Got some cheap books
My wife, Christina, and I stopped by the MCC Relief Sale in Upland, CA, today. We got to see some friends from college (one of my former roommates–we were each other’s groomsmen). We also got three books for a grand total of $2.50. Well, two for me, and one for us.
The first one I found is The Shadow of the Galilean: The Quest of the Historical Jesus in Narrative Form (Fortress Press, 1987) by Gerd Theissen. The book just came out as a twentieth anniversary, with a new afterward by the author. Here is the description:
“Here, in narrative form, is an account of the activity of Jesus of Nazareth, scrupulously constructed so that it does not undercut the insights of New Testament scholarship. What makes it different from other such attempts is that Jesus never actually appears. What we find everywhere is his shadow, his effect.”
“Such an approach avoids the usual pitfalls of the genre and lends this story—attributed to a fictitious narrator—an attraction, freshness, and power all of its own. Tension and interest are maintained to the end, even for those sated with books about Jesus. Careful documentation in the footnotes shows how much of the narrative is based on ancient sources.”
The second book I found by a prominent New Testament scholar was The Bible in the Pulpit: The Renewal of Biblical Preaching (Abingdon, 1978) by Leander E. Keck, who was teaching at Emory’s Candler School of Theology at the time. From the description: “Dr. Keck provides honest, direct answers to many unanswered questions about the relationship to the pulpit of historical studies and biblical criticism, and illustrates various ways to deal with fundamental matters of interpretation. He also includes three of his own sermons as examples for developing more effective sermons using the Bible as a starting point.”
The one my wife found that’s for us is Dave Barry’s Greatest Hits. We need some silliness in the mix. We laugh whenever we read his stuff together.
Tired Teacher vs. Aspiring Teacher
Here’s an interesting story of an associate professor of philosophy who got tired of his job and decided to take a two year leave of absence to join the Peace Corps, teaching English in China. I read these articles in The Chronicle of Higher Education written by people having trouble with their academic jobs and sometimes I have to take time to reflect on whether it is what I really want to do. I feel that this one doesn’t apply for me because, well, in the first place I would hate to teach philosophy too, especially at a school that doesn’t have a philosophy major. But he says:
Because, in truth, I have never been very comfortable with teaching. A natural introvert, I am much more at home in the library than in the lecture hall and find the classroom more exhausting than rewarding.
I do lean slightly towards the introvert side, but usually only with new people and then usually only in foreign environments. I do get energized when I speak in front of groups, large or small. Teaching college students is something that I anticipate with great excitement. I can’t wait to interact with and mentor college students when it comes to the difficult issues surrounding their relationship with the biblical text. In a post entitled “The Make-up of a College Prof,” Scot McKnight talks about what makes a good college professor, as opposed to a seminary professor:
I once said the difference between seminary teaching and college teaching was that in seminary we teach our subject but in college we teach students. I don’t think this says it all, and I do think it can mask a false dichotomy, but it was my experience. Sometimes I think it wouldn’t matter one bit what I was asked to teach at the college level, because I’d have to figure out where the students where and who they were and then just get into the mix with a subject and start moving onward.
I long to be on the other end of this educational journey and be able to be experience what McKnight describes here. I guess what I’m saying is that while I find this philosophy professor’s predicament interesting, I’m not sure I can imagine myself going through the same crisis 20 years down the road. I guess we shall see!
In Memoriam: Jerry Falwell
For those who haven’t heard the news, and I’m sure within a short period of time everybody who reads this will have heard, Jerry Falwell died today at 73. With such a controversial public figure, I can’t even begin to imagine the great variety of reflections there will be with his passing. Someone from my church (Pasadena Mennonite Church), though, has shared an impressive reflection on our church listserve. John Harris wrote this wonderful piece in memory of Falwell, capturing the inner conflict of many progressive Christians: a shared faith with the religious right, but much shared ideology with the secular left. It is with his permission that I share it here.
Today a great Christian and political leader has passed away. Jerry Falwell has died at age 73, still working as a pastor. He died in his office. He was the pastor of Thomas Road Baptist Church and chancellor of Liberty University.
I grew up watching Jerry on television with my family. A vinyl record was among our collection of sermons and gospel music. He has been ever-present in my life as both a Christian and a human rights worker. Although young at the time, my first impressions of him were that he was the only person on television to take the time to have an interpreter for the blind during the broadcasts of his church services. I remember him as dignified and sure that Jesus was the Christ that loved us and wanted to come into our hearts.
