My last post "Why Couldn't Yahweh Drive out the People in the Valley?
" received some criticism. That's good. It means people are actually engaged and thinking about the content.
The claim I made in the post was that Judges 1:19 indicates that Yahweh was unable to defeat the people of the valley because they had chariots made of iron. Here is the same verse rendered in the various translations. I have ordered them from more literal (word for word) translations to translations that strive for clarity and meaning (thought for thought).
NASB Now the [Yahweh] was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country; but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots.
KJV And [Yahweh] was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
NIV The [Yahweh] was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron.
ESV And the [Yahweh] was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had chariots of iron.
In the previous post, I referred only to the KJV because 1. it seems to be the favorite among most of the evangelical Christians I encounter on the internet and 2. because I don't see too many significant differences in the other translations with regard to the conclusion I have drawn here.
The two criticisms I received on that post both focused on the pronoun "he" in the second half of verse as rendered in the KJV. Their complaint was that where the verse says "...and he drave out the inhabitants of the hill country; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley..." my critics said that "he" refers to Judah, not to Yahweh. In other words, iron chariots were not too difficult for Yahweh, but for Judah.
I have three responses to this criticism.
First, completely abstracting the phrase out of the context and just looking at the structure of the sentence, the use of the pronoun makes it ambiguous as to the who the "he" refers to. Two of the other translations use the plural form of the pronoun, but the ambiguity still exists since "they" could refer to Yahweh and Judah or Judah and his people. Both are legitimate interpretations of the translations with plural pronouns. The author of the book of Judges could have written the passage in a way that stripped out the ambiguity. For example, it could have been written like this.
Yahweh was with Judah for part of the conquest. Because of Yahweh's help, Judah and his tribe drove out the inhabitants of the hill country, but they couldn't defeat the people in the valley because they had iron chariots. Yahweh left Judah and his people to their own devices when they entered the valley and the iron chariots that the valley people possessed were too powerful for Judah and his people without Yahweh's help.
Granted, this is more wordy, but if your intention is clear communication, sometimes more explanation is necessary.
One Google Plus user, J Wing, suggested that the pronoun must necessarily refer to Judah because grammar dictates that the pronoun refers to the last person specified. J Wing offered this example.
"I went to the beach with my son; and he built a sand castle."
I hope you can see how this sentence is a poor one for comparison because it involves the first person "I". If the writer was referring to himself in the second clause of the sentence, he would have used the first person "I" again. In that context, the use of the pronoun "he" could only refer to the son. I offered another example, which I believe more closely parallels the grammatical structure of the verse under consideration.
"John took his son to the beach, and on the drive home, he bought him an ice cream cone."
J Wing said that my sentence was a run on sentence and that it was poor grammar. My sentence is actually what is known as a compound sentence, and it follows the grammatical structure of the sentence in the verse in question pretty closely. My sentence is actually a little less complex than Judges 1:19, but even in my less complicated sentence (less complicated because the verse in the Bible contains the extra ambiguity in the name Judah and the fact that it refers both to an individual and a group of people) the possibility for multiple interpretations.
In my example sentence, most readers would probably understand it to mean that the father paid for the ice cream for his son. However, if the same sentence existed in a larger context, that specified that the son was an adult visiting his parents on vacation and perhaps that the father liked ice cream, it is possible that the sentence could have been intended to mean that the son paid for the ice cream and gave it to his father. Good writing is clear and removes ambiguity unless the ambiguity serves some literary purpose. This happens most often in comedic writing. However, if you are trying to write a book that is intended to give a clear message to all of mankind about the nature of reality, one would think that clarity would be among the most important writing considerations. Instead, the Bible is filled with ambiguity and apparent contradictions.
The larger point here is that the order of the individuals specified by name in the first part of Judges 1:19 does not dictate the reference of pronouns that are used. When there is ambiguity, a good writer will either use context to clarify his meaning or avoid the use of pronouns. Where ambiguity like this exists in the Bible, people who come to the text already believing that Yahweh is infallible and omnipotent will most likely read the ambiguities with whatever understanding favors their theological assumptions. Believers I have spoken with seem to believe that "he" necessarily refers to Judah in the passage, not because of the grammar or because of any contextual evidence, but because their theological doctrine necessitates that Yahweh is omnipotent, and therefore iron chariots cannot defeat him. Someone who does not bring that doctrinal presupposition to the text can interpret it either way because the language of the text is unclear. I will argue in my third point that this ambiguity is really irrelevant because of the implications if Yahweh was not implicated in Judah's defeat. But ignoring these problems in the text or biasing your interpretation to favor your preferred theology doesn't help a person who is honestly trying to discern whether or not those theological beliefs are grounded in reality.
