on the biologos website john walton responds to vern poythress’s review of “the lost world of genesis one”. i reviewed walton’s book here. poythress recently wrote a review for world magazine where offers some critiques and reservations of walton’s work. i think walton answered those criticisms well. the most pertinent point that walton makes, i think, is the lack of interaction with ancient near eastern sources by poythress in his review. any serious critique of walton’s work, which is based on ancient near eastern backgrounds, has to deal with the primary material. it will be interesting to see if poythress responds.

tomorrow begins my 46th semester (in a row) as a student. i feel like i should be sick of it by now, but i still find myself extremely excited at the beginning of each new semester. the true sign of a nerd, i suppose.

i’m especially excited for two courses this semester being taught by two world class scholars. the first is a ph.d. course, which i’m taking for m.div. credit, entitled ‘early jewish apocalyptic texts’ being taught by loren stuckenbruck. i took a course on evil and the new testament taught by dr. stuckenbruck last semester and am really looking forward to learning more from him. from the required reading list, it looks like we will be focusing on 1 enoch and 4 ezra (both hermeneia commentaries on these books are required reading for the course). the second course i’m looking forward to is ‘the doctrine of election’ taught by bruce mccormack. i’m not usually excited about systematics courses, but i’m really excited to take a course with dr. mccormack. the course will focus on the doctrine of election in augustine, thomas, zwingli, calvin, and barth.

based on how my schedule looks right now, i’m not sure i will have much time to blog. i’ll try to throw up a post as often as possible, mostly book reviews or thoughts on some of my classes…and probably a few photos of the dog that my wife and i are getting in two weeks. hope everyone has a good semester.

so unless you have been hiding under a rock you are obviously aware of apple’s newest creation: the ipad. it was one of the most hyped products in recent memory. because of all the hype it certainly could have never lived to meet everyone’s expectations. all over the web today there are disappointed voices about what they wish the ipad could do, what it left out, why it didn’t cure cancer, etc. i think there is some validity to the complaints, but i also think that they overlook some key things. to be upfront, i think the ipad is the most incredible piece of technology i’ve ever seen in my life. i had to keep reminding myself that i was in the present and had not been transported to the future. it was that impressive to me.

what many of the negative reviews seem to forget is that the ipad is not a tablet computer. it is not meant to replace the mac (as jobs made perfectly clear at the beginning and end of the keynote: it is a third category product). many have compared the tablet to netbooks or macs in terms of specs. that’s fine and well and good, but it misses the point: it is not a netbook; it is not a mac; it is an ipad. some also compare the ipad to the iphone and harp on its inability to take photos. again, it’s not a phone or a camera and is not meant to take the place of those things. it’s meant to compliment both the mac and the iphone…not replace or compete with either.

once we have in mind that the ipad is not meant to compete or replace the iphone or mac, we have a better idea of how it can compliment both. when i think about what a normal day looks like for me, i see the ipad fitting perfectly into my digital life. as a student i spend most of the day in pages taking notes in classes or writing papers, on the internet doing research, or reading .pdf documents of articles or reading books. those are the exact things that the ipad is meant to do (plus more). everywhere i go during the day (campus, coffee shop, apartment) has internet connectivity, so i see great value in having a wi-fi only ipad. if i ever need to look anything up where i don’t have a wi-fi option, i use my iphone (complimenting each other…not in competition with each other). the only program that i use consistently that i would need my mac for would be accordance bible software. that’s what i have a desktop for (and accordance is also working on an iphone app which will work on the ipad). i could go on, but, in my particular case, the ipad is a brilliant product that fits perfectly within my world. at a low price point of $499, it’s incredible (i was thinking it would be $699-$999 for an entry level device).

there are some unknowns that apple didn’t address in the keynote, such as multitasking. that’s not necessarily an issue for me for two reasons: when i’m taking notes in class or writing a paper in the library, i’d rather not have the ability to check my email consistently or browse the web. it’s only a distraction. some people may see it as a deal breaker, but i don’t. the other reason is that i’m sure apple has some new features that they are working on for the next os that will include multitasking. if it is the big issue that many make it out to be, then i’m sure apple will work it into the ipad.

another unknown is file management, especially since there will be syncing between the mac and ipad version of pages, keynote, and numbers. i’m sure apple has thought of this and more information will be coming when the product is ready to ship. it doesn’t surprise me that they didn’t talk about some technical issues (i.e., file management) when introducing the product. the keynote was about showing off the product. file management is what manuals or instructional videos are for…not keynote addresses of the steve jobs variety.

