Blog Spotlight: The Sacred Page
I would like to take a post to highlight a blogger that I just discovered: Nancy at The Sacred Page, who describes herself as “Learner, reader, teacher, mother.” She snagged my attention when she blogged on the Messiah College and Monica Goodling press coverage fiasco (which I have done as well). The Sacred Page has various thoughts on theology, Episcopalianism, interesting books (such as NG’s The Gospel of Judas), religious history, etc. I look forward to what is to come!
Old Testament/Hebrew Bible/Tanakh/Jewish Scriptures/Etc.
Several folks in the biblioblogosphere (that is, the world of biblical studies blogs for those uninitiated) have been discussing the perennial question of what to call those Scriptures that Jews use, but Christians also use with a different label. The first post that I read regarding the issue was from Tyler Williams, who gives reprints a helpful mini-history and explanation for the various major terms used. I highly recommend his post. Others weighing in are: Claude Mariottini (who got the ball rolling in reaction to something in the Chicago Tribune), Richie Heimbrock (a fellow Fullerite), Chris Heard, and Chris Weimer.
My former pastor, who has now gone on to be the president of Goshen College, refers to the OT/HB/TNK as the “Older Testament.” He studied under James Sanders for his doctoral work, who is mentioned by Tyler as introducing “First and Second Testaments” (which, he notes, is used even by Fuller’s own John Goldingay). I’m not sure “Older Testament” makes things any better, but it’s another option, so I thought I’d throw it out there. To me, the term seems to emphasize its “oldness” in Christian eyes.
I appreciate Tyler’s desire to use the standard terms as long as they are used with “charity and understanding.” I think I try to use Tanakh with my Jewish friends, but I wonder if they think I’m phony doing that (I’m not trying to be!). I think saying Tanakh is better than Hebrew Bible (HB) because “Tanakh” feels richer to me . . . and it’s old, or at least refers to a more historic way of dividing these Scriptures. HB seems like just a bland description, besides the well-noted fact that not all the “Hebrew Bible” was written in Hebrew (along with other inaccuracies implicit in the term). Chris Weimer’s “Jewish Scriptures” is pretty good, but I would prefer to use something more standardized (also, there are some questions there about when the Scriptures were written, since the term “Jews” probably didn’t exist until after the exile).
If one is talking about a Christian perspective on the Scriptures, either academically or personally, I think it is appropriate to recognize that Christians do view the Tanakh in light of their New Testament (and in light of Jesus in particular). If one is involved in an open dialogue between Jews and Christians, I think it is important to be honest about the theological distinctives of each group rather than try to come up with common terminology. If Christians try to pretend like Jesus doesn’t reorient the way they view the OT (whatever that reorientation looks like), I see that as dishonest. Likewise, I would see it as dishonest for Jews to pretend that they feel it is it is okay for the Tanakh to be viewed through a christological lens. The purpose of dialogue, as I see it, is understanding not watering things down. [That said, there are surely Christians out there who would deny that Jesus reorients the way they view the "OT" and Jews who genuinely wouldn't care how the Tanakh is viewed by Christians. For me, this all simply highlights the complications involved in deciding which label to use.]
Jim Getz’s response to Tyler (in the comments of Tyler’s post) is provocative and interesting to me:
Personally, when I think Old Testament I think LXX, including the Deuterocanonical works. It’s a document of the Church to be interpreted by the Church. When I think Tanakh, I think of a Jewish canon to be interpreted in terms of rabbinic principals. When I think Hebrew Bible, I think of the academy and the study of a foundational document by moderns who may or may not hold this to be “factual” or even “true.”
Generally speaking, I use “Hebrew Bible” unless I’m preaching in a church or giving a talk at a synagogue, then I’ll use the appropriate term for that faith community.
That last part is generally where I come out, but his description of OT and Tanakh has me scratching my head, or rubbing my chin, or [insert preferred pensive bodily movement here]. It is interesting, since most of the earliest church probably used the LXX (that is, the Septuagint, the Greek version of the “OT”) . . . well, used whatever parts of what we call the LXX were available to them. And post-70 CE rabbinic Judaism, naturally, used rabbinic principles to interpret the Tanakh. But today, would all Jews feel comfortable with rabbinic interpretation alone? Or would all Christians feel comfortable with identifying the “Old Testament” as the LXX? Obviously, the Protestants don’t, since they are the ones that tossed aside the Greek version in favor of the Hebrew version. Jim knows this, of course, so I’m guessing he is only referring to much earlier usage and not contemporary usage of the OT/HB/TNK within faith communities.
