Introduction to Biblical Language 101

As I'm currently lecturing undergraduate Biblical Hebrew, the following thought came to mind in a recent lecture: 'I am not actually teaching Biblical Language, but Ancient Language.' The fact that the bible was originally (kind of) written in this language is almost coincidental. What I mean is, the original writers of the bible generally used words, phrases, ideas and imagery that already existed, in order to speak of God, His nature, activity, thought process and identity. Against that, today we have what I would actually call Biblical Language - i.e. Language that is derived from the Bible.

Take, for example, the words we use to describe God:

Lord

I can think of very few instances where we use the word "Lord" in today's culture. Our understanding of the word is extremely limited. We would refer to the "House of Lords", or maybe our understanding of "Lord" comes from buying a 1cm² plot of land in some estate in Scotland, to receive a certificate saying we are a Lord (or a Lady, of course). There is a parent at my wife's school who insists on using this title on any correspondence he writes. Having attained it via the above method, most people think it is slightly humorous; certainly not noble in any way.

Certainly in Christian domains, the word Lord has it's primary meaning as "God" - whereas in Hebrew (and Greek) the word meant first "master" or even "father" (figuratively). This is in a culture which understood and employed a slave/master society.^a People would have seen that there was something in the role of the Lords they saw that reflected something about the identity of God. In fact, though not a perfect model, seeing God as someone with the authority to do and say what he pleases, to give whatever to whomever he pleases, is lost in our current use of the word "Lord" with regards to God. A Lord simply isn't that in today's Western Post-modern world. Yet we hang on to these words because "they're in the Bible", forgetting that they were not originally "religious" terms. They were words that helped people understand who God is, because it gave them an example. In a day where Lord is primarily "God" - what is our example? Whence do we find our analogy for the person of God? The answer is, we don't. Calling God "Lord" is as useful as calling God "Bread Guardian" - which is where we get our word Lord from!^b


Okay, perhaps there is slightly more reason to call God Lord than Bread Guardian but my point is that perhaps it is time to rethink our labels for God?

King

This brings me to another word we use for God - King. It has been a long time since England had a King, at least not in my lifetime. In a similar vein to the previous argument, I would say that we don't know enough about kings to successfully ascribe the label to God. Our experience of kings in our culture is either of a relatively useless monarchy (who are more often than not famous for all the wrong reasons!) or a tyrant, unwilling to allow a democracy. Is this a good example of what God is like? Set this against the role of "the king" in biblical times. The king was a man (usually) respected above anyone else. He had sovereign authority and power like no-one else, and he lead his people and ensured their safety (if he was a good king!). All of these things are what we are taught about God, but they are so far removed from our experience. We are told that God is Sovereign - but we never really see sovereignty in action. We are told that, as King, God is exalted high and reigns, rules and looks after his people - but where do we see this in our lives? Anywhere?

The problem is a difficult one to solve. Labelling God "our Prime Minister" or "our President" just doesn't quite seem right either. Though we understand the role of such people better than say, a king, God's role is quite different to theirs, so they remain unhelpful! God is not elected. God is not a leader who must make laws and policies to appease his voters... There are not other "parties" who can challenge the leadership of God... it just doesn't quite work. The CEO is a slightly better role comparison, but there are so many negative connotations to CEO, that I'd rather stay with King!!! This is not an easy problem to solve.

Forward Steps?

There was recently a new translation of the Bible produced called The Voice. One of the ideas behind this new version was that it would seek to ditch "jargony" words. However, I feel they have not been anywhere near as thorough with their pruning of such words. We need to realise that words like "King", "Lord", are all "Christiany" words today. This article could continue into a book-length rant, but rest assured, I won't let it. Suffice it to say, I believe we have a problem to solve.

---

^a It is worth noting that the "slave trade" of the A.N.E. was quite different to the more recent slave trade perpetrated by the White West.
^b "Lord" comes from Olde English word hlaford which derives from an earlier word hlafweard from hlaf "bread" + weard "guardian".

Better In Koine

This video is for anyone who has ever studied Greek at Bible College (or equivalent!) It's a classic (and purposefully cheesy before people start telling me "I suck"... :-) ) It's the best thing since Baby Got Book!



Enjoy!

Behold the Liberator!

This is my attempt to review the recent translation of the New Testament (and soon the Old too) called simply the "Voice". The initial idea for this translation was proposed by Chris Seay, a prominent Emergent theologian - but don't allow that to cloud your perceptions just yet.

When I first heard of this translation I was extremely excited as it seemed to promise something I had been looking for; i.e. a translation of the bible that attempted to replace some Christian "jargon" words, produce a literary work that reflected the different literary styles of the original authors (as opposed to 99% of bible translations where every book sounds the same - apart from the content), and to make this new translation suitable for reading aloud in large sections (as this is what happened with the original scrolls of the New Testament).


