 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Marshall Janzen Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1234 posts Location: Langley, BC |
 Inerrancy case study: King Josiah’s death |
Posted Apr 1, 2004; 6:17 pm |
|
I'm grabbing this from the topic on The Bible and Revelation. I made the following comment:
To which Lyndon responded:
| Lyndon Unger wrote: | | There is actually no difference at all in the location of Josiah’s burial location between 2 Kings 23:29-30 and 2 Chronicles 35:22-24. There are two figures of speech used to describe the locations, but the locations are the same. That is an apparent contradiction, not a true contradiction. |
Anyway, I'd like to hear the details of Lyndon's theory, along with anyone else's thoughts on this apparent contradiction. Although I've heard of other theories that take one passage or the other less literally in order to reconcile them, I've never heard the claim that both accounts are using figures of speech and so both passages aren't saying what they seem to be saying. I'm skeptical about that, but I'd like to hear the details.
The theory I'm more familiar with is that the Kings reference to Josiah being killed "at Megiddo" is similar to how we may say that someone is killed in a car crash, even if they actually die in an ambulance on the way to the hospital. Anyway, if you have a theory on this or a critique for any of the ones given, please post it. |
|
|
|
| Lyndon Unger Member Joined Mar 12, 2004 48 posts Location: Burbank, California |
| HA! I new to this English! |
Posted Apr 2, 2004; 11:12 am |
|
All right Marshall! You got me! You shot through everything and found a major and idiotic error that I made! HAHA! You win! Okay. Here is the deal; I completely misread you...
What I was thinking was that you were saying that there was a discrepancy in where Josiah was buried, not in where he was killed. Plus, the figures of speech I was referring to were “the tombs of his fathers” in 2 Chronicles and “in his own tomb” in 2 Kings. Also, only the first is a figure of speech and I am not sure what I was thinking. I suspect that I'm an idiot! You caught me and I say “uncle”!
Now as to the question of where Josiah was killed, I did some quick research last night and checked out the two respective passages and dug into the passages. Basically, this is what I found:
2 Kings 23:29-30 is a two verse military commentary where as in 2 Chronicles 35:22-24, the Chronicler offers some theological commentary. This understanding was consistent across every single critical commentary I consulted (I dug through 14), even the liberal ones. These two passages have two different focuses and explain the event with those two focuses in mind.
The passage in Kings reads
“While Josiah was king, Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went up to the Euphrates River to help the king of Assyria. King Josiah marched out to meet him in battle, but Neco faced him and killed him at Megiddo. Josiah's servants brought his body in a chariot from Megiddo to Jerusalem and buried him in his own tomb.” (23:29-30a).
Now, you can read that as saying “Pharaoh Neco killed Josiah at the location of Megiddo”, but the passage could also be read “Pharaoh Neco killed Josiah at the event of the battle of Megiddo”. When you get into a “data of language” question like this, it is difficult to really cement a position because the Hebrew is even more unclear than the English position. That’s the thing though...the Hebrew text doesn’t seem too concerned with but two things; Josiah was killed at the battle of Megiddo but he was buried at home. It’s a simple military recount of the event. I would suggest that you would be reading too much into the text to submit that Megiddo is the exact location where Josiah received his death blow. Megiddo here is most likely not a place but an event. More details are then given in 2 Chronicles...
The passage in Chronicles is much larger (5 verses versus 2 for the passage in Kings). The Chronicler throws in several important details that are significant to how Josiah died, explaining the significance of his death in the light of his righteous life, as well as God’s position with Judah at the time. The passage reads
“After all this, when Josiah had set the temple in order, Neco king of Egypt went up to fight at Carchemish on the Euphrates, and Josiah marched out to meet him in battle. But Neco sent messengers to him, saying, "What quarrel is there between you and me, O king of Judah? It is not you I am attacking at this time, but the house with which I am at war. God has told me to hurry; so stop opposing God, who is with me, or he will destroy you." Josiah, however, would not turn away from him, but disguised himself to engage him in battle. He would not listen to what Neco had said at God's command but went to fight him on the plain of Megiddo. Archers shot King Josiah, and he told his officers, "Take me away; I am badly wounded." So they took him out of his chariot, put him in the other chariot he had and brought him to Jerusalem, where he died. He was buried in the tombs of his fathers, and all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for him.” (35:20-24)
There are several extra details that are significant:
1. Josiah, who was commended for his humble and responsive heart in 2 Chr. 34:27, now did not listen to the word of the God. The passage does not explain how Josiah knew that Neco had indeed heard from God, but the text holds Josiah as culpable for his disobedience. However he would have tested Neco’s claim cannot be said. The text assumes it and Josiah is guilty of not listening to God’s command. This is a bit of a strike against Josiah; the righteous king who didn’t finish strong. Even as I was studying through this passage last night, this detail hit me pretty hard, especially when combined with the second specific and important inclusion of the Chronicler…
2. Josiah, the righteous king, became disobedient to the word of the Lord at the end of his life and ended up dying in the same way as the most notoriously evil king of Israel. Ahab also had a clear word from the Lord (2 Chr. 18:15-27) and completely disregarded it, thinking that if he got Jehoshaphat to dress in kingly garb where he dressed in a disguise, he would not die as Micaiah had said he would (2 Chr. 18:29). He also died while disguised on the battlefield. This detail is extremely significant. Even kings are equal before the Lord. Disobedience is disobedience and Josiah dies like Ahab, showing that both the righteous and unrighteous face the same penalty for willful sin. This is not a commentary on eternal security, but is only drawing a parallel between Ahab and Josiah in that they both disregarded the word of the Lord and were both equally punished for it.
3. What could be a slight commentary on eternal security is the fact that Josiah, though he rebelled against the Lord, was still a righteous man who didn’t die like another famous king who disregarded the Lord; Saul. Saul was also wounded by archers (1 Chr. 10:3) and ended up dying by his own hand on the battlefield (1 Chr. 10:4). Saul’s body remained on the battleground and his head was later taken as a trophy to be placed in a pagan temple (1 Chr. 10:8-11). Josiah rebelled against the Lord near the end of his life, but he didn’t die like Saul. He escaped the battlefield and was buried in the tombs of his fathers at Jerusalem. God still honored Josiah at the end of his life, for he was a righteous king. The point that Josiah did not die on the battlefield is a definitive commentary juxtaposed against how he was killed. He died like Ahab (trying to outsmart God and disregarding a clear instruction from the Lord) but not like Saul (a man totally abandoned by God). God’s grace comes out in this passage, especially when this passage is placed in the greater historical context.
The Chronicler offers the details that have significance. He doesn’t say that Josiah was hit in a weakness in his armor, like Ahab. He doesn’t speak about his armour-bearer, like Saul. There are thousands of other details that could have been included…like how Josiah tested Neco’s claim that Neco was indeed speaking a message from God. I would like to know that! Regardless, the Chronicler has a theological slant when reporting the battle and recounts how a righteous king didn’t finish strong, but was still remembered by the Lord.
