Principles of Scripture Interpretation
“The
researches of many commentators have already thrown much darkness on this
subject, and it is possible that, if they continue, we shall soon know nothing
at all about it.”
“It ain't
those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the
parts that I do understand.”
Mark
Twain
Millions
around the world have claimed the Bible as the foundation for their various
religions, yet have failed to find unity amongst themselves. In fact, among these millions, wars have been
waged of unsurpassed brutality and scope.
Biblical literacy is not a high priority among such. Yet, even when people do undertake to read
the Bible on their own, they find it largely bewildering. Young theology students often encounter
enough disparity between their beliefs and what they read in the Bible to
bankrupt their faith. For well more than
a 150 years, theologians have been at the forefront of those challenging the
historicity and moral authority of the Bible.
In this article, we consider how holy disciples of Yahoshua interpret
this Book of Books.
What is the Bible?
Before
we can proceed, we must identify just what our Bible is, for that is hardly a
matter of agreement at large. In the
distant past, some Jews (e.g., the Sadducees) only accepted the first five
books of Moses (a.k.a. the Torah, Chumash, Pentateuch), as is still the case
with the Samaritans. More in keeping
with the Pharisees, modern Judaism’s Bible is the Tanakh (known to gentiles as
the “Old Testament”). Christians are
divided in this regard. Catholics,
Anglicans and the Orthodox churches accept
what they call the Old and New Testaments as well as the Jewish Apocrypha,
while Protestants accept only the two testaments.
Our
Bible is that of Yahoshua and the original disciples–the Tanakh, with the
possible exception of Esther, Qohelet (Ecclesiastes) and Shir haShirim (Song of
Songs), the only books of the Tanakh not quoted in the New Testament.[1] Hereinafter, our use of the term Tanakh will
refer to all but these three.
This
is not suggest that we reject these books–only that we cannot affirm them with the
same assurance as the other books of the Tanakh.
Why the Bible?
The
answer to this question has largely to do with quality of life. There are those who grow up with the Bible,
taking it for granted as the word of God.
Others point out its accounts where Israel was instructed to annihilate
the men, women and children of various communities, concluding this cannot
possibly be the work of a benevolent deity,
that its tales of wonder are pure fabrications and that it is riddled
with contradictions.
It is
true that reading the Bible elicits an unending parade of questions, many of
which we cannot answer. So does life
itself. It is also true that those of us
nurtured in homes where the Bible is the foundation of good human relationships
experience the fruit of its instructions first-hand. Around us we readily observe what life is
like without the Bible–a demonstration of its darker episodes. As for miracles, we experience our own. The contradictions so-called are typically
the product of superficial reading, remedied with closer scrutiny and analysis.
Our
own experience is that the Bible helps us connect with our Creator, it greatly
improves our present state of being and our relationships and it offers us hope
to surmount the frustrations, disappointments, shattered dreams and tragedies
of this life.
To
attain a reasonably thorough and consistent understanding of the Bible, we
apply the following principles:
1. Recognize the Torah as the foundation of the entire remainder
of the Bible.
2. Recognize the Tanakh, with the exception of Esther, Qohelet
and Shir haShirim, as the Bible and the Torah or Law of Yahoshua, his disciples
and their community.
3. Resolve either to accept the basic content of the Tanakh as
originating from God or to regard it merely as human literature.
4. Recognize that the New Testament, as valuable as it is, was
not
the Bible of Yahoshua, his
disciples or their community, neither was it a part of it.
5. Read the most accurate version possible.
6. Read the full passage in which a particular statement appears.
7. Give the historical and cultural context due consideration–not
only in terms of works’ origins, but the message and intended readership as
well.
8. Be vigilant, be wary as to the biases of the translators.
9. Consider all the
statements about a matter in the Bible before reaching a firm conclusion.
10. Recognize that, though the word of God is infallible, the
Bible, as we now have it, is not.
11. Read from the Torah, as well as other sections of the Bible
daily.
12. Resolve to follow the Bible.
As
noted above, the first five books of the Bible are commonly referred to as the
Torah. Meaning literally “law” or
“instructions,” these five were the entire Bible until later books were added. Over hundreds of years, other compositions
were written and collected to form the Nevi’im (Prophets) and Ketuvim
(Writings), hence the acronym TNK or Tanakh.
1. Recognize the Torah as
the foundation of the entire remainder of the Bible.
