Thomas Murphy on using Greek and Hebrew in the Pulpit with Care

In seminary, we would frequently debate and discuss whether and how we should “show our language work” in our sermons.  After all, so often in our exegesis, we find that the pew-Bibles (whatever translation they be) do not emphasize something or translate a text as well as the original.  When this happens, how do we deal with the discrepancy?

One the one hand, we do not want our people to forget that the English versions they have in front of them are just translations and carry the strengths, weaknesses and translational-presuppositions of any translation.  On the other hand, we do not want our people to think that their English Bible is insufficient to comfort their hearts with the gospel and reveal God’s will to them truly and sufficiently.  In his Pastoral Theology: The Pastor in the Various Duties of His Office, Thomas Murphy offers wise words that neither neuter the minister from teaching his people about the original languages via his preaching, nor give him free-reign to become a Gene Scott and teach his people that they cannot truly understand God’s word apart from his linguistic expertise:

A much-needed caution should here be given to all preachers: it is, to avoid the habit of correcting the ordinary English version of the Scriptures in the pulpit.  There are some ministers who are constantly doing this.  Sometimes the conviction can hardly be avoided that it is done as a display of learning; and a poor weak one it is.  Sometimes, no doubt, it is honestly done to impart a clearer understanding of the word.  But it is nearly always unwise, hardly ever in good taste.  It is always unwise if not done in a very guarded manner.  Its tendency is to weaken, and ultimately destroy, confidence in the Bible as it is in our hands.  Instances could be given where preachers have assailed the English version so often that some of the best of their hearers have declared that they did not know what to receive, for they could not tell whether any particular passage was correctly or incorrectly translated.  It should be made a matter of conscience not to trifle in this way with the word in its present venerable form.  Its meaning may be explained to the fullest extent, but the version should ever be touched with a very delicate hand.

Pastoral Theology, pgs. 134-35.

I think Murphy offers some important wisdom on this front.  I would add to this that should this be done “to impart a clearer understanding of the word” or “explain its meaning to the fullest extent,” ministers do well to treat the pew translation fairly.  Rather than teaching the congregation that this is a difference between “right” and “wrong” or “faithful” and “unfaithful” translations, he should explain it in terms of a difference in translational emphasis.  I find a helpful method is to say, after reading from the pew Bible, “another way of wording this is ….”

While there are no doubt many ways of handling this reality with which we wrestle as ministers, Murphy’s words offer us sufficient leeway, though also wise caution.  His language of using a “very delicate hand” can hardly be stated better!

___________
Andrew

The Old Testament and It’s “Southern Accent” Y’all . . .

As I begun to note some of the Northern/Southern (i.e., Israel/Judah) distinctions found throughout the Old Testament text (e.g., how various traditions reflect upon Northern and Southern kings), I began to wonder if the Biblical text could be analyzed linguistically to see whether evidence of Northern or Southern dialects could be found therein. After all, it is one thing to suggest that a particular pericope may have originated in Northern circles due to a possible theological or political idiosyncrasy; it is another thing to corroborate such a suggestion with linguistic data.

After reading through parts of Randall Garr’s Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000-586 B.C.E., it struck me that perhaps a method might be in place for analyzing the Biblical texts. By means of dialect geography, can we take a step further and recognize particular isoglosses even within the Biblical text? This question has been fascinating me.

While I haven’t yet been able to dive into this question (partly due to lack of time and partly due to lack of experience!), I came across some relevant paragraphs in Angel Saenz-Badillos’ book A History of the Hebrew Language. First, a quote regarding the North/South contrast in archaic biblical poetry and classical Hebrew prose:

When we consider that the cultural and religious centre at the time of the Judges was in the north of Israel, in the mountains of Ephraim and Benjamin, it is not surprising that the language of archaic biblical poetry has obvious connexions with the poetry of the Canaanite north. In contrast, classical Hebrew prose is clearly linked to the reigns of David and Solomon and their successors in Jerusalem. This does not necessarily mean that the advent of the Davidic monarchy saw a replacement of the northern language by the souther – rather, an ‘official’ language was created, which was used at court and in educated circles in Jerusalem, and which was intended to be as understandable in the north as in the south, although, clearly, southern features would have predominated. The language of prophetic and liturgical poetry from this period is not markedly different from that of the prose writings.

Pg. 68

Second, a quote more directly related to my question:

Although they certainly existed, there are no clear traces of different pre-exilic dialects, beyond a few variations in the treatment of dipthongs and the well-known text at Jg 12:1ff. regarding the pronunciation of shibboleth. Some prophetic books, like Hosea, reflect the linguistic environment of the northern kingdom, and may contain several specific dialect features, which would explain why they have so many parallels to the constructions and vocabulary of other Canaanite or Northwest Semitic languages. In the remaining pre-exilic prose books and in non-archaic poetic texts, there are notable differences of style and, in some instances, linguistic traces of different periods of composition, even though the language used in all such works remains basically the same, and may properly be called classical BH [Biblical Hebrew].”

Pg. 71

The books of Amos and Hosea seem like particularly interesting places to test out dialect differences. In the case of Amos, there is a southern prophet, speaking to a northern people in – as some have noted – a southern “accent” (so to speak). In the case of Hosea, we have a book originally written to a northern audience which has (I am convinced) been edited to make it’s message more directly relevant to a southern audience. (For more on this, see the fascinating article by Marvin A. Sweeney in the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures entitled “A Form-Critical Reading of Hosea“.) To hear Saenz-Badillos suggest that Hosea actually reflects a distinctly northern linguistic (rather than just theological or political) environment seems to provide some grist for the mill. Nevertheless, he does seem to caution us of getting too far ahead of ourselves by noting that there are no clear traces preserved.

Nevertheless, this seems like an interesting topic worth exploring further. The North/South relationship was key in Israel’s history and fleshing it out linguistically seems to be necessary in helping to understand better this dynamic. Beyond this, the next step is to aim to understand better how such an approach might help to fortify our Biblical theology. How might the North/South tension found throughout the OT help to proclaim Christ as the fulfillment of the OT? While I am again very excited about these questions, they must, I’m afraid, wait for when I can devote more time to them. Until then, I simply throw this out to whet your appetite!

Some new stuff at WSCAL

There were a couple of items I thought I’d pass on from the Westminster Seminary California update E-mail that I received in my inbox this morning.

First, check out this short article written by Prof. Joshua VanEe, entitled, “Lost in Translation.”  A nice little piece about why we spend time learning the Biblical languages.

Second, Prof. David VanDrunen recently had an article published in the Journal of Church and State which has been made available at the WSCAL bookstore.  It’s entitled, “The Two Kingdoms Doctrine and the Relationship of Church and State in the Early Reformed Tradition.”

Enjoy!

_________________________
Andrew