A general hermeneutical bumper sticker that I often use is “a text without a context is pretext.” (proof text…there’s one for you too Tom!) Given the details, does that make sense to you? Both texts say exactly what they say and are coming from two different angles. Kings is a military recount of the battle and the outcome, where as Chronicles offers a little insight into the significance of the death of Josiah. I don't find any discrepancies between the accounts and I would suggest that they are only contradictory when read literalistically, as opposed to literally. That’s the best I can offer! Sorry if that doesn’t answer any questions for you…D’Oh! Okay. I await further questions and challenges! God Bless Marshall and have a great day studying his word,
Lyndon |
|
|
|
| Marshall Janzen Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1234 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| |
Posted Apr 3, 2004; 7:18 am |
|
Interesting thoughts. I hadn't noticed the similarity between Ahab and Josiah. However, after reading that I'm still not sure where you think Josiah died. You said both that "Josiah was killed at the battle of Megiddo but he was buried at home" and that "The point that Josiah did not die on the battlefield is a definitive commentary juxtaposed against how he was killed". Are you basically agreeing with the ambulance theory I mentioned -- that Josiah received his fatal injury at Megiddo but died of his wounds in Jerusalem?
| Lyndon Unger wrote: | | Now, you can read that as saying “Pharaoh Neco killed Josiah at the location of Megiddo”, but the passage could also be read “Pharaoh Neco killed Josiah at the event of the battle of Megiddo”. |
I don't see how that helps. The battle of Megiddo took place at Megiddo. Did Josiah die at the scene of the battle, or as he was being carried away in his chariot to Jerusalem, or after he arrived in Jerusalem? If he died in Jerusalem, then that was neither at the location of Megiddo nor at the battle of Megiddo.
| Quote: | | It’s a simple military recount of the event. I would suggest that you would be reading too much into the text to submit that Megiddo is the exact location where Josiah received his death blow. |
I would suggest that you wouldn't think that if it weren't for the Chronicles account.  After all, the text says that his body was carried from Megiddo. As the KJV puts it, "his servants carried him in a chariot dead from Megiddo". It's interesting because in these two verses, the Hebrew word muwth is used twice. This word carries the meanings of "die", "dead", "kill" or "dead body". First, the text says that Josiah was muwth at Megiddo, and then that he was carried muwth from Megiddo. As the ESV puts it, "Pharaoh Neco killed him at Megiddo, as soon as he saw him. And his servants carried him dead in a chariot from Megiddo and brought him to Jerusalem and buried him in his own tomb." The NASB says, "when Pharaoh Neco saw him he killed him at Megiddo. His servants drove his body in a chariot from Megiddo, and brought him to Jerusalem and buried him in his own tomb." Really, how could the text have been any more explicit that Josiah died before he was brought to Jerusalem?
Now, does it really matter where Josiah died? I don't think so; in fact, I chose this example specifically because it is trivial. However, it does illumine our respective approaches to Scripture. In this instance, you are not willing to take the text literally, because doing so would conflict with your view of inerrancy. Instead, you've said that it "would be reading too much into the text to submit that Megiddo is the exact location" where Josiah died. I really don't think it takes any reading into the text to come to that conclusion. In my opinion it's only through amazing feats of exegetical gymnastics that the text can be made to say anything else!
Sorry to be so blunt. I'm sure that if our positions were reversed, and I tried to explain away a passage the way you tried to explain away 2 Kings 23:29-30, you'd be all over it. In fact, I'd be disappointed if you didn't call me on it.  |
|
|
|
| Lyndon Unger Member Joined Mar 12, 2004 48 posts Location: Burbank, California |
| |
Posted Apr 6, 2004; 10:12 pm |
|
Marshall, you are right when you say that the Bible says exactly what it says; no more, no less. I think we both agree here but I must suggest that what you suspect the Bible says is not actually what it says. I’ll try to be SUPER clear here:
1. The Kings passage only says that Josiah fought with Neco at the battle of Megiddo and at that battle he died. (If I sounded like I was suggesting that Josiah did NOT die at the battle Megiddo, I was inarticulate. In my previous post I meant that the Kings passage did not give exact details to his death, not that it was suggesting that he didn’t actually die at the battle of Megiddo. I was talking about exact details as in “ in a chariot” versus “on a hill”. It all happened at Megiddo, though “Megiddo” is not as specific a location as “in a chariot at Megiddo”. That was what I was trying to get at with my previous post.)
2. The Chronicles passage agrees with the Kings passage and only inserts some details to offer theological commentary upon the event of the death of Josiah, adding some depth to the Kings account.
3. I have nothing to say about the ambulance theory (or any other theory) because the text does not give that information. To suggest that would certainly be speculative at best, and I have no time for exegetical gymnastics either. Josiah died at Megiddo. The text (of Kings) does not say that he was in a chariot, or lying on a rug, or whatever else. The English NIV text (of Chronicles) seems to suggest that Josiah may have died somewhere other than Megiddo, but the Hebrew text does not suggest this...
…Let’s take a peek…
Upon further exegetical study, it seems that you are building an argument upon the phrase “muwth qavar” (“died and was buried”) in 2 Chronicles 35:24, suspecting that phrase to be talking about the death occurring at Jerusalem instead of Megiddo. This argument cannot be necessarily made from the Chronicles account. The phrase “muwth qavar” occurs numerous times in the Old Testament (Genesis 35:8, 35:19; Numbers 20:1; Deuteronomy 10:6; Joshua 24:33; Judges 10:2, 10:5, 12:12, 12:15; 2 Samuel 17:23; 1 Kings 2:34, 2 Kings 12:21, 13:20, 2 Chronicles 24:25), and the phrase “muwth qavar” is always proclaiming the occurrence of death. It is a simple phrase that is consistently used as final statement in the tale of a person, commenting simply that they died. The NIV rendering “where he died” is not necessarily the only rendering. The KJ, NKJV, RSV and ESV’s rendering “and he died” is equally valid and based on the testimony of the Kings account, is favorable in this passage. So, it is reasonable to argue that both Kings and Chronicles say that Josiah died at Megiddo. The idea that Josiah died at Jerusalem (or in the chariot on the way back, or any other possibility), is exegetically questionable and is derived from an unfortunate English rendition of the Hebrew phrase “muwth qavar”. It is quite exegetical reasonable that Josiah died at Megiddo, and this is taught in both passages.
As for your suggestion of exegetical corruption, my view on inerrancy is not what corrupts me from taking the passage literally. Inerrancy demands a literal reading of scripture (not to be confused with a literalistic reading of scripture) leaves room for numerical and scribal errors in transmission. Once again, inerrancy is something that applies to the original manuscripts, not translations. I don’t worry much about some numbers here and there that, when examined with historical criticism, can be traced to a scribal error somewhere along the line of scriptural transmission. If one suggests these transmission issues make the Bible inerrant, one does not understand what is meant by inerrancy. The Bible is clear on the issue of inerrancy. The real problem is not that the Bible is not clear on this issue. There are two problems here:
1. Many people have pragmatic hermeneutics that pick and choose which parts of the Bible they will listen to. The passages in 2 Timothy and 1 Peter are clear enough. God ultimately was the author of scripture and when the Bible speaks, God speaks. None the less, those passages are dismissed and disregarded in favor of something more palatable with other philosophies or selfish desires, along with many other passages (1 Timothy 2:9-15 anyone?).
2. Many people deify themselves, placing their own rational processes above God’s clear word. The entire first point is what happens when people place their own wisdom above what God has said and written about whatever topic/event is at hand. Many people think that they have some objective position from which to interact with and understand “facts” and ultimate reality outside of a foundation of what God has revealed about ultimate reality in his book; the Bible (before someone suggests the question…special revelation always works with and alongside general revelation). If God makes a propositional statement about something, God is correct whether or not I understand. This applies across the board, including when he makes propositional statements with regards to how the Bible was written and who wrote it (The Bible is also full of propositions that are important…our true neo-orthodox readers out there can try to dance around 1 Corinthians 15:13-14). But mankind, in sin, suppresses the truth and trades it for something lesser (what he finds more palatable to his own selfish and corrupt reason). Nobody ultimately can make sense of anything outside a Biblical foundation (not reading the Bible, but a worldview that corresponds with a Biblical worldview). This is probably too philosophical for this message board (and I imagine that those who think they know what I’m saying probably don’t…doh!), but more or less: when you attempt to tell the Bible what it means, you set your knowledge above God and functionally treat yourself as God. People are free to do this, but Immanuel Kant is a wonderful testimony to the inherent destructiveness and contradiction of such a worldview. Outside a Biblical worldview, grounded in God’s propositional, historical, inerrant, authoritative, infallible, efficacious and perspicuous word, one cannot really say anything.
