Recently in Scripture Category

During the past 10 days or so, I have been doing my lectio praying from the Gospel of Mark, chapter 6:31 through chapter 8. For most of this time, I have been trying to write down a summary of my impressions and thoughts on this section of Mark's Gospel without much success. Even now, I am not coming close to putting together a coherent summary of my impressions of this section of Scripture. However, I feel I must try.

A great deal happens in this section and the thrust of it is not really favorable to the disciples. As a reminder, here is a brief outline of the section.

(A) Jesus and His Disciples (6:6b-8:33)
a. Introduction (6:6b-34)
(B) Summary statement (6:6b)
a. Mission charge and return of the disciples (6:7-13, 30)
b. Interlude: Opinions about Jesus (6:14-16)
c. Interlude: John the Baptist’s death (6:17-29)
d. The Loaves Section (6:31-8:26)
(C) Feeding of the 5000 and its sequel (6:31-7:37)
a. Feeding of the 4000 and its sequel (8:1-13)
b. Conclusion: The Blindness of the Disciples (8:14-21)
c. Appendix: The Blind Man of Bethsaida (8:22-26)

I have been reading and praying and studying this section, almost obsessively, because, while the stories are so familiar, there is much that seems quite obscure. I am no further ahead in really coming to an understanding of what is really going on here than I was when I started. For example, the feeding of the five thousand narrative begins with this exchange between Jesus and the disciples:

“And when it grew late, his disciples came to him and said, ‘This is a lonely place, and the hour is now late; send them away, to go into the country and villages round about and buy themselves something to eat.’ But he answered them, ‘You give them something to eat.’ And they said to him, ‘Shall we go and buy two hundred denarii worth of bread, and give it to them to eat?’ And he said to them, ‘How many loaves have you? Go and see.’� (Mark 6:35-38)

Why does Jesus feel it necessary to tell the disciples, “you give them something to eat.�? He knows they don’t have the resources on their own to do so; I suspect he knows what He is about to do. So why does He offer what appears to be a taunt?

Another example, at the start of the section about the blindness of the disciples in chapter 8:14-21, the passage begins as follows:

"Now they had forgotten to bring bread; and they had only one loaf with them in the boat. And he cautioned them, saying, “Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.�

They have just witnessed Jesus feeding large crowds with just a few loaves and fish, one wonders how they could be so obtuse as to forget to bring bread along for the journey. How could they forget bread after the events of what seems to be just the past few days?

There are many other such questions that arise from this section of Mark’s Gospel. One thing I learned in consulting commentaries is that many of the questions I had have been asked for a very long time, with no good answers being available.

It is clear, that Mark is writing about mysteries that are beyond our understanding. I can make generalizations about this passage of Scripture; there are obvious Eucharistic overtones to the narratives and, in the presentation of the disciples, I can assume this all represents some commentary of the state of the Church before the descent of the Holy Spirit. But, I can’t go much beyond that.

My initial reaction was one of frustration, but as I thought about this, I have let all that go. I don’t need to understand everything, not in an intellectual sense. I can accept the generalizations and be thankful that there is enough of Scripture that I do understand to provide more than suitable guidance for my daily life as a Catholic.

Perhaps the important thing is, like Jacob, to wrestle with these passages. Perhaps something is gained that is simply imperceptible to me now and that will benefit me at a time of greater strength and maturity. That is now my hope and my prayer.

One of the things that was most surprising to me when I entered the Church is the nature of advice given by Catholic spiritual masters. Presbyterians are absolutely convinced that Catholics are completely immersed in a "works" mentality and that they spend every waking moment in a feverish attempt to earn their way to heaven. Yet, the truth is that the best spiritual advice given by Catholic spiritual fathers is usually the simplest and most practical. For instance, there’s this from Fr. Boylan’s book, This Tremendous Lover.

There is really no occupation except sin, which is incompatible with such spontaneous prayer. Obviously there must be some prayers in the day to which we give our whole mind and lay everything else aside, but God forbid that any one should feel bound to limit his prayers to those said on one's knees. Perhaps the point can be illustrated by reference to the story of the two men who were in the habit of saying some prayers on their way home from work. The question whether they could smoke while doing so arose, and they decided to seek advice from their directors. One man was severely reprimanded for thinking of smoking while praying; the other man found a different type of director, who said that although smoking while praying was open to objection, still, one could hardly object to a man praying while he was smoking! The story is only a story, but it may draw attention to the fact that there is a difference between formal prayer and informal prayer, and that while the former demands suitable circumstances, the latter may be used anywhere. The point about smoking is, that if it is not a sin, it can certainly be shared with God, and if so, there is no reason why we should not talk to Him while enjoying one of the creatures He has made for our recreation and refreshment.

