software, such as Logos, do all of this work for you. I like the suggestion Con has added at the bottom of the post, “I have one other tip. This is not something I have done, but a retired minister who kept his Greek right to the end of his formal ministry shared it with me. Every year, he sets aside one whole day and re-learns his entire verb paradigms. He writes them out, practices the rusty ones, and reinforces the ones he remembers. For a whole day. Might be worth a try if you need a quick whipping into shape.”

Finally, I remember hearing Tom Wright when he was here in Adelaide answer a question about which version of the Bible was he preferred, to which he answered, “The Greek would be nice, the NIV is nasty and the NRSV is acceptable! Reading the New Testament without knowing Greek is like drinking wine through a tea bag!!!” Although there is a hint of academic snobbery in the statement, it is one I have fundamentally come to believe. As Ministers of the gospel it is paramount that we know the text that stands in front of us as a witness to Jesus Christ and, the act of reconciliation that has taken place in him and is expressed in the words of all New Testament writers. Ministers seem to spend a lot of time building and running churches and very little time wrestling with the text. The Bible, it would seem, has become a tool in which the Pastor builds the church in their image!!!

A Question Concerning Pastoral Spirituality

I recently asked a good friend, who is a pastor, how he goes about his own personal spirituality. I was feeling quite discouraged about about my own inability to develop and maintain a regular spirituality that I felt reflected what is important to me and the conditions within which I work. To my surprise he said that he struggled with it as well. He told me how the only study of Scripture he undertook each week was the passage he preached on. When I heard this I no longer felt alone in my struggle.

I spent many of my formative years within a Pentecostal church that encouraged a daily and personal devotional time with God. Holiness and relationship was measured by how much time and how consistently a person undertook these disciplines. Although I am well aware that this thinking is somewhat twisted there is a profound truth that lies beneath this ‘works’ mentality.

I desire to integrate into a regular time of prayer and reflection: 1) Study/Reading Scripture, 2) Prayer/Reflection, and 3) Continue to develop my competency in Biblical Languages. However, no matter how hard I try I fail on almost all counts! It is not from lack of trying or desire. I have tried various techniques of studying scripture from reading the Bible in a year to reading a commentary and they all seem to fall flat. It seems that since undertaking the study of scripture and theology I have lost that naivete for the Bible and God I once had. Furthermore, as Dad with a young family, the demands on my time outside of work are overwhelming and there is very little time for anything else and once my day begins at church there is little time to stop and have a break.

I share this realising that I am revealing a bit more than I would normally feel comfortable doing so on my blog, however, I am interested in hearing about the struggles others have and perhaps what works for you. Am I working under a false understanding of what a healthy spirituality looks like or do I just lack the discipline to do what I know is right? I would be especially interested in hearing from those in ministry and how they manage to keep the well deep and keep connected to God

Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles: What does it mean?

Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ …

Why can’t we simply trust that the person mentioned as the author of the Pastoral Epistles is indeed their author? With the advent of historical and literary criticism has come (and rightly so) a far greater analysis of manuscripts, grammar and syntax, which has lead to more questions being asked and discovered about who actually wrote the New Testament documents; especially the letters of Titus and 1 & 2 Timothy. For centuries the church believed these documents to be Pauline; an assumption that appears to be misguided! Therefore the question arises, if we cannot trust Pauline authorship as the text claims can we trust the documents at all? I suspect that these issues have led to these writings taking a secondary place on many shelves especially when it comes to ministry formation.

If we are going to be faithful exegetes, we have an imperative to act with integrity and consider the matters of authorship as part of the contextual analysis and not turn a blind eye to conclusions that we may not like. The argument that Scripture is inspired and infallible and God could never lie therefore we must simply believe does not carry much weight in the light of such overwhelming evidence (and common sense)! Personally I have appreciated Witherington’s reflection on this conundrum. Although I wonder how much he is driven by his own subjectivity on the matter, I think his hypothesis concerning what “authorship” for means (especially within the Pastoral Epistles) is worth considering. In his mind, “[The] real dividing line between a genuine letter and a pseudepigraphon is whether the material comes from the mind of a particular person, not whether it fully reflects that person’s grammar and syntax” (Witherington, 2006, p.26). Therefore it is plausible and possible that the letters were written after his death by a close associate based on Paul’s own dictation or notes? Perhaps in the same way we accept that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as being the edited eyewitness testimony of Jesus, we may conclude, the associate edited the material and context of Paul to shape what we now know as the Pastoral Episltes. Personally I feel this allows for the Pastoral Epistles to be understood as historical letters written to a specific situation and not pseudepigrapha. However, it must be noted that this is simply hypothesis and can be easily argued against.