You are also right in saying that this is not a case study on inerrancy Marshall. I recognize this to be trivial, but not really knowing you or where you are at spiritually, I take you and all your questions as seriously as I can. I do that from respect and care for you and concern for God and his word. You are right in saying that this is a good example of how we approach scripture, and if I am still doing exegetical gymnastics, I don’t know what I can say anymore. I think we practically agree though, and thank you for your timely and articulate responses and challenges. It’s always rewarding and challenging to think together with other Christians. I’m moving this week to Alberta, so this will be my last post for a while. God bless in your online swashbuckling,
Lyndon |
|
|
|
| Marshall Janzen Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1234 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| |
Posted Apr 15, 2004; 2:03 am |
|
I'm back from a trip to BC and finally have some time to respond to this. First off, I'm glad I was mistaken about what you meant with the Kings passage. Those verses are pretty clear, and from your clarification it appears that we both agree on that. No problems there.
Now, on to Chronicles:
| Lyndon Unger wrote: | | The English NIV text (of Chronicles) seems to suggest that Josiah may have died somewhere other than Megiddo, but the Hebrew text does not suggest this... |
To be more blunt, the NIV, NASB and NLT unambiguously state in Chronicles that Josiah died in Jerusalem. A natural reading of the KJV and ESV says the same thing, although it's possible to read those versions differently. The NKJV reading is ambiguous and comes the closest to following your theory: "And the archers shot King Josiah; and the king said to his servants, 'Take me away, for I am severely wounded.' His servants therefore took him out of that chariot and put him in the second chariot that he had, and they brought him to Jerusalem. So he died, and was buried in one of the tombs of his fathers."
In this translation, it is possible that the statement "so he died" is a summary of the events described before rather than a statement of when Josiah died. In any case, Chronicles seems to imply that Josiah died either on the trip to Jerusalem or at Jerusalem (since it must have been after he spoke to his servants). It is possible to take this even further and say that Josiah died before he was taken away from Megiddo, but that is a rather tenuous interpretation. The only reason to even consider it is in order to line up this verse with the Kings passage.
| Quote: | | It is quite exegetical reasonable that Josiah died at Megiddo, and this is taught in both passages. |
That isn't true. The Kings account states Josiah died at Megiddo. The Chronicles passage can be read as ambiguous about where Josiah died, but in no way and in no translation does the Chronicles passage say that Josiah died at Megiddo. If that were the case, we wouldn't be having this very pedantic discussion.
Yes, we both agree that it proclaims the occurrence of death. The question is whether it is being used as a summary statement of a death that occurred earlier, or whether it proclaims death at the time the phrase is used. Usually, there are either not enough details of the events surrounding a death for there to be any confusion or the details are precise enough that we know when the person died. Probably the most similar passage to the one we're looking at is Deuteronomy 10:6 which says "The Israelites traveled from the wells of the Jaakanites to Moserah. There Aaron died and was buried, and Eleazar his son succeeded him as priest." Now, according to your interpretation of the phrase muwth qavar, Aaron may have died at the wells of the Jaakanites, somewhere along the journey to Moserah, or at Moserah itself. To me, I'd rather say that Aaron died at Moserah. It seems like a more clear reading of the text. If you agree here that Aaron died at Moserah but don't agree that 2 Chronicles 35:22-24 is clear about Josiah dying in Jerusalem, then I don't think you're interpreting the Hebrew phrase consistently.
| Quote: | | when you attempt to tell the Bible what it means, you set your knowledge above God and functionally treat yourself as God |
On this we certainly agree. However, believing in the inerrancy of Scripture is by no means protection against this error. It is quite easy to be convinced that a passage must say something other than its clear meaning in order to reconcile it with other passages. Martin Luther considered James an inferior part of Scripture because he couldn't see how it reconciled with what he thought the rest of the Bible was saying. Rather than grappling with how both James and Paul's epistles could be true, he virtually ignored the one and held on to his interpretation of the other. That is the danger in inerrancy. It is very easy to go from "the Bible has no errors" to "my interpretation of the Bible has no errors, so any passages that conflict need to be explained away." From there, the Bible becomes merely a way to confirm what we already know, rather than revelation from God with the capacity to teach us.
Anyway, hope your move goes well. When you're all settled, let me know if we're close to being on the same page here. |
|
|
|
| Lyndon Unger Member Joined Mar 12, 2004 48 posts Location: Burbank, California |
| After many moons, I have returned! |
Posted May 18, 2004; 6:52 pm |
|
Well, I’ve been off for quite a long time! After moving and working for over a month, I remembered about my MB Forum adventures, so I took some time when I got off early tonight to check things out and see where some things are left. It appears that you are “lighting me up” here Marshall, and that is fantastic! (I do appreciate your articulate and sincere rebuttals) None the less, it seems I am still being misunderstood. I'll try to lay things out one more time:
1. When dealing with a Biblical passage, one does not exegete Hebrew texts by examining English translations and paraphrases. Whether or not the NKJV, or NIV, or any other translation/paraphrase says one thing or another when one gives it a “natural reading” is not particularly useful in determining the meaning of a Hebrew phrase/word. One must take the Hebrew phrase/word in its grammatical, historical and literary context and then apply exegetical tools and skill towards its interpretation. That's one of the keys in Biblical interpretation. Serious Biblical interpretation is not done in English, because the Bible was not written in English. Quoting English translations is not the same as doing exegesis. Once one is reading it in English, one is already reading an interpretation. To seriously exegete and interpret, one must deal with the original language(s).
2. You said "In any case, Chronicles seems to imply that Josiah died either on the trip to Jerusalem or at Jerusalem". Your suggestion that there is implication is simply arbitrary and personal opinion (“seems to imply”?). I will say it again; the English text may appear that way, but the Hebrew text does not. To argue from a supposed implication would be to perform eisegesis (forcing meaning into a text), not exegesis (drawing meaning out from a text).
3. You also said "It is possible to take this even further and say that Josiah died before he was taken away from Megiddo, but that is a rather tenuous interpretation. The only reason to even consider it is in order to line up this verse with the Kings passage." That's a very definitive statement Marshall. Chronicles easily allows for Josiah to die before leaving Megiddo. It doesn't offer the precise level of detail that you seem to suspect in it. Jews didn’t record history with a 21st century, microscopic level of detail in mind. Did time pass between Josiah’s statement in verse 23 and the placement of Josiah in verse 24? We cannot say either way because the text does not say. Plus, biblical hermeneutics would demand that scripture interpret scripture. An inerrant Bible does not allow Kings and Chronicles to be opposed to one another, and it is up to the exegete to hammer through the supposed "contradiction". Supposed contradictions can be due to things like misreading of text, eisegesis, or scribal/textual error somewhere through the transmission process. With an inerrant Bible, you would approach a supposed contradiction with those expectations, and in that order. Your supposed contradiction falls apart at the first and second steps, not requiring advancing onto the third step of historical research into the transmission of the biblical text itself.