Only
writings considered compatible with the Torah came to be included in the
Tanakh. Why?[2]
If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams rises among you, and gives you
a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder which he spoke to you occurs,
saying, “Let us go after other gods which you have not known and let us serve
them,” you shall not listen to the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of
dreams. For YHVH your God is testing
you, to know if you love YHVH your God with all your heart and with all your
soul. You shall walk after YHVH your
God, and you shall fear him. And you shall keep his commandments, and you shall
hear his voice, and you shall serve him, and you shall cling to him.
D’varim (Deuteronomy) 13:1-4
And YHVH your God
will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love YHVH your God
with all your heart, and with all your soul, that you may live. And you shall return and obey the voice of
YHVH, and do all his commandments which I am commanding you today. For you shall listen to the voice of YHVH
your God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in the
book of this Torah. For you shall turn
back toward YHVH your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.
D’varim (Deuteronomy)
30:6-10
. . . heed the
commandments of YHVH your God, which I am commanding you today, to be careful
to do them. And you shall not turn away
from all the Words which I am commanding you today, right or left, to go after
other gods, to serve them.
D’varim (Deuteronomy)
28:13-14
. . . and the
things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may do all the
Words of this Torah.
D’varim (Deuteronomy) 29:29
And Moshe (Moses)
finished speaking all these words to all Israel, and said to them, Set your
heart on all the words which I have testified against you today, that you
command your sons to take heed to do all the Words of this Torah.
D’varim (Deuteronomy)
32:45-46
Once uttered,
these instructions precluded acceptance of any oral or written instructions
claiming to countermand the Torah.
Much later,
Yeshayahu (Isaiah) confirmed this principle when he wrote, “Bind up the
Testimony, seal the Torah among my disciples.
To the Torah and to the Testimony!
If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no
dawn to them!”
Yeshayahu (Isaiah) 8:16,20
This is why
Yahoshua said, “Truly I say to you that until heaven and earth pass, not one
letter or one dot shall be abolished from the Torah or the Prophets, because
all will be fulfilled. He who shall
transgress one word of these commandments and shall teach others shall be
called a son of worthlessness in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever upholds and teaches them shall be
called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Matityahu (Matthew) 5:18-19
In his most detailed
confrontation with the author of lawlessness, Yahoshua rebutted his foe with
quotations from holy scripture. It is no
coincidence that all three of these quotations came from the book of D’varim–in
the Torah.
Once the primacy
of the Torah is understood, the idea that a man or group of men could challenge
it and have any credibility among the holy people is not only untenable, but
ludicrous.
2. Recognize the Tanakh,
with the possible exception of Esther, Qohelet and Shir haShirim, as the Bible
and the Torah or Law of Yahoshua, his disciples and their community.
Throughout his
career, Yahoshua justified his teachings and his actions and his teachings by
authority of the Tanakh. Decades after
the crucifixion, far-flung disciples were “daily examining the Scriptures if
these things were so.”
Figures vary, but,
according to David H. Stern, “There are 484 passages from the Tanakh cited a
total of 695 times” in the New Testament.[3]
As radical as
Yahoshua’s teachings were when uttered and remain to this day, they depend on
the Tanakh.
For example, in
Yochanan (John) 10:34-35, Yahoshua is quoted as saying, “Has it not been
written in your Torah, ‘I said, you are gods’?
If he called those gods with whom the word of God was, and the scripture
cannot be loosed . . . ” This is
particularly important for a couple of reasons.
First, Yahoshua is
not quoting from the books of Moshe, which we most often mean when referring to
the Torah. Instead, these words are from
Tehillim (Psalm) 82:6. So we see that
other parts of the Tanakh besides the first five books are Torah, which is to
say they are authoritative instructions.
In addition,
Yahoshua says “the scripture cannot be loosed.”
This speaks both to the Tanakh’s place in governing human conduct and as
setting the permanent standard against which all other oral and written
teaching must be measured.
Because Yahoshua
so oft and so vigorously criticized his contemporaries as to how they
interpreted the Tanakh, many have misinterpreted this to mean his teachings
superceded it. In reality, his teachings
consistently adjure the correct interpretation and application of the Tanakh.
This stance
demanded that his disciples also remain riveted to the Tanakh, as is amply demonstrated
by the abundance citations to it in their writings. The passage of time only reinforces this same
imperative on today’s disciples who wish to maintain the course.
3. Resolve either to
accept the basic content of the Tanakh as originating from God or to regard it
merely as human literature.
Yahoshua’s many
quotations from the Tanakh give us a very definite view of how he saw it–as
containing God’s instructions. Mark 4:4
is typical, where he quotes D’varim (Deuteronomy) 8:3, saying, “man shall live
by everything proceeding out of the mouth of YHVH,”
One perspective
sees the Tanakh as largely fable and delusions.