I guess it’s obvious that this book was written nearly sixty years ago, when smoking was much more common, but the point is still valid. It takes a great director to understand the difference between smoking while praying, and praying while smoking. The former would be an intentional distraction, the latter, sharing a quiet moment with our Lord. The advice points out that, while we have certain formal duties that we owe to God in terms of worship, there is no moment that cannot be turned over to Him. Remaining in His presence doesn’t involve horrible spiritual contortions and strenuous spiritual exercises, we can simply sit down and have a cup of Starbucks (to update the analogy) and offer that time to the Lord.

What could be simpler? Why, it's almost Presbyterian!

Wayne Leman, of The English Bibles Blog, has posted an extensive comment to my post, below, on Bible translations.

First, I must confess to a bit of ignorance. In Steven's orginal post he referenced something called "The Better Bible" movement. What the heck is that?

Other than professing ignorance, I'd like to make a couple of clairifcations. First, I wasn't being critical of the English Standard Version translation. The ESV is one of two translations I use on a daily basis and I think it is one of the best English Bibles available today. If I were to be critical of any English translation, it would be the banal stew cooked up for everyday use by Catholics, the NAB. No wonder Catholics don't read the Bible.

I also understand, as Mr. Leman says, that a translator must make choices. And it's not that I question the choice made in the ESV in rendering the story of the Annunciation into English. Its just that, in this case, we are reading the story of what is arguably the most important event in Salvation History, Mary's agreement to become the Mother of God. The language in the KJV is a bit out of place; I think that slightly unfamiliar language conveys a sense of the mystery of the event. We are not reading about your typical, everyday occurance.

As to beauty; I think its fair to say that, since Scripture is God's revelation of Himself to us, that is, since it is inspired by Him, that there is a certain beauty inherent in the original text itself. I wouldn't say the translator should try to add beauty to his translation, but he should do nothing to detract from what is already there, as was often done in the NAB. I think this would be what Dr. Esolen described as having a certain "reticence" in doing a translation. I was not saying beauty should be the first goal of Bible translation but that it would be the natural, perhaps unavoidable, consequence of an accurate one.

I am not a translator and I am not trying to start an argument over the proper method of doing an English translation. I am simply trying to say what I, as a reader, would sometimes like to see in an English Bible. I greatly enjoy the ESV, am very happy to have it available, and strongly recommend it.

Now, if they would just come out with the Deuter-Canonical books in the ESV, life would be good.

Cast your burden on the LORD,
and he will sustain you;
he will never permit
the righteous to be moved.

Psalm 55:22

Another marvelous post by Anthony Esolen at Mere Comments highlights a theme I’ve been thinking about off and on for the last month or so, Bible translation.

It started when I saw a reference on Steven’s website to a blog devoted to the topic of translating the Bible. I browsed this site a few times, but it seems the main concern for modern translators is inclusive language – the blog featured what appears to be a frustrated attempt by one it’s authors to interview J. I. Packer and obtain his agreement that this is, indeed, the most important topic facing translators today.

I later saw a reference, over a First Things, to the Authorized Version (the King James), that said that, even as dated as it is, the translation is still a good one. I mean good here as one that is not so dated that it shouldn’t still be read and relied on.

I have always thought, and in one sense I think this a point Esolen makes indirectly, a Bible translation should be beautiful; the language should convey something of the majesty of God. The Bible is God’s revelation of Himself, and the heart of that revelation must be His perfect beauty; God’s word is not mundane, or worse, inane.

For example, in 2 Samuel, chapter 11, we have the story of David’s adultery with Bathsheeba. 2 Samuel 11:2 describes the moment David first laid eyes on Uriah’s beautiful wife. The New American Bible reads thus:

2 One evening David rose from his siesta and strolled about on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing, who was very beautiful.

By comparison, the English Standard Version reads:

2 It happened, late one afternoon, when David arose from his couch and was walking on the roof of the king’s house, that he saw from the roof a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful.

Better, but the King James reads:

2 And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king’s house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon.

It has always puzzled me how anyone in his right mind would use the word “siesta� to describe King David taking a nap, as if he were some village chieftain in some remote Mexican village. It boggles the mind. It’s not beautiful it’s just silly.

Another example is the one Dr. Esolen used, Mary’s question of the angel in Luke 1:

Here is how the NAB renders the original:

But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?�

The ESV reads:

And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?�

The KJV has:

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

The NAB conveys the idea, but in a very matter of fact, down to earth sort of way. In this case, I don’t think the ESV is much better. The King James’ “seeing I know not man� has a certain beauty about it. We know what is meant, but more than just the act is implied, I think there is in Mary’s question the implication of the fact of her sinless state. The expression itself implies chastity.