4. You quoted me as saying "It is quite exegetical reasonable that Josiah died at Megiddo, and this is taught in both passages." and commented "That isn't true. The Kings account states Josiah died at Megiddo. The Chronicles passage can be read as ambiguous about where Josiah died, but in no way and in no translation does the Chronicles passage say that Josiah died at Megiddo." Again, arguing from the testimony of translations is faulty exegetical reasoning Marshall. I'll say it again and again. The Hebrew text does not have the same ambiguity that your English Bible seems to have. Using consistent hermeneutics, and not attaching supposed "implied content" onto the passages, both passages can, and I submit do, reasonably say the same thing; Josiah died at Megiddo. I stand firmly that both passages can, and I suggest do, reasonably teach that Josiah died at Megiddo. The Hebrew text allows for it (it actually is exegetically reasonable) and a Biblical doctrine of scripture demands it.
5. As for your tackling of Deuteronomy 10:6, you've got two different passages with different contexts and the Hebrew verbs have two different constructions (Qal perfect form of muwth in 2 Chronicles and Qal imperfect in Deuteronomy). The verb is the same, but the forms are different. Words with different forms mean different things. "Going" and "gone" mean two different things, though they are forms from the same root and words appear similar. In the two passages, the root phrase is the same but construction is different and the rules of language apply. The passage in Deuteronomy is not identical to the passage in Chronicles.
6. You commented that "Martin Luther considered James an inferior part of Scripture because he couldn't see how it reconciled with what he thought the rest of the Bible was saying. Rather than grappling with how both James and Paul's epistles could be true, he virtually ignored the one and held on to his interpretation of the other. That is the danger in inerrancy. It is very easy to go from 'the Bible has no errors' to 'my interpretation of the Bible has no errors, so any passages that conflict need to be explained away.' "
I would strongly suggest that it is actually impossible to logically get from ‘the Bible has no errors’ (which inerrantists DO NOT claim…how many times must I remind you that inerrancy applies to the original manuscripts?) to ‘my interpretation of the Bible has no errors’. Those two ideas are completely unrelated. I would suggest that you are confusing "implications of inerrancy" with "fruits of pride". The only danger that an inerrant Bible would pose would be to an arrogant heart that cannot admit when it is wrong about an exegetical or applicative question that comes out in Scripture. I fully admit that the Bible has no errors in it in as much as my version corresponds to the original manuscripts (which are inerrant, not my NIV Bible…you seem quite determined to completely miss this point), but I would never (and I believe that I do not) suggest that my interpretation has no errors. I can admit "I do not know" or "there is not enough data to suggest this", and I do.
Again, I say that there is not enough data or level of detail in the Hebrew text of the Chronicles passage to suggest that the passage teaches that Josiah died at Jerusalem. It's simply not there. It may look that way in your English versions, but it does not look that way in the Hebrew version. Both passages teach that Josiah died at Megiddo. There is nothing more I can say about this, short of exegetically working through the complete Hebrew text for both passages. Do we need to do this?
One last thing… The doctrine of inerrancy does not rely on archeological or geological or any other ‘scientific’ verification, nor can any ‘scientific’ data challenge inerrancy. Providing supposed contradictions or ‘difficult to reconcile with scripture’ data (like the supposed 5 billion year age of the earth) in Scripture does nothing to challenge inerrancy. Inerrancy is built on the propositional self-attestations of the Scripture to the Scripture and upon the authority, wisdom, knowledge, faithfulness, sovereignty, power and truthfulness of God. The Bible (original manuscripts) is inerrant because God says, in the Bible, that the Bible is inerrant. The Bible (original manuscripts) is inerrant because God claims, in the Bible, that he wrote the Bible and also that he is always perfectly truthful. The Bible (original manuscripts) is inerrant because God claims, in the Bible, to be faithful and that his word rests upon his faithfulness…and so on and so on. Very few people on this forum seem to understand this! I make such an abrasive statement because many are slinging mud at the Bible but nobody is actually dealing with the propositional claims of scripture, from which the doctrine of inerrancy is derived, and tearing them down. Errors in copies do not make for errors in the original and supposed contradictions, and even real contradictions, in manuscripts do not make for contradictions in the original. This whole debate between us actually does nothing to challenge or buttress inerrancy at all Marshall, but it does answer some questions regarding our hermeneutics and doctrine of scripture. Am I more clear now? |
|
|
|
| Marshall Janzen Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1234 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Ding! Round 4 |
Posted May 18, 2004; 9:20 pm |
|
Welcome back, Lyndon! I see we're still about the same distance apart on this issue. 
| Lyndon Unger wrote: | | When dealing with a Biblical passage, one does not exegete Hebrew texts by examining English translations and paraphrases. |
I don't read Hebrew, and I don't claim to be a Hebrew scholar. However, those people who translated the Bible into various English versions are Hebrew scholars, and so I am more likely to defer to their expertise, especially when they are nearly unanimous, than to try my hand at translating the verses myself, using my copy of Strong's and whatever Internet resources are available. Certainly translators can be wrong, even en masse, but I'd rather not depend on them being wrong for my conclusions to be correct.
| Quote: | | You also said "It is possible to take this even further and say that Josiah died before he was taken away from Megiddo, but that is a rather tenuous interpretation. The only reason to even consider it is in order to line up this verse with the Kings passage." That's a very definitive statement Marshall. |
Indeed it is, and perhaps I exaggerated. However, it seems to be borne out in this case, because by the middle of that paragraph, that's exactly the reason you brought out: "An inerrant Bible does not allow Kings and Chronicles to be opposed to one another, and it is up to the exegete to hammer through the supposed 'contradiction'."
| Quote: | | You quoted me as saying "It is quite exegetical reasonable that Josiah died at Megiddo, and this is taught in both passages." and commented "That isn't true." [...] I'll say it again and again. The Hebrew text does not have the same ambiguity that your English Bible seems to have. Using consistent hermeneutics, and not attaching supposed "implied content" onto the passages, both passages can, and I submit do, reasonably say the same thing; Josiah died at Megiddo. |
I want to be careful that I don't misinterpret you here. Are you actually saying that the Chronicles account states without ambiguity that King Josiah died at Megiddo? If so, that means every English translation I've seen has been inaccurate in their rendering of these verses. That's an amazing claim, and if you are indeed making it, I would like to see some evidence to back it up.
| Quote: | | As for your tackling of Deuteronomy 10:6, you've got two different passages with different contexts and the Hebrew verbs have two different constructions [...] The passage in Deuteronomy is not identical to the passage in Chronicles. |
I didn't claim they were identical; I just claimed that of the examples you gave of muwth quavar in the Old Testament, that was probably the most pertinent one to this discussion. If you realize that this verse doesn't support your case, then I'm not sure why you mentioned it in the first place! (Did you not expect me to look it up? )
| Quote: | | ‘the Bible has no errors’ (which inerrantists DO NOT claim…how many times must I remind you that inerrancy applies to the original manuscripts?) [...] I fully admit that the Bible has no errors in it in as much as my version corresponds to the original manuscripts (which are inerrant, not my NIV Bible…you seem quite determined to completely miss this point) |
This appears to just be a simple misunderstanding. When I proposed that inerrantists believe "the Bible has no errors", I meant the Bible as in the written word of God, irrespective of language or translation. I was not implying that you believed your NIV Bible was inerrant. I'm well aware that you limit inerrancy to the original manuscripts and haven't missed that point.
| Quote: | | Again, I say that there is not enough data or level of detail in the Hebrew text of the Chronicles passage to suggest that the passage teaches that Josiah died at Jerusalem. It's simply not there. |
Perhaps this explains why I'm still confused about what you believe. Earlier, you stated that the passage in Chronicles is not ambiguous in the Hebrew the way it is in our English translations, and that the passage teaches that Josiah died at Megiddo ("It is quite exegetical reasonable that Josiah died at Megiddo, and this is taught in both passages", "The Hebrew text does not have the same ambiguity that your English Bible seems to have"). Now, you say that the Chronicles passage, analyzed by itself, doesn't have "enough data" to say one way or another where Josiah died.