The second point is that we actually do have some context here that indicates that Yahweh was involved. The first part of the verse specifically says that Yahweh was with Judah. Even if the "he" or "they" was not intended to refer to Yahweh, as long as the verse didn't give a reason that Yahweh withdrew his support, it is implied that his support was there throughout the campaign. Moreover, throughout the OT, Yahweh is given credit and blame for the military success or failure of Israel and the Hebrews. If Yahweh's being "with Judah" was a reason that Judah was successful in the hills, why would the failure in the valleys not be also associated with Yahweh? To argue that the victory belongs to Yahweh but the failure is someone else's is cherry picking. And the reason provided in the verse for their inability to defeat the people in the valleys was that they had iron chariots. Yahweh was with Judah, but Judah could not overcome the valley people. Why? Because they had chariots made of iron. Having Yahweh's support was not enough.
Finally, even if we were to concede that the pronoun in the latter part of the passage refers to Judah and the failure in the valley related to the chariots of iron had nothing to do with Yahweh, we're left with a question. Why did Yahweh withdraw his support? The text doesn't say that Judah did anything wrong. The only reason for the failure provided in the text is that they were not able to overcome the people in the valley because of their superior chariots that were made of iron. Here is the implication in a nutshell.
.jpg)
In summary, the use of pronouns in Judges 1:19 makes the passage unclear. It is one more example of bad writing in the Bible. Even so, the fact that the verse says at the beginning that Yahweh was with Judah and gives no indication that Yahweh was not involved or withdrew support later, suggests that iron chariots were the cause of the military defeat and that Yahweh's support could not compensate for the superior technology. If Yahweh's support was withdrawn during the campaign to conquer the people in the valley, there is no evidence in the text as to why that happened, and it also speaks to a cold indifference with regard to the lives of his people. He could have told them not to go into the valley, or he could have helped them to defeat people with more advanced military technology. Yahweh did neither.
I plan to write more on the book of Judges. I challenge any believer to read through it and ask him or herself whether the god that is described there is actually all knowing, just, merciful, or all powerful. Instead, the god depicted in the book of Judges is petty, cruel, vengeful, and often incompetent.
Thanks for checking in. As always, feel free to comment and share.
Gavagai
The claim I made in the post was that Judges 1:19 indicates that Yahweh was unable to defeat the people of the valley because they had chariots made of iron. Here is the same verse rendered in the various translations. I have ordered them from more literal (word for word) translations to translations that strive for clarity and meaning (thought for thought).
NASB Now the [Yahweh] was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country; but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots.
KJV And [Yahweh] was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
NIV The [Yahweh] was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron.
ESV And the [Yahweh] was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had chariots of iron.
In the previous post, I referred only to the KJV because 1. it seems to be the favorite among most of the evangelical Christians I encounter on the internet and 2. because I don't see too many significant differences in the other translations with regard to the conclusion I have drawn here.
The two criticisms I received on that post both focused on the pronoun "he" in the second half of verse as rendered in the KJV. Their complaint was that where the verse says "...and he drave out the inhabitants of the hill country; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley..." my critics said that "he" refers to Judah, not to Yahweh. In other words, iron chariots were not too difficult for Yahweh, but for Judah.
I have three responses to this criticism.
First, completely abstracting the phrase out of the context and just looking at the structure of the sentence, the use of the pronoun makes it ambiguous as to the who the "he" refers to. Two of the other translations use the plural form of the pronoun, but the ambiguity still exists since "they" could refer to Yahweh and Judah or Judah and his people. Both are legitimate interpretations of the translations with plural pronouns. The author of the book of Judges could have written the passage in a way that stripped out the ambiguity. For example, it could have been written like this.
Yahweh was with Judah for part of the conquest. Because of Yahweh's help, Judah and his tribe drove out the inhabitants of the hill country, but they couldn't defeat the people in the valley because they had iron chariots. Yahweh left Judah and his people to their own devices when they entered the valley and the iron chariots that the valley people possessed were too powerful for Judah and his people without Yahweh's help.
Granted, this is more wordy, but if your intention is clear communication, sometimes more explanation is necessary.
One Google Plus user, J Wing, suggested that the pronoun must necessarily refer to Judah because grammar dictates that the pronoun refers to the last person specified. J Wing offered this example.
"I went to the beach with my son; and he built a sand castle."
I hope you can see how this sentence is a poor one for comparison because it involves the first person "I". If the writer was referring to himself in the second clause of the sentence, he would have used the first person "I" again. In that context, the use of the pronoun "he" could only refer to the son. I offered another example, which I believe more closely parallels the grammatical structure of the verse under consideration.
