Why do bibles have section headings?

Today I'm wondering "Why on earth do we have section headings in our bibles?" In the gospels, at least, all they do is summarise the passage to help us find a passage that we're looking for.

 

I think they could be doing much more.

 

Here are the NIV headings from Mark 12:

 

The Parable of the Tenants

Paying Taxes to Caesar

Marriage at the Resurrection

The Greatest Commandment

Whose Son Is the Christ

The Widow's Offering

 

These headings only name one key thing from the section. For example, "the parable of the tenants". Yes, it's a parable (but that's pretty obvious) and it has some tenants in it (again obvious). What have I learned from reading the heading that I wouldn't from a quick perusal of the story itself? Nothing. This could be said for most of the headings.

 

These headings don't give us any sense of how the drama in Mark is unfolding. How does this section progress the story Mark is telling? Why did Mark include it?

 

As new Christians, or those who are unfamiliar with Christianity read the Gospels we have a great opportunity to explain things to them in the sections headings. They could be like mini-commentaries, helping us interpret what we read. It's an opportunity that the major translations are missing at the moment.

 

Here are my proposed headings for Mark 12 – lets see how they strike you.

 

Jesus foretells judgement on religious leaders	(Parable of the tenants)
Jesus is challenged on his allegiance	(Paying taxes to Caesar)
Jesus is challenged on the resurrection	(Marriage at the resurrection)
A genuine question	(The greatest commandment)
Jesus challenges the scribes on the identity of the Messiah	(Whose son is the Christ)
God's values (I would merge vv38-44 as one section with two contrasting pericopes)	(The widow's offering)

 

In this chapter, Jesus is under intense opposition in Jerusalem from both the Jewish and Roman leaders. Section headings should indicate this, because these sorts of things are not obvious to a person who is unfamiliar with the cultural and political environment at the time.

 

Here are some functions that headings could serve if we thought about them a little more: 

1. To help readers understand the meaning (significance) of the passage. (Ideational meaning)
2. To help readers understand the place of the narrative within the book. (Textual meaning)
3. To help readers understand the emotive force of the passage. (Affectual meaning)
4. Lastly, (and least importantly) to summarise what's in the passage so readers can find their place. (Simple summary)

(See here for my explanation of ideational, textual and affectual meaning.)

 

Here's an idea for a Bible study activity: how about re-writing the section headings for the passage you've just studied. 

An Australian in India - Culture Shock resolution

How could I be angry with the person who wakes me up at six,

When all they're doing is pumping water to bathe in.

 

How could I be angry about the smoke pouring into my living room,

When the person is just cooking their lunch by the only means they can.

 

How could I be angry with all of the noise of loudspeakers all over the town,

When I know that most people aren't able to read advertisements.

 

How could I be angry with the salesmen knocking on my door,

When I know that many women are not able to leave their house.

 

How could I be angry with the slow and eratic traffic,

When people are just getting around on the only thing available to them

 

How could I be angry with children who cross the road in front of my car,

When I know they were never taught how to cross safely.

 

How could I be angry with people living,

When they're just surviving the only way they can.

Some SMBC love

I went to SMBC for two years, here are some of the reasons why I loved my time there (in no particular order).

 

Diversity within the student body at SMBC

Both in terms of social demographics (lawyers, doctors, carpenters, nurses, economists), as well as chuch background (still generally pretty conservative, but with charistmatic/pentecostal students who speak up in discussions if they feel the lecturer has charicatured pentecostals for example). I appreciate that there are a high percentage of people at SMBC who have spent at least a couple of years working and ministering overseas, it brings a breadth to discussions which wouldn't be there otherwise. There are also diverse educational backgrounds - university trained people do not have a monopoly on interpreting what God says.

 

Diversity in the faculty

There are teachers from different denominations, which helps us stay on track, as a college, focussing on the core issues of the gospel, and we're not very easily carried away by trying to define ourselves against another philosophy. (I was speaking to an American friend who works for a denominationally based mission and he said that he couldn't believe that a bible college could be both interdenominational, and evangelical/gospel focussed. Maybe not in his part of the states, but it definately works at SMBC, and I'd say it keeps us gospel focussed because we can see and embrace denominational differences, and also see the gospel truths that all hold.)

 

Some lecturers have lived overseas for a significant portion of their lives, this clearly influences their teaching of any subect and brings a cultural breadth to their teaching - it helps us see scripture in a more global perspective.

 

There are faculty members of different genders, I found this helpful, because no matter how approachable the male members of faculty are, I find it's different, and lovely, to be talking to a female lecturer -whether its about an assignment, or a discussion in the lecturer, or about a personal issue, it's wonderful to be able to choose to go to a female lecturer, to get her opinion.

