Hilarious! Thanks Dr. Jim!

Hilarious! Thanks Dr. Jim!

Laughing with James McGrath

James points our attention to a powerful song by the charming Regina Spektor. I’ve never heard this song before, but I must say that I really enjoy “Laughing With.” The song, which could also be titled “Nobody Laughs at God,” properly shines floodlights on the sobering realities of life and the mockery that some make of God and religion.

Take a step on over to James’ place and have a watch on Youtube.

Dale Martin on Introduction to the NT (FREE!!!)

Do check out the Introduction to the NT course at Yale University available on iTunesU. I’ve enjoyed a few of the lectures already; I must say that Dale Martin is an exceptionally engaging teacher. Good times. Did I mention that the entire course, offered at Yale, is available for free in both MP3 and video?

HT: Nijay Gupta

A Meaningless PSA

I’ve missed you, dear blessed reader, greatly. So greatly have I missed you that I will be picking up the pace blogging. Hopefully, you have not lost all hope. I am returning.

The day the GRE died (to me)

Well, folks, I know I’ve been aloof for a bit, but it’s not for lack of good reason. I’ve been at the GRE for the third time. I had resolved that, whether or not I hit my target score, I would hang up my cleats and move on with my life.

As it is, I surpassed my target score by 20 points! (*cheers*) I’m very pleased to say the least. In the days to come, I will post my post-test thoughts on GRE prepation, which will eventually make up the tab you see at the top of the blog.

On biases in exegesis

Why is it that some scholars act as if the only bias that one can bring to the table is theological? I believe we come to the text not as disembodied minds, but as whole beings. The entirety of our experience shapes the way we read the text. Naturally, we can break from our biases to some degree, but that doesn’t make one purely disinterested. I don’t think such a posture is possible… Neither for me nor for anyone else.

Thoughts? I know this is bit of a soapbox for me.

Teaching exegetical method… How do you role?

I’ve been listening to the Duke Symposium on Archaeology, Media, and Politics. As a side note on his response to Mark Goodacre, AKM Adam mentions the problematical process of teaching exegetical method, archaeology, and the like (BTW – AKMA, join the revolution, post the biblioblog banner! ). That’s got me thinking about how I, in my burgeoning teaching experience teach others the art and science of biblical interpretation.

The trouble is that it’s like teaching somebody how to ride a bike:

1. Get on the bike.

2. Start peddling.

3. Don’t fall off.

Surely, of course, we can do better than this (both in bicycling and in biblical studies), but the point, I think, is a good one. Exegetical method is a craft best learned by trial and error, banging one’s head against one’s desk, books spread over WAY too much space (I’ve heard this called the “spread factor.”)

I think that, once languages are learned and basic tools are acquired (lexicography, TC, literary criticism, basic historical reconstruction, etc.), the best means of teaching students is simply to let them hop on the bike and scrape their knees a bit. Their knees may be dripping with red ink, but (in the end) they will be much more responsible scholars for it.

One more thing – Students need to learn on more than just Paul. After all, there is more to the Bible, as far as the NT is concerned, than the Pauline corpus. They need some Synoptics, some Apocalypse, some Johannine material too. Might as well throw some general epistles in while your at it! Obviously, the Hebrew Bible, in all its glory, needs to be covered too.

What about you? What do you think about method? Which NT texts did you learn with?

For my part, I was only required to work in the Greek text of Philippians, Ephesians, and Romans. I have had to take matters into my own hands to study the Greek text of Matthew, and a spattering of the Apostolic Fathers. Obviously, I studied the whole NT, but I’m talking about focused exegetical studies.

Duke Archaeology, Politics, and Media Conference on iTunes!!!

I have known about this for quite some time. Thanks to Mark Goodacre for setting this up.

I am only now getting around to listening to this, and I must say that I can’t believe I’ve put this off. Do yourself a favor and download this conference. It’s much better than the History channel!

Duke Archaeology, Politics and Media Conference (iTunes U)

Review of Biblical Literature (4 October 2009)

Here it is. You know you’ve been waiting for it…

__________

Lars Aejmelaeus and Antti Mustakallio, eds.
The Nordic Paul: Finnish Approaches to Pauline Theology
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6949
Reviewed by Erik Heen

Philip S. Alexander
The Targum of Lamentations: Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6381
Reviewed by Archie Wright

Sandra Gravett, Karla Bohmbach, F. V. Greifenhagen, and Donald Polaski
An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible: A Thematic Approach
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6962
Reviewed by J. Dwayne Howell

Dietrich-Alex Koch
Hellenistisches Christentum: Schriftverständnis-Ekklesiologie-Geschichte
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6763
Reviewed by Friedrich Reiterer

Rachel Mairs and Alice Stevenson, eds.
Current Research in Egyptology 2005: Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Symposium, University of Cambridge 2005
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6788
Reviewed by Roxana Flammini