For just over £6 from amazon, I joyfully bought myself a copy - it was delayed in arriving... twice... but eventually the thud on the floor mat inside the front door heralded its arrival. As with any new translation, I flicked straight to the "controversial passages" to see what they had made of them... not overly impressed.

Anyway, perhaps the more popular verses would be better (John 3:16 and the like), not bad; not great - but perhaps I am being a little over pro-traditional. So, down to reading Luke (seemed a good place to start)...

For me, there were too many times where I thought, "Oh, that's a bit naughty" (referring to the translation of the Greek - not the sauciness of Luke... of course.) Also, I think they have replaced the wrong words. Or at least replaced them with the wrong words. "Christ" is rendered as "Liberating King" throughout the New Testament. This seems a little clumsy to me. However, the problem is exacerbated when the shortened term "The Liberator" is used. No matter how hard I try, I cannot get connotations of the Terminator out of my mind - which isn't always helpful when reading Luke, I have found.

There are far worse crimes of which this translation is guilty however. The author of the extremetheology.com blog puts the translation through a fairly crushing critique; however, I don't agree with absolutely everything he says. He certainly has a not-so-secret hatred of anything Emergent - which doesn't help the objectivity of his review! Still, much of his exegetical argument stands.

Having said all of that, the Voice is actually very enjoyable to read! I found I read through Luke with great joy! The language of the text really does paint a very vivid picture in your mind and the person of Jesus (the Liberator... [chuckle]) is given real character (which is ironic after my terminator comment, I suppose!). Like The Message before it, I would have serious issues with accepting the Voice as a useful translation of the Greek biblical texts - however, having access to one (even if it is just to read casually) is probably not a bad idea.

So, behold the Liberator!

New Life

I've recently been reading The Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne. Although seeming slightly idealistic in places (though, that is hardly a crime) it is certainly a book that left me different after reading it. For quite a time now I've felt that the Church is missing the point somewhat. In a world of obvious problems, we offer very few solutions. Yet we are said to be following this Jewish revolutionary in the first century who preached a message (and lived a life) of ministry to the broken, the poor and the needy.

However, we seem to have turned the hard, seismic words of 'Jesus the radical' into a self-help guide to living a good life by 'the Buddy-Christ'. That, for me, just doesn't quite cut it. Relatively little time and effort is spent on feeding the poor/clothing the naked/taking in the strangers. Perhaps we give a little to charity? Rely on other organisations to do our "charitable" work...

Jesus came to bring in a new way. A different way of life. Indeed we acknowledge this when we talk of having new life - the mistake we make is that we interpret this only in light of future "life after death". I want a "new life". In fact I have no choice. Theologically, spiritually, or whatever you prefer to say, I am no longer alive. Paul understood this and could say that "I no longer live, but Christ lives in me" [Galatians 2:20]. My own ambitions no longer should consume me - only the ambitions of God.

Taking that seriously is a daunting thing! But, how else can we take it? Was Jesus pulling our leg when he demanded a different way of life? Was Paul winking while he whimsically announced that he no longer lived...? But my big question is, "What are we doing?"

What are we doing?

Delirious? have recently released a new album called Kingdom of Comfort. It is a very good offering from the d: boys. The first and title track makes a plea that the singer be saved from "the kingdom of comfort where I am king". Which begs the question for you and I - "Am I building a kingdom of comfort or am I building the kingdom of God"? The church should be making a difference in the community it lives in.

The people of God should be getting their hands dirty. In fact they should be getting their arms, legs, backs and faces dirty! Living a different way of life, to bring about a different way of life. This community of people [the church] should be characterised for their difference - their holiness (in the truest sense of the word]. Sharing EVERYTHING they have (OK, not everything - "swinging" is not advised...!) but you get the point. Do we really share everything? Are we the first to respond to the needs of our "neighbour" - who, by the way, is anyone and everyone we meet (cf. the Good Samaritan).

I am trying to push myself into a kingdom of discomfort. Not allowing myself to "relativise" everything, and excuse myself from action. I was talking with someone the other day about the conversation Jesus has with the rich man, where Jesus says that he must sell everything he has and give it to the poor. We were discussing how it is usually interpreted as: we should be willing to give up anything for the sake of Christ. How we shouldn't place anything above our devotion to God... however - Jesus didn't ask the man if he was willing to sell everything; he told him to go and do it. The man couldn't.

I am worried that the church is full of people who believe they are willing but never actually do that much, really - myself a prime culprit. I know the message, the theology, the "ideal"... I thought I was "willing" - but when was the last time I did sell everything and give it to the poor?? When was the last time you did?

But it's just not practical in our day and age is it? It's too uncomfortable. My "kingdom of comfort" would fall...

Hallelujah.