In sum, I say: be honest about what you would personally call this collection of Scriptures, but also be humbly respectful of how others honestly view it themselves. That’s about all we can do, I think.
Evan Almighty "covers" Christianity Today
I am interested in what happens with the Bible in popular culture and so I like to see what’s happening with movies like Evan Almighty. The other day on his blog FilmChat, Peter Chattaway cites a NY Times article that discusses the advertising of Evan Almighty towards church-going audiences. Chattaway doesn’t think that this is a big deal and I would normally agree with him, but I just saw a copy of Christianity Today with one of the most interesting advertisements I have ever seen (particularly on this topic of the Bible in popular culture). They have created a faux cover (which tricked me!) making it look like the big story in this issue is Evan Almighty with the title “Evan Help Us: How a Movie – and a Movement – are Partnering with the Church to Change the World.” It’s really quite impressive. They also have a “traditional” advertisement on the back cover (see the image above), and things that look like they’re not about the movie but really are on the inside covers (one about a ministry called ArkAlmighty and another about a “Rock the Boat” benefit concert with proceeds going to Habitat for Humanity). The actual cover story in the issue is about Donald Miller is “shaping a new generation of evangelicals” as a “better story teller.”
I saw that others have noticed the tricky advertising at Lake Neuron and Paleoevangelical. On the latter post, Ben Wright seems to think this is “Christianity for sale” and says it is “one of the more appalling things I’ve seen in a while.”
So which is it: no big deal or terribly appalling? I probably fall somewhere in the middle. Christianity Today is a magazine that covers issues related to evangelical Christianity; it does not represent Christianity (at least not for me) and thus isn’t actually “selling out” Christianity. It is a for-profit magazine. Perhaps if it were allowing advertisements for, oh, I don’t know… nuclear weapons, then we might worry about the integrity of its advertising. [I am being facetious, of course, there are a lot of advertisements that I'd be offended with, but I don't want to get sidetracked.] But a movie? About a guy called by God to create an ark? That hardly seems so scandalous to me.
On the other hand, I do have to admit how shocked I was when I saw it. I said “wow” about five times. The last time I said it, my wife thought I had moved on to some other topic and asked what I was reacting to. No, I was still reacting to the faux cover. It is pretty bold, and more than a little deceptive. I think it is at least noteworthy.
Nevertheless, I’m still going to see the movie. I think Steve Carell is hilarious.
Update (5/31/07): Just noticed the author of this reflection at The Parish, who is not sure what to think about the cover, while the author of this post at The Point seems to be quite angry about it. And Peter Chattaway did respond to my comment on his post after seeing the ad for himself and thought, yes, that is a little over the top. Also, I noticed that someone from Christianity Today ended up at my blog by searching for “evan almighty christianity today.” So, someone at CT is curious how it’s being received.
Update (6/5/07): Noticed that someone from Grace Hill Media (apparently out of an office in Plano, TX) was checking this post out today after searching for “arkalmighty” at Technorati (which isn’t connecting for me at the moment). I just think it’s interesting to see them checking things out.
Messiah College on The Daily Show: More Goodling
I noticed that someone reached my blog by searching for “daily show messiah college.” I was away this weekend, so I hadn’t watched the latest from Stewart’s Daily Show online. When I looked it up, I found that it was in relation to Monica Goodling, who is unfortunately bringing Messiah’s name into the news for all the wrong reasons (not to mention how awfully misconstrued the bad press has been). Stewart’s line:
Here she is swearing in on the Bible, which is kind of redundant for a graduate of both Pat Robertson’s Regent University Law School and place called [pause] ‘Messiah College’ [audience laughter], which everyone in the God business knows is a [pause] ‘savior school.’ [Shakes his head and mouths 'No, just kidding' or something to that effect]
I think that last line was meant to be a play on the old bit of calling some university a “party school.” It’s sad that the mere name of the school conjures up laughter. Once I wore my Messiah College sweatshirt on a dress-down Friday at my job in Seattle. Someone asked me: “Is that a real school?” Yes. That is a real school. And a good one at that. To be honest, I’m not sure the school’s name is the best. There was a rumor that it might be changed awhile back and a whole ton of students, alums, and doners raised a fuss. In the end, though, if Messiah had changed it’s name, it would’ve just added a couple more words to Stewart’s line: “a place that used to be called ‘Messiah College.’”
