Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Billy Evans <biblewje AT comcast.net>]

on 1/14/03 2:35 PM, Matthew Miller at biblicalscribe AT hotmail.com wrote:

> Why not just believe what the ancient scriptures say? Surely the people who
> were there and wroe it know more than arrogant, 20th Century "scholars" who
> came along thousands of years later, no? MAtthew Miller
> 
> "Invariably exacerbating and complicated verbage consistently effects in me
> repulsion of prolific proportions."
Mr. Miller:

Sometimes we scholars are barking up the tree when the fox has long gone.
But other times scholarship has been the only breadwinner for the people.  I
thank God that we have all sorts of people.  My prayer has always been to
learn to do what God has equipped me to do and to remember that wisdom can
come in many ages.
  
Having said that and having recalled when I read the NT 37 times in one year
in English before I understood languages or anything really, I know that it
has been the scholar's understanding of complex factors that has steered him
or her to the food when the tenderfoot would have had the people on a wild
goose chase.  Surely, you know that.  You seem to be a passionate man and I
hope you never lose that.  Do not take the following assumption as a slap
but I am assuming you do not read biblical languages nor are you aware of
linguistic theory that scholars used to put the English Bible into your own
hands.  It has always been this way and always will. The KJV was not the
first English translation, it was the ninth.  And just as physics books
before 1901 said that the atom could not be split, biblical scholars and lay
people believed that the unusual Greek of the New Testament must have been a
special kind of 'Holy Spirit' Greek since no one had ever seen such Greek
except in the NT.  But, in 1901 a scholar discovered NT Greek outside in the
world.  The conclusion was that the Greek of the Bible was not special in
the way previously thought.  The NT Greek was in fact just common every day
Koine Greek.  Thus, our wonderful God had the Bible written in the
vernacular of the common man instead of something more literate.  This meant
then, that as man's language changes the translations must change to keep in
step with the common man.  That is all fine and good and every scholar I am
sure knows this and welcomes such use of Scripture.  However, translations
have problems built right into their very hearts.  In I Kings 10:28 the only
occurence of the Hebrew word 'Que' exists in that verse in the Bible and it
did not occur in any other ancient piece of literature be it Hebrew or any
of the other languages that scholars of 1611 knew anything about.  How then
could it be defined?  The KJV guys guessed it meant 'linen yarn.' I am sure
some people in the days of 1611 and shortly thereafter submitted 'better
translations' and may have even argued to let the Bible speak for itself for
surely the people living ....you get my drift as kindly as I am giving it I
hope.  You and I owe a great deal of gratitude to those scholars who
understood the limitations before them and turned to archaeologists for
help.    After some time passed, the ground give up another secret.  'Que'
did not mean 'linen yarn' as the KJV scholars thought, it was a place in
Cilicia where Solomon got his horses.  I have not checked but my guess is
that the NKJV represents the correct translation and did not allow the
position of the 'good ole days' rule.   And one thing is certain, there have
been thousands of these errors corrected over time.  It would be a full-time
job to deal with such updates in our translations, but this is only one of
the many problems scholars face.

Many times when people complain to just let the Scriptures speak for
themselves, they are not aware of textual problems in a text.  In the KJV
day, of the five primary manuscripts that we have to use and compare with
each other today in order to ensure accuracy, only one was available in
1611.  Sadly, we can't even be sure the scholars used Bezae.  At best of the
5358 known NT manuscripts and fragments known as late as 1980, the KJV
people made use of maybe 25 because that is all that they had.  The
situation is even poorer when one considers the OT situation of 1611.  Today
we have not only better manuscripts than translators had in KJV, ASV, RV,
and others, but we have access to more information to present the most
accurate Bible to the people than in any time in history.