When I question either assertion, you respond by telling me that I am misinterpreting you and then reiterate your other view. That's my dilemma: I'm arguing against two positions here, and they're both coming from you. If you don't see these as contradictory (do you mean something different when you say that the passage "teaches" that Josiah died at Megiddo?), please explain that to me, and then I'll be better able to grasp the rest of what you're saying.
| Quote: | | I make such an abrasive statement because many are slinging mud at the Bible but nobody is actually dealing with the propositional claims of scripture, from which the doctrine of inerrancy is derived, and tearing them down. |
I certainly have no desire to either sling mud at the Bible or tear down the claims of Scripture. However, I have tried to show how I interpret the verses where the Bible makes claims about itself (see this post, and this follow-up in the same thread). I do not believe I am explaining away any verses, but rather taking what they say without adding to or embellishing them. Feel free to respond in that thread if you disagree with my reasoning, but please don't imply that I'm avoiding dealing with the issue. I try very hard to interpret Scripture consistently. I've changed my mind before on interpretational issues, and if I'm made aware of an inconsistency in my current view, I'll adjust my view accordingly.
| Quote: | | This whole debate between us actually does nothing to challenge or buttress inerrancy at all Marshall |
Certainly that's true. As you stated before, if you couldn't find a way to reconcile the passages by using an ambiguity in the wording or an alternate translation of the Hebrew, you always have the last resort of saying that there was a scribal error in our extant copies of one or both of the passages. (Your words: "Supposed contradictions can be due to things like misreading of text, eisegesis, or scribal/textual error somewhere through the transmission process.") In the end, an inerrantist can explain away absolutely any passage just as easily as one who does not believe in inerrancy. A belief in inerrancy does not in any way guarantee that a person takes the Bible more seriously or is more likely to apply it to their life. Because of its flexibility, I agree that inerrancy can never be disproved -- or proved. |
|
|
|
| Lyndon Unger Member Joined Mar 12, 2004 48 posts Location: Burbank, California |
| The bottom line... |
Posted May 23, 2004; 1:34 am |
|
Okay. I’m going to make a change here and not respond to some of your questions Marshall. Instead, after a long time of getting bogged down in rhetoric and verbal disagreement (I mean disagreement about verbs…ha!), I decided to take a fresh look at the passage. I dug out my BHS Tanakh and exegetical tools (which was packed up from my move) and worked fresh through the complete Hebrew text for both passages. I also consulted a fellow theologian/linguist and my old Hebrew Tutor and got some other opinions. After my own study and consulting my other experts, came to a firm conclusion on the matter…
There is absolutely no contradiction between the 2 Kings 23:29-30 and 2 Chronicles 35:23-24…there is not even a remotely apparent contradiction. When reading the passages in the original language there is nothing to even suggest “both ‘a’ and ‘non-a’ at the same time in the same way” concept emerging from the passages. In other words, a true contradiction is not existent or apparent. I’ll be as clear as I can here:
1. 2 Kings 23:29 states :
a. Pharaoh Neco went to fight against the King of Assyria.
b. Neco fought Josiah at Megiddo and killed him there.
2. 2 Kings 23:30 states:
a. The servants brought his body from Megiddo to Jerusalem and buried him at Jerusalem in his own tomb.
b. The people then anointed Jehoahaz, the son of Josiah, as king.
That’s all that 2 Kings says.
3. 2 Chronicles 35:23 states:
a. Archers shot Josiah and he told his men to take him away for he was badly wounded.
4. 2 Chronicles 35:24 states:
a. Josiah’s servants put Josiah in another chariot and brought him to Jerusalem. (This is a complete sentence in the Hebrew.)
b. Josiah died and was buried in one of the tombs of his fathers. (New sentence and completely new idea, separate from the preceding one.)
c. All Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah.
So that’s it. That’s all that the passages, in the original language, say. There’s no mention of an “ambulance theory”. There’s no remote hint that such a theory is necessary since there is not a single detail given to even speculate that Josiah died anywhere other than Megiddo. Any misunderstanding or apparent contradiction comes from some unfortunate wording of some (not all) translation committees.
That’s not to say that the NIV or NKJV or NASB committees were ‘wrong’ though. Translation committees have the immense context of ideas (not just the immediate wording of the passage but context of the chapter, book, genre, historical context, etc.) in which they translated a passage and may write with those ideas in their head, not guessing at all the various ways that their wording may be misinterpreted.
Also, most Bible versions are not meant to be “word for word” accurate. Most versions are interpretations of the Hebrew text that are re-worked to translate ‘idea for idea’ or ‘statement for statement’ instead of ‘word for word’ so that the passage is readable in English. Even ‘word for word’ translations are never really ‘word for word’, for to make a 100% ‘word for word’ translation would be to make a translation that would be unreadable. Hebrew and English have different word orders, different case systems, different verbal constructs, etc.
On a side note, I found out something that was interesting that I will share with you. 2 Chronicles 35:25 states that “Jeremiah also lamented for Josiah. And to this day all the singing men and the singing women speak of Josiah in their lamentations. They made it a custom in Israel”. So, there was apparently a custom of lamentation associated with the death of Josiah and Megiddo. Amazingly, this little tidbit of history is mentioned in Zechariah 12:11 where mourning in Jerusalem is compared to the mourning of “Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo”. In Jewish history, it is said that Josiah actually died at Hadad Rimmon, which Easton’s Bible Dictionary says “…has been identified with the modern Rummaneh, a village at the foot of the Megiddo hills, in a notch or valley about an hour and a half south of Tell Metzellim.”. Hadad Rimmon is near the foothills on the western side of the valley of Megiddo, and apparently that place is the place specifically associated with the death of Josiah.
So, where did Josiah die? On the plains of Megiddo…more specifically, on the southwestern side of the plains of Megiddo in Hadad Rimmon, which is near modern Rummaneh.
That is what the Bible teaches me about the incident and so that is what happened. Any further detail would be speculative and any suggestion that I have attempted to “explain away” a contradiction would be silly since there is no contradiction to explain away in the first place. There is not even a remotely apparent contradiction. There are only misunderstandings of translations and this is from where the problem originally arose. None the less, the Bible is clear and consistent on this matter. Josiah died at Megiddo. That’s all I have to say and I will submit that the case is closed on this debate. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Janzen Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1234 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Re: The bottom line... |
Posted May 23, 2004; 3:25 am |
|
| Lyndon Unger wrote: | | b. Josiah died and was buried in one of the tombs of his fathers. (New sentence and completely new idea, separate from the preceding one.) |
Just one question in two parts: how is this sentence structure indicated in the Hebrew, and why have most translations missed this (including very literal translations such as the NASB, YLT and KJV), if it is obvious and unambiguous in the Hebrew? |
|
|
|
| Lyndon Unger Member Joined Mar 12, 2004 48 posts Location: Burbank, California |
| John Travolta, Mennonite history and the Oscars scandal... |
Posted May 29, 2004; 4:13 pm |
|
I could not think of something clever to put as a subject title so I put something stupid. My appologies for the casual MB Forum reader who came here hoping for hot celebrity gossip but now that you are here, read on!
Marshall,
It seems pointless for me to discuss Hebrew textual specifics if you don’t know Hebrew. Either you believe me or you don’t. If I say that there is an ‘atnah’ in the passage that indicates a break, do you even know what that means? How would you disagree with me if you don’t know Hebrew? (rhetorical question...don't answer that...*wink*) I’m not really going to slam through a bunch of Hebrew exegesis or explanation as that would essentially get us nowhere. We may as well be talking in Mandarin or Icelandic.