As an aside, I mention that this last comment I received was in Seattle because Messiah has a firm reputation in its geographical region of Central PA. Outside of PA, it’s known amongst those who know about Christian colleges, but not the general public so much. That’s why we have to set the record straight here.
For those wondering about this Monica Goodling and Messiah College business, please see my earlier post about Messiah College’s bad press lately or, if you’re interested, you can see how Messiah has responded to the issue of homosexuality with a genuine openness to dialogue. Here is the Daily Show clip, which originally aired 5/24/07, from the source itself:
I do have to admit that I thought the “rosebud” line was hilarious, but I am still disappointed that Stewart would go for the easy laugh line in my alma mater’s name, while tossing its solid credentials to the side.
Update (same day): Someone told me another interpretation of the “savior school” thing. They thought it was a replacement for “safety school,” as in it’s a “safe bet” that you’d get accepted. That might make more sense of his shake-of-the-head brush off afterwards. Whatever it meant, it was a bad joke anyhow. A lot of the time the show is funny (to me anyway), but sometimes they just have bad jokes.
Summer internship fighting hunger
It’s official. I’ve received approval from Fuller Seminary’s Field Education Office, and have registered for, a full-time ten-week internship (FE502) with Bread for the World. This fulfills the second internship requirement for my Master of Divinity. I am finishing up the first one (a part-time, three-quarter, church-based internship at Pasadena Mennonite Church) right now. The internship will run from June 18th to August 24th.
I will unfortunately not be able to make it to their national gathering in Washington, D.C., coming up in a couple weeks (too much money!), but I will be diving in head first via Bread’s Pasadena office, run by my friends David Gist (Regional Organizer – California) and Holly Hight (Outreach Organizer – Western Region and California). I will be doing a lot of theological education regarding hunger issues (including preaching as well as developing, testing, and partially implementing hunger-related Bible studies) and outreach regarding Bread’s advocacy work. For those unfamiliar with Bread for the World, you should check them out (and you can see their blog too). They are a uniquely cool organization, which works with churches and Christian leaders around the country to lobby the United States government to concentrate their efforts on specific hunger issues domestically and globally.
But, Pat, how does this relate with your vocational goals, you ask? First of all, I want to be connected with justice issues no matter where I end up. I never want to get lost in any career, forgetting the immense responsibility that I have as a disciple of Jesus and, frankly, as a “middle class” American. “Middle class” is in quotes because there is nothing “middle” about it in global perspective–no matter how poor I feel as a grad student, I am a rich Christian in an age of hunger. Secondly, this will help me develop my skills as an educator in developing lessons based upon my target audience, communicate to them in ways with which they can connect on a particular issue (hunger issues as related to the Bible and theology). Also, I hope to one day be a professor of undergraduate students, I imagine they’d be Christians studying the Bible, and I want to mentor these students and connect them to Bread and organizations like it, helping them integrate justice issues into their academic vocations.
I am sure the ten weeks will fly by and I don’t have any grand visions of single-handedly ending global hunger in that time period, but I’m sure I will learn quite a bit. Many thanks to David and Holly for taking me on, and to Pastor Katherine at Pasadena Mennonite who will continue theologically reflecting with me as I transition from one internship to the next.
The Bible calls liberals fools…
Or so one person would have you believe. I noticed on a discussion board related to Barack Obama, a conservative gentleman first declared that “so-called bible using liberals” are “nut jobs, liberals dont have religion.” To prove his point, he quoted Ecclesiastes 10:2: “The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.”
Sometimes I am so immersed in academic biblical studies and am a part of such a vastly different Christian community than this gentleman, that I forget that this kind of Bible usage is out there and won’t ever go away. I don’t suppose there is anything I could ever say to someone who uses the Bible like this to convince them otherwise. Someday I’ll have to blog about some of my encounters with such “Bible-thumping” in public places.
New Swartley Reviewed
I’ve got to give a shout out to my fellow Mennonite, Willard Swartley, whose recently published book (Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics) has just been reviewed in Review of Biblical Literature. The review, written by Joel Stephen Williams, is a positive one. Somehow I didn’t even notice that this book was published. It looks like an amazing work, weighing in at 542 pages on the topic of peace in the New Testament by perhaps the most qualified voice to take on that topic. I remember going through Swartley’s Slavery, Sabbath, War, and Women: Case Issues in Biblical Interpretation in my Biblical Interpretation and Criticism class as an undergrad. That is some good reading, particularly the chapter on slavery. It got me passionate about the history of biblical interpretation, particularly the social implications of that interpretation. One realizes that the same kinds of arguments that were made for slavery based on the Bible are used for advocating the total submission of women to men.
