Hosea 6:6 and the NIV

Peter Kirk wrote an excellent post in Better Bibles Blog titled “Hosea 6:6: harmonising with NT destroys OT.” His post continues my argument here and here that the NIV is inconsistent in translating some Hebrew words in the book of Hosea.

In his post, Peter shows that the translation of Hosea 6:6 in the NIV was influenced by the translator’s attempt at harmonizing the text in Hosea with the text in Matthew.

Peter wrote:

I suspect that the real reason is because 6:6 is quoted in the New Testament, in Matthew 9:13 and 12:7. But the quotation is taken from the LXX rendering of this verse which is itself apparently a mistranslation. That is, the Greek word eleos used to render Hebrew hesed, here and in most other places in LXX and by Matthew, does not normally have the same meaning as hesed. Rather, it means "mercy", and so in Matthew is correctly translated "mercy". The problem apparently came when the translators decided that the text in Hosea must be adjusted to fit Matthew's use of the verse, as they understood it. Unfortunately by doing so they managed to completely mess up their translation of Hosea, removing the clear markers of cohesion in this prophecy and destroying its sense.

Read Peter’s article in its entirety by clicking here.

I agree with Peter’s view. And I also agree with his conclusion: “The NIV Old Testament is sadly marred in a number of places by misplaced attempts to harmonise with the New Testament.”

I encourage you to read Peter’s article.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary.

Tags: Exegesis, Hesed, Hosea, NIV, Translation

Singing the Praises of the NIV

In my last two posts, I have pointed out inconsistencies in the way the NIV translates some Hebrew words (check here and here). These inconsistencies are not helpful to pastors who preach and teach from the NIV. They are also not helpful to lay people who use only one version of the Bible and do not use other versions to compare translations of specific verses.

Today I want to sing the praises of the NIV. I do not do this very often because in many places, the translation of the NIV does not reflect the intent of the original writers of the biblical text. In previous posts, I have pointed out some of the problems I have with the NIV.

One place where I believe the NIV is superior to the NRSV, the RSV, and the ESV is in Isaiah 40:9. The verse in these three translations reads as follows:

Isaiah 40:9 (NRSV): “Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good tidings; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good tidings, lift it up, do not fear; say to the cities of Judah, ‘Here is your God!’”

Isaiah 40:9 (RSV): “Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good tidings; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good tidings, lift it up, fear not; say to the cities of Judah, ‘Behold your God!’”

Isaiah 40:9 (ESV): “Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good news; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good news; lift it up, fear not; say to the cities of Judah, ‘Behold your God!’”

Isaiah 40:9 (NIV): “You who bring good tidings to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with a shout, lift it up, do not be afraid; say to the towns of Judah, ‘Here is your God!’”

In the NRSV, the RSV, and the ESV, it is Zion (Jerusalem) who is commanded to go to a high mountain, and it is Zion (Jerusalem), who, as the herald of good news, is commanded to proclaim to the cities of Judah the advent of YHWH.

These three translations differentiate between the messenger who proclaims good news on God’s behalf in verse 6 and Zion as the messenger who proclaims good news to the cities of Judah.

In Hebrew, the construct form of the verb is difficult to understand. It literally means: “Messenger of Zion.” The Greek Septuagint translates: “The one bringing good news to Zion.” The Latin Vulgate translates: “You who evangelizes Zion.”

The verb mebasseret is a participle feminine. In Hebrew, the participle feminine form of the verb is used to denote an office or an occupation such as sophereth, the office of the sopher or scribe (Ezra 2:55; Neh. 7:5). Thus, the mebasseret in Isaiah 40:9 is a title that should be applied to someone who was appointed to proclaim good news to Zion and not to Zion as the one appointed to proclaim good news to the cities of Judah.

Thus, I believe that the NIV translation, which regards Zion as the receiver, and not the proclaimer of the good news, is a better translation.

The text in Isaiah is not calling upon Jerusalem to make known the good news to the cities of Judah. Rather, the messenger of God is to proclaim the good news to Jerusalem; he is to announce to Jerusalem (and in a sense, to the people of Israel), that after many years of lying desolate and waste, that her time of servitude has come to an end and that the time of release would soon come to pass (Isaiah 40:2).

