Hermeneutics 101: Genesis Flood is Global or Not?

Conversation Side Conversation
61

Many did assume a worldwide flood. It is worth noting that the 47 or so KJV translators did not have access to anything approaching our range of lexicographic and syntactical tools today and they all came from a relatively narrow academic background (by modern standards.) Of course, they had no training in modern linguistics and there is limited evidence that they regularly consulted Jewish rabbinical scholarship. And even they depended a great deal on the generally accepted traditions of the time, incorporating in countless contexts almost verbatim the wording of previous translations. They were also heavily influenced by the Latin Vulgate. And King James I (aka James VI) and the Church of England hierarchy also had their influence.

As to the “modern imposition” of a world-wide flood interpretation, nobody to my knowledge claims that what we are describing is an exclusively modern phenomenon. Indeed, it is based on a tradition with roots going back centuries and which has been more and more reinforced by various cultures and linguistic factors.

By the way, just to mention a technical linguistic point, the era of the 1611 KJV Bible was within the early phase of Modern English. This was also an era in which the idea of a spherical earth (i.e., “the globe”) had made huge inroads into the general non-academic population. Well educated people had known of a “global earth” for many centuries, but Ferdinand Magellan’s circumnavigation of the globe in 1522 was a feat the average person could grasp (even though it seemed absolutely incredible to imagine completing such a voyage.) So the English word earth was heading towards a much wider semantic domain, one that the growth of public education systems would influence considerably.

Many did and do. And I’ve watched English Bible translations improve greatly even in my own lifetime.

You can see these improvements when comparing translations on one of the many multi-Bible websites. However, you can’t always see the associated translation footnotes. Most translators consider the alternate translation footnotes at the bottom of the page an essential part of the Bible translation. Translation is never a 100% equivalency process so readers should not ignore them. Moreover, some Bible publishers and translation sponsors who are worried about alienating tradition-bound readers and potential-buyers of their translation sometimes put pressure on Bible translation committees to choose wordings which are more traditional, even if they are somewhat ambiguous or even misleading to some laypersons. Bible translators are typically contract laborers and may have limited say over the final product—although the General Editors and the Bible society, if involved, often but not always have veto power over the publisher. [This is a big topic and there are many Bible versions, so I can’t address all of those publisher relationships in one sentence.]

Most would argue that the alternate translation footnotes at the bottom of the page help protect the reader from most false impressions. (I’m generalizing but this is a huge topic because not only are the linguistic issues complicated but text critical issues pertaining to variant manuscripts also arise.)

The translations which render ERETZ as “earth” rather than “land” in those early chapters of Genesis are not wrong per se. The word “earth” is a valid translation. It is simply more prone to misunderstanding by readers. Even so, reader misunderstanding can and will happen with virtually any text on any subject.

It is also important to recognize that a Bible translation is not meant to solve all interpretation issues. Bible commentaries, study Bibles, and even paraphrases provide additional information for the lay reader. And these are also among the reasons that well-educated pastors study Greek and Hebrew exegesis in seminaries and graduate schools. Most complex topics are confusing to at least some degree until one dives into an academic program or intensive self-study. That happens regularly with science topics on Peaceful Science where the specialists have to explain where the average non-scientists (or some scientist outside of the associated specialty) gets things wrong.

When I was fresh out of graduate school, I could have pontificated on this topic in reasonable detail. Nowadays, especially in retirement when I don’t keep up with the scholarship, I would have to defer to better minds.

5 Likes
62

By the way, for Bible readers in Genesis who are considering English Bible phrases like “the whole world” and “every living thing under heaven”, keep in mind that lots of languages and cultures will often be misunderstood if one does not recognize the limitations of context, boundaries, and even hyperbole as a means of emphasis.

This topic would merit its own thread but I’ll give just a few random examples in English as illustrations:

(1) I saw a TV reporter’s interview of a couple who lost their home and entire small town in a tornado. They said, “When the horrendous noise stopped, we cautiously walked out of our basement. The whole world was gone.”

(2) I don’t know how pervasive the expression is today but when I was young many adults would say things like: “What a mess this barn is. You’ve got tools, buckets, and empty hog feed sacks all over creation!”