M. Sydney Park
Submission within the Godhead and the Church in the Epistle to the Philippians: An Exegetical and Theological Examination of the Concept of Submission in Philippians 2 and 3
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6560
Reviewed by Mark A. Jennings

Jonathan T. Pennington and Sean M. McDonough
Cosmology and New Testament Theology
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6955
Reviewed by Michael J. Lakey

Enno Edzard Popkes
Die Theologie der Liebe Gottes in den johanneischen Schriften: Zur Semantik der Liebe und zum Motivkreis des Dualismus
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=5254
Reviewed by Jan G. van der Watt

Gershom M. H. Ratheiser
Mitzvoth Ethics and the Jewish Bible: The End of Old Testament Theology
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=5882
Reviewed by Ben Ollenburger

Jens Schröter
Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament: Studien zur urchristlichen Theologiegeschichte und zur Entstehung des neutestamentlichen Kanons
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6568
Reviewed by Nils Neumann

David Sim and Boris Repschinski, eds.
Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6951
Reviewed by Glenna Jackson

David Wilhite
Tertullian the African: An Anthropological Reading of Tertullian’s Context and Identities
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6830
Reviewed by Ilaria L. E. Ramelli

Lawrence M. Wills
Not God’s People: Insiders and Outsiders in the Biblical World
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6692
Reviewed by Lara van der Zee-Hanssen

Frank Yamada
Configurations of Rape in the Hebrew Bible: A Literary Analysis of Three Rape Narratives
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6638
Reviewed by Susanne Scholz

From the Vault: What do we mean by ‘messianic’?

Here’s another installment from the “messiah in the making” series.

_____________________

Last time, we discussed the importance of getting first things first, that is, the importance of finding the “original meaning” of a text in the Hebrew Bible that is thought to be “messianic.” This time we will ask and answer the question, what do we mean by messianic?

“Messianic,” of course means, “that which is related to messianism or a messiah.” Good! I’m glad we’ve covered that. See you next time!

Actually, there’s quite a bit of debate over the terminology, “messianic” or “messianism.” As most of you are aware, the term “messiah” comes from the Hebrew משח, which comes into Greek as μεσσίας and χριστός. The basic meaning is “anointed one.” Thus, Saul can be referred to as משיח יהוה (YHWH’s anointed) in 2 Sam 1.14, 16. And the king in Psalm 2.2 is referred simply as משחו (his [YHWH's] anointed one). Yet over time, as an appellation, it was invested with new significance, referring not to just any king, but to a deliverer who would usher in a new age where the promises of God would be fulfilled and the enemies of Israel would be destroyed (see, e.g., Pss. Sol. 17 and 18). Sometimes, as in Pss. Sol. 17 and 18, this messiah would fulfill the promises made to David. Other times, however, a messiah (or messiahs, more on this later) would come from a line with no Davidic connections.

So, we I refer to this or that passage being “messianic,” I don’t have Saul or any normal king in view. Rather, “messianic” figures are eschatological figures who deliver God’s people in some way and inaugurate the new age of blessing, usually on earth. Therefore “messianic texts,” at least for the purpose of these series, will be those that some have felt look forward to some type of eschatological deliverer.

The last point I want to make in this installment is one of what we might call “boundary markers” for the delineation of “messiah.” In other words, is any eschatological deliverer properly referred to as “messiah”? Some, such as Fitzmyer, has responded negatively, excluding from investigation those passages which imagine an eschatological deliverer, but who are not called “messiah” in the text.

I would like to respectfully demur. As I look at texts in the Second Temple period, I don’t see a purely monolithic terminology. What’s more, in texts like the Parables of Enoch (1 En 37-71), titles like “Son of Man,” “Righteous One,” “Messiah,” and “Elect One” are all used to refer to the same eschatological deliverer (more on 1 Enochlater). This same tendency is seen in Luke 22.67-70 when Jesus is being inspected by the high priest, where “Son of Man,” “Son of God,” and “Messiah” are used in nearly the same breath to refer to the figure to which the Lukan Jesus identifies himself.

Thus, my answer to the question, is any eschatological deliverer properly referred to as “messiah”?, is “yes” and “no.”  There is nothing particularly exclusive about the epithet “messiah,” it is one of many titles for eschatological deliverers envisioned by many in the Second Temple period.

If “messiah” isn’t the only title, then why should we (as I’m advocating) include all the other appellations under the blanket term “messianism”? Because its well-worn and expedient. Plus, the term “messian-son-on-man-son-of-god-elect-one-righteous-one-ism” hasn’t caught on yet!

So to wrap up, when we refer to “messianism” we mean, “the hope of a coming deliverer(s) who would defeat Israel’s enemies and usher in the new age, which would be replete with divine blessing.” That’s about as close to monolithic as we can get.

In coming posts, we will actually start investigating texts which some have thought refer to a coming eschatological deliverer. Stay tuned!

As always I would really appreciate your feedback in the form of comments, questions, criticisms, etc. They will help me to tailor this series to the questions swarming around in your heads.

See original comments here.