Of course scholars do not use English translations or the translation of
their native tougue to conduct research.  Biblical translations are mere
interpretations of a given Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic text.  Most biblical
scholars could product an authoritive translation of their own if they so
chose.  So, if you expect an English translation to be able to provide an
answer to a biblical situation because its people were the original speakers
and as such know more than the 20th century scholars, you see your mistake I
hope.  It is not only a mistake; it does not make sense.  In conclusion to
this area we can say that from a translational point of view we have no
original people able to speak from the biblical situation of which you are
examining.  Whatever we are studying, it is marred with interpretative
decisions you will not be aware of.

Now, if we are dealing with a textual situation, we may not be sure the
textual evidence is strong enough to say that the Greek or Hebrew text
before  us represents the words of the original speakers.  Our Greek or
Hebrew copies are still copies which may have been edited (compare the
Synoptics and see the thousands of editorial changes made in even the
earliest Greek texts we have).  So, what do we do?  Give up?  Just make
arguments for positions we believe the Bible teaches even though we know we
have no authorative text to consult?

Scholars divide themselves into those who believe in miracles and those who
do not.  this is where you can exercise your voice with just as much
authority as anyone of the scholars you talk to.  It is a faith issue.  If
miracles can not happen then Jesus did not arise from the dead, prophecy in
the Bible is really something written after the fact and inserted into an
earlier time to deceive readers so that they will believe in Jesus.  If
miracles did happen, then one can argue that Jesus MAY HAVE ARRISEN from the
dead.  Orthodox Jews believe in miracles and prophecy, I suppose, but none
of them believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God.  It is still a
faith thing.  

Scholars on either side of the miracle debate rely on backgrounds to help
understand how a text could provide better sense.  Every person alive uses
this literary device every day to make sense of what one hears.  When we
miss the point, we usually laugh as in Gracho Marx's "I shot an elephant in
my pajamas; how he got in my pajamas I don't  know."

However, background research assumes too much.  I wrote this to teach just
this fact in churches or classrooms:  "The two competitors emerged from the
White House one Sunday afternoon in April amid throngs of spectators and a
world press fully equiped with hundreds of TV cameras and miles of cable.
As the two men walked past the Azaleas and the Rose garden they discussed
the hazards and traps that awaited them"   Am I talking about an event in
Washington DC?  Notice how one interprets a text.  The background provides
us information that seems to tell us that an interpretation involving
Washington DC in general and on the White House lawn in particular is a 'no
brainer.'  But, guess what?  despite all that you see in your interpretation
and regardless of how you think any other scholarly interpretation is
stupid, you are wrong.  You can argue all you want and even realize that
answers to date and time add may seem to make your position true,
remember...I wrote it and I know what is in my mind.  This story may even be
copied thousands of times and sent around the world for study or admiration.
People may decide to add a few words in the test to help make things clear,
and new positions, new interpretations may arise.  But, not one person will
really KNOW FOR CERTAIN what was in my mind when I penned those words.

So, scholars realize that there are limits to what historical criticism can
do, and they turn to rhetorical analysis and different literary theories and
philosophies.  It doesn't matter if the scholar believes in miracles or not
at this point.  Those experts in interpretation know what each discipline
can and cannot do.  but then, someone sees the "Hazards and Traps of
Literature"  written by W J Evans Jr and he/she sees how scholars have
examined this almost sacred story.  to this non-scholar he/she has always
known what the story was about.  It was simple, really.  So, one day the
fellow who shared so much with those scholars in admiration for the story
gave some advice:

Why not just believe what the ancient scriptures say? Surely the people who
> were there and wroe it know more than arrogant, 20th Century "scholars" who
> came along thousands of years later, no? MAtthew Miller
> 
> "Invariably exacerbating and complicated verbage consistently effects in me
> repulsion of prolific proportions."
Mr. M.

I hope this helps you understand.  A good book on Bible translations is by
Jack P Lewis.  Baker puts it out.  It is called The English Bible/ From KJV
to NIV.

blessing to you


-- 
William "Billy" J Evans Jr-Nashville
Doctorate Rabbinics, Dead Sea Scrolls, Targums at Hebrew Union College
Doctorate in NT at University of So. Africa