He, more than any other person, brought the issue of abortion to the political table of the American Christian community. His passion for this and other issues remain deep within my soul. He showed us that organizing Christians could have a huge impact on our political landscape.
The church he pastored, Thomas Road Baptist, has the highest amount of contributions to crisis pregnancy centers than any other church in America. Their actions matched their words.
In my travels, I have met a number of people from Liberty University and Thomas Road Baptist. They were of the highest caliber of Christians I know. They were friendly, caring, genuine Christian people. Their lives had been transformed by the work of God in their lives. I would trust them with my life and the lives of the children in my neighborhood.
The politics of Jerry Falwell were almost always opposite of mine. I have struggled throughout my adult life to counteract the influence that The Moral Majority and similar conservative groups have had on the Christian church, the nation, and the world. My activities related to the free trade movement, militarism and the Iraq wars, and especially apartheid in South Africa have all collided with Jerry and his influence on us. Especially while living in South Africa during the mid 1990s, I saw the negative effects of his refusal to support the movement of the African National Congress (ANC) for a democratic South Africa, and his support instead for the Inkatha Freedom Party, a black African group spearheaded by a demagogue, funded by the right-winged and racist Conservative Party, and responsible for the division of the black voice against apartheid, all because of Cold War politics of the left and right. In doing this, he refused to support US limited sanctions against South Africa. President Ronald Reagan’s veto of a sanctions bill was the only case in which the US Congress overrode his veto. If Jerry and Ronald had had it their way, the US outcry against apartheid in South Africa would have been extremely limited.
It is a surprise to some of my friends, then, while discussing religion and politics, that my comments on Falwell’s religion have always been positive. I have always considered the political worldview of, say, a twentysomething secular anarchist to be closer to my understanding of my own Christian worldview than that of Jerry’s. When put to the question of who I identify with more, the secular anarchist or Jerry Falwell, I have always responded that I identify more with Jerry because we are both Christians who have submitted ourselves to the radical love and grace of Jesus Christ, our Lord and savior.
Goodbye, Jerry. You have taught us well. You have taught us that organizing the Christian church can elect President. You remind us that the issue of abortion is close to the heart of God. You show us that a living and loving God wants to bless us with radical grace and forgiveness. While we will miss you, you are now blessed by being in the presence of God for all eternity.
Update (05/15/07): I’d also like to point to a nice reflection done by Joel Willitts over on Euangelion, who attended Liberty as an undergrad, but, as he says, “share[s] neither the fundamentalism nor the right-wing republicanism of Falwell and the University.”
Herod's tomb found!
Big news from Hebrew University. First Jesus now Herod the Great 
Update (05/08/07): There are a lot of posts coming out about Herod’s tomb, and I don’t plan on reflecting on it in depth on this blog, but I would like to highlight Kevin Wilson’s post about its significance, especially for those who are not Bible/Early-Judaism Geeks.
By the way, my original comment above was tongue in cheek. These are totally different kinds of archaeological finds with different implications. It’s just funny that they have been made public in such a short period of time. Maybe we’re in the end times. Are there any Scriptures about significant tombs being dug up as we near the coming judgment?
Greek Question: "to the ones being [in Ephesus?]"
We were translating the first part of Ephesians in my Greek Reading class the other day and I was suddenly struck by the words τοῖς οὖσιν (Greekish: “to the ones being”) in verse 1. You may know that there is a debate about whether Paul wrote Ephesians, and related to that question is whether the epistle was in fact written to the Ephesians. You find the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ (“in Ephesus”) in brackets in our modern editions of the Greek text (UBS4 and NA27) because the committee deciding on the most accurate Greek text had a difficult time deciding on whether it was truly in the original document. The evidence for “in Ephesus” is not born out in some of the most important manuscripts of the Greek text from the early church. Here is Metzger’s entry for the verse in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (to my non-Bible-geeky friends: don’t worry too much about the technical stuff):
The words ἐν Ἐφέσῳͅ are absent from several important witnesses (P46 א* B* 424c 1739) as well as from manuscripts mentioned by Basil and the text used by Origen. Certain internal features of the letter as well as Marcion’s designation of the epistle as “To the Laodiceans” and the absence in Tertullian and Ephraem of an explicit quotation of the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ have led many commentators to suggest that the letter was intended as an encyclical, copies being sent to various churches, of which that at Ephesus was chief. Since the letter has been traditionally known as “To the Ephesians,” and since all witnesses except those mentioned above include the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ, the Committee decided to retain them, but enclosed within square brackets.
So the way it looks is: τοῖς οὖσιν [ἐν Ἐφέσῳ] (“to the ones being [in Ephesus]“). I haven’t done much research into this Ephesians authorship debate, so my curiosity about this phrase will, I hope, be answered by someone who has. We had read the beginning of 1 Corinthians the week just prior to this in Greek Reading, so I recalled that in that letter Paul indicates the recipients of his letter by using the same kind of phrasing: τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ (Greekish: “to the church of God, to the one being in Corinth”). See also 2 Corinthians 1:1, Romans 1:7, and Philippians 1:1. So in Ephesians, what would happen if we lost “in Ephesus”? The author states that it is: “To the saints (holy ones), to the ones being ___ and faithful in Christ Jesus.” I suppose this could mean: “to the ones being also faithful in Christ Jesus.” Given the other standard letter openings, though, that seems unlikely. It would seem that either it was written to the ones being “in Ephesus” or the author forgot to specify the city in which the “ones” “were”. I suppose this could fit into the idea, mentioned above by Metzger, that this was an “encyclical“. So maybe the missing specified city could be thought of as: “to the ones being [in "fill in the blank with your city here"]“.
Anybody have an opinion or some more information about this element of the first verse of Ephesians?
Update (05/07/07): Jim mentions in his comment that my “the ones being” is a little too formal here and suggests that “those who are” would be more appropriate. I thought that enough people would have a question about this that I should make a comment in the original body of the post. I completely agree! I wouldn’t keep “the ones being” in a final, smooth translation. But I like to start my translating as wooden, and as my Greek Reading instructor puts it, “Greekish” as I can. After I figure out settle on an opinion of what’s going on grammatically, I smooth it out. That’s just my personal style. Sometimes the transition is instantaneous or within seconds; in a case like this, it takes longer for me.
By the way, I recommend you check out Chris Spinks’ response in the comments. Chris recently taught the book of Ephesians, so this stuff is fresh in his mind.
College presidents plan 'U.S. News' rankings boycott
This Christian Science Monitor article is interesting food for thought. I don’t think that the US News rankings would be my own personal ranking system, but on the other hand, there is certainly a “top tier” of schools. For many of the schools in the top tier, I’m not sure it matters whether you go to, say, #8 instead of #6. It depends on what you’re looking for in a school. And the big, choosier schools will not necessarily get you a better education either. I went to a smaller school and got mentoring attention from my professors that I never would have gotten at the really big schools. But then, the top tier schools give you this flashy school name on your resume. That there is brand name flashiness (perhaps where not always deserved) is not the fault of US News rankings. That’s just how our system works. So I’m mixed about the rankings. As long as they’re taken with a grain of salt, not much harm done. It’d be interesting to see how they would rank Religion programs, which I’ve never seen them do.
Update (05/07/07): See also this article released today by Inside Higher Ed.
Religious Studies News
One of my favorite publications is Religious Studies News, put out by the American Academy of Religion. I let the editor know just how much I enjoyed the last issue (March 2007) and I guess they appreciated it. I’ve been quoted as a letter to the editor on page three of May issue. Small news, but I thought I’d use the opportunity to link to the most recent edition. Great stuff.
I interacted on this blog with one of their articles written by one of my Old Testament profs at Fuller.
Opinionated blogging
James Spinti has an interesting thought about the importance of opinions in blogging. He says:
It seems that those of us who continue to blog have strong opinions, and aren’t afraid to state them. . . . Is it wrong to have strong opinions? I don’t think so. It just lays a heavier responsibility on us to make sure that our opinions are worth reading and considering.Ah! Therein lies the rub. Because we are so opinionated, we think our opinions are automatically worth reading. A little humility might not hurt.
What do you think?
It seems to be true. Mark Goodacre is one whose blog I don’t think of as “opinionated.” He, of course, has opinions, which he expresses on the blog, but if we go by the dictionary definition of “opinionated,” I don’t think his blog qualifies: “unduly adhering to one’s own opinion or to preconceived notions” (M-W). Everybody has preconceived notions, but the question is how much we let ourselves get carried away by them. On the description of my own blog, I say, “I belong to the Brethren in Christ denomination and hopefully that biases me just enough to make this blog interesting, but not quite so much to make me an ideologue.” I was thinking of this idea when I wrote that.
To be good, I think that blogs based on biblical studies, or any concept (e.g., politics, nutrition, engineering, ecology, etc.), should be more than simply an op-ed dumping ground. These blogs, in my opinion, should also be truly informative. For blogs that are more “online journals” of personal thoughts and experiences, perhaps unique personality and provocative opinions count for more. But then again, even these blogs (the good ones) are “informing” us of something: this person’s experience. So I guess I feel that information and opinion should be the primary blend of a good blog, and an ability to communicate ideas in an interesting way always helps!
This also makes me think of a reader’s purpose for reading a blog. I’ve seen many discussions on the purpose of writing a blog, but not much thought about the purpose of reading a blog. Why does one do it? Too many reasons to count here, but many of them are related to opinion. For example, I read some other Anabaptist blogs because I am an Anabaptist and I’d like to see how other Anabaptists are reflecting about the issues of the day. But many of these blogs have a readership far beyond loyal Anabaptists. Perhaps the non-Anabaptists are interested in expanding their horizons and open to dialogue with those who are different from them. Maybe some readers scour the blogs looking for heresy. Being open to dialogue sounds the best out of these, but certainly reading those who agree with you has its place. Looking for heresy may sound really bad, but if toned down a bit significantly, I suppose it’s simply another way of pushing forward a discussion.
In sum, I also don’t think it is wrong to have a strong opinion reflected in a blog, but I think a blog should be otherwise substantiated with informative content. And I think a good blogger should find the balance of revealing her or his own point of view in an interesting and provocative way, versus the extremes of being obnoxiously ideological, on the one hand, or tediously colorless, on the other.
SBL Handbook of Style (PDF)
I would simply like to direct you to an enormously helpful electronic edition of The SBL Handbook of Style. For those who don’t know, it is based heavily on The Chicago Manual of Style, but is slightly adapted and annotated with examples for academic biblical studies. If you are a member of SBL, you can find a link to a free PDF version of the book from this page. I could give you the link to the actual PDF file, which anybody can view without a password, but I will heed Jim West’s recent admonitions to stay ethical.
For me, as a relative beginner to biblical research method, I have found it especially helpful for looking up acronyms (both ones I didn’t recognize and ones for which I wasn’t sure of the standard). For example, if you come across a reference to “Str-B” and ask yourself what the heck that is, you can do a search of the Handbook PDF and find that it is: Strack, H. L., and P. Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 6 vols. Munich, 1922–1961. It’s also good for looking to see what someone means by a certain work. You can look up “Migne” or “Lampe” and find out what those names refer to in biblical studies. That at least gives you a starting point to figure out what they’re talking about (for more info you can then look these up in, say, Danker’s Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study). And if you need to find how to cite a journal article, just find “journal article” in the document, the first one is in the Table of Contents and from there you need only click on “Journal Article” to take you the right page.
I’ve heard scholars and some doctoral students talk about how they’re old-fashioned and they like the hard copies. But this one seems like a no-brainer to me: free searchable PDF versus $25 hard copy? I did buy the hard copy before I knew about this, but I may end up just selling it because I’m not sure I’ll ever use it again!
-
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:
When "new wine" is not "new wine" (Acts 2 vs. Luke 5)
I was recently preparing for a sermon based on the Pentecost text from Acts 2:1-41. After I had done my initial planning for the sermon, I was perusing some commentaries for possible additional insights. In one commentary (which shall remain nameless), I instead found some things that were simply false.
The one example that stands out most prominently is when he talks about the onlookers thinking the disciples are “filled with new wine.” The commentator says something to the effect of “The astute reader will notice that Jesus used these very same words back in Luke 5:33-39.” That’s the passage about “new wine” needing to go into “new wineskins.” The commentator says that it is a deliberate allusion by Luke to say that they are filled with the “new wine” of the gospel. I thought: “Wow, that’s cool. That’d be a great point.” But upon closer inspection, I noticed that they are not the same words in Greek! The word in Acts 2:13 is γλεῦκος while in Luke 5, two words are used: ὁ οἶνος ὁ νέος. Both are translated as “new wine” in many English translations. Neat symbolism, but it’s not truly in the text.
The commentator had a number of other shaky points on the passage, mostly when he appealed to some kind of deeper symbolic allusion like this “new wine” proposal. So, this is a testimonial for preachers (or seminary students writing papers) to make sure you double-check what you use from commentaries and a plea for scholars who publish commentaries to check the original language! (though, that should go without saying… )