Issues we may like to consider:

• If we can never know for certain who wrote the particular books of the New Testament, should it matter if we never know?
• Do we have a responsibility to gather the evidence and consider the arguments about the historical context so that we might better understand what the writers of a particular letter were saying to their intended audience; even if it leads us to conclusions we do not feel comfortable with?
• Could an argument be made that to base one’s historical context on a hypothesis is to tread on rather thin ice historically and exegetically?
• As Ministers do we have a responsibility to trust that in some way God has inspired this text; perhaps in its writing but most definitely in its inclusion into the canon?

Exegesis: A Pastoral Lament

Someone once told me that once you enter the field of Biblical Studies you can never return to the “myth” of the bible. The days of “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it” are long gone! In recent months I have become more aware of how true this statement is. When it comes to my dealings with Holy Scripture I am continually confronted with questions of faith and the reality of God on one hand and the questions of history, form, and other criticisms of the text on the other. As someone who has engaged at an academic level with Scripture I find it a great challenge to hold onto a spirituality that sees scripture as a living word that encourages faith while examining the text crically. I stand with one foot in the academic word (as I study and interpret the text) and the other in the church (as one who seeks to help people hear the word of God). It seems to me that these two worlds are becoming increasingly distant! The tension is growing (for me at least). This is my lament: As the two worlds seemingly polarise what is the Minister to do? Do we give up and reduce the Bible to nice little stories or do we abandon faith for reason?

Their are exegetical conclusions that require a leap of faith; propositions and conclusions that cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt (such as resurrection) and therefore our conclusions may well be shaped by our Christian traditions. I know this may be viewed as a cop-out, however, there is an aspect to the text that requires of me (as a minister at least) to place some trust in God that he was working in the process and continues to be involved in that process of revelation today. These conclusions will be at odds with those in the academy whose concern is primarily scientific. That is not to say the dialogue should cease or respect dwindle. Surely the two can co-exist and inform one another?

Within the church it is true that biblical reductionism reigns. The text, this holy, ancient, collection of writings, has become another tool used by clergy to whip the people into shape or as a promise of a new kind of lifestyle that if followed will lead to abundant life here and now. Furthermore anyone who begins to the take the task of understanding scripture within its historical context is labelled a doubter and banished to exile forever!

Therefore I wrestle and ask: How do I return to the naivety I once had for Holy Scripture? How do I hold all of the historical, form, redaction, grammatical and theological tensions of the text before me without losing sight of the one to whom Scripture points? And finally, is there any place for the Minister in the wider world of Biblical Studies or, am I resigned to nice little sermons on Sunday?

I Finish with this wonderful quote from Childs. It seems to me that he may have been one who held the conviction that this text belonged firstly to the church and therefore it was imperative that the church engaged with this text at every level possible in order to hear the word of God, “Yet the author is also aware that serious theological understanding of the text is dependent on a rigorous and careful study of the whole range of problems within the Bible which includes text and source criticism, syntax and grammar, history and and geography…The author does not share the hermeneutical position of those who suggest that biblical exegesis is an objective, descriptive enterprise, controlled solely by scientific criticism, to which the theologian can at best add a few homiletical reflections for piety’s sake. In my judgement, the rigid separation between the descriptive and constructive elements of exegesis strikes at the roots of the theological task of understanding the bible.” (Childs, Exodus, SCM press, 1974, p.ix & xiii)

Is Topical Preaching an Abomination?

…He says with a cheeky grin ☺. I actually wrote this piece some time ago however, this past weekend I visited another church and experienced the “abomination of desolation” that is topical preaching and was reminded of what I had previously written. It is true (if you hadn’t guessed yet) I am not a fan of topical preaching. Scriptures should form not only the foundation of our sermons but the entirety of what we say week in week out to the community of God’s people. As Goldingay argues, “I would not want to argue that all preaching must be text centred – though 95 percent of my own is. There is a place for topical preaching, though it may become a sin when indulged in too often” (1995, p.9). Having spent many years in a church that only preached topical messages I became Biblically illiterate and anaemic to the text itself. Scripture was thrown around so wastefully and casually that it almost seemed to lose its Holiness. it is what i would call Biblical reductionism I realise that this is not the case for everyone and many have stories of the boring ‘Bible’ only preachers who have driven many from the church with their endless genealogies. Nevertheless, the text must set the context of our proclamation.

The place of scripture and preaching within the community of God’s people raises for me more questions than any other topic and less answers than any other problem. I remember lamenting to a friend not too long ago that the only people who seem to defend preaching as the primary means by which we proclaim the gospel and teach about the Christian life are preachers themselves. Why is this so? We live in a society obsessed with a ‘practical’ approach to the Bible. People come to church expecting the preacher to provide them with answers and ‘practical’ approaches to the text in order that they might live a Biblical life. Where did we ever get the idea that every time we hear Holy Scripture we should receive a ‘practical’ answer?

