blah blah blah

dishonest sCrap meme

2009-08-28T13:31:00.003-05:00

EDIT: I JUST REALIZED THAT THESE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE CRAZY. I'LL DO ANOTHER ONE MONDAY

this came from James and went over to Daniel and Tonya, and I'm a little late, but here we go...

4 are false, 1 is true

1. I've never watched Titantic

2. I've never read Harry Potter

3. I've never eaten sushi

4. I've never drank Mountain Dew

5. I've never played Halo

which one is true???

I'll try to post something more Bible-ish next week

Rob Bell - Drops Like Stars review

2009-08-09T22:13:00.005-05:00

So Rob Bell has another book out, and I'm sure this will print money as well (especially seeing as how it's quite pricey). However, Drops Like Stars is quite different from his other books, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I wasn't exactly crazy for Jesus wants to Save Christians. I felt like the first half was quite boring and uninspiring, although I did enjoy the second half of the book. However if you are familiar with current biblical studies literature, especially the works of Brueggeman, Horsley, Wright, and Crossan, then Jesus wants to Save Christians, probably wasn't worth the few hours that it took to read it.

Yet, if we look at Bell's market, most in that huge market aren't familiar with those authors, and to many of them Bell causes to them to think in a whole new way. Drops Like Stars, will bring forward that same inspiration, although to an even bigger crowd.

In Drops Like Stars, Bell stuck with what he is good at. There are many great questions found in this book. Rob is a very inspirational speaker and writer, and occasionally gets to tied down with trying to provide historical information or insights on the original language of the Bible (which arguably isn't his strong point).

Don't worry about the new format or the steeper price tag. This book is well worth the 25+ dollars you will spend on it. It's a very inspirational book, and is not even slightly intimidating to Christians who aren't "big readers", or readers who aren't "big Christians." In other words, I believe Rob will not only reach a new set of wallets within the Christian world, but he has will reach a new set of readers who are unfamiliar or uninterested with Christian spiritual books, which I would imagine is a huge goal of his.

I couldn't recommend this book more. It is great for Christians who read constantly, it is great for Christians who are intimidated by many of the books filling their Christian bookstores, and it is a great way to spread the Jesus message to those who have been put off by other methods.

sorry I haven't posted more, I've been busy with camps and life,
Levi

Another reason to learn Hebrew: an interesting typo

2009-07-23T11:35:00.003-05:00

I was reading a from a commentary today and ran across this interesting translation of Psalm 23.5

You will spread a table for me

before my enemas.

I chuckled, and then I laughed harder when I realized what came before it

For you are with me:

your rod and your staff—

they shall comfort me.

You will spread a table for me

before my enemas.

If one didn't know Hebrew and trusted this translation, it could lead to an interesting sermon.

Syllables: The Structural Girders of Hebrew

2009-07-19T23:23:00.004-05:00

Heading out for camp again in the morning, but I just wanted to give another shout out to Brian Webster's new Hebrew grammar- "The Cambridge Introduction to Biblical Hebrew."

Here I will briefly take a look at Ch 2- Syllables: The Structural Girders of Hebrew

Quite simply, Webster's teaching on syllables is awesome. His 7 syllable principles Accented closed long, accented open short, accented qametz he, pretonic closed short, pretonic open long, Sheva in problem position, and Preceded by Short Vowel are very easy to remember. In fact, I found myself just remembering ACL, and the rest came with ease.

Also, the vocabulary seems to be a good selection, and Webster throws in the prepositions bet, kaf, and lamed inductively in the vocab, rather than spending much time explaining these prefixes.

As far as gadgets go (which Webster has pointed out that he pwns Kelley in this department), this book is phenomenal here. Between the workbook exercise and the chapter 2 exercises in TekScroll, Webster has done quite the remarkable job in teaching syllables in an easy and fun way.