 

Great teachers

Some of the lecturers are very skilled in the art of teaching (and not only in their subject matter). They teach to our minds, emotions, habits etc. I'm thinking specifically of Kirk Patson's OT lectures, and Stuart Coulton's "intro to degree theology" lectures (which are not as the title suggests, they're a whole year talking about how to be a well rounded student/pastor/christian and of Stuart pointing out aspects of human nature and how they will affect our ministry. Brilliant stuff.) and also of Bruce Dipples "Spiritual Formations for Cross Cultural ministry. Some of the assignments that they give are wonderfully practical too - equipping us for a future of discipleship and ministry.

 

Faculty spends every morning tea and lunch with the students

This is a great way to get to know the faculty, to see how their faith works out in their lives - and it's harder to critisise people that you know and like. Each lunch a member of faculty sits in the middle of each of the tables, so anyone sitting at that table who wants to talk to that faculty member is able to (without shouting across others).

 

The preaching subject

Teaches us in a very practical way how to preach - not just how to exegete a text, but also how to understand your audience, understand human nature in relation your subject, and to exhort people to change. People who are naturals at this don't need this type of training, but most of us do, and it helps to transform an exegetical observation, into a sermon that moves people to change.

 

Women preaching is left as a conscience issue.

Policy when we were there was that women could preach to the whole college if they chose, or they could elect to preach at the women only chapel. Now I believe things have changed slightly, so that when there is a woman preaching there is also another man preaching at the same time (so that the guys listening don't have to go against their conscience if they don't agree). I loved this policy, and it was one of the main reasons that I chose to go to SMBC. It shows that the faculty, overall, thinks that women preaching to mixed audiences is not a "gospel" issue (by which I mean that neither side is necessarily sinning in holding that opinion), but that they value that it is an issue which is important to both sides, and they have creatively come up with a solution that means that no woman need go against her conscience when she is fulfilling the terms of the preaching course assignment, but that also the college is not valuing one side of the debate over another. I apprecaite that flexibility of this policy and the dignity it gives to both sides of the debate.

 

Part time study is available and flexible

Some of our normal subjects are timetabled (in alternating years) to be in the evenings, so that part-time students are more able to get to the classes. We're encouraged to do at least some of our degree full time, so we can benefit from being part of the college community, but there is also a great amount of respect for ministry outside college, and flexibility in working around your outside-college activities.

 

Location

Croydon is a beautiful place to live. Close enough to churches that we're involved in (and cafes and video rental places, and maccas....). It's a quiet suburb that you can go for a walk or jog in without needing to sheld your ears from traffic noise and without breathing in too much pollution. The campus is lovely to look at too, and it's mostly centrally based around the courtyard so you know where people are likely to be if you run into someone. I've only seen photos of the new accomodation, but it also looks really good to my eyes.

 

Exegetical soundness

Of course. Need I say more?

 

Okay, I will say more on this point: I found that the SMBC is exegetically rigorous, evangelical and calvinist in it's viewpoint. Though the coursework is tough for many, we are not overwhelmed with information. The emphasis at SMBC is to apply the knowledge that we are gaining to our lives. The attitude seems to be, if we're learning something it shoud be changing us in some way. And time in given in the curriculum to applying the knowledge to ourselves and our current/future ministry.I remember a lecture on Romans (if memory serves) which ended in us (almost) spontaneously singing a few verses of Amazing Grace because what we were learning about was too amazing to not be sung about.

 

Mission focus

What SMBC is known for (I think that's partly because it's in the name!). We have visiting overseas-christian-workers come every week and speak to the college, and they're often available through the week to talk to as well. In addition, in the years I was there, we had a missio on leave present at the college for the whole year. Cross cultural issues are spontaneously raised in some of the classes as well, as we integrate what we've learned from the bible into our lives, not just our lives here in Australia, but we hear others integrate these truths into cultures very different from our own.  

 

One last thing

One less concrete thing that I really appreciate about SMBC is that encouragement is valued more highly than criticism. Whenever we are critical (when giving feedback for a sermon etc) we are encouraged both to spot flaws, but also to give concrete ideas as to how those flaws could be improved. We're also encouraged to be specific and thoughtful about what we liked as well. I think that the skill of positive criticism is a great thing to develop at college, so that we are more positive and encouraging people when leave and go into ministry positions.

One last thought (and this is slightly humorous...) 

Before I started SMBC I went to the open day to see what it was like, and one word that I got SICK of hearing was "community". Everyone talked about how they loved the college community. "What's the best thing about college?" "The community". "What are you going to miss when you leave college?" "The community" ... blah, blah, blah.

 

Well, fortunately (for my college experience) it was all true. The community was wonderful, and I do miss it.

 

What do you like about your college?

Do women preach differently to men?

It has been said: "Why would you even want to hear a woman preach - aren't they just the same as men but with less  experience?"

