Monday, September 30, 2024

A tricky Bible passage

Yesterday, for a 150th celebration of a church, our readings included Epehsians 4:1-14 (i.e. not the usual lectionary epistle reading).

In this passage, verses 7-14 discuss the grace of God given to each of us, focusing on gifts that mean that some of us are apostles, prophet, evangelists, teachers and pastors, all for the purpose of equipping the saints so that the body of Christ is built up. If that were all there was to the passage it would be, in the light of passages about ministry gifts, such as Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12, unremarkable in its straightforward proposal that God helps the church through the gifts of the Spirit.

But Paul (or the disciple of Paul) who writes this passage introduces a Scripture-based reason for asserting that Christ gifts the church by writing in verse 8,

'Therefore it is said, "When he ascended on high he made captivity itself a captive; he gave gifts to his people".'

There is no dispute that Psalm 68:18 is being cited in this verse.

Therein lies the problem, the trickiness to which the title of this post refers, because this is how Psalm 68:18 reads:

"You ascended the high mount, leading captives in your train and receiving gifts from people, even from those who rebel against the Lord God's abiding there."

Even when we turn to the Greek Old Testament (LXX) where we find a version close to what is being cited in Ephesians (here citing The Bible translated by Nicholas King), we are still challenged:

"You have gone up on high; you have taken captivity captive; you have received gifts among humans; for they were disobeient in pitching their tents."

Paul says, citing this verse, that it talks proleptically about Christ giving gifts to humanity. The verse itself, in either the Hebrew or Greek versions familiar to New Testament writers, as far as is generally the case across New Testament writings, talks proleptically about Christ receiving gifts from humanity.

Giving does not equal receiving. This is a challenge for Biblical scholars to explain!

Look up any commentary and you will find interesting, clever attempts to explain how A = B. Essentially, the best explanation is that Paul is citing an unknown version of the passage (which does exist via the Syriac Peshitta or the Aramaic Targums, but these likely date later than Ephesians). If he is doing this, then there remains the oddity that he is "pick and mixing" his versions of the Psalms to suit his expositional cause. It is, incidentally, simpler to assume that Paul is simply making of Psalm 68:18 what he wishes - anticipating, so to speak, what later versions will also do (perhaps influenced by Paul's exegetical bravado?).

But in turn, this means, on any reckoning of how Paul got from "receive" to "give", that he employs the Old Testament in support of his "New Testament" theology in a fairly free manner (whether he himself is being free or he finds help from others who have been free) - where "free" means comfortable to adjust and adapt the text before him to suit current purposes.

Generally speaking in today's modern world we who count ourselves as respectable in respect of the role of serious biblical study in preparation of expositional materials such as sermons look in great askance at preachers etc who are as "free" as Paul himself seems to have been with scriptural texts!

Now we could, time permitting, which it is not, head down various interesting roads of reflection on Ephesians 4:8/Psalm 68:18 in respect of the Bible and how it came into being, reflecting on the Bible’s quirkiness if not its trickiness at various points in its creation and composition.

My one reflection in this post is that Scripture is a complex set of writings. We may need to both accept that as a fact and respect it as a fact with implications for how we understand Scripture as inspired, sacred writings.

Paul was human!

8 comments:

Ms Liz said...

"various interesting roads of reflection" on those tricky references (in another post maybe?) would be great!

Moya said...

Paul was quoting from memory, I guess, and was so excited by the reference to the ascension and what he had written about the ministry gifts, that he swapped the words! I can imagine that.
I have two clear memories of conversations where I quoted Scripture from memory and later realised I had missed bits out. (I may have changed words too - who knows? :-))

Anonymous said...

Paul's use of the OT certainly isn't 'simple', and to get the proper measure of it, one would have to do a large-scale study of how Paul 'quotes' (or paraphrases) the Scriptures, taking into account possible use of LXX and texts that are reflected in the Aramaic targums, as well as those wonderful midrashic techniques that bewilder us moderns. I don't know what results would emerge from such a study (I'm sure it's been attempted somewhere), but three tentative suggestions for this text are these:

1. Paul wasn't being selective but had a text that read 'HLQT mtnwm b'dm' ("you shared gifts among men") and not the MT 'LHQT mtnwm b'dm' ("you received gifts among men' or 'consisting of men' - the preposition 'b' is awkward here, we would expect something like 'me' or 'min', 'from'), and this reading is reflected in the targum of Psalm 68 ('The Aramaic Bible: the targums', p.132). If this is so, the first and second letters were transposed. Which is original?
2. Or perhaps Paul is simply spelling out the significance of his text as it would have been understood in the ancient world: after every conquest in the ancient world the victorious king in his procession up the hill would receive tribute *from his new subjects and distribute this largesse or booty *among his own people in the crowds also lining the processional route.
3. Or simplest of all, the MT (and its predecessor) could be ambiguous, since the basic meaning of LQH is 'take' (cf. Ezek 3.14), and thus Ps 68.19 (Heb.) could mean ' you took, i.e.. brought gifts among men, ba'adam]' rather than 'you took gifts *from men.' (BDB, pp. 542-3). The focus of Ps 68.19-20, 35 (EVV) is on the blessings that God gives his people.

Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh

Mark Murphy said...

An interesting ecumenical topic...yet to be explored?

What are the commonalities and differences between Catholic and Anglican synodality, and Māori hui?

https://cathnews.co.nz/2024/10/03/the-synod-and-a-hui-are-nearly-the-same-says-vicar-for-maori/

Ms Liz said...

Good read, thanks Mark.

Mark Murphy said...

As I'm so confused by this week's post and discussion...don't know my targums from my sorghum...I'm still turning over previous posts.

This is a much less conservative Catholic take on Pope Francis's recent comments in Singapore....

“the pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom.”

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/pope-francis-paths-god

Ms Liz said...

Awesome, Mark.. thank you! It struck me the other day that Jesus after his resurrection criticized his disciples for not believing the women who witnessed that he was alive and who subsequently told the disciples they'd seen him (just as Jesus instructed them to). He upbraided the disciples, and spoke of their hard hearts for not believing the women.

When spiritual things are cast or taught in stark black-and-white terms I get very uncomfortable because the NT doesn't (to me) support such stark definitions, and it's easy to lose sight of the greatness of Gods mercy in the vastly different circumstances and lived experiences of human life on planet earth.

"culture of encounter" sits much better with me, i.e. it feels more in keeping with the spirit of how Jesus himself engaged with the 'other' in his day - his own encounters raising the eyebrows of both friend and foe around him! The Spirit is at work in hearts and I think we need to approach 'encounter' very carefully and above all with humility.

I'll be bookmarking the article.. thanks so much. ~Liz

Mark Murphy said...

Glad you enjoyed it Liz. The modern writer who talked most about encounter is the man you're currently looking at - Martin Buber: "All real life is encounter." (Buber, I and You). There's always been a dialogical stream in modern catholicism, which Francis is following, that serves as a balance to its tendency towards propositional theology. And, of course, it's very like Jesus, as you say (who never spoke like a magisterium).