The other sees it as a reliable history, relevant to the present and an
accurate representation of the future.
If we accept the Tanakh
at face value, we are accepting its claims to contain God’s instructions for
humanity. We then confront a stark
choice–whether to conform ourselves to those instructions or not. The average person is not going to gravitate
toward conformity for, as Paul said, “because the mind of the flesh is enmity
toward God; for it is not being subjected to the Law of God, for neither can it
be. Yet, if we wish to follow the
footsteps of the New Testament Messiah, we have to accept his Bible as our
Bible and to accept it on his terms.
4. Recognize that the New
Testament, as valuable as it is, was not the Bible of Yahoshua, his disciples or their community, neither
was it a part of it.
The New Testament,
particularly the life and teachings of Meshiach Yahoshua, is an essential basis
for our faith. Without it, we would not
know our Meshiach, our elder brother and our King. We would have no idea how YHVH redeems us and the actual ransom he paid. As we can observe from those around us, we
would have a profoundly dimmer awareness that YHVH owes us nothing for our
feeble good works and that our motivation to do good must be love and not
mercenary, in spite of the Tanakh’s coverage of these issues.
Having said that,
it remains crucial we also understand that Yahoshua’s disciples had no New
Testament. As stated above, the Tanakh
was their Bible.
The writings we
can attribute to the disciples were composed piecemeal, apparently over many
decades. When the disciples read fresh
compositions by one of their peers, they
did not accord them a status comparable with the Tanakh. To merit peer acceptance, these had to conform fully to the Tanakh
first, and to their own personal experiences with Yahoshua.
As the
eyewitnesses died off, the priceless nature of any written accounts they left
behind became vividly apparent, especially as competing accounts arose. As more time elapsed, the representations of
Yahoshua’s life and teachings would only become more varied– some being genuine, others propagating
utterly baseless legends and/or counterfeit teachings. The community most firmly rooted in
Yahoshua’s Bible, the Tanakh, was the community most familiar with him and his
expectations and best equipped to discern which writings were reliable and
which were spurious. The fact that we
have been preceded by nearly a hundred generations of discriminating disciples
does not numb us into suspending judgment today.
Before addressing
what this means to us in specific terms, it is appropriate to cast some light
on some popular misconceptions about the New Testament.
The Christian
perspective on what the New Testament is and what it contains is essentially
Roman Catholic:
The Catholic New
Testament, as defined by the Council of Trent[4],
does not differ, as regards the books contained, from that of all Christian
bodies at present . . . Since the
Council of Trent it is not permitted for a Catholic to question the inspiration
of these passages.[5]
Being of daughters
of Catholicism, Protestants accept the Catholic New Testament as their own,
even while contesting Rome’s authority to define the same. Catholics and Protestants are perfectly
comfortable asserting that the New Testament is “the holy word of God,” even
while disregarding its instructions on a wide variety of issues, from pastoral
qualifications to congregational adjudication to sexual and gender decorum.
Rome’s
canonization of its New Testament means no more us than its canonization of the
apocrypha or its interpretation of these writings. As it was in the 1st century, we
accept whatever in the New Testament is fully compatible with the Tanakh and
reject what is not.
Incompatibility of
a New Testament scripture with the Tanakh is most often a flag which, upon
further analysis, reveals either a transmission or translation problem, most
often with just a word or verse.
However, sometimes it can involve longer passages such as the end of
Mark, well known and acknowledged by scholars to be spurious.
In some instances,
as with the Apocrypha, incompatibility with the Tanakh disqualifies entire
books. For us, this is the case with
Galatians and 2 Peter.
Galatians is a
book which firmly pits itself against not only the Tanakh, but against
Yahoshua’s teachings and even Paul’s letter to the Romans. Its criticism of Ya’akov, Kefa and Yochanan
is bitter, sarcastic and unreconciled.
It is also very telling that the conflict it describes is not resolved
to its author’s satisfaction, but left an open wound. As such, the wound remains, not only for the
author, but for every subsequent reader of the work. For us, Galatians value is not its doctrine,
but as a vivid witness to profound divisions that arose early between those
claiming Yahoshua as their Messiah. It
is a sobering testament as to why Judaism cannot and will not embrace
Christianity. Even were one to find some way of harmonizing it with the Torah, one
would have to concede it has led more of its readership to challenge the Torah
than any other composition in history.