Your comment of “most translations have missed this” is simply a misinformed statement. The Amplified Bible, KJV, New Life Version, ESV, NKJV,21 Century King James Version, American Standard Version and Darby Version keep the division in verse 24 with out inserting the word “where” and offer variations of translation for readability (also, some of these claim to be ‘literal translations’). Some insert a period and some keep the flow of the narrative, translating the passage “and he died…” Many different wordings can communicate the same idea with precision. I would refer you to Bernard Ramm’s book Protestant Biblical Interpretation (among many other worthwhile titles) for a more substantial treatment of this issue and remind you that interpretation is not simply a task of finding the English word that corresponds with the Hebrew original. All words have a “pool of meanings” from which the interpreter attempts to select the best meaning/denotation to then bring it into the English version. Besides translating words accurately, there are the questions of linguistic differences in things like case structure, verbal construct, etc. In all this I’m saying that there are more and less accurate ways to translate the verse, but there is not one singularly specific ‘right’ way to translate the verse. Many bible versions translate 2 Chronicles 35:24 different ways, and that is actually all right!
None the less, the only way I can see a misreading of the text in the aforementioned versions is if you read the “…and he died…” as coming chronologically after the “they brought him to Jerusalem”. That is taking a possible reading and making it the only possible reading. That’s turning the ‘and’ into an ‘and then’, but the Hebrew text does not say ‘and then’; neither does any translation. Lists are not necessarily always perfectly sequential in the Old Testament, nor need they be for the sake of telling that a series of events happened. If I say “yesterday I went to the store, and rented a movie, and washed my car and bought some groceries” or “yesterday I rented a movie, and bought some groceries, and washed my car and rented a movie”, both statements are identically true and accurately recount the events though the individual clauses come in different order. Based on the information at hand, reading the text as saying ‘and then’ does not seem to be the best way to read the text.
Every commentary (Keil and Delitzsch, Walvoord & Zuck, Mathew Henry, Jamieson-Fausset & Brown, MacDonald, Calvin, NAC, Pulpit, Excell, NIV Application, Word Biblical Commentary, Expositors Bible Commentary, ICC, NICOT, NIBC, Wesley, Geneva), Old Testament Textbook/Introduction, article (in the journals of Dallas, Grace, TMS, TEDs, Westminster) and person I consulted on this passage all found no contradiction and no apparent contradiction between the Kings passage and the Chronicles passage. The issue of 'Kings and Chronicles contradict each other' came up in not one piece of writing that I encountered. If you have any other serious questions on other passages of scripture, let us continue to discuss and challenge one another. As for this topic, I think it’s thoroughly done. I’m going to comment on the reason that we have been discussing this topic for the last month and a bit now…
Regarding the ‘inerrancy’ debate (among many others) I’m going to lay things down for everyone, regardless of who gets offended. I’ve already hinted at this in another post, but now I’ll lay it out clearly. I’ve been on the defensive long enough and it’s time for a little offensive. The following portion is NOT specifically directed at you Marshall, but is just a general statement:
The reason that those who doubt the truth of the Bible find all these supposed ‘contradictions’ in the Bible is not because the Bible is full of contradictions (There are many ‘apparent contradictions’, but the casual observer who has read the dialogue between Marshall and myself can see that serious exegetical work, combined with the Holy Spirit, an honest mind and a humble heart, can reasonably sort through this and possibly many other ‘apparent contradictions’). The reason is not because the Bible is ambiguous or inherently cryptic. The reason is not because the text has been horribly corrupted over the centuries of transmission so that the truth is lost. The reason is two fold:
1. With non-Christians, it is simply that they cannot understand the Bible because their minds are unable to discern/understand the truth of the Bible (1 Cor 2:14; 2 Cor 3:13-15; Eph 4:17-18) and the truth that they do have is suppressed in their efforts to make room for sin (Rom 1:18-19; Eph 4:18). Only through the illuminating work of the Spirit can they truly understand the Bible (2 Cor 3:16; Eph 3:8-10; John 16:13; 1 Cor 2:12-16). The scripture is clear on the position between the unbeliever and the things of God (Romans 8:5-8). It’s absolutely no surprise that unbelievers do not believe…hence they are called unbelievers. As a theologian, I expect that apologetic arguments will not be compelling with unbelievers and so I don’t use them all that much. Unbelievers a priori rule out Biblical truth and will entertain anything but the Biblical truth. None the less, the gospel is the power unto salvation (Rom 1:16-17), not a historical defense of the textual manuscripts of the Old Testament, or some other apologetic debate. Here’s one of my notoriously bizarre analogies: “Good apologetics are like a weed-whacker; they can clear away the ‘intellectual underbrush’ (rational defenses for sin) of a rebellious and sinful heart but they will never cut down the forest of unbelief” (and bad apologetics end up being used for hours and hours against a huge redwood with no apparent effect!).
2. With Christians it is because they are, possibly unwittingly, approaching Scripture from an anti-Christian worldview. This worldview is built on two erroneous presuppositions:
A. The Bible may or may not have errors in it, regardless of the Bible’s own testimony of itself (which is also presuppositionally suspect). All atheists that allow for some truth to be in the Bible (they are ‘open minded’ and entertain the possibility for at least one statement in the Bible to be true), but they are inherently suspicious of the Bible and approach it from a position of doubt (i.e. guilty until proven innocent by an absurd amount of arbitrarily decided ‘evidence’).
B. Ignoring the teaching of Scripture (See point 1 and also Deut 29:29; Job 12:13; Proverbs 1:7; Psalm 94:11; Is 65:1; Daniel 2:20; Matt 11:25; Rom 11:33, Rom 16:25-26; 1 Cor 1:18-25, 1 Cor 2:6-10, 1 Cor 3:19; Eph 1:17, Eph 3:2-5, Eph 3:10; James 1:5; ), they suppose that they possess a rationally autonomous faculty, an undistorted perspective and extra-Biblical access to perfect knowledge (whether from in their own minds of from some external authority) from which to observe, interact with and judge which parts of the Bible are errant and which are not. They place themselves above God and say in their hearts, “I have enough knowledge, clear enough perspective and sufficient rational abilities to judge what is true and what is error in the Bible” (and in reality, in all things). They exchange God’s authoritative perspective, perfect wisdom and reliable declarations regarding his word and ultimate reality for their own imperfect, foolish speculations. They claim to know more than the Lord and they imagine that they sit above him who “sits enthroned above the circle of the earth…” (Is 40:22). I know many Christians who, in practice, seem to think they are in this seat.