"John took his son to the beach, and on the drive home, he bought him an ice cream cone."
J Wing said that my sentence was a run on sentence and that it was poor grammar. My sentence is actually what is known as a compound sentence, and it follows the grammatical structure of the sentence in the verse in question pretty closely. My sentence is actually a little less complex than Judges 1:19, but even in my less complicated sentence (less complicated because the verse in the Bible contains the extra ambiguity in the name Judah and the fact that it refers both to an individual and a group of people) the possibility for multiple interpretations.
In my example sentence, most readers would probably understand it to mean that the father paid for the ice cream for his son. However, if the same sentence existed in a larger context, that specified that the son was an adult visiting his parents on vacation and perhaps that the father liked ice cream, it is possible that the sentence could have been intended to mean that the son paid for the ice cream and gave it to his father. Good writing is clear and removes ambiguity unless the ambiguity serves some literary purpose. This happens most often in comedic writing. However, if you are trying to write a book that is intended to give a clear message to all of mankind about the nature of reality, one would think that clarity would be among the most important writing considerations. Instead, the Bible is filled with ambiguity and apparent contradictions.
The larger point here is that the order of the individuals specified by name in the first part of Judges 1:19 does not dictate the reference of pronouns that are used. When there is ambiguity, a good writer will either use context to clarify his meaning or avoid the use of pronouns. Where ambiguity like this exists in the Bible, people who come to the text already believing that Yahweh is infallible and omnipotent will most likely read the ambiguities with whatever understanding favors their theological assumptions. Believers I have spoken with seem to believe that "he" necessarily refers to Judah in the passage, not because of the grammar or because of any contextual evidence, but because their theological doctrine necessitates that Yahweh is omnipotent, and therefore iron chariots cannot defeat him. Someone who does not bring that doctrinal presupposition to the text can interpret it either way because the language of the text is unclear. I will argue in my third point that this ambiguity is really irrelevant because of the implications if Yahweh was not implicated in Judah's defeat. But ignoring these problems in the text or biasing your interpretation to favor your preferred theology doesn't help a person who is honestly trying to discern whether or not those theological beliefs are grounded in reality.
The second point is that we actually do have some context here that indicates that Yahweh was involved. The first part of the verse specifically says that Yahweh was with Judah. Even if the "he" or "they" was not intended to refer to Yahweh, as long as the verse didn't give a reason that Yahweh withdrew his support, it is implied that his support was there throughout the campaign. Moreover, throughout the OT, Yahweh is given credit and blame for the military success or failure of Israel and the Hebrews. If Yahweh's being "with Judah" was a reason that Judah was successful in the hills, why would the failure in the valleys not be also associated with Yahweh? To argue that the victory belongs to Yahweh but the failure is someone else's is cherry picking. And the reason provided in the verse for their inability to defeat the people in the valleys was that they had iron chariots. Yahweh was with Judah, but Judah could not overcome the valley people. Why? Because they had chariots made of iron. Having Yahweh's support was not enough.
Finally, even if we were to concede that the pronoun in the latter part of the passage refers to Judah and the failure in the valley related to the chariots of iron had nothing to do with Yahweh, we're left with a question. Why did Yahweh withdraw his support? The text doesn't say that Judah did anything wrong. The only reason for the failure provided in the text is that they were not able to overcome the people in the valley because of their superior chariots that were made of iron. Here is the implication in a nutshell.
.jpg)
Yahweh was indifferent about Judah's conquest of the valley, so he didn't intervene with his unlimited powers during that military conquest and he let the people in the tribe of Judah suffer a military defeat and (x) number of his chosen people died as a result.
In summary, the use of pronouns in Judges 1:19 makes the passage unclear. It is one more example of bad writing in the Bible. Even so, the fact that the verse says at the beginning that Yahweh was with Judah and gives no indication that Yahweh was not involved or withdrew support later, suggests that iron chariots were the cause of the military defeat and that Yahweh's support could not compensate for the superior technology. If Yahweh's support was withdrawn during the campaign to conquer the people in the valley, there is no evidence in the text as to why that happened, and it also speaks to a cold indifference with regard to the lives of his people. He could have told them not to go into the valley, or he could have helped them to defeat people with more advanced military technology. Yahweh did neither.
I plan to write more on the book of Judges. I challenge any believer to read through it and ask him or herself whether the god that is described there is actually all knowing, just, merciful, or all powerful. Instead, the god depicted in the book of Judges is petty, cruel, vengeful, and often incompetent.
Thanks for checking in. As always, feel free to comment and share.
Gavagai
Comments
Post a Comment