 

When I was at a women's conference a couple of years ago, I asked the group of girls that I was eating lunch with, why do you like  to hear a woman preach. What's different about them?

 

We came up with over ten reasons that women's sermons are different to the male version. Here are the ones that I can remember:

 

1. Choice of examples.
Men are more likely to talk about sport, or cars, or something from politics or public life. Women are more likely to use an example

from their family, or about something like scissors! (The scissors are an illustration of "holiness" that I remember from a Katoomba  Women's Convention many moons ago). 

 

2. Rapport

Women tend to have a different way to gain rapport with the audience/congregation. For example, women seem to expose more of their weaknesses than men, this can be very encouraging especially if you're feeling weak at that point, and if the preacher shows that they are weak, but equally shows that they are relying on God's strength and God shows himself to be present in that situation. Women tend to be able to do this more. It seems more acceptable in our society for a woman, rather than a man, to be weak.

 

3. References

Women give more references. If they've learned something women are more likely to say where they learned it. Men are more likely to just state something as fact. (This is something that I learned in my Psych degree, and some in the the group that I was talking to had recognised that they had noticed this difference in women and mens speach and preaching).

 

4. Theological Eyes

Women often have a slightly different "take" on a passage than men. They may see different nuances in the main point that they're making, or see different theological connections to that main point.

 

5. Application

Specific application of a passage, of course, are very different in women's preaching than in that of men. For example, both a woman and a man could come to the conclusion that "we must not lust" is the main point of the passage. But that main point will be applied in very different ways by women and men. Men always talk about pornography, and being careful of what you see on the internet, and of looking at co-workers in a certain way. This is all valid and true application, but none of it really speaks to me because they are not the temptations that I face in this area. Women are more likely to be attracted to someone's personality - this opens up a whole new type of application on sermons on lust ... women tend to preach about lust very differently to men. Other applications can be different as well - what does it mean to "trust God" or to "have faith in a crisis" - I suspect women and men would discuss these things very differently.

 

6. Feelings

Women tend to place a stronger emphasis on feelings and how they fit in with the Christian life. Guys are more likely to preach about facts. Women will more likely preach about things like "self worth" or "feeling validated" or the "emotion" in the passage. These are the type of things that I've heard many guys make fun of. It seems to me that those who make fun of it do so because 1. they don't understand the concept or the language it is couched in and 2. because it speaks to women but not to men. Our sermons (of course) must be applied to relevant areas of the lives of our congregation, and feelings are a huge area for especially women. This point is closely tied with the next point, because often women and men can be talking about the same thing (especially in the rather vague area of the emotions), but use different language. 

 

7. Language

Language that women and men use is subtly different. To hear things well, they are best phrased in our "heart" language. People react to the same fact vastly differently if it is stated in a slightly different way. If I had to listen to two different sermons on the same passage, I'd elect to hear one from a woman and one from a man because I would most likely get a broader understanding of the passage simply because slightly different language would trigger my thinking to go in different directions.

 

8. Structure of the sermon

The structure of a woman's sermon is more likely to be inductive. In contrast, most sermons that I've heard given by men are deductive. That is, in a deductive sermon, the preacher will state the point and then explain why it is so. In an inductive sermon, certain facts (or stories etc) will be presented in a way that leads to (or encourages the listener to discover) the main point for themselves. I've heard a sermon that I heard a woman preach described as "rambling nonsese" by a not-so subtle male listener, not because her points were unsound (they weren't) merely because the structure of hte sermon was unorthodox. I greatly apprecaited the fresh take she had on the issue.

 

9. Life experience

Women have a different experience of life. Simply being a woman shapes our view on life, as does being a wife (not husband) a mother (not father) a daughter (not a son), a life-giver, a multi-tasker, a nurturer... Woman's integration of scripture into their life will shape their life in ways that wouldn't happen to a man, this inevidably shapes their preaching as well.

 

I wonder what you (people out there in cyber world) think of my 9 points? And would you add any more?

Which is "the best" translation?

Have you ever heard someone talking about a particular English Bible translation and saying it's the best? I've heard that said about the ESV, the NIV, the NRSV, the NLT and The Message. Can they all be the best?

I was sitting in a Translation Priciples lecture recently and started to think about the different English translations and what their relative strengths are. Before I get there, let me outline the three different kinds of translation.

1. Some translations are literal or"word for word" translations. This means that they try to translate each word as closely as possible to the word that was used in the original Greek (or Hebrew/Aramaic in the Old Testatment). The ESV is a good example of this. This means that you will be able to see the language structure and word choice of the original language more clealy (though you are still reading it all in English).

