Language and Idiom

I'm a keen user of bible study software. I use a combination of Libronix' Logos 3.0, Wordsearch 7.0, and e-sword.

One of the things I have noticed particularly since studying the Talmud and other Jewish writings has been the extremely well developed original language tools. I have the Scholar's Library edition of Logos and the dictionary meaning of words and an analysis of how it has been translated in various parts of the bible are just a few clicks away. They are good, very good. However I recently came across by a book by David Bivin and Roy Blizzard called "Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus".

Bivin was founder and director of the Jerusalem Perspective and number of the Jerusalem School Synoptic Studies a think tank with other Christian and Jewish Scholars. The book has been endorsed by notable Jewish scholar David Flusser. Blizzard Was adjunct assistant professor at the Centre for huddle Eastern Studies at the University of Texas, Austin.

Bivin and Blizzard point out that Jesus uses many Hebrew idioms in his everyday speech. Unfortunately idioms by their very nature are difficult to Understand outside their historical and cultural contexts. How can non-English speakers accurately translate phrases such as "let's get cracking", "I like the cut of his jib", or "sailing too close to the wind"? Similarly the English translator and reader of the Hebrew scriptures faces a similar challenge.

Unfortunately our early church fathers took a strongly anti-Jewish stance. So successful were they that by the time of Constantine church creeds included Vows to reject all the "Jewish" festivals, and even to avoid dining at the same able as a Jew. Needless to say with such thinking becoming widely held, a schism between Jewish and Gentile society became entrenched. Without contact with Jewish society, Christian theologians and translators toiled without even knowing that Jewish idioms were used by Jesus and attempt to infer the meaning of his Words; and as Bivin and Blizzard sadly illustrate, with sometimes absurd results.

I was interested to discover that the "good eye" and "bad eye" in Matthew 6.22-23 means a "generous heart" and a "miserly spirit" respectively. Yet I have encountered many a commentator's writings concerning the possible meaning of this passage, usually developing an explanation that differs markedly from the theme of generosity.

Did I say that the bible scholar is faced with a challenge in correctly translating scripture without the benefit of a thorough understanding of Jewish culture and idioms? I would venture to say that the task is impossible without contact with Jewish society and literature.

Bivin and Blizzard give a number of examples to illustrate their point. Here is one: "Set his face to..." and "his face was set toward..."(9:51) When the days drew near for him to be received up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem.
(9:52) And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him;
(9:53) but the people would not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. (Luke 9.51-53)

Translators have read into this passage that Jesus had moments of misgivings or even doubts about going to Jerusalem. But the phrase he "set his face to go to..." and "his face was set to..." has no such connotation as Hebrew idioms . They should have been translated as "he was travelling to..."

Clearly the risk of error is great when translating outside of the Jewish context and therefore it would not be surprising to find theology based on studying flawed translations would also be in error.

They look at a number of theological positions that have gained prominence but in their opinion are built on mistranslations: Pacifism; Torah abrogation; giving without discernment; are all examples offered,

If even half were true, then many of the things we have taken for granted as accepted tenets of Christianity must be questioned.

-------------------------------
Uploaded with my Apple Newton

Written Torah and Oral Torah

In most legal systems, there is a written code of law and an accompany body of regulation that deals with situations not envisaged by the original statutes.

The English Common Law system is a good example. Parliament sets out the Statutes and the Judges develop common law principles and precedents that guide real-life application.

The Torah is structured in a similar way. It too has a written component, being the Pentateuch and establishes a hierarchy of courts of elders for adjudicating real-life situations, by applying the commandments. Over time, a system of rulings, precedents, and principles were developed. This has been captured by the Oral Torah and preserved in the Talmudic writings. The highest court of elders became known as the Sanhedrin in Christ's day.

As time passed, a system of principles were developed to resolve contradictions between different commandments; between commandments and Oral Torah rulings; and between different Oral Torah rulings.

For example, Oral Torah could never abrogate Written Torah. This principle is applied by Jesus in the dispute over Corban and the Commandment to honour one's father and mother (which had come to mean to provide for them in their old age). Another is the principle of preserving life as taking precedence over any other commandment. Jesus applies this principle when healing on the Sabbath. A third principle involves the infrequent taking precedence over the frequent. An example of this is illustrated when Yom Kippur (a fast) falls on a Sabbath (a feast). Since a Sabbath can be celebrated next week then the fast should be observed as it won't roll around for another year. Interestingly this principle was applied in attempting to rebut Jesus over Sabbath healing: "Why couldn't you have done it tomorrow?"

Thus many of the disputes between the Scribes, Pharisees, Sadduccees and other religious leaders can be understood once this framework is grasped.

Unfortunately, the Oral Torah (idiomatically called the "yoke") became elaborate and complex. Rulings were made for almost every part of the minutiae of life. Jesus proclaimed a revisionist view of the Oral Torah (or Halachah), disputing with the Hebrew authorities that its complexity had created a barrier to salvation (Matthew 23.4, 13). This is what he meant in Matthew 11.28. His "Yoke" was light compared to the conventional "Yoke" of the day.

Interestingly, Jesus never disputed the Sanhedrin's right to make rulings (idiomatically called "binding and loosing"), in fact, he encouraged obedience to them (Matthew 23.1-3) but debated with them from within the framework of principles for resolving contradictions between the Commandments and/or Oral Torah rulings.

Thus if we believe in observing the Written Torah and the Written Torah establshes the authority of the hierarchy of courts and the creation of Oral Torah then we have to recognise the authority of Oral Torah. However Jesus' example shows us that we can abrogate the Oral Torah when it contravenes the framework for assessing how or if it should be applied.

Legalism: Part 1

When the subject of Torah observance arises, the long shadow of Legalism looms large in the imagination. What is legalism?

Wikipedia describes it thus: "Legalism, in Christian theology, is a pejorative term referring to an over-emphasis on law or codes of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of misguided rigor, pride, superficiality, the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God or emphasizing the letter of law over the spirit. Legalism is alleged against any view that obedience to law, not faith in God's grace, is the pre-eminent principle of redemption."

For many it has come to mean observing any set of rules without first being moved by the Holy Spirit. In practice it could mean that nothing should be done unless one feels like it. Merely reading and obeying becomes legalism.

What does Jesus mean in Matthew 7 when he says:

"(7:22) Many will say to me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'
(7:23) Then I will tell them plainly, `I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' "?

Surely if people are prophecying, delivering people from demons and performing miracles in the name of Jesus then God's favour must be with them?

Actually, the bible warns against those who perform miracles and yet lead people to follow other Gods:

(13:1) If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder,
(13:2) and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them,"
(13:3) you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.
(13:4) It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. (Deuteronomy 13.1-4)

How can one be guilty of leading people to worship other Gods? By portraying God as something he isn't and thereby causing people to follow a "false" God. Verse 4 gives a clue as to what it means to follow the one true God:

* Keep and obey His commands (i.e. the Torah);
* Serve God; and
* Hold fast to Him.

Is a God who does not require torah observance, fundamentally different from the one presented by bible? If the answer is yes, then does worshipping such a God constitute worshipping a false God? If yes, then could one be teaching idolatry by promoting such a God?

This is what Jesus says about obedience:

"Why do you call me, `Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? (Luke 6.46)
Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him." (John 14.21)There is no mention of waiting for the Spirit to "move one" to obedience. Being aware of God's commands should be sufficient.