Unlike Galatians,
which has had practically no detractors in Christianity, 2 Peter was considered
questionable as far back as we have records and has never shed that status
among many New Testament scholars.
However, doubt alone is not the criteria, but, again, incompatibility
with the Tanakh. Its characterization of
Lot as a righteous man is the opposite of what we find in the Torah–a selfish,
incestual alcoholic who offered his daughters to a mob of homosexuals. If the Torah offered Lot redeeming qualities
or redemption itself in the face of such egregious sin, the appellation of
righteousness could be accommodated.
Absent that, such a representation is a serious affront to the
relationship of any father with his daughters.
While this approach
cannot help but open us to vehement criticism from Christian quarters, ironically, our literacy in the New Testament
and adherence to its instructions far exceeds that of our critics. The fact such views do not engender
popularity may call to mind Yahoshua’s recurring statement, “Many are called,
but few chosen,” or “Enter through the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and
broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many are the ones entering in
through it. For narrow is the gate, and
compressed is the way that leads away into life, and few are those finding it.”
[Matityahu (Matthew) 20:16; 22:14; 7:13-14]
5. Read the most accurate
version possible.
Our next principle
is to read the Bible in the most accurate form we can access. This harkens back to the statement, “man
shall live by everything proceeding
out of the mouth of YHVH.”
For those who can,
there is no substitute for reading the Tanakh in its native Hebrew and
Aramaic. In the case of the New
Testament, other than Shem Tov Matityahu (Matthew), the earliest version we
have is the Greek, which, in large part, is itself a translation of Hebrew.[6] Nonetheless, being one translation away from
the original language is better than being twice removed.
For those not
fluent in the languages of the Tanakh and the New Testament, a rather literal,
interlinear translation is the next best thing.
The edition by Jay P. Green, Sr. from Sovereign Grace Publishers has
both the Tanakh and the New Testament.
Artscroll is gradually issuing interlinears for the Tanakh. Alfred Marshall’s interlinear of the New
Testament published by Zondervan captures nuances missed by many other
versions. J.N. Young’s Literal
Translation is another good resource for English speakers.
The trend in Bible
translation has long favored paraphrases.
These read with ease and are more readily accessible than
“word-for-word” renditions, which are considered awkward and a chore to
read. There certainly is merit to an
easier read, but, as with everything, it comes with a price–often hidden,
sometimes exorbitant.
Take for example
Mark 7:18-19. The New American Standard
Bible (NASV), touted to be among those English translations most true to the
original text, renders it as follows:
And He said to them,
“Are you so lacking in understanding also?
Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside
cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach,
and is eliminated?” (Thus he declared
all foods clean.)
In the New
International Version (NIV), it reads:
“Are you so dull?”
he asked. “Don't you see that nothing
that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his
stomach, and then out of his body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods
“clean.”)
Here is the same
passage from Green’s Literal Translation:
And He said to
them, Are you also so undiscerning? Do you not perceive that all that enters
from the outside into the man is not able to defile him? This is because it does not enter into his
heart, but into the belly, and goes out into the waste-bowl, purging all the
foods.
Notice how there
is no “thus he declared all foods clean” in the literal translation. Why not?
Because it simply is not in the ancient Greek texts.
As Yahoshua said,
what we ingest which the body cannot use gets purged from the body into the
toilet. That which is cleansed in this
example is hardly what ends up in the commode, but the body which eliminated
the foul substance. The Greek here is
not at odds with the Torah, but the translators’ bias against Torah observance
is well-evidenced in such renditions.
Here is another
example of a garbled translation from the Greek New Testament to the English:
. . . whatsoever
thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matityahu (Matthew) 16:19 (KJV)
In his forward to
Alfred Marshall’s Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, J.B. Phillips writes,
“I am glad, for example to see that Dr. Marshall has not missed the peculiar
Greek construction in Matthew ch. 16, v. 19, where Jesus tells Peter that “what
he binds on earth” will be “what has been bound” in Heaven. There is a world of difference between
guaranteeing celestial endorsement of the Apostle’s actions and promising that
his actions guided by the Holy Spirit will be in accordance with the Heavenly
pattern!”[7]
Young’s Literal
Translation, though awkward, reflects Phillips’ observation:
. . . whatever
thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and
whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the
heavens
Despite the fact
very few English translations render the proper sense here, the very quirkiness
of such passages calls attention to the need for further inquiry. Sometimes the question is resolved with a
quick look at an interlinear; sometimes it is much more involved.
Seeking the most
accurate form of the Bible also includes drawing from more than one textual
tradition, which requires a little explanation.