the bottom line, at least for me, is that the ipad is an incredible piece of technology that perfectly compliments the iphone and mac. that was apple’s goal and i think they nailed it. as long as people continue to compare it to the iphone or mac, they will continue to miss the point. of course, these things are inherently relative and some people will continue to hate the ipad, make false comparisons, and insist on not buying one. to each his own. i will continue on my current mission of insisting that the ipad is the only thing i want for my birthday.

daniel kirk is back in the game. for those who don’t know daniel, i feel sorry for you. his blog was consistently one of the blogs that i found most engaging, creative, and interesting to read. i’m glad he’s back and i’m sure he hasn’t missed a beat.

peter enns reviewed greg beale’s the erosion of inerrancy in evangelicalism in the most recent volume of the bulletin for biblical research (BBR 19.4 (2009): 628-31). the review is made available here with permission from the author as well as the editor and publisher of bbr. you can download a .pdf scan of the article [link] or read the review below.

Greg Beale is concerned that the foundations of evangelicalism are shifting. He lays much of the blame at the feet of a rising generation of evangelical biblical scholars with degrees from major research universities, who have “assimilated to one degree or another non-evangelical perspectives” (p. 20). A related cause is the creeping influence of postmodernism among evangelicals, where “conviction about anything is out of vogue” (dedication). These two interrelated influences have been contributing to the erosion of the “conviction that all of Scripture is true” (dedication). Beale’s response to this dual threat is a call for evangelicals to return to the “standard evangelical view of biblical inerrancy” (p. 21) expressed in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI), which heretofore represented the “broad consensus among American evangelical scholars about the inerrancy of Scripture” (p. 19). The Erosion of Inerrancy, a republication and/or reworking of a number of previously written essays, is Beale’s defense of his understanding of biblical authority against these eroding influences. Because Beale focuses on me as a leading proponent of these new challenges to biblical authority, and so directs four of the books eight chapters in responding to his understanding of my views, it is apparent that I am not writing as a disinterested party. This fact, however, has not skewed my assessment of the book, and I am thankful to the numerous scholars who have read this review and concurred with that judgment.

To summarize, the introduction lays out the concerns of the book by means of a fictional dialogue between “Progressive Pat” and “Traditional Tom.” Chapters 1-4 are a rehearsal of the exchanges Beale has had with this reviewer. Beale’s reviews/responses are published in full with minor changes to accommodate the change in literary venue. My own responses, however, have been briefly summarized by one of Beale’s doctoral students at Wheaton College in an effort to “achieve the greatest possible objectivity” (p. 57).

In chapter 5, Beale argues that the only viable option open to evangelicals concerning Isaianic authorship is to take at “face value the repeated affirmations of Jesus and the New Testament writers that the prophet Isaiah wrote the entire Old Testament book known as Isaiah” (p. 123). In chapter 6, Beale rehearses some well-traveled territory in OT scholarship, the ideological connection between cosmos and temple. Based on this, Beale argues in chapter 7 that the biblical creation story can be reconciled to modern science, since Genesis 1 is only secondarily about the creation of the physical universe and primarily a reference to the universe’s theological and symbolic significance as a temple.

In appendix 1, Beale revisits a debate with NT scholar Steven Moyise, a “soft-postmodernist,” who errs in suggesting that John in Revelation provides “new understandings” to the OT. In the addendum to this appendix, Beale contends that “conservative systematic and biblical theology and biblical interpretation in the Western world” has much to offer the global church rather than being a western imposition. In Appendix 2, Beale reproduces the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition. Finally, Appendix 3 is a selection of quotes from Barth’s Church Dogmatics that undergirds the faulty view of Scripture espoused by some evangelicals.

It is not possible to do a thorough review of Erosion, but a general assessment presents itself quite easily. The value of Erosion is that Beale is very clear about what he thinks constitutes a proper evangelical view of biblical authority. In fact, he seems to have drawn a line in the sand, and it is good to know what Beale thinks evangelical biblical scholarship should look like.

Apart from the clarity with which Beale stakes out his ground, however, I cannot say that Erosion will be helpful in clarifying the specific issues under consideration. The most serious problem with Erosion, which is the source of every difficulty that burdens the book, is likely from Beale’s point of view the book’s great strength. Beale assumes the very point that many evangelicals call into question, namely, that one particular evangelical understanding of inerrancy, promulgated in CSBI, is the non-negotiable standard by which any differing assessments should be judged. Beale does not countenance the possibility that the current level of unrest among evangelicals, leading to its doctrinal formulations being so widely scrutinized, suggests that perhaps a re-evaluation of these commitments is in order through patient listening and scholarly dialogue.