(3) “We saw the fires coming through the forest and we knew it was the end of the world.”

(4) “There was nothing we could do. Everything died in the fire.”

By the way, @Guy_Coe, I’ve always liked the way Dr. Hugh Ross says, “Noah’s flood wasn’t global but it was world-wide.” (Noah’s world was destroyed in the flood.)

7 Likes
63

That’s nice, but you seem to be pushing out generalities that are not relevant to the understanding, specifically, of the Flood story. Your only direct comment seems to be that political considerations may have led modern translators to “earth” rather than “the land” or “this land”, which would have more clearly expressed what you think it ought to mean. And it’s not just that word; “men” also needs a serious gloss, and “all that had the breath of life”, and “animals”, and so on. I do wonder what the justification for such a translation would be. The tradition, as you say, is very old; but how did it get started if the original story (and the Hebrew text) don’t say that? And why, in modern times, does objection to that tradition seem to come about after geology has thrown cold water (so to speak) on a worldwide flood?

1 Like
64

By the way, I’ve often given thought to the parallels between genetic drift as describe by evolutionary biologists and “the normal linguistic drift of language over time.” For example, I think about how geographically semi-segregated English speakers in the British Isles, Australia, and the USA gradually adopted different primary meanings and alternate usages for the same words, such as boot, gas, lift, bum, fanny, billy, shag, bloody, cactus, deadset, lollies, reckon, rooted, snag, tea. The dialects didn’t have to develop that way, Indeed, if history could be replayed, semantic drift may have played out quite differently.

4 Likes
65

We are being pretty specific here @John_Harshman. There has been a large amount of creep in our understanding of the extent and scope of “the world” and a completely new meaning attached to the word “earth”. We have come to understand this, now, in terms of global/universal scope, but that wasn’t the original understanding of these words in Hebrew, nor is it even the required way to interpret these words in English today.

2 Likes
66

Yes, and I don’t think this defense holds up to examination of the way the word translated as “earth” is used in those translations or with the content of the rest of the story. That change in understanding, such as it may be, is not reflected in any of the bible translations or in the opinions of most biblical commentators (as far as I can tell) before geology made a local flood necessary.

67

(1) From what I recall of ancient rabbinical texts, the geographical extent of Noah’s flood simply wasn’t something they emphasized. Thus, just as western readers today tend to want to draw careful chronological distinctions and timelines when reading Genesis—even while the Hebrew language itself doesn’t even have the temporal emphases which one finds in English—modern readers often ask questions which seem a lot more important to us than to people in the ancient world.

(2) Languages differ in the distinctions made. For example, when English speakers are describing a natural elevation, they may be forced to select either the word “hill” or the word “mountain” as appropriate for expressing magnitude and perhaps ruggedness and greenery. Yet, a native speaker of ancient Hebrew would hear the word HAR and feel absolutely no inclination to subclassify it further. (I may tell you a story about a dog but you don’t ask me what color or breed of dog before you can picture it in your mind. But some other culture might incline a person to ask “Was it a black dog or a multi-colored dog?” before they allow the story to proceed.)

I believe the word ERETZ struck ancient Hebrew speakers much the same way. If the specific context didn’t require further qualification, ERETZ simply referred to the land which one saw to the horizon. It was the world one walks upon, as opposed to the air and sky above where the birds and stars roam.

I’ve known folklore scholars and linguists who have described to me how their subjects (e.g., some previously little studied tribe in some remote place) will get frustrated with them when they insist on forcing them to make distinctions which their culture simply doesn’t care about. Examples which come to mind from their reports include these kinds of questions (which I have paraphrased with English-language terms to aid comprehension by PS readers) which come up while collecting traditional tribal stories:

“Was that grandfather the man’s paternal grandfather or maternal grandfather?”

“Do you consider animal-X to be an insect or a small bird or just a fictional/imaginary creature?” [The culture may not even think that a creature mentioned in a traditional story could be described and yet not be real. And if it has a name which a grammarian would call a proper noun/proper name, then it must exist!]