The Tanakh has
come down to us from the ancient Jewish community from three sources: the
Masoretic Text (MT), the Dead Sea or Qumran Scrolls (Q) and the Septuagint
(LXX). In the case of the Chumash, we
can add the Samaritan Pentateuch. The
New Testament is preserved in the Received Text or Texts Receipts (TR) and
composite or critical texts. We also
have the Shem Tov book of Matityahu (Matthew) in Hebrew. Sometimes one English or other modern
language translation differs from another due to choices made by the
translators. In other cases, it is a
different Hebrew or Greek source text from which the translators are working.
The Masoretic Text
is the standardized Hebrew text of Judaism today. It has been handed down far greater care (so
far as we have documentation) than any other source. Scribes go to great lengths to preserve the
integrity of the text, adding up the numeric values of every character and
taking other such measures. The Qumran
Scrolls are about a thousand years older than the oldest surviving manuscripts
of the Masoretic Text, affording us the opportunity to analyze the transmission
accuracy of the latter. The Septuagint
is the translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek by Jews. It often gives us valuable insight into how
Jews interpreted scripture prior to the New Testament era.
A famous example
is Yeshayahu (Isaiah) 7:14, where, in both the Masoretic and the Qumran
sources, we read:
Therefore YHVH
himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear
a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
This reference to
the “young woman” is quoted in Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matityahu. It is in the Septuagint that we read that
this young woman is a virgin, affirming how some of the Jews viewed the
prophecy, well before Yahoshua’s birth.
To examine every
manuscript of every Bible verse is obviously way beyond most if not all of us;
neither is it always necessary nor even advisable. However, when a particular verse or passage
seems out of character with other parts of the Bible, that is when we might
well consider what lies beyond the version in our lap.
6. Read the full passage
in which a particular statement appears.
In Yirmayahu
(Jeremiah) 28:2-4, we read:
So says YHVH of
Hosts, the God of Israel, saying, “I have broken the yoke of the king of
Babylon. Within two years I will again
bring into this place all the vessels of the house of YHVH which Nevuchadnetzar
king of Babylon took away from this place and brought them to Babylon. And I will bring again to this place
Yechonyah the son of Yehoiakim, king of Yehudah, with all the exiles of Judah
who went into Babylon,” says YHVH. “For
I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon.”
When we read the
whole chapter, we find that these are not the words of God at all, but the
words of a false prophet which he attributed to God.
Quotes can be
lifted out of the Bible to support all kinds of senseless ideas, many in
opposition to one another. Theologians,
like politicians, are not above taking sources out of context to suit their
will.
Some statements
lend themselves more readily to misuse in this regard than others. For example, in Yochanan (John) 9:31, we read
the statement, “ . . . we know that God does not hear sinners.” In 1 Yochanan (John) 1:8, we find, “If we say
that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” To conclude from these two scriptures that
God hears no one or that this is an example of the New Testament contradicting
itself would not only be myopic but wrong.
When we acknowledge the context of the first statement–that it is not
from Yahoshua’s lips, but an ordinary citizen being grilled by the Sanhedrin,
we can accept it with the appropriate limitations.
This context issue
is also at work in the “foods” episode cited above. The situation described in Mark chapter seven
has nothing to do with kosher foods; it has nothing to do with what the disciples were eating. The author introduces the incident in the
first couple verses of the chapter by informing us that the scribes and
pharisees took exception, not with what the disciples were eating, but the fact
that they did not first wash in accordance with Jewish oral tradition.
For the sake of
both simplicity and brevity, the context in the above examples may be found
within a few verses. However, in other
cases, more or less parallel statements or accounts are often found in other
books. For example, the Ten Words (or
Commandments) are found in both Sh’mot (Exodus) chapter 20 and Devarim
(Deuteronomy) chapter 5. The wording is
nearly identical in both, but the slight differences enhance our understanding. The books of Melechim (1 & 2 Samuel and 1
& 2 Kings) are paralleled by Divrei Hayamim (1 & 2 Chronicles) and, to
a lesser extent, with passages in Yeshayahu (Isaiah) and Yirmayahu
(Jeremiah). Biographical material about
Messiah Yahoshua is found in the four Testimonies or Gospels, each lending
details not found in the others.
7. Give the historical and
cultural context due consideration–not only in terms of works’ origins, but the
message and intended readership as well.
Because the Bible
deals so much with universal issues, there is much we can learn from it without
even passing familiarity with its origins and its transmission to our
time. Yet, much is lost without some
acquaintance with the Bible’s culture and no small amount gets misconstrued as
a result.