That is why people find all the problems in the Bible (and Biblical doctrine) and ‘don’t believe’ (or believe in a modified version of the truth… a ‘palatable lie’). In the end it turns out that they hate the truth and cannot accept it or they think that they are the ones who decide what the truth is. Regardless, God alone is right and God is the one who knows truth (Job 12:13; Prov 21:30; Dan 2:20; Rom 11:33; 1 Cor 1:25). It’s no coincidence that the idea that ‘the fear God is the foundation/basis of wisdom’ comes out all over scripture (Job 28:28; Psalm 111:10; Prov 1:7, Prov 2:1-6, Prov 9:10, Prov 15:33). It’s also no coincidence that many, if not most, do not fear God. The Bible is clear (perspicuous) on both of these concepts and neither one should shock any casual reader of the Scripture, let alone anyone who seriously studies the Scripture and has been educated in the Scripture and theology.For a greater explanation of this whole issue, please refer to Cornelius Van Til’s books entitled A Survey of Christian Epistemology, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, and A Christian Theory of Knowledge. Van Til is the champion of modern reformed apologetics (to which most modern apologists pay homage) and deals much more thoroughly with the interrelations of epistemology, metaphysics, theology and the Bible. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Janzen Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1234 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Re: John Travolta, Mennonite history and the Oscars scandal. |
Posted May 30, 2004; 5:53 pm |
|
Hi Lyndon. I wasn't aware that you were a Hebrew scholar -- it's great to have one on this board! How many years of Hebrew have you taken? I'd like to learn a bit of biblical Hebrew myself.
| Lyndon Unger wrote: | | How would you disagree with me if you don’t know Hebrew? (rhetorical question...don't answer that...*wink*) |
Actually, I am going to answer. How would you disagree with a scientist when he speaks about a field of science where he is trained further than you are? You wouldn't be helpless in such a situation. The scientist may have you at a disadvantage, but you could still study things yourself to see if what he was saying was accurate. Who knows -- maybe the scientist was using his perceived intellectual superiority to exaggerate the evidence and was hoping you wouldn't notice.
| Quote: | | Your comment of “most translations have missed this” is simply a misinformed statement. The Amplified Bible, KJV, New Life Version, ESV, NKJV,21 Century King James Version, American Standard Version and Darby Version keep the division in verse 24 with out inserting the word “where” and offer variations of translation for readability (also, some of these claim to be ‘literal translations’). Some insert a period and some keep the flow of the narrative, translating the passage “and he died…” |
I'll address the details further down, but first I just want to point out the moving of goalposts here. I took exception to your claim that the Hebrew statement of Josiah's death is a "[n]ew sentence and completely new idea, separate from the preceding one" of Josiah being carried away to Jerusalem. I argued that most translations, including very literal translations, do not render these statements as separate sentences. Your response was that the conjunctive could also be rendered as "and" (note the moving of the goalposts from the original claim of requiring a "new sentence") and then you argued that my comment about the translations was misinformed because many of them use the word "and".
I realize that this can be an effective debating technique, since most people won't follow a thread closely enough to see when the goalposts shift. However, it is frustrating, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't continue to use that technique.
Now, back to the topic itself. Let's take a look at what has changed and what has stayed the same. Throughout this whole debate, you've remained absolutely certain that both Kings and Chronicles state that Josiah died in the same place. Your reasoning for this, in order, was that:
- The Kings passage was unclear about the exact location where Josiah died while Chronicles fills in the details. (from this post)
- The Hebrew phrase muwth quavar ("died and buried") used in Chronicles is a summary statement of Josiah's death and cannot be another event in a chronological list that includes him being carried to Jerusalem. (from this and this post)
- The Hebrew of the Chronicles account has Josiah being carried to Jerusalem and Josiah dying as two completely separate ideas in separate sentences. (from this post)
- There is an 'atnah' in the Hebrew of the Chronicles account that indicates a break between the statements of Josiah being carried away to Jerusalem and him dying and being buried. (from this post)
I've already responded to the first three theories, but let's look at the last one. Here it is in your own words:
| Quote: | | If I say that there is an ‘atnah’ in the passage that indicates a break, do you even know what that means? |
No, I had no idea what an atnah was until you mentioned it. I now have a slight idea what it is. It's used in Hebrew to divide verses into two parts. It was added by the Masoretes to Hebrew copies of the Old Testament many centuries after the originals were written, and so it is not part of what we would consider "inspired" and you would also consider "inerrant".
I decided to check some other places where it occurs in the Bible. It shows up right away in the first verse of Genesis. It divides the verse as follows: "In the beginning created God / the heavens and the earth." Now, your claim is that the atnah indicate a break, allowing the second clause to not be tied to the time frame of the first. Would you consistently apply this theory to Genesis 1:1, meaning that the heavens and the earth were not necessarily created in the beginning? Somehow I doubt it. The atnah is not as strong of a punctuation mark as you made it out to be (a silluq, for instance, is stronger). It does divide a verse and allow a speaker to know where to catch their breath, but it does not necessarily indicate a break from the previous thought.
To summarize my objection to all your theories: they exaggerate. Nothing is as clear-cut as you try to make it seem, whether we're talking about the Hebrew phrase muwth quavar or the atnah punctuation mark. These things may indicate a break or separation from what came before, but it is something that Bible translators do not all agree on, and I doubt that you've managed to find certainty where they failed.
Of course, because of my position on this topic, I don't need to know with certainty where King Josiah died. I think that allows a more impartial evaluation of the evidence. You've claimed that you also don't need to know with certainty, but I think this topic shows your reluctance to give that up. If you were willing to admit that the Hebrew of the Chronicles passage can legitimately be interpreted in a way that contradicts the Kings passage, we wouldn't still be arguing this. We'd then both agree that there were different interpretations, and just disagree on which one is more plausible. It is your desire for absolute certainty on an issue where there is none (and your overstating of evidence to gain that certainty) that keeps me responding. |
|
|
|
| Lyndon Unger Member Joined Mar 12, 2004 48 posts Location: Burbank, California |
| ? |
Posted May 31, 2004; 8:41 am |
|
| Okay. I won’t respond to negative insinuations and rhetorical traps. That is an unnecessary tangent and won’t help us get closer to the truth. It seems that you have found that I am misrepresenting data and exaggerating. I did not mean to do so, but apparently you have found that happening. I am wondering if you help me clarify exactly what the data is here and maybe we can examine it together? |
|
|
|
| Marshall Janzen Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1234 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| Re: ? |
Posted May 31, 2004; 2:47 pm |
|
Lyndon, I'm sorry that I offended you. My post was intended to help us get closer to the truth, because in my opinion, the things I was pointing out need to stop in order for us to make progress here.
| Lyndon Unger wrote: | | I am wondering if you help me clarify exactly what the data is here and maybe we can examine it together? |
Sounds like a great approach. Here's the data as I see it. Feel free to challenge points or add your own:
- The 2 Kings 23:29-30 account is absolutely clear (in the Hebrew and English translations) that King Josiah died at Megiddo.
- The 2 Chronicles 35:22-24 account lists seven events in verses 23-24, and there is no confusion about the order they are presented in:
- King Josiah is shot by archers
- he tells his officers to take him away because he is wounded
- his officers moved him from one chariot to another
- he was brought to Jerusalem
- he died
- he was buried
- Judah and Jerusalem mourned for him
- In between event four and five, the Hebrew contains an atnah, which is somewhat like a semicolon in English (it is generally weaker than a period but stronger than a comma).
There's probably more, but I'll leave it at that for now. A few questions for you:
- Is there an atnah in 2 Chronicles 35:23, and if so, how does it separate the verse?
- Is there an atnah in 2 Kings 23:29, and if so, how does it separate the verse?
- How do we know when the atnah indicates that the events after it do not sequentially follow the events before it?
- Can you give a clear example of this from elsewhere in the Bible in a passage that is also similar to 2 Chronicles 35:24?
- Do you consider punctuation marks such as atnah to be part of the inspired, inerrant word of God?
- If the book of Kings didn't exist, would you still believe that King Josiah died at Megiddo?
Also, I am curious to know how many years of Hebrew you've taken. Don't worry -- whatever your answer, it will be more than I've taken, so I'm just asking out of curiosity. |
|
|
|
| Lyndon Unger Member Joined Mar 12, 2004 48 posts Location: Burbank, California |
| The real issue here... |
Posted Jun 3, 2004; 12:07 am |
|
Marshall, I was not offended. I simply put up a quick post before going to work and was trying to get the debate ‘back on track’, though when I re-read it I admit it sounds snappy and frustrated…I apologize for that. I’ll have to stick to my standard format of taking a few days to write and edit everything I put on the board. Writing in a hurry makes things worse.
I applaud your efforts to tackle the Hebrew language, but I will simply say that looking up a glossary definition of an ‘atnah’ does not really give you a proper understanding of the complexities of Hebrew syntax/exegesis. Hebrew is a context driven language and is not at all like English. Before the Masorites added the punctuation to the manuscripts, Hebrew did not have sentences at all. It still is a context driven language and does not have sentences like English. ‘Atnahs’ mark the middle of every long verse and ‘silluqs’ mark the end of every single verse in the modern Hebrew Bible. Also, the only reason I used the word ‘sentence’ when talking about the 2 Chronicles 35:24 passage was that it simply communicated the idea that I wanted to get across. I was not trying to exaggerate or be deceptive, but I was trying to transmit an idea that had no real English equivalent so I used an possibly misleading approximation that I failed to explain thoroughly. For that I apologize. In my defense, I also did not ever say that there was an ‘atnah’ in either of the passages, but was simply using the ‘atnah’ for the purposes of illustrating something in Hebrew that I could comment upon and you could not comment upon if you did not know what it was that I was talking about. I was not trying to push you out of the debate, but instead to bring you back into the debate. I was trying to get us away from Hebrew exegesis, not deeper into it. It was becoming a rabbit trail, though I urge you to examine critical commentaries (linguistic commentaries) and learn Hebrew and Greek as the languages are still important. I’ll attempt to lay things down simply as I can for you now. Here is why I arrive at the position that I do:
1. The Bible claims propositionally that God wrote it - 2 Peter 1:20-21.
2. The Bible claims propositionally that it is divine speech, from the very mouth of God – 2 Timothy 3:16 (I’ve covered both of these passages in the revelation strand).
3. The Bible claims propositionally that it is perfect – Psalm 19:7
4. The Bible claims propositionally that it is truth (not contains, but is truth) – John 17:17
5. The Bible claims propositionally that every word of God is flawless – Proverbs 30:5
6. The Bible claims propositionally that God does not lie – Titus 1:2
Based on these 6 propositions in scripture (and they are each found in more than one verse), God gives me a set of hermeneutical parameters which guide my exegesis and understanding of scripture. You admit that the 2 Kings passage is clear and unambiguous. I will also admit that the 2 Chronicles passage is not as clear and could possibly be read in a way that could create an apparent contradiction.
So how do I proceed here? Well, if John 17:17, Psalm 19:7 and Proverbs 30:5 are true, I know that both passages must be true, even though I may not yet understand how that may look. If Titus 1:2, 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20-21 are true, I know that God wrote both passages and God does not lie. So, how do I approach the problem passage? Well, I work within the knowledge that God wrote them both, God does not lie and the Bible is truth and flawless. To suggest otherwise would be for me to declare that at least two of these six propositions were in fact error and I would place myself over the Bible and over God, casting judgment upon God and his word, calling God a liar (among other things).
So then, I know that 2 Kings 23:29-30 and 2 Chronicles 35:22-24 are true and from God, based on my 6 working parameters that God has given me to guide me with my hermeneutical task. Since 2 Kings 23:29-30 is clear, I now also have a working parameter for tackling 2 Chronicles 35:22-24. 2 Chronicles 35:22-24 cannot contradict 2 Kings 23:29-30 or that violates Titus 1:2, Psalm 19:7 and Proverbs 30:5. From that understanding, I know that I must be working with an apparent contradiction. If those are true, scripture cannot contain true contradiction.
So then, I apply my knowledge of hermeneutics towards my exegetical task. I start to examine the passages. I examine them in English to see if I am misreading them and explore possible ways that I could be doing so. I examine the context (surrounding verses, paragraph, chapter, book, Testament) to see if there are some details that can help me. Zechariah 12:11 gives me some slight confirmation of the 2 Kings 23:29-30, so I have a second piece of data that supports the clear reading of 2 Kings 23:29-30. As I read the English text of 2 Chronicles 35:22-24, I start to develop several questions about the language of the passage. In order to resolve some linguistic questions, I then open up my Hebrew Old Testament and start examining the verses in question. Upon completing the examination, I consult several critical commentaries to check my findings against those of reputable, orthodox scholars. After all the findings, I find that there are several possible readings of the 2 Chronicles 35:22-24 that are ruled out:
1. The ‘true contradiction’ reading is ruled out by my Biblical parameters for hermeneutics (based on the aforementioned verses) and my practical knowledge of hermeneutics (Scriptura scripturam interpretatur - “Scripture interprets scripture” and “the obscure passage is interpreted by the clear passage” – i.e. Kings interprets Chronicles)
2. The Ambulance theory is ruled out into the realm of speculation simply because the passage provides no data to say anything about it.
3. The theory that one, or both, passages was altered somewhere along the scribal transmission process is ruled out because that hermeneutical step (going back through manuscript evidence to detect textual variants) is unwarranted by the data at hand (Kings is clear and Chronicles does not maintain it’s ‘apparent contradiction’ after the step of Hebrew exegesis).
In the end I arrive at a conclusion that is both:
a) Reasonable within a Biblical hermeneutic.
b) Reasonable regarding the data at hand.
So, I mark the hermeneutical/exegetical task ‘complete’ and move on.
The real issue is not the passages of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. The real issue is one of hermeneutics (and hermeneutical presuppositions). For me to accept your understanding of the data is more than enough for me to arrive at a conclusion. If Kings is clear, that gives us a frame of reference for Chronicles and we can then satisfactorily work through the issue. If you claim that neither one of the passages is clear, then we are at a stalemate and must both admit that we simply do not know where Josiah died and leave the debate behind.
If you suggest that 2 Chronicles 35:22-24 contradicts 2 Kings 23:29-30, you then either must claim and support (with greater and more compelling evidence) that the Bible does not claim what it does about itself, or that the Bibles’ claims about itself are not true, or that I completely misunderstand the propositional claims of scripture regarding itself (tackling and exegetically overcoming my understanding of all verses from which those claims come).
Again, to claim that the Bible contains contradiction when the Bible itself claims that the Bible is perfect, flawless, truth and was written by a God who does not lie, is to then contradict scripture itself. The real issue is one of hermeneutics, not Hebrew punctuation.
As for how much Hebrew I have studied; I have studied Hebrew at the graduate level in Seminary and have used it for exegesis ever since. |
|
|
|
| Marshall Janzen Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1234 posts Location: Langley, BC |
| I think that's a wrap! |
Posted Jun 3, 2004; 2:38 am |
|
Great, that's what I was getting at. Your reconciliation of apparently contradictory passages is based on the belief that they must reconcile for your view of Scripture to be correct, and not because the evidence is necessarily convincing. No matter the evidence (or lack of it) you will remain convinced that there is no contradiction, and that is why inerrancy is not something that can be tested. It is simply a matter of faith, and so the question is whether it is faith well-placed.
Now that this point has been made by both of us, I'm willing to let poor King Josiah rest in peace. The issue now is the actual approach to interpretation that we both used in this case study -- for you, the six propositions you listed. You mentioned that you've gone into detail about the first two propositions in the Bible and Revelation thread, and a while ago I responded to that with some questions that you may have missed. If you're still up for debating this stuff, feel free to either move this debate to the other thread, or start a new thread specifically about inerrancy (but not about King Josiah). Then, you can lay out why your view is the only way to take the Bible seriously, I can explain how I see it differently, and if we're lucky, maybe a few other voices will jump in as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