I'll throw in more reviews as I get back from camp. Your prayers for safety for the students and mentors on this trip are appreciated.

heading to a few youth camps

2009-07-12T00:11:00.002-05:00

Probably won't post for a week or two. Webster's grammar is wonderful. I'll post reviews soon.

Feel free to pray that all the kids get there safely, have a fun & meaningful experience, and all come home safely. I'm still uneasy about bus rides due to last year.

Cambridge Introduction to Biblical Hebrew- Ch 1

2009-07-09T10:54:00.002-05:00

It's great that Webster begins with his FOCUS section which students should read before diving into the rest of the chapter. I see it as a rather creative approach that he suggests reading the FOCUS section and then skipping to the SUMMARY section (as well as looking at what is in the Learning Exercises) before going through the chapter.

1.2.1, Webster's alphabet chart is done remarkably well. The information is put in a chart this is as non-threatening as possible, although I feel that a majority of students should simply skip transliterations (although I may have a minority opinion here).

I like that aleph is not simply listed as a silent letter, but as unpronounced or a guttural stop (as the h in heir). In this way, I see there being even less of a chance of students saying that it is an "a" sound, and even more importantly, students are inductively introduced to gutturals. I think this is huge, and think that Webster 1-up'd Kelley and most other grammars with this brief lesson.

Webster has also included a rough English reminder on the pronunciation of he (hey), (reminding the student of the long o), and resh (reysh).

1.3 The disgintuishing of the dagesh lene and dagesh forte is done wonderfully. Webster doesn't leave it as simply distinguishing a hard or soft sound. He describes the dagesh lene as moving breath as in the ph in graphite, and a dagesh forte in the p of crackpot as a stop sign.

The consonant groupsings for study section is handled well, however, I found that it is probably applied better as an exercise (Kelley 4)

As far as bringing in dentals, gutturals, and sibilants and mentioning their relation with transliteration symbols, I'm not sure that this is the chapter to weigh the reader down with more information that they do not need yet. However, it is handled in a very simple way.

The vowel chart is also introduced in this chapter (Kelley waits until chapter 2), but it is done in a way that is fairly easy for students to grasp. There is nothing really revolutionary here, but I do think that half vowels being explained at the same time as the other vowels as a better method than of Kelley.

His notes on vowels, aren't too heavy for a beginning student either. Personally, I'm confused by one encouraging modern pronunciation and then calling sheva "shewa."

The differentiating of dagesh is not handled any better in Webster than in Kelley. I've yet to find anyone that teaches this in a concise manner. For now, it seems to be something that is best taught inductively by a teacher. Self-taught students of either grammar, should be able to get through this part, however I look forward in hopes of upcoming Hebrew grammars which find an easier, more concise way for students to learn to differentiate between lene and forte.

As one studies through the notes, and then makes sure that the summary points are learned, Webster has likely done a fine job in getting the student through the alefbet, vowels, gutturals, and dagesh lene and forte. Quite an accomplishment.

The vocabulary section ushers in 23 words which range from very frequent to malkah (queen), which only occurs 35x. While this is an unusual manner of introducing vocab, the high amount of content included into this chapter is learned (or reinforced) inductively through the vocab. While this will happen much better with a teacher, one who is attempting to learn Hebrew alone with the book should be in good shape. This speaks highly of Webster's methodology and pedagogical focus.

When it comes to relating the two books, it is clear that Webster fits a lot into Chapter 1, which will likely be week 1 at most seminaries and grad schools. It's a lot to take in, but it's done in an excellent manner. In that same week, hopefully most schools would be through chapters 1-3 of Kelley (especially those that meet MWF for an hour). While it is purely subjective, Webster has done a fine job in fitting all this info in to a chapter that isn't too daunting to the beginner Hebrew student. Kelley divides the info up and has perhaps intentionally made the task not seem as scary.

On the next post, I'll look at the exercises in Kelley compared to the those in Webster for the information. The dual between the two will be harder than I initially mentioned as the order of learning is quite distinct after a few chapters. However, I will try to compare Webster to Kelley and others (Pratico & Van Pelt, for example) when possible.