The translation found in the NRSV, the RSV, and the ESV is awkward, because it gives Jerusalem the duty to proclaim to the other cities of Judah that the exile was over for the nation. It is also awkward to believe that the city of Jerusalem was called to go up to a high mountain and proclaim to the other cities of Judah that the Lord was about to bring the people back to the land.

Thus, when it comes to Isaiah 40:9, I have to sing the praises of the NIV. And this commendation of the NIV has something important to say about Bible translations. Every translation of the Bible has its strengths and weaknesses. No translation of the Bible is perfect, not even the King James Version.

Serious students of the Bible must learn how to use more than one version of the Bible and compare translations to gain a better perspective of the intent of the original writer. When translations differ, and they will differ, Bible students must consult good exegetical commentaries to gain a better perspective of what the biblical writers were trying to communicate to their readers and to us.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Bible, Exegesis, Isaiah 40:9, NIV, Translations, Versions

Typology, Jehu, and Christ

In a previous post, I addressed the issue of the use of typology in biblical interpretation. The issue was raised by Pauline Viviano, Associate Professor of Theology at Loyola University Chicago, in her review of Peter Leithart’s commentary on 1 & 2 Kings, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2006).

In another post, I mentioned that Peter J. Leithart, in response to Viviano’s criticism, wrote a blog defending his use of typology in his commentary on 1 & Kings.

In this ongoing discussion between Pauline Viviano and Peter Leithart on the use of typology, Viviano has written a blog in response to Leithart’s comments. The following is an excerpt of Viviano’s response to Leithart’s comments:

Once I "discover" that putting garments on the ground before Jehu bears a similarity to the people putting garments on the ground before Jesus on Palm Sunday, must I conclude that Jehu is a type of Christ? Is that all it takes? Is the brutality of Jehu simply to be disregarded or do I also apply that to Christ in some clever fashion? But even if I accept that this one sentence correspondence between the Old Testament and the New makes Jehu a type of Christ, then what have I learned? Does it draw me into a deeper understanding of who God is and what God is about? Does it inspire me to become a more loving human being?

The early Christians read the Old Testament through the lens of the Jesus event. I have no problem with that. We all read the text through some lens. Some today try to understand the biblical text from within its historical context (Historical Critical Method) or from within its literary context (New Literary Criticism; Rhetorical Criticism). Others interpret the biblical text privileging the position of the poor (Liberation criticism); others focus on gender issues (Feminist criticism). These methods and others are different and valid ways to approach the biblical text. What I object to is the notion that reading typologically, or any approach in search of the spiritual sense of the text, IS the theological reading of the text and what contemporary biblical scholars do is not theological. I find what contemporary biblical scholars are doing to be profoundly theological. Maybe the problem is that some just don't like the theological insights that we have gained from contemporary biblical interpretation and want to return to those "good old days" of the early Church Fathers ignoring entirely that not only has the world changed, but also that "the good old days" weren't all that good.

Read Viviano’s comments here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Eisegesis, Exegesis, Hermeneutics, Interpretation, Pauline Viviano, Peter Leithart,
Typology

Typology and Biblical Interpretation

In my previous post, "The Use of Typology in Biblical Interpretation," I wrote about Pauline Viviano’s criticism of typology as a valid exegetical tool in biblical interpretation. Her criticism came in her review of Peter Leithart’s commentary on 1 & 2 Kings, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2006).

Peter J. Leithart has written a blog in response to Pauline Viviano’s criticism of his use of typology in his commentary on 1 & Kings. In his comments, Leithart addresses some of the issues Viviano raised in her review of the book.

The following is an excerpt of Leithart’s comments:

No doubt Hellenism had its influence on early church hermeneutics, but can after the last hundred years of study of patristic and medieval exegesis can anyone still accept this as an accurate summary of what the church fathers were after? Can anyone doubt that Paul read the Old Testament (at least, portions of it) "typologically"? As Viviano says, I have to answer with a resounding "NO!" Paul even uses the word "type" to describe what he finds in the Old Testament narrative (1 Corinthians 10). Can de Lubac's work have had so little effect, on Catholic biblical scholars?

Of my suggestion that Jehu is a type of Christ, she writes, "Among the most puzzling is Jehu as a type of Christ. You remember Jehu, don't you? He was the general of Israel's army who led a coup in which he butchered the previous dynasty and burned to death the worshippers of Baal whom he had locked in their temple. If you couldn't find the similarity to Christ here, you are not alone; I couldn't find it either."