Finally, there is the question of inclusive language. I think when it is used; it also detracts from the beauty and deepest meaning of the text. For example, 1 Timothy 2:3-4 is translated this way in the NAB.

This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.

Gosh, boys and girls, we all get to enjoy the fun, isn’t that wonderful?

In contrast, the KJV has:

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

The Greek word for “men� here is anthropos and generally refers to “a human being, whether male or female� according to Strongs. However, it also refers to the human race, as opposed to angels or plants or some other species. Again, when we say all “people� it is a lesser translation because it deprives the reader of seeing a potentially deeper theological meaning, that man holds a special place in God’s plan for salvation history.

In every case I have cited I think there is good reason to prefer the antiquated King James translation over the more modern and possibly more politically correct versions. I guess that’s the reason it has endured for nearly five hundred years.

Mark Twain was once asked by a reporter something about understanding the Bible. Twain’s response is famous, “It’s not the parts of the Bible that I don’t understand that bother me, it’s the parts I do understand.�

I have to say, as I get older, I feel like I have a better understanding for what Twain meant; the key points in Scripture are sometimes painfully clear. Still, there’s a good deal I do puzzle over and feel that I may never understand and I wonder if maybe I should.

For example, there’s the verse in Psalm 1 that says, “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, no stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers.� It’s that last phrase that gets me every time. What does it mean, “nor sits in the seat of scoffers?� What does sitting have to do with being blessed? And who exactly is a “scoffer� and why would scoffing at something remove a person from the possibility of finding happiness, from being “blessed?�

I was thinking about this yesterday and I did have an idea.

Maybe when it says not to “sit in the seat of scoffers� not to put oneself into their shoes – don’t be one. But still, what exactly does that mean? As I thought about it, it came to me that perhaps “scoffers� is a word for those people who don’t respect anyone or anything. Maybe a “scoffer� is someone who thinks only of himself and thinks everyone else is inferior to him and his exalted intelligence, or skill, or spirituality. It could be that a “scoffer� has no idea of what is really important and seeks only his own pleasure or gratification.

And then I thought, and this is one time something in the Bible that I don’t understand bothered me, it’s easy to be a scoffer, to take things for granted, the really important things, and to refuse to be grateful for God’s gifts. Even simple things get ignored, or never noticed; a sunset, or a good breakfast, or a good night’s sleep. Maybe it means not appreciating the fact that we wake up every morning and have jobs to go to and friends to meet and talk to over a cup of coffee. Hell, maybe it means even taking the coffee for granted. I know I do that all the time.

It may be that David, in Psalm 1, is calling us to remind ourselves to be grateful for all of God’s gifts, and to try to remind ourselves to do that everyday. I don’t know if I’m on track, but I’m going to give it a try.

“Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said to himself, “Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?” And Abraham said to God, “O that Ishmael might live in thy sight!” (Genesis 17:17, RSV).

I’ve been meditating, well maybe just thinking, about this passage almost since the beginning of the new year. The scene has Abraham face down in the presence of Almighty God, being told the terms of the Covenent of Circumcision. God is beginning the process that will fulfill all his promises to Abraham and his descendants for ages to come. And what is Abraham’s reaction? He laughs.

Of all the possible reactions I can picture myself having were I placed in similar circumstances, laughter is not one of them. Why did Abraham laugh? It is truly a remarkable response.

At first I thought that Abraham was just facing up to the reality of the situation. He is now well over ninety years old, Sarah is only about 10 years younger, and even thousands of years ago, not many people that age are able to settle down and start a new family. I thought that it implied a lack of faith on Abraham’s part.

But clearly, that is impossible to assume from the story. First of all, Abraham is one of the few human beings ever who no longer needs to live by faith – he is, and he knows he is, in God’s presence, nearly face to face with the God of Heaven and earth. Faith has long since ceased to be an issue in Abraham’s relationship with God.

Then it occurred to me why Abraham’s response is so remarkable. I think his laugh is that which takes place when a friend sees a friend doing something extraordinary for him. His laughter says, “I knew you would keep your promise, I knew it, but I sure didn’t think you would do it like this. You sure had me going there for a while.” Abraham’s laughter is the sign of something few of us will ever know, it is the sharing of a joke between friends. Abraham was a friend of God.

I think this is something available to all of us, but availed of by few of us. Paul said, in Romans

“For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life." (Romans 5:10, RSV)

Before we were reconciled to God, we were enemies of God, but now that Jesus has died we are no longer enemies. Dare I say that makes us able to be friends? I wonder how many of us are willing to take advantage of the opportunity?