In an initial peek, I believe it will be interesting to see how well this grammar is perceived. While Pratico & Van Pelt is often the go to Hebrew book in many seminaries and religion schools, I am curious as to how many will switch to Webster. Also, one has to wonder, that if Mounce's Greek grammar wasn't as popular, would Pratico & Van Pelt have been as successful. I'm sure this has been debated, but it's popularity has to make me wonder if Zondervan has it riding Mounce's coattail.

as I'm a Hebrew grammar junkie...

2009-07-08T13:55:00.005-05:00

I just received Brian Webster's The Cambridge Introduction to Biblical Hebrew and decided I'm going to review it here on the site. I'll probably review a chapter each day, but I'll be at a few youth camps in July so it may take a while. I'm anxious to see if this grammar we'll top Page Kelley's Biblical Hebrew: An Introductory Grammar. If by chance, it does overthrow Kelley's grammar (and my unambiguous bias for Kelley), I'll use it in an upcoming Hebrew class I'll be teaching.

So, here begins the showdown

versus

Concerning cosmetics, I find Kelley's grammar to be prettier. Which is, of course, the only thing to consider.

Kelley 1, Webster 0

However, if you want to talk gadgets, Kelley has absolutely none (and you have to pay for the answer handbook), while Webster has a workbook, answer key, paradigm charts, and clearly mops the floor in this department.

Kelley 1, Webster 1

until tomorrow...

i usually avoid stuff like this, but...

2009-07-04T01:03:00.002-05:00

wow. i rarely watch these types of youtube videos, but i am literally speechless here.

It's hard to explain this video, but basically it's hell & fire message while ripping off the nooma series in presentation. sorry, but its two parts.

apparently if you speak forcibly, you are correct. Also, there's nothing more fun than hearing theological arguments where the person says that you aren't aruging with them, but with the Bible.

here's his other one, it'shard to pick apart these videos because of his circular arguments, and honestly so many things here which make me cringe.

okay with this one, please learn what the word repentance means. Second, how many times do you remember Jesus asking people where they will go when they die? Yeah, i can't find that verse either.

Genocide and the Bible

2009-06-24T16:07:00.004-05:00

Dr. Robbert Hubbard recently contributed an interesting post on the Koinonia blog, entitled Now, About all that Killing... , which admittedly is a clever title (though I'm not sure this is the title to make clever).

I commented on the site that I'm not sure that the answer he gives for the genocide in Joshua, and other books for that matter, is sufficient. I'm also not sure that herem excuses us from the destruction of other cities. On herem, Hubbard states:

But there are limits to herem, too. Only Yahweh could authorize it. That meant that no human could invoke it on his own—i.e., for revenge or other violent purposes. More important, God applied herem only to the Canaanites. It was not an ongoing practice applied to anyone else. After Joshua, the practice basically disappears from the Old Testament. It served God’s stated purpose—to rid Israel of Canaanite idolatrous influence.

How are we to determine when God authorizes destruction? Of course, Hubbard claims that we are free of this now in light of a non-violent Jesus, but this does not provide a sufficient answer to those who question the genocide found in the Bible.

Often a defense for the genocide argument is to apply 2 Timothy 3.16 - (All scripture is inspired...), although an obvious problem with this argument is using one part of the Bible to defend another. Second, how is genocide "profitable for teaching and correction?"

Another defense, "Who are we to question God?", leads to what I see may be the biggest stumbling block in the way of finding a way to answer this dilemma in postmodern circles- inspiration.

I believe the issue inspiration to be a way to move forward in this argument. "Who are we to question God?" is an argument stopper which will clearly only make one side happy. However, if one's understanding of inspiration can move from "God said it, that settles it", to an understanding which could imagine human authors believing and imagining this to be the will of YHWH, this leaves the argument open so that "Who are we to question God?" is no longer appropriate.

However, to say that God willed genocide is an awfully scary claim, not only to those on the outside of the Jewish/Christian faith, but also to those within the faith that are uncomfortable with this fundamentalist argument and mode of interpretation.

quote of the day - Walter Brueggemann

2009-06-23T13:23:00.003-05:00

"As the Western world has been perennially hostile to the claims of Jewish faith, so the emerging contemporary world of commodity grows more signally hostile to the claims of Christian faith as well. As has not been the case in the long Christian hegemony of the West, now the church is having to think and act to maintain a distinct identity for faith in an alien cultural environment. While the Church will characteristically attend to the New Testament in such an emergency, a study of Torah already alerts us to the resources for this crisis that are older and deeper than the New Testament. The Jews in exile reported themselves dismayed about singing the songs of Zion in a strange land (Psalm 137.1-3). And now Christians face the same issue. The liberal Christian temptation is to accommodate dominant culture until faith despairs. The conservative Christian temptation is to fashion an absoluteness that stands disconnected from the dominant culture. Neither of these strategies, however, is likely to sustain the church in its mission. More likely, we may learn from and with Jews that sustaining power of imaginative remembering, the ongoing, lively process of traditioning that is sure to be marked by ideological interest that, in the midst of such distinctiveness, may find fresh closures of reality no 'conformed to the world.'"

- Walter Brueggemann, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 27

if i haven't made it obvious, i heart Dr. Brueggemann

book meme

2009-06-16T13:31:00.004-05:00

I'm probably butchering this, but Hebrew and Greek Reader has tagged me in a blog post which asks which 5 texts have had the most immediate and lasting impact on how I read Scripture.

So here we go...

1. Walter Brueggemann's The Prophetic Imagination and his Theology of the Old Testament
2. Page Kelley's Biblical Hebrew: An Introductory Grammar
3. Bernhard Anderson's Understanding the Old Testament and Contours of Old Testament Theology
4. Gerd Theissen's Shadow of the Galilean (although, i have the old version, and I think the new version is updated) and Richard Longenecker's The Lost Letters to Pergamum
5. and lastly a few commentaries that have drastically shaped me: Bultmann's Hermeneia commentary on The Johannine Epistles, and Bauckham's The Theology of the Book of Revelation

so i quasi-cheated, but not as much because the extras are grouped in.

Honorable mention definitely goes to NT Wright's 3 out of 5 volumes in his Christian Origins series, Crossan's God and Empire, Rogers' After the Spirit, ....okay I'll stop now

no bible talk here, but i did save another turtle today

2009-06-11T21:47:00.002-05:00

this guy/girl

Okay, I'm a pretty big animal wuss, for lack of better words. Also, I'm disgusted by the numerous roadkill I see everyday heading to work. So, i've been on a turtle saving kick lately. I don't suggest doing anything stupid like swerving out of the way (if i have to pick- a turtle dies before me or another human), but if you are on a less busy street (which tends to be where a good majority of roadkill is found, pull over, look both ways, and save a turtle.

They may resist at first, but they can live at least until they cross another road, on another day.

that's all. sorry for the lack of posts, work is quite busy to say the least.

quote for today

2009-05-16T15:23:00.003-05:00

"A faith which regards all critical scrutiny of its historical roots as inimical to faith can never hold up its head or lift up its voice in any public forum."

- James Dunn, Christianity in the Making, Vol. 1: Jesus Remembered

The Path that Pleases God: Ohio Christian School part 2

2009-05-11T23:10:00.009-05:00

I had an anonymous response to my last post concerning the Ohio Christian School which is threatening suspension (read: denying graduation) to a student for attending his girlfriend's prom.

Here's the original article - here

Your comment regarding the perception of the world might be valid, but I think that you should be a bit more careful here. The fact that a school is enforcing a policy which the student freely agreed to seems a bit wrong headed. If this young man were my son (and i am a father by the way)I would tell him that he signed an agreement and should honor it. This is what a person of integrity does even if he now disagrees with what he signed: Let your yes be yes. By the way, I am also a student at a Christian educational institution which also has a code of conduct which I have agreed to abide by. Do I agree with all the rules, not really, but it is a matter of integrity on my part to honor that which I have committed to as long as I am a student at that institution. Maybe, this is a message that the world may also need to see

Now, here's my problem with this comment and what really struck me with the original article. I completely understand that the student signed a contract. My problem isn't that the school wants the child to fulfill his commitment. My problem is with the school's association that somehow it is pleasing God and the student isn't.

Read the following quote from the same article from the principal, Tim England:

"In life, we constantly make decisions whether we are going to please self or please God. (Frost) chose one path, and the school committee chose the other,"(Parentheses in article)

With this quote we have two parties who have each acted and been associated with the verdict of either pleasing self or pleasing God. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that the principal is suggesting that the school committee chose the path that please God.

How is this so? Because they required a contract? Because they enforced the contract? Because they plan to follow through with punishment for a student that might break the contract? Is this what pleases God?

Furthermore, to say that the student chose to please self while the committee chose to please God is to suggest that the two are opposed from each other. Therefore, the student has chosen to displease (or anger) God by going to his girlfriend's prom. Is this the God that Christians serve?

Is this committee the representation of grace, hope, or love, that Christians would like to proclaim to the world?

Perhaps we can even remove ourselves from the faith element and ask if fair punishment for a student attending a prom is a suspension which would cause the student to be unable to graduate a few weeks later.

It's one thing to stick to one's guns, it's another to speak for God and God's responses.

adding fuel to the fire...

2009-05-08T11:57:00.002-05:00

it's common for many who oppose Christianity to base some of their views on fundamentalist Christians and assume all Christians believe the same. Well, I hope they happen to miss the following article from yahoo,

fundie high school will suspend student for attending public school dance

read the article, it's embarassing interesting*

btw, I checked Wikipedia, the divine source for all that is knowledge, and they said that this school's most notable alumnus is Brian Warner, aka Marilyn Manson

keep up the good work Heritage Christian School!

if you knew me in person...

2009-05-07T21:18:00.001-05:00

then you know i love this story...

pink shirts for peace

a nugget of wisdom from A Year of Living Biblically

2009-05-06T00:40:00.003-05:00

i'm enjoying A.J. Jacobs' A Year of Living Biblically so far, and this isn't a review or summary of it, but i just wanted to say that the following quote put a smile on my face,

"This hammers home a simple but profound lesson: When it comes to the Bible, there is always -but always -some level of interpretation, even on the most seemingly basic rules." (p 18)

While I don't think A.J. Jacobs should be teaching biblical interpretation classes, a fundamentalist is much more likely to read his book rather than read or listen to one of my favorite Walter Brueggemann quotes,

"Everyone interprets Scripture; some of us just do it badly"

-http://fpcknox.org/daily-readings/walter-brueggemann/

* I believe you'll find the quote on the Q&A section of the Exodus lecture. but there are several other great lectures from Brueggemann at that link as well

probably the coolest thing i've ever seen

2009-05-04T22:43:00.003-05:00

real or fake, this is awesome.

a great brief summary of The New Perspective on Paul

2009-05-04T11:23:00.003-05:00

for a great brief take on Pauline studies (esp The New Perspective on Paul) check out this great article - Justification and New Perspective 1

19 theses

2009-04-08T16:17:00.003-05:00

Okay, I'm insanely fond of the writings of Walter Brueggemann. If you don't know who he is, stop reading this worthless blog and go pick up his The Prophetic Imagination or if you're down for a long read - Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy.

I found a link at Soupablog, where Dr. Brueggemann gives his "19 Theses". I'll just post a link for now, because I'm still reflecting, but I think it's great and everyone should read it, or at least listen to the mp3s.

Walter Brueggemann - 19 Theses (these are transcribed from the audio recording)

1. Everybody lives by a script. The script may be implicit or explicit. It may be recognized or unrecognized, but everybody has a script.

2. We get scripted. All of us get scripted through the process of nurture and formation and socialization, and it happens to us without our knowing it.

3. The dominant scripting in our society is a script of technological, therapeutic, consumer militarism that socializes us all, liberal and conservative.

4. That script (technological, therapeutic, consumer militarism) enacted through advertising and propaganda and ideology, especially on the liturgies of television, promises to make us safe and to make us happy.

5. That script has failed. That script of military consumerism cannot make us safe and it cannot make us happy. We may be the unhappiest society in the world.

6. Health for our society depends upon disengagement from and relinquishment of that script of military consumerism. This is a disengagement and relinquishment that we mostly resist and about which we are profoundly ambiguous.

7. It is the task of ministry to de-script that script among us. That is, too enable persons to relinquish a world that no longer exists and indeed never did exist.

8. The task of descripting, relinquishment and disengagement is accomplished by a steady, patient, intentional articulation of an alternative script that we say can make us happy and make us safe.

9. The alternative script is rooted in the Bible and is enacted through the tradition of the Church. It is an offer of a counter-narrative, counter to the script of technological, therapeutic, consumer militarism.

10. That alternative script has as its most distinctive feature, its key character – the God of the Bible whom we name as Father, Son, and Spirit.

11. That script is not monolithic, one dimensional or seamless. It is ragged and disjunctive and incoherent. Partly it is ragged and disjunctive and incoherent because it has been crafted over time by many committees. But it is also ragged and disjunctive and incoherent because the key character is illusive and irascible in freedom and in sovereignty and in hiddenness, and, I’m embarrassed to say, in violence – [a] huge problem for us.

12. The ragged, disjunctive, and incoherent quality of the counter-script to which we testify cannot be smoothed or made seamless. [I think the writer of Psalm 119 would probably like too try, to make it seamless]. Because when we do that the script gets flattened and domesticated. [This is my polemic against systematic theology]. The script gets flattened and domesticated and it becomes a weak echo of the dominant script of technological, consumer militarism. Whereas the dominant script of technological, consumer militarism is all about certitude, privilege, and entitlement this counter-script is not about certitude, privilege, and entitlement. Thus care must betaken to let this script be what it is, which entails letting God be God’s irascible self.

13. The ragged, disjunctive character of the counter-script to which we testify invites its adherents to quarrel among themselves – liberals and conservatives – in ways that detract from the main claims of the script and so too debilitate the focus of the script.

14. The entry point into the counter-script is baptism. Whereby we say in the old liturgies, “do you renounce the dominant script?”

15. The nurture, formation, and socialization into the counter-script with this illusive, irascible character is the work of ministry. We do that work of nurture, formation, and socialization by the practices of preaching, liturgy, education, social action, spirituality, and neighboring of all kinds.

16. Most of us are ambiguous about the script; those with whom we minister and I dare say, those of us who minister. Most of us are not at the deepest places wanting to choose between the dominant script and the counter-script. Most of us in the deep places are vacillating and mumbling in ambivalence.

17. This ambivalence between scripts is precisely the primary venue for the Spirit. So that ministry is to name and enhance the ambivalence that liberals and conservatives have in common that puts people in crisis and consequently that invokes resistance and hostility.

18. Ministry is to manage that ambivalence that is crucially equally* present among liberals and conservatives in generative faithful ways in order to permit relinquishment of [the] old script and embrace of the new script.

19. The work of ministry is crucial and pivotal and indispensable in our society precisely because there is no one [see if that’s an overstatement]; there is no one except the church and the synagogue to name and evoke the ambivalence and too manage a way through it. I think often; I see the mundane day-to-day stuff ministers have to do and I think, my God, what would happen if you talk took* all the ministers out. The role of ministry then is as urgent as it is wondrous and difficult.

first post in a while

2009-04-06T15:52:00.002-05:00

okay, so i'm still not back to regular posting (not that I've ever been regular on here). Lately, I have been swamped at work, which is totally cool because I love our church, and am honored to be a pastor to the youth there. I will be abnormally busy for quite some time finishing up Ministry Action Plans, calendars, budget, etc. Also, I'm doing a fair amount of work with the college group, Men's Bible study, and the all-church devotionals (Philippians coming soon!)

when not at the office, and not teaching, and not in meetings, and not visiting youth or others in the church, and not spending time with my beautiful gorgeous wife, I have been

* golfing on occasion (still a little cold here, but i've been working on my swing plane, and hope to have the kinks from last year fixed. 79 here we come)

* playing Zelda (mostly on DS, but Wii and Gamecube as well)

* reading

Well I've read quite a lot lately. Youth ministry books & Metzger's The Bible in Translation, to name a few.

Currently I am reading Milbank's Being Reconciled: Ontology and Pardon and am enjoying it despite the occasional headaches that it brings :)

I'll try to post again when I can get to it.

proof that I'm a biblical studies geek

2009-03-18T11:29:00.003-05:00

I keep seeing WBC (World Baseball Classic) on the Yahoo news feed, and thinking there is news about Word Biblical Commentary.

:(

Justification 2

2009-03-06T15:06:00.002-06:00

Chapter 2 of N.T. Wright's new book Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision, was even better than the first.

Here's a few parts I enjoyed

"Scripture... does not exist to give authoritative answers to questions other than those it addresses." (p 24)

Throughout a good part of the chapter Wright focuses on Piper and other Reformers in ability to see God's righteousness in and for itself, as Romans for example is really about God. This echoes the comment from last chapter about how we are not the center of the universe.

After an analogy on a congregant not understanding a preacher's message who spoke on Mary, mother of Jesus, the Sunday after Princess Diana died, because she had assumed the message was about Princess Diana. Wright says the history of reading Paul is similar as entire passages are skimmed over as one hunts for a keyword to fit their preconceived idea.

Wright address again Piper's claim that he wants to push aside 1500 years of church understanding, and claims that Piper has done the very thing of which he accuses Wright. (Quote below)

"Of course, Piper himself wants to sweet away most of the same fifteen hundred years, especially anything from medieval Catholicism, and to rely instead on the narrow strand which comes through Calvin and the Westminster Confession." (p 28)

Wright ends the chapter without the reader having any doubt of the way he feels about the NIV translation. I think he has a point with the following quote, though he could probably stand a little more tact.

"if a church only, or mainly, relies on the NIV it will quite simply, never understand what Paul was talking about." (p 35).

Without going too much into Wright's conversation, he makes it clear how unhappy he is with the translation of Romans 3.29. While he is right on what he addresses, his point caused me to think of what is so harmful with pastors only relying on one translation, or with thinking their translation is "what the Greek really says".

Like it or not, our translations repeatedly reflect our own theological agendas. True this is more drastic in some cases than others, but many seminary students think they can simply hop over to the lexicon and the discussion is done. Wright points out how many of the Reformed tradition do similarly in Romans without fitting the verse within the larger narrative.

I have friends pick out on a few occasions how I've done the same in the way I've translated. I think they are right. However, I do try to remove as many lenses as possible before translation in hopes of seeing as clearly as possible what is found in the Scriptures, but my own agenda is seen on numerous occasions. For instance, just recently when teaching a group of adults on Matthew 28.19, I stressed very heavily the plural nature of πορευθέντες and ὑμῖν. While I am justified as both of those terms are clearly plural, my use of y'all repeatedly in that passage and others showed my agenda - Make aware of the plural nature of the commissioning.

A slightly more touchy example could be יִ֭רְדְּפוּנִי in Psalm 23.6. I seem to always make it a point to bring out the "pursuit" aspect of this verb, rather than "follow". This is not only justified in lexicons, but seems to fit nicely as goodness and mercy "pursue" the psalmist, much like the wolves were a few verses back in the dark valleys.

My point here is that I had an interpretation issue to face in both situations (okay, at least in the 2nd example) and the decision was definitely connected with my own theological agenda. While in this case, and hopefully in other cases, i believe my agenda to be true to the practice of exegesis, our translations and exegesis are often a product of their environment, or in this case - hermeneutical circle.

Justification

2009-03-05T14:01:00.003-06:00

N.T. Wright's Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision just arrived in the mail. I read through the first chapter today, and it is quite good. The book is definitely a response to John Piper's The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright. However, Wright confirms that this isn't simply "theological arm-wrestling", but however that justification is extremely important, and the discourse between Piper and Wright and more broadly traditional perspective vs new perspective. Unlike Piper's claim that Wright sees the church as having the wrong understanding of justification for the past 1500 years, Wright believes that the best respect we can pay to the Reformers is not to treat them as infallible but to do as they did (p 6).

Wright begins the book with an analogy which unambiguously speaks of his frustration with his accusers. He refers to the frustration one deals with when trying to teach a friend that the Earth revolves around the sun, yet despite all the laid out charts and explanations, the other refuses to follow the logic of his friend and suggests that it may be better to stick with the "tried and true wisdom of the sages" (p 3).

That Piper devoted an entire book to explaining why Wright is wrong, is quite interesting. Wright has not done the same in return, however Piper is a big part of the reason behind this book. Wright's frustration (and understandably so) is that Piper and those of similar camp are not participating in discourse, but rather choosing to not listen to fresh perspectives on Paul, and opting to stick with their trusted Reformed theology (which in itself, isn't as uniformed as many would like to believe).

It's not hard to imagine the subject of the analogy on p3. Wright's response on p5, gives a clear take on his frustration with Piper and others when he says, "Yes... I know about the sunrise. I know it looks to us as if the sun goes round the earth. I'm not denying that. But why couldn't you hear what I was trying to tell you?"

It becomes apparent, that unlike the critique of his opponents, Wright finds great importance in salvation. However, he gives a glimpse in the difference he sees between the two side's understanding of salvation with the words, "We are not the centre of the universe. God is not circling around us. We are circling around him."

on to chapter 2 :)

Psalm 3

2009-02-23T16:01:00.004-06:00

(1) A song of David while fleeing from the presence of Absalom, his son.
(2) O LORD! How many are my foes!
Many are rising against me.
(3) Many are speaking to my inner being,
“There is no salvation for him with God.” SELAH
(4) But you, O LORD!, are a shield on behalf of my glory.
And are causing my head to lift up.
(5) My voice cries out to the LORD,
and he answers me from his holy mountain. SELAH
(6) I lie down and sleep;
I wake up for the LORD sustains me.
(7) I am not afraid of the multitude of people
which have established against me on all sides.
(8) Rise up, O LORD!
Rescue me, my god!
For you strike the cheek of all my enemies.
You shatter the teeth of the wicked.
(9) Salvation belongs to the LORD.
Your blessing is upon your people. SELAH

While translating Psalm 3 for a devotional of our church, I ran into a little fun. What are your thoughts on what I have done withוְאַתָּ֣ה יְ֭הוָה מָגֵ֣ן בַּעֲדִ֑י כְּ֝בֹודִ֗י וּמֵרִ֥ים רֹאשִֽׁי׃ (v 4), or with other parts of the psalm as well.

I know some have struggled and played with רַבִּים֮ אֹמְרִ֪ים לְנַ֫פְשִׁ֥י אֵ֤ין יְֽשׁוּעָ֓תָה לֹּ֬ו בֵֽאלֹהִ֬ים in verse 3, but I believe it is more important to keep as “to him” rather than personalizing the translation into 2nd singular, for the sake of the reader.

Verse 6 could probably stand to be de-literalized, as well, but I’ve opted to leave it as this for now.

The end of verse 7 could also lead to various interpretations as well.

Thoughts?

I think the majority of discussion would lie with my translation of v4, as it doesn’t seem to fall with the common translation “my glory, and …”