“Did the hunter go into the forest because his family was hungry or because he was demonstrating his bravery?” [The culture may not care or know anything about the hunter’s motives. In their view, hunters hunt. They hunt because that is what hunters do. Isn’t that obvious??]

The western scholar is trying to be thorough but the storyteller may get extremely irritated and think that the visitor is stupid for failing to understand what the story is really about. We should approach the early chapters of Genesis in similar ways, working hard to listen to what the Bible and the culture of that era is saying on its own terms.

@noUCA, these are just a few basic examples of the kinds of linguistic and hermeneutical truths you would learn in a solid graduate program or from reading some of the best books on these topics. The Bible says that God has gifted his Church with teachers. They are for our benefit and edification, yours and mine.

5 Likes
68

@John_Harshman , let’s say your field was South American ancient literature, and you set about translating it for modern English readers.
You have a specialized knowledge of the language, history, cultural artifacts, etc. You come across the word “huikat” in a story (just made it up), which seems to mean a projectile weapon of some sort, launched by a tensed rope or string.
There is no exact word in English for the device you’ve seen carved on ancient temple walls, which you suspect is an actual “huikat.”
It’s kind of a cross between a sling and a bow, and the projectile is long with a sharp end, and weighted in the back.
You decide that the best analogue to English experience is to translate the text by calling it a “bow and arrow,” but you’re careful to include margin notes which signal that greater nuance is needed in order to truly understand what the original device was.
You’re not a lousy translator thereby, just a rather constrained cultural bridge-builder.
Now, you might be beginning to imagine the enormous task that translators of ancient literature face.
And at how much you might roll your eyes at a reader who insisted that a “huikat” was an actual bow and arrow, based upon your translation, by those zealous for a plain English understanding of your translation --who too often ignore or don’t wish to be bothered reading your margin notes.
Then, one day, someone actually digs up an ancient South American “huikat,” and you end making the rounds of arcane talk shows, trying to explain the whole thing to zealous readers.
In the end, the “ancient bow and arrow” guild repudiates you for “turning liberal” on them.
This is the exact kind of scenario which happened to Dr. Bruce Waltke, one of the “Big Three” world-class contibutors to the groundbreaking Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament," which became a standard reference book for the entire American evangelical scholarship guild.
Waltke was, just a few years back, asked to leave a prestigious professorship in a reputable seminary, for daring to question and correct the “traditional” views which were increasingly driving a wedge of disconnect between an historical understanding of the text, and the evidence from science.
I am happy to report that it is not necessary; better interpretive options exist, such as those which Waltke highlights.
Hope that helps you see the picture before us on this thread.
Cheers!
Happy “Huikat” Hunting!

7 Likes
69

@Guy_Coe, that is a great illustration of what Bible translators have to consider—and sometimes have to endure in terms of aftermath.

Many of us can remember when pulpits and radio preachers across America went ballistic over the RSV Bible’s “liberal and evil” Old Testament. (It was first published in 1952.) The RSV translated the Hebrew word ALMAH in Isaiah 7:14 as “young woman” instead of the traditional choice: “virgin.” Protesters against the RSV didn’t care that there was solid scholarly support for the translation committee’s choice. All they knew was that the RSV was hopelessly “liberal”—and ever since then the Isaiah 7:14 passage has been known as the “Bible translation litmus test.”

Back in the 1980’s Bruce Metzger told me that the chairman of the RSV translation committee used to get charred and even completely burned up copies of the Revised Standard Version in his mail. The burning of Bible translators and their translations is a time-honored tradition.

Yes, it is another case of no good deed goes unpunished.

5 Likes
70

@AllenWitmerMiller I am truly honored to assist in illustrating what you and too few others have made the focus of a valuable life’s work.
And I very much value the expertise and experience you bring to the table.
I have had the privilege of visiting with Dr. Waltke, in rather clandestine fashion, as he attends and ministers in an Anglican Church in the Seattle area.
Come on out and visit sometime, and we’ll go buttonhole him together!
He told me a wonderful story of being asked to translate some paleo-Hebrew characters scrawled on the wall deep down into an ancient Egyptian mine, probably by a Hebrew slave --he struggledcto see them by candlelight, only to recoil in shock as he read “YHWH save me from this death, and let me see your light again! Save me!” Such honest literary artistry, and plaintive spiritual faith, by a “blue collar” slave in those circumstances, is the stuff of grim, yet hopeful, inspiration. Cheers!