The cultural and
linguistic origins of the Tanakh are not seriously disputed. However, Christianity has, since the second
century CE, been intent on sanitizing itself of all vestiges of anything
Jewish. Therefore, the vast majority of
New Testament scholars emanating from its seminaries are insistent that the
entire New Testament was originally penned in Greek.
It is true that
the majority of the most ancient New Testament manuscripts extant are Greek and
that several of its books (such as Paul’s writings) were penned originally in
Greek. Therefore, knowing how a passage
reads in the Greek indeed brings us a couple millennia closer to the original
than an English translation.
Ya’akov (James)
2:2 is an example of the Greek bringing us closer to the cultural context than
the typical English translation. As
rendered in Green’s Literal Translation, it reads as follows:
For if there may
come into your synagogue a man with gold ring, in gay raiment, and there may
come in also a poor man in vile raiment . . .
Notice the use of
the familiar term“synagogue.” This is
the term used in the Greek text–a word borrowed by the Jews designating their
houses of worship even today. Despite
our familiarity with this term, the NASV supplies “assembly” and the NIV
employs “meeting”–both demonstrating an effort to distance themselves (and the
reader) from the Jewish source culture.
So here we have an example of how the Greek retains some of the cultural
context and a faithful rendering of the Greek can do likewise.
In the above
simple example, the Greek connects us more firmly with the cultural
context. This is not always the case,
for Yahoshua and his disciples were not conversing in Greek, but in Hebrew[8].
In Yochanan (John)
10:22-23 we read:
And the Feast of
Dedication took place in Jerusalem, and it was winter. And Jesus was walking in the temple, in
Solomon's Porch.
This is an
instance where, though the account comes to us in Greek, it is an acquaintance
with Jewish culture that provides the context.
The occasion is Chanukah, which, though the Hebrew word for dedication,
has been absorbed into the English language as a celebration with which most
have at least passing familiarity.
So here are two
cases, one involving a familiar Greek term, the other a familiar Hebrew term,
both of which has been absorbed into the common English vocabulary, both
avoided by editors and translators in favor of terms which divorce the reader
from the Jewish context of the scriptures.
Were no one familiar with New Testament Greek, we would have no access
to these writings. However, interpreting
the Greek in a state of cultural disassociation often leads to erroneous
conclusions.
Consider the
conversation recorded in Yochanan (John) 21:15-19 in which Yahoshua asks Shimon
Kefa (Peter) three times if Shimon loves him.
Many have pointed out that, in the first two queries, the Greek word for
love is agapao, while Shimon answers with a different word for love–fileo. Finally, Yahoshua restates the question using
fileo, at which point Shimon is clearly unnerved. For those acquainted with Greek, there is a
certain temptation to analyze the significance of these two words for love as
used in the conversation. Of course, the
conversation did not take place in Greek, but in Hebrew, which has no words corresponding
closely with agapao or fileo.
Examining the
Greek New Testament enables us to check the accuracy of an English translation
and to consider viable alternatives to questionable renderings–both essential
tasks. However, we are misled if we fail
to acknowledge the Hebrew language and culture in which the actual events,
discourses and conversations occurred, of which the Greek itself is but a
translation.
The other facet of
cultural context pertains to the readership intended by those who penned the
words we now read.
We have just noted
the reference to Chanukah in Yochanan.
In the Acts 27:9, we find the following:
And much time
having passed and the voyage already being dangerous, because The Fast already
had gone by, Paul warned them, saying, “Men, I see that the voyage is about to
be with injury and much loss, not only of the cargo and of the ship, but also
of our souls.”
Luke, or whoever
wrote Acts, assumed familiarity on the part of his readers to The Fast, also known as Yom haKipurim or Yom
Kippur. When he says the disciples
returned to Jerusalem from a Shabbat’s journey away, he assumes we know how far
that is.
Similarly, when
Paul writes of being “puffed up” five times in his first letter to the
Corinthians, he is doing so in the context of the Feast of Matzah, to which he
also makes direct reference.
Such passing
references abound. They inform a
particular readership, including them in the context what is written, even as
their meanings and implications elude others.
8. Be vigilant, be wary as
to the biases of the translators.
In sections 5 and
7 above, we have already raised the issue of translator bias and given
strategies to mitigate it. However, thus
far, the focus has been the inherent challenges of migrating from one language
and culture to another. The biases
themselves require special attention.
This is both because biases are ever present and they involve, not just
technical hurdles handled with impartiality, but they reflect motives as well.