Holy Scripture and the pulpit belong together like peas and carrots. As Goldingay so eloquently describes, “The Bible is entirely at home in the pulpit because its words were spoken and written to do something along the same lines. “It is the preaching book because it is the preaching book.” Biblical statue, wisdom, prophecy, and epistle overtly urge people toward more confident faith or questioning and more specific commitment away from disobedience or false trust. Biblical narrative, poetry, and psalmody have similar aims. They offer not merely historical information or aesthetic experience or cultic record but implicit invitation. One reason why works of various kinds were collected and eventually became “scriptures” was so that they might continue to effect something in the lives of people.” (1995, p.9). As preachers and teachers we must remain faithful to the task of understanding, dwelling in, and interpreting the Biblical narrative. As Matthias Grunewald’s Isenheim Altarpiece so wonderfully depicts; like John the Baptist we stand with a bible in one hand and our other hand points to the crucified Christ. Holy Scripture at every turn points us to the Word of God revealed in Jesus Christ. It is only as we faithfully teach and proclaim the text before us, and not our own ideas, that we faithfully proclaim the Word of God!

Scripture: The Word of God or the Word of Man? Part 6

Witherington in his book “The Living Word of God: Rethinking the Theology of the Bible” (Baylor University Press, 2008), sees the importance of allowing the text to speak in the original way it was first received and places a high importance on the historical context (what I would call the word of man). In discussing the obvious contradictions and differences between the gospel writers on certain elements of Jesus’ life he writes, “under inspiration, the gospel writers appear to have followed the conventions of their own day when it comes to writing a biography of Jesus. That is, they wrote the way people in the first century wrote – not the way we write today.” furthermore, “Careful historical and contextual exegesis of the entire bible is still the best guide, even for Christians, when it comes to learning what it [the bible] says, what it means and how we ought to use it today. “

I may be hesitant myself to use the word ‘inspiration’ because of the baggage it brings, nevertheless, I would concur with the nature of his statement. The need for Ministers to engage in good forensic exegesis is important and we must allow the text to form our understanding and not our opinions to preempt our conclusions. Perhaps it is important to at least be aware of our own presuppositions. There will often come a point where our presuppositions will cause to make a leap of faith in a particular direction. Perhaps as along as we recognise these and hold them loosely we may find our selves more easily engaged with those whom we disagree. Of course the next question might be, “What do we do if our exegesis leads us down roads that are challenging and uncomfortable?”

Which Bible translation are you?

Brian has sparked quite a discussion about certain Bible translations with a little comment in a recent post about Linguistics and Translations in which he refers to a “certain” english translation of the bible. The comments to the post, of which mine is one, caused me to think about the english translations I use.

While searching for an Ordination Bible last year I was amazed at the choices. All I wanted was a thin, bonded leather, NRSV reference edition. Do you think I could find what I was looking for? NO! It would seem you can buy a Bible for just about any person; in any colour, shape, size, weight. You can choose from slim-line, large print, extra large print, red letter, black letter, leather, duo tone, hardback, soft-back and of course, paperback. There are study Bibles, Men’s study Bibles, Women’s Study Bibles, study Bible’s belonging to Christian celebrities who are on TV first thing on a Sunday morning! Being the natural consumer I am, I looked for the one that suited my needs and guess what? They didn’t have it! I ended up choosing a TNIV Reference Edition for several reasons, firstly, it was the only translation I could find that came with referencing and a concordance. It would seem that the NRSV is not popular enough in North America to warrant such a version.

I use the NRSV Harper Collins Study Bible for study and sermon preparation. For me it provides a robust literal translation that seems to be the most reliable overall. However, it is often very “wooden” in its translation of the poetic and prophetic literature of the OT. Therefore, I use the TNIV for personal devotional use and preaching becasue it is a better ‘read’ and easier to follow the flow of the narrative.

I would say that these two translations describe my approach to Scripture. The NRSV reflects my desire to study scripture and understand it in an academic sense. Whereas the TNIV reflects my early Christian days in the Pentecostal scene where “daily devotions” and Bible reading were encouraged (something that has continued into my post-charismatic days).What about you? How does your choice of translation reflect you and your approach to the Biblical text?