I’m excited to get my hands on this new study. Here is the description from Covenant of Peace:
One would think that peace, a term that occurs as many as one hundred times in the New Testament, would enjoy a prominent place in theology and ethics textbooks. Yet it is surprisingly absent. Willard Swartley’s Covenant of Peace remedies this deficiency, restoring to New Testament theology and ethics the peace that many works have missed.In this comprehensive yet accessible book Swartley explicates virtually all of the New Testament, relating peace — and the associated emphases of love for enemies and reconciliation — to core theological themes such as salvation, christology, and the reign of God. No other work in English makes such a contribution.
Swartley concludes by considering specific practices that lead to peacemaking and their place in our contemporary world. Retrieving a historically neglected element in the Christian message, Covenant of Peace confronts readers anew with the compelling New Testament witness to peace.
"The accuser of our comrades"?
Don’t get me wrong, I like the NRSV for the most part, and I am a huge advocate for inclusive language. But the NRSV does get a little out of hand in their translation of ἀδελφῶν (adelphōn) from time to time. Take Revelation 12:10 for instance:
Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, proclaiming,
“Now have come the salvation and the power
and the kingdom of our God
and the authority of his Messiah,b
for the accuser of our comradesc has been thrown down,
who accuses them day and night before our God.”b Gk Christ
c Gk brothers
They do the same thing in Rev 19:10 and 22:9. I can understand when they go with “kindred” or “people” or even “beloved,” but “comrades”? It feels a little too “cold war” for me. The interesting thing is that they only use this translation in Revelation. I suppose it’s appropriate (although Americans might not like that the “comrades” are the good guys here).
Doing the translation in the 80s, they must have known how “comrades” would sound to readers. Why would they go with it?
Committee involvement for personal growth
Posted today on Inside Higher Ed, is an interesting article entitled “Don’t Be Afraid of Committees.” It is written by Adam Kotsko (see his blog here), a doctoral student in philosophy at Chicago Theological Seminary. He surmises that, far from a waste of time, serving on various committees can become an integral part of the educational formation of aspiring academics, helping them to learn the nuts and bolts of academia. Personally, I can’t imagine being involved on committees while in my M.Div. and trying to make the grades and doing other things that are of the utmost importance to doctoral applications (not to mention M.Div. extras like my part-time pastoral internship this past year and a full-time internship with the non-profit Bread for the World this Summer — which I’m very excited about, by the way). Perhaps it is naive, but I do imagine letting my guard down a little bit once I’m a doctoral student, leaving open more time for learning experiences on committees and whatnot. I would be interested to know if search committees appreciate seeing committee work on the CV when hiring new doctoral grads. Here are a couple clips from the article:
My service on Academic Council also made me eligible to serve on the search committee for an open faculty position in New Testament. That same year, I began a two-year term as the seminary’s student liaison to the American Academy of Religion, which required submitting various reports and — of course — serving on a committee at the national meeting, which that year largely served as an opportunity for us to ask a high-ranking administrator in the academy questions about the organization and its future.[ . . . ]
All of this was very valuable experience, and although it sounds like a lot of work, it really wasn’t. Much of the actual decision-making, for both the faculty and the board, took place in the closed executive sessions. Thus the responsibilities of students, and so also the expectations of outside preparation work, were limited: Our primary role was to allow student voices to be involved in the conversation. Even at the peak of my involvement, I was averaging under two hours a week, and most of the time it was considerably less. Since I was in my coursework stage, I was normally on campus anyway on the days when the committees met.
-
Elsewhere . . .- Blog titles beginning with "A" to "Z" on your reader Mark Goodacre
- Of making many books there is no end Chris Brady
- Free Online: The Liddell-Scott Jones Lexicon S and C
- Does Higher Criticism Attempt to “Destroy the Bible”? II agathos
- Steven J. Friesen and the Identity of Satan’s Throne in Pergamum alan
- Does Higher Criticism Attempt to “Destroy the Bible”? agathos
- Bloomsbury buys Continuum Mark Goodacre
- Imperial America Peter J. Leithart
- C.F.D. Moule on the Birth of the New Testament d. miller
- Responding to Kostenberger (with comparisons to Marshall) Jeremiah
-
As a member of RevGalBlogPals, I am committed to building a supportive online community for women clergy, women church professionals, and women in religious life.
Research assisted by: