The pulpit is a different platform than the professor’s lectern. I’m there to proclaim Christ not show off my exegetical jukes. — David Ker
the burning coals business. It’s an enigma…. “Can you take the phrase out without changing the meaning of the passage?” What I mean is, If as I understand it the passage can mean any of three contradictory things how crucial is the phrase to interpretation of the passage as a whole? — David Ker
It’s propositional logic not mystic mumbo-jumbo. — David Ker
Translate the meaning as best you can and fess up if you’re fudging. He could have said, “I’ve got happy feet!” or “More cowbell!” But instead he quoted one of the bedrock texts of their culture. There’s no red wheelbarrow and there’s no white chickens. This is just a metaphor. Trouble is we don’t know what it means. He did. They did. We don’t. Paul is serving something easy as apple pie — David Ker
At BBB, there’s a great discussion on what Paul did. And, as you can see from the epigraphic quotations above, there’s discussion about what a preacher must do. A proclaimer of Christ may be different from a performer, is definitely not a logic professor, is probably an as-best-you-can translator of meaning who has to “feel an obligation to make sense.”
Well, please don’t let me take these quotations out of context. Please note here the struggle to make sense. What I’m interested in most now is making sense of the personal. Is the personal a proclamation? Is the personal Christ in propositions? Can the problem phrase be punted without a problem to the interpretation of the principle principle of the passage?
We’re talking about Paul and what Paul talked about when writing to Rome. It’s chapter 12, where he uses Aristotle’s word “logic.” It’s where he uses Solomon’s “wise” proverb.
Well, it sure seems Paul was a translator, or a rendering paraphraser at the very least. Whatever hat you must wear, isn’t it clear he’s not being so clear? Isn’t it clear he’s making changes, is rendering, not necessarily to make clear?
The sentences should have rhythm and cadence, they should engage and delight the inner ear. Ideally, a sentence read aloud, in a foreign language, should still sound like something, even if the listener has no idea what it is he or she is being told.
Listen. What are you being told? Must Paul, or the Alexandria translators, or Solomon be saying something to you, especially if you’re now a Christian?
Here’s the MT, the LXX, then Paul (for the first part of the proverb, and not the difficult burning part):
ἐὰν πεινᾷ ὁ ἐχθρός σου
ἐὰν πεινᾷ ὁ ἐχθρός σου
My questions are these. Was Paul a Bible translator who felt an obligation to make sense? Was he writing with authority to proclaim in propositions, with logic and with a proverb, to interpret for a Sunday morning crowd? Was he after information, performance, reformation, or self-learning community-based transformation? What’s his purpose and Solomon’s for a proverb? Proposition, imposition, transposition, or a(p)position? Was Paul a proclaiming preacher, a playful performer, a problematic professor, or a proverb translator?