It seems we
encounter these most often in New Testament simply because it is there that we
have antinomian (anti-Torah) gentiles translating Jewish material that is alien
to them, though the gentile imprint on Tanakh translations is also
well-represented.
In Tehillim (Psalm
2:12, we have rb-wq#n, typically
rendered in gentile translations as “kiss the Son.” Jewish translations into English render the
phrase, “do homage;” the Septuagint has “dracasqe paideiav” or “accept correction.”
The word translated “Son” is rb (bar), which later, post-exilic Hebrew did borrow from Aramaic as
a result of the Jews deportation to Babylon.
However, Kefa (Peter) in Acts 4:25, attributes this psalm to David. The Hebrew for “son,” ab (ben), is used in this psalm in
verse 7, where it says, “You are my son.
Today I have begotten you.”
Returning to verse 12, there is no definite article. Truly this psalm is messianic, but, in this
instance, Christian translators discredit themselves with a combination of
excessive zeal and insufficient reverence for the native text.
This is not to
suggest Jewish translations into English are unbiased. This is readily evident in Tehillim 110,
where we find the phrase rwmzm
dwdl,
typically translated “a psalm of David.”
This identical phrase occurs in five other psalms. Grammatically, both the Hebrew and the
English phrases are somewhat ambiguous.
However, it is generally understood to mean “a psalm by David.” This creates a problem for normative Judaism
if David’s Master is being spoken to by YHVH.
Therefore, Jewish translators give this psalm unique treatment,
rendering the phrase “A psalm about
David” or “A psalm regarding
David.” It is not that this is
grammatically incorrect; it is simply inconsistent–and this simple
inconsistency obviously has profound implications.
9. Consider all the statements about a matter in the
Bible before reaching a firm conclusion.
Whoever answers a
matter before he hears, folly and shame it is to him
Mishlei (Proverbs) 18:13
Some claim the
Bible is full of contradictions. We say it
is full of paradoxes. These force us to
put forth considerable effort in reaching conclusions rather than be passively
spoon-fed. They compel us to confront
and conquer our own doubts.
Anyone doubting
whether or not such paradoxes are intentional need not limit the search for
widely separated passages under the assumption of a certain amnesia inherent in
the Bible. In Mishlei (Proverbs) 26:4-5
we find:
Answer not a fool
according to his foolishness, lest you become like him, even you. Answer a fool according to his foolishness,
that he not be wise in his own eyes.
If we apply but
one statement in all cases, we become the fool.
Skeptics will
gleefully cite Paul’s reference to the “God of peace” in Romans 15:33 and
contrast it with Sh’mot (Exodus) 15:3 where we read, “YHVH is a man of
war.” Humanity hardly needs the promise
of peace from an impotent God who, powerless to subdue his enemies, is unable
to implement his plan.
Texts have been
lifted out of the Bible to support all kinds of opposing views. It is futile to simply marshal the scriptures
that seem to affirm a view if we fail to address those that might challenge it.
10. Recognize that, though
the word of God is infallible, the Bible, as we now have it, is not.
In the Bible, there
is no shortage of paradoxes intentionally composed as such. In addition to these, there are scribal
errors.
Well-known is the
discrepancy between 1 Melachim (Kings) 4:26 and 2 Divrei Hayamim (Chronicles)
9:25. In the former, we read that King
Sh’lomo (Solomon) had forty-thousand horse stalls; in the latter, the number is
four-thousand. It seems inescapable that
we have before us a text transmission problem.
The skeptic will
say, “If God is omniscient and wants his will clearly known, could not he and would not he prevent such errors?
We respond that
God’s will remains abundantly clear, despite the deficiencies of the human
hand. In this case, we need only know
that Sh’lomo had thousands of horses, thousands of horsemen and chariots to go
with them. The point is not show many
horses and chariots he had in particular, but the fact that he violated the
Torah, where it says, “. . . he shall not multiply horses to himself . . .”
[D’varim (Deuteronomy) 17:16 A second
point is also clear: God performs much of his work through imperfect human
beings. As he does so, he allows for
inevitable blemishes on our part, nevertheless accomplishing his perfect goals.
Intentional
blemishing God’s instructions in writing is matter of grave consequences. On the other hand, the irony of following
example seems to indicate a sense of divine humor–perhaps even mockery of those
who discount his involvement in the Bible.
We have already
cited D’varim (Deuteronomy) 8:3, where it is written, “Man shall not live by
bread alone, but man shall live by everything proceeding out of the mouth of
YHVH.” This is how the statement comes
to us in the Masoretic and Qumran texts.