By assuming the inviolability of his position, Beale’s argument is like that of a defense attorney out to defend his client at any and all costs, rather than a scholar weighing evidence. Such a defense attempts to establish the client’s innocence by casting some shadow of doubt, however minimal, on the prosecution’s case. Hence, Beale is free to employ rhetorical tactics that would normally be dismissed in moderated scholarly exchanges, among which are: argument from authority (e.g., appeals to J. I. Packer or the CSBI settles arguments); guilt by association (e.g., Barth citations); minimizing/ignoring counterevidence (e.g., for multi-authorship of Isaiah); overwhelm the opponent with marginally relevant but impressive data (e.g., pages of post-biblical references to support 8th century authorship of Isaiah; see also pp. 136-42); logical leaps or mere assertions at crucial junctures (pervasive); mischaracterizations and use of polarizing labels (e.g., postmodernism, “soft” postmodernism, Beale’s use of “myth”); obscurantist attention to his opponents’ “ambiguities” or “lack of clarity,” etc. (various places), and so on.

The difficulty with reviewing Erosion is that the types of problems glimpsed above permeate the entire volume, beginning already on the dedication paragraph, and so a thorough recounting of these and other problem would yield a review of unwieldy length. Still, a few further observations can be offered. (I will not revisit here the issues that occupy chapters 1-4, Inspiration and Incarnation. Space is limited, and I do not seem to have been successful in my previous responses to convince Beale that further scholarly dialogue is needed. It would not be fruitful to pursue those matters here again.)

Dialogue. The dialogue between Traditional Tom and Progressive Pat is no doubt intended as a congenial attempt to clarify the issues to be considered in the book. But, rather than clarifying, we see a distracting collection of unexamined notions of truth, history, error, falsity, authority, “natural” ways of understanding, scientific accuracy, straightforward readings, etc., etc. Delineating what these and other terms mean in the context of the present debate is the entire point, and Beale needs to move beyond simple reassertion. To boot, the “progressive” position is weakly articulated and defended, and suggests that Beale does not fully appreciate the position taken by those against whom he is contending (e.g., Pat’s failure to expose Tom’s obscurantist comments about error on p. 14; Pat’s obeisance to postmodernism on p. 15; Pat’s limp response to Tom’s defense of traditional Isaianic authorship at the bottom of p. 16). Even though so much of the book is directed toward my own alleged “postmodern” views (they are actually more “modernist,” “progressive,” or better “synthetic,” although I do not wish to encourage further Beale’s attraction to labeling), I do not feel that my position is fairly represented.

Isaiah. The reason many evangelical scholars ascribe to some developmental model of Isaianic authorship is not because they fail to take Jesus at his word, have bowed the knee to unbelieving scholarship, or have a low Christology. Incredibly, Beale fails to offer more than a passing acknowledgment that there are positive reasons for multi-authorship and postexilic final redaction based on evidence within the book of Isaiah itself. Pages of biblical and extra-biblical citations (pp. 126-36, what Beale calls “evidentiary literature,” p. 126) neither engage nor counter those reasons. I understand that Beale is troubled that an erstwhile Evangelical consensus on Isaiah is “eroding,” but had Beale engaged the various reasons why scholars across the theological spectrum have adopted in some form the non-traditional position, rather than simply reasserting traditional (and often irrelevant) arguments, the present chapter would have been wholly rethought, if not abandoned.

Cosmic Temple. The ideological connection between houses of worship and cosmology is a well-known topic among biblical scholars. Beale enters that discussion in chapter 6. His handling of this issue is not without its shortcomings, but the far greater problem is Beale’s desire to co-opt that discussion to speak to the Bible/science debate in chap. 7, which yields at best an idiosyncratic use of the evidence. Beale insists that cosmic temple imagery in the OT is in no way mythic or guilty of promoting an errant cosmology. Instead the imagery is merely of a theological/symbolic nature that employs phenomenological language. Other reviewers will hopefully address this arbitrary view in more detail, but no one I know of, least of all the scholars Beale cites in support of his cosmic temple theory, would even think to make such a claim. Myth is the conceptual and narrative foundation of ANE cosmic temple imagery. Separating the two is only required in a theological framework where the OT needs to be shielded from its environment.

Barth. Beale concludes with several pages of citations from Barth’s Church Dogmatics. To collect some quotes from this enormously prolific and complex theological thinker and pose this as in any way contributing to an argument, does justice neither to Barth nor to the issues before us. It is rhetorically effective, though, particularly in the closing moments of Beale’s plea for his particular brand of Evangelical orthodoxy. In my opinion, this maneuver is an apt summation of the type of argumentation that pervades the entire volume.