1 Like
71

What does he think of the GAE?

72

Gave him a set of research papers I’ve been working on, and he was polite enough to say he’d read them, given the chance. I’d be happy to deliver a book on your behalf – or, better yet, host you for a visit so you can do it yourself!
Haven’t been able yet to do much more than tell him the book is coming out soon, other than confirming his basic agreement with the premise the Adam’s genealogical status is the salient point, not any supposed “genetic Adam.”
Let’s invite him to office hours here!

1 Like
73

So you read Classical Hebrew? What exactly did God say?

2 Likes
74

Can you flesh out the real details on this? What actually happened?

75

That brings to mind some similar experiences with the late Gleason Archer all too many year ago. I could tell a lot of fun “Gleason stories” (as my faculty lounge friends called them) but the first one prompted by your anecdote was when we were walking through the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute. The panoply of Ancient Near Eastern languages was never my specialization but Gleason could read all of them effortlessly (along with several dozen other languages from around the world.) So when we would walk up to some exhibit, Dr. Archer would casually translate the hieroglyphs and various other kinds of inscriptions. At one exhibit he halted with a disapproving look and started complaining “What a terrible translation!” on the explanatory sign in front of a particular stela. He grabbed the nearest docent and demanded that he summon the museum curator immediately. The docent explained that that would not be possible, so Gleason told him to bring whoever was available. Eventually an amused staff member showed up, apparently having already known who this eccentric professor was—not me but the other, more senior, eccentric professor—because of Dr. Archer’s reputation from previous museum visits.

Dr. Archer was an unforgettable gentleman and a large library of lexicons on two legs. He was also a great proofreader whenever I needed him for something technical. I miss him.

[@Dan_Eastwood, there should be a standard feature in the Discourse software to notify and to flash “Old Anecdote Alert!”]

2 Likes
76

This news article will help refresh your memory. I’ve posted on this topic in the past:

Dr. Waltke landed on his feet with another seminary position in a matter of days. I’ve often lamented that most theology professors who have gotten into similar hot water for their positions on origins have not been so fortunate. They and their families have suffered greatly. (Many are not even allowed to finish out their annual faculty contracts. No severance and an instant loss of health insurance benefits is all too commonplace.)

3 Likes
77

Speaking of Bruce Waltke, here is a Jesus Creed article which contains a nice summary of how the early chapters of Genesis are understood by a very large percentage of evangelical scholars. If @noUCA will read it carefully, he will begin to see that Young Earth Creationism and evangelical scholarship are not synonymous.

4 Likes
78

To be fair, It seems you are missing out on the context -

  1. The wickedness of human beings had become great.
  2. The Lord " regretted" making human beings on the earth/in the land.
  3. God decided to wipe from the face of the earth/land, the human beings he had created.

The reference to God’s act of creation of human beings is clear and significant. As far as I can see,this kind of reference to God’s creation makes sense in the following contexts -

  1. The passage is referring to ALL human beings created by God. I.e ALL human beings on earth.
  2. The passage is referring to God destroying human beings in the land who have a special significance with God’s act of creating humans. i.e, they are so special that destroying them can be considered as God giving up on his purpose for creating human beings.

Do you see a third option? Can you elaborate?

79

Ashwin, of course I am with you on this, but good luck to us in this crowd…right? These people seem to think that if they evoke the word “land” for the Hebrew erets rather than “earth”, then somehow God got confused into thinking he was going to wipe out everyone. So after God got over his momentary confusion, he simply wiped out “a portion” of mankind. Makes perfect sense to these people. Sounds perfectly inane to you and me.

Good luck.

80

@AllenWitmerMiller that feature is already enabled. It look like this:
AWM

:grin: :grinning: :laughing:

6 Likes