However, Matityahu, at least in the Greek, substitutes the title, God,
for the name, YHVH, as does the Septuagint.
Shem Tov’s Matityahu says “Man shall not live by bread alone, etc.” Luke 4:4, which parallels Matityahu’s
narrative, comes to us in two basic versions.
In the Received Text, it reads like Greek Matityahu; in the standard
critical texts, it reads like the shorter Shem Tov, minus the “etc.”
Obviously, the
original statement is not being transmitted verbatim in each case. If one desires to nurse one’s doubts with
such variety, there is ample rope to hang oneself. Meanwhile, the fundamental message remains
consistent and crystal clear.
11. Read from the Torah,
as well as other sections of the Bible daily.
One cannot always
be parsing the Bible. It also needs
simply to be read–as instruction, as history, as narrative and as poetry. To have its various statements on any
given topic come to mind as one reads it
freely does not come with occasional reading.
This experience is the byproduct of daily reading.
And it shall be,
when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of
this Torah in a scroll, from before the priests, the Levites. And it shall be with him, and he shall read
in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear YHVH your God, to
keep all the words of this Torah and these statutes, to do them; so that his
heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside
from the commandment, to the right or to the left; so that he may prolong his
days over his kingdom, he and his sons in the midst of Israel.
D’varim 17:18-20
The brothers at
once sent both Paul and Sila to Berea during the night; who having arrived went
into the synagogue of the Jews. And
these were more noble than those in Thessaloniki, for they received the word
with all readiness, daily examining the scriptures if these things are so.
Acts 17:10-11
The last scripture
warrants some elaboration. Today, we are
accustomed to having our own copy of the Bible in our home. In those days, this was a luxury far beyond
the reach of all but the most wealthy.
It takes over
sixty animal hides to make a scroll for just the first five books of the
Bible. Such a scroll, meticulously
copied by hand, every character verified with a numeric cross-check, costs
between about $25,000 and $50,000 today.
Thus, the Bereans
were going to the synagogue daily to read the scriptures. So it was until well after the invention of
the printing press. Even then, books
remained prohibitively expensive and most gentiles were illiterate.
Add to this the
fact that the Catholic church vigorously suppressed the dissemination of and
access to the Bible. At mass, it was
read only in Latin until well into the 20th century, a dead language
among the parishioners. Those such as
William Tyndale, Jan Hus and John Rogers involved in translating it into the
languages of the populous were executed.
One risked burning at the stake for mere possession of such a
translation.
While a number of
reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin translated the Bible for their
followers, scriptural literacy is currently about as weak in the Protestant
world as it remains in Catholicism.
Today, not only is
the Bible itself readily available; the array of study aids to accompany it is
astounding and also readily accessible.
The ease at which we can avail ourselves to these resources masks both
the very dear price paid for that privilege and the accountability we bear for
our use of them.
12. Resolve to follow the
Bible.
The Bible claims
to be the word of the Almighty Creator.
If this is not so, it is rubbish.
If it is so, his words, by virtue of his very authority, are law. If it is so, the Bible’s instructions should
govern our personal, familial, congregational, local, commercial and national
conduct.
We humans are
hard-wired with oversized appetites and aspirations which get us into
considerable trouble because they cannot possibly by satisfied in this
lifetime. If we attempt to satiate them
as mortals, we inevitably do so at great expense and sorrow to those around us.
The laws of human
conduct are no less real than those of physics.
In the Bible, we have them clearly articulated so that we can implement
them. In the world about us, we have the
fruit of others’ lives to observe. We
can follow a plethora of paths alien to the Bible. We can lead a life of experimentation–be our
own guinea pigs. So the choice is rather
stark.
We are also
predisposed toward contemplating why we are here and being preoccupied with
what, if anything, we can expect after death.
We can sublimate these questions, yet they persist. We swallow Darwinian modalities even as we
admire those who sacrifice their lives on behalf of others.
The Bible claims
that life does have meaning, that we do have a purpose and that there is more
to life than this temporary, physical existence. For those so inclined, the door is opened to
explore and to grow.
Once we pass
through that door, our journey has both a private, individual facet, fueled to
a large extent by the personal initiative we invest in partnership with God’s
greater investment. There is also the
collaborative aspect of the journey in which we nurture one another as a
community. Since our values and
practices are Bible-based, having a common and sound set of principles by which
we interpret scripture is essential to our survival as a community and the
success of our collaborative efforts.
©2002,
Holy Disciples of Yahoshua Foundation
Excerpts of this
article may be quoted with written permission.