2. Some translations are "meaning based" translations, which means that they first take a whole idea (might be a sentence or a clause) in the original language and translate the meaning of that idea into English. So the sentence structure will be more different to the original language than in a more literal translation, but it will also use more natural English. The NLT is a good representative of this approach, which is also sometimes called "dynamic equivalence".

3. Some translations are "paraphrases". These go further than the "meaning based translations" and apply the point of what was said in the original to today's situation and might even change what is being talked about to make the same point. The Message is usually placed in this category. Some people say that The Message, though it might be very helpful, is not a translation at all because it changes the meaning too much.

The risk with using a too literal translation is that the language might be too unnatual English to be understood properly (I have heard some people say that the ESV is too difficult for their children, even teenage children, to understand). The risk with a meaning based translation, and especially a paraphrase, is that you may not have understood the meaning correctly, and therefore what you translate might be wrong.

In summary literal translations run the risk of being unintelligible, other types of translations run the risk of being wrong!

These are not three discrete categories, they're a continuum, so the NIV andNRSV are placed somewhere in between the literal and meaning based translations.

To repesent the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, I came up with this little table:
Before explaining my table I should say that I'm talking about good translations here. There can also be very bad, literal and meaning based translations and bad paraphrases, but I'm not including those in my analysis.

Ideational Meaning is what people usually mean when they say "meaning". When we say "John walked out the door" the ideational meaning refers to this person called John and that he moved, putting his feet in front of one another to go out the door.

I think that meaning based translations do ideational meaning best. Literal translations don't convey the ideational meaning quite as well, because the meaning can be obscured when it uses foreign idioms or phrases. Paraphrases don't attempt to accurately convey the ideational meaning.

Textual meaning refers to how what is read relates to the rest of the text. For example in Mark chapter 2 Jesus refers to himself as "the son of man". The ideational meaning of this phrase is "I", people used this phrase to refer to themselves often. But on a textual level we can see that Jesus might have used this phrase to remind people of something else - in this case maybe the passage from Daniel 7.

Since they use a "word for word" translation strategy, links between texts can be most easily seen in literal translations. (From the introduction: "The ESV is an "essentially literal" translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer.") This is not always as clear in meaning based translations - though footnotes can help - and it is not clear at all in paraphrases.

Affectual meaning relates to how reading the passage effects readers' emotions. How are we to feel when, for example, Jesus is betrayed, or when he dies, or when he is transfigured, or when he feeds the five thousand? The original readers might have felt a certain way about something, but because we are so far removed from their culture we might miss some things and not be affected the same way.

Affectual meaning is best conveyed by paraphrases (as long as you belong to their target audience, if not the meaning can be lost on you, or misunderstood). Their aim is to affect the emotions of the readers and motivate the reader. In paraphrases there is no question of the original language affecting the grammar structure used, thus they are best at conveying affectual meaning, meaning based translations are next, and literal translations come in last in terms of affectual meaning because the English used is the least natural, and therefore affects our emotions the least.

In summary, meaning based translations (like the NLT) convey the ideational meaning the best. Literal, or word for word translations (like ESV) convey the textual meaning the best. And paraphrases (like The Message) convey the affectual meaning the best.

So when people say that the ESV is the best translation I would say:

• Yes it is! If you're studying the original text and want help understanding the Greek, or if you want to know what the original language says, but can't study the original language.
• But no it's not! If you want to read the bible in natural English, nor if you want your heart, as well as your head, to easily understand what you're reading.

If people say that the NLT is the best translation I would say:

• Yes! Because it is written in very nice English, which speaks to my heart well, and it also clearly shows the meaning. I especially like reading the Old Testament prophets in the NLT because I find I need it written in natural English to really understand what's happening since their situation and culture and also the genre is very removed from what I'm used to.
• And No! Because it isn't so easy to see how one passage relates to others, and also some of the ambiguities in the original language are lost. For example 1 Timothy 2:15 where the NLT has "women" the Greek word would be more accurately translated "he" or "she".

If people say that The Message is the best translation I would say:

• Yes! Because it speaks to my heart well and applies the message to my own culture, which gives me encouragement very directly, and means that I am affected strongly by each encouragement and each rebuke.
• But also No! In some ways The Message changes the meaning a little too much, and I'm never quite sure when biblical author's writings end and the interpretation of the translator begins. The Message is really more like good preaching. It is powerful and it hits home. But the message of The Message must also be tested against a translation which sticks more closely to the original text.

Want to share any thoughts about this with me? What did you think of my graph? Which translation do you like best and why?

As a post scipt I should also say that not all these positives and negatives have the same weight for me, and so there is a translation that I prefer above the others. Other people will have different priorities and different background and will therefore will prefer a different translation to me.

I acknowledge Kirk Patston who first told me about the three types of meaning though under different names in a very interesting Old Testament lecture. The idea has been adapted from the linguist Michael Halliday.