She's writing for a blog, so we don't expect an argument; but, for anyone who didn't notice, it's worth pointing out that this isn't one - an argument, that is. She takes what she believes to be the most un-Christlike actions of Jehu and then throws up her hands. But isn't she even a wee bit intrigued by the fact that Jehu's men lay their garments on the ground as they proclaim him king? Mightn't this just possibly be a foreshadowing of some other king before whom a crowd of followers laid down their garments?

Leithart’s conclusion is that “Viviano's objection is not really to my hermeneutics; it's to my theology.”

Read Leithart’s blog by clicking here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Eisegesis, Exegesis, Hermeneutics, Interpretation, Pauline Viviano, Peter Leithart,
Typology

The Use of Typology in Biblical Interpretation

The use of typology in biblical interpretation has been a common method employed by many Christian writers to mine the hidden truths of the Bible. Typology can be defined as the correspondence between Old Testament and New Testament events that explains the work of God in the Old Testament as type of what God was accomplishing in the life and ministry of Christ. Typology is based on the belief that people and events in the Old Testament find their true meaning in the events of the New Testament.

Those who adopt typology as a valid method of interpretation believe that what God did in the lives of some persons and in some events in the Old Testament is the valid key to understand what God did in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ and in the ministry of the early church.

The validity of typology as an exegetical tool has been raised by Pauline Viviano, Associate Professor of Theology at Loyola University Chicago, in her review of Peter Leithart’s commentary on 1 & 2 Kings, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2006). Viviano raises several issues about the typological interpretation of 1 and 2 Kings. The following is an excerpt of Viviano’s comments:

Of the many criticisms of the work of biblical scholars the one I have most recently been "attacked" with is that we are not theological enough, so it was with some eagerness that I agreed to review a theological commentary on 1 & 2 Kings. My eagerness was diminished somewhat when I discovered that the commentators for this series were chosen for "their expertise in using the Christian doctrinal tradition" and not for their "historical or philological expertise." But I was willing to enter into the "world of the text" and see how "doctrine provides structure and cogency to scriptural interpretation."

The author's preferred method of interpretation was to treat the people and events of the books of Kings typologically. Typology was a method of interpretation much in vogue among the early Church Fathers. In typology the events and people of the Old Testament are thought to foreshadow or prefigure what is fulfilled with the coming of the Messiah. The events and people of the Old Testament become "types" of the events and people in the New Testament. The typology of the early Church Fathers was grounded in philosophical and hermeneutical assumptions drawn from the Hellenistic philosophies of the time which were heavily influenced by Platonism. In their worldview typology made sense and over the centuries extreme typologies were forgotten and the Church was left with the more sensible typologies that we continue to find in liturgy and are artistically rendered in stained glass windows. Can we "resurrect" typological interpretation and by means of it find a theologically satisfying understanding of the Bible today? After reading this commentary on Kings I would have to answer with a resounding "no!"

The author was able to find the most amazing "types;" they are literally on every page of the commentary. Among the most puzzling is Jehu as a type of Christ. You remember Jehu, don't you? He was the general of Israel's army who led a coup in which he butchered the previous dynasty and burned to death the worshippers of Baal whom he had locked in their temple. If you couldn't find the similarity to Christ here, you are not alone; I couldn't find it either. My favorite quote from the book is "Moses is Elijah is John; Joshua is Elisha is Jesus. Yet also, Moses is Elijah is Jesus, and Joshua is Elisha is the church." If you can unpack this quote for me, please do so; it just makes me giggle. It was clear after the first few pages of this commentary that every number "3" in the books of Kings was going to be taken as a foreshadowing of the Resurrection; every body of water, a reference to Baptism; and every anointing, messianic. The story of Elisha and the floating ax head is seen as a type of both Resurrection and Baptism! I have many more examples, but I think my point has been made: this "resurrected" form of typological exegesis is just plain silly.

Read Viviano’s comments in its entirety by clicking here.

I tend to agree with Viviano’s comments. In the name of typology, commentators of the biblical text have found Christ where Christ should not be found. Sometimes, even a bad translation of the biblical text allows for a typological interpretation of the text, as I have demonstrated in my post on the sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22:8. Interpreters must be very careful not to interject their own preconceived ideas into the text. This form of interpretation is not exegesis; it is eisegesis.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Eisegesis, Exegesis, Hermeneutics, Interpretation, Pauline Viviano, Peter Leithart, Typology