Questions about the Quest: Theirs and Mine

“From the beginning of the quest the whole enterprise of attempting to reconstruct the historical figure of Jesus in a way that is allegedly purely historical, free of concerns of faith and dogma, has been highly problematic for Christian faith and theology. What, after all does the phrase “the historical Jesus” mean? “ (Bauckham, R. “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses”, 2007, p.2)

Are the Jesus of history and faith really so incompatible? For those of us whose primary interest in the Gospels (and scripture generally) relates to Christian faith, it can be more than a little unnerving to encounter the historical Jesus as (re)constructed by academia. It seems that their own quest has very little interest in the Jesus of faith preferring a purely historical reconstruction of Jesus. I freely admit that I begin with the presupposition of Christian faith when it comes to Scripture. The Gospels provide a testimony of the historical Jesus, and can therefore be trusted, for the most part, in their portrayal of him. This is not to say that we should not endeavour to use literary and redaction criticism to understand how Matthew, Mark and Luke present Jesus to the communities to whom they wrote. It must be noted that much of what historians tell us about the historical context and settings of both Jesus and the early church, has been of great benefit to the exegete and has, in my opinion, begun to lay to rest many fundamentalist misreadings of the New Testament.

I wrestle with these questions because I desire to be faithful to God and the text before me. I do not believe this means I must ignore the historical and literary context of Scripture and the many challenges that brings for interpreting them within the context of the church. If we are to live faithfully as the people of God we must accept the idea that this text has been given to us by God; it is in this sense God’s Word to us. However, the text should not be excused from any form of historical or literary criticism; especially when such disciplines can help us to hear more clearly what is God is wanting us to hear!

As minister, as a Christian, where do my loyalties lie? With the Jesus as reconstructed by historians, which may at times challenge my previously held beliefs of who Jesus was, or, the Jesus handed to me by church tradition, which may at times challenge the reconstructed Jesus of history? “[T]he full reality of who Jesus as he historically was is not, of course, available to us…here we reach the crucial methodological problem. For Christian faith this Jesus, the earthly Jesus as we can know him, is the Jesus of the canonical gospels.” therefore, In the light of Bauckham’s statement, my questions are: ‘Are the Jesus of history and faith really so far apart?” And, ‘Where do my loyalties lie when trying to understand the Jesus of the gospels; in history or faith?’

Scripture: The Word of God or the Word of Man? Part 4

What does it mean to say that Scripture is s God’s Word? How we understand terms such as inerrancy and inspiration will effect and affect how we interpret scripture and subsequently what we believe about God. It is important that we realise that these terms are an attempt by ‘us’, not God, to explain and understand scripture as God’s Word. These terms are ‘our’ explanations of what the Bible is in its function and form. These are not terms derived from Scripture or ever intended by the biblical authors to be thrust upon their writings. Scripture is God’s Word in its creation and existence because of its relationship to the one who has spoken it and continues to make it known today; God. To say that scripture is God’s Word is in itself a big enough demand on the text and ourselves without imposing further boundary markers. Surely the term, God’s Word, in and of itself, is enough to awaken within us a deep respect for, and appreciation of, the text and demand that we listen?

Scripture: The Word of God or the Word of Man? Part 3

One of the common questions people ask me, as a minister, is how the bible can be God’s Word if it cannot be trusted historically? Over the years, many people have had pastors who have either deconstructed the text so much that they have been left wondering what is the point or, who have argued ostensively for the inerrancy of the bible’s history. Both extremes, it would seem, have led to a destabilisation of their faith in scripture as God’s word. Much to my surprise, many people tend to want to ’step of of the boat’ and explore how the Bible can be both word of God and word of man, yet feel an understandable ’shaking of the foundations’ when ministers and academics begin to question what they believe to be true about the bible. Thus it is important to approach the subject pastorally and sensitive to people’s emotion relating to the subject.

How is scripture to be understood as the word of man?
How can God be perfect if his word is not factual? Why would God lie to us about the creation of the world or who really wrote Ephesians? If we cannot trust the Bible how can we trust God? These are all fair and reasonable questions and ones I have wrestled (and continue to wrestle with) with for many years. They may seem, to the academic no doubt, to be basic or simple questions. However, they go to the heart of how the bible is understood within many of ou churches.

I wonder if it is helpful to think of scripture as, to borrow a phrase from Karl Barth, as both the word of God and the word of man? I would argue that it is important to understand scripture to be the word of man in the sense that God has worked through the authors of the various books that make up our Bible in order to shape his witness to us. Furthermore, he has worked through the collecting and organising of our New Testament canon (not, it should be noted, in a manner that involves taking control of the people involved so that they merely wrote what God dictated). God did not work outside the bounds of the culture in which these texts were written and/or formed. He has not bestowed upon the Biblical authors special powers in which they override the culture and understanding of the day in order to relate the truth of history.

In its original form the documents that make up what we now call holy scripture and the events of salvation history to which they witness, always re-count the work of God as it was understood it at the time. God has incarnated his revelation within the form of this narrative and thus some of these narratives are historically factual and some are metaphorical; nevertheless they are still true! Hence the need for good exegesis from beginning to end!