Beale laments that the doctrine of inerrancy is eroding. In my opinion, the reason for this is not the insidious influence of a new breed of evangelical scholars, but the very thinking displayed in this book. If Erosion represents the kind of work necessary to defend the model of inerrancy Beale fancies, the erosion he fears may quickly become a landslide.

Peter Enns
Landsdale, PA

pat robertson, who perpetually has his foot in is mouth, has come out and claimed that the earthquake in haiti is the result of a pact the country made with the devil. here is a link to the video.

one quote from robertson’s moronic dribble had me thinking. here is the quote:

They were under the heel of the French, you know Napoleon the third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said ‘We will serve you if you will get us free from the prince.’ True story. And so the devil said, ‘Ok it’s a deal.’ And they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got something themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another.

here’s my question: how does robertson know what the devil said in response?

my theory: pat robertson is friends with the devil. there is no other way he could have that type of inside information unless he was good buddies with the prince of the power of the air. even he could appreciate that kind of backwards logic!

on a more serious note, this is absolute and utter nonsense. at a time when thousands of people have recently died and thousands more are left to mourn and question what has happened, this idiot goes on national tv and makes this ridiculous statement. this is the polar opposite of how christians should be responding to this disaster. there is nothing redemptive, nothing gospel-centered, and nothing christ-like about this type of stupidity.

i’m about half-way through sailhamer’s newest book the meaning of the pentateuch which i’m reviewing for scot mcknight’s blog. i won’t dive into all of my thoughts right now, but i would like to point to an interview in christianity today with sailhamer about the book.

i was particularly struck by this question and answer [question in bold; sailhamer's answer follows]:

Several evangelical scholars have recently called on their colleagues to appropriate the methods of critical interpretation. What do you make of this effort?
I’m saddened by it. Criticism has its place in biblical scholarship, but I cannot envision how or where it would play out in evangelicalism. As evangelicals we have the responsibility of addressing the questions raised by biblical criticism. But I would expect that to happen alongside of and from within our own “non-critical” perspective.

this isn’t necessarily a surprise coming from sailhamer, as anyone familiar with his work can imagine him answering the question in such a way. i’m worried, though, that this type of posture towards critical scholarship will continue, especially considering leaders such as driscoll and piper are endorsing this book. i don’t think that such a posture is helpful for evangelicals. to view “questions” (already there are certain presuppositions at work in labeling them as such) posed by biblical criticism as something that “non-critical” (more presuppositions) christians are to address puts the two in opposition from the start. i think the work of kent sparks, among others, has shown that evangelicals can benefit from an appropriation of some of the fruit of critical biblical scholarship without accepting the conclusions that some may draw (i.e., jesus didn’t rise from the dead).

this whole conversation reminds me of people who were probably scared to death when they heard about penicillin. why in the world would you put something bad in your body to cure yourself? probably not the best analogy, but it’s all i got at the moment.

i think there is a place for a canonical method, like sailhamer’s, but i don’t think it means that we cannot and/or should not be critical in our study of scripture. like it or not, our religion is concerned with history (ever notice that a guy called pontius pilate made it into our creeds?). we cannot, and should not, pretend that it isn’t.

i’m currently taking a course entitled ‘issues in the theology of scripture.’ it is a short term course, which means that we have class all morning during the week for three weeks in january. after the first class we had to write a 1500 word answer to the question: “what do we mean when we say the bible is true, and what methods of interpretation help us to appreciate its truthfulness?”

i had a difficult time distilling all my thoughts into 1500 words. we were also given the instruction that we should be writing our essay in such a way that an ‘educated layperson’ would be able to understand it. so without the ability to hide behind multi-syllabic words, i had to press onwards.

i spent the first part of the essay focusing on what we mean when we say ‘bible.’ most of the time we assume the 39-27 reformation split when we think of ‘the bible,’ but it is important to understand the process behind the formation of the canon and the fact that ‘the bible’ has meant different books to different people throughout church history. i then discussed the various greek versions of the hebrew bible as well as some text-critical issues of the nt.

the second part of the essay was focused on the idea of ‘truth.’ i have a hard time attributing this term in a flat way to all of scripture because of how some people (i.e., the educated layperson) may understand the term. when i say that scripture is true i don’t mean that adam and eve existed or that angels had sex with women to spawn a race of giants. i also don’t mean that the gospel narratives are creative fiction with a kernel of truth. so, on the one hand, i don’t want to flatly ascribe the term ‘truth’ to all of scripture because of different ways i know that can be interpreted. on the other hand, i don’t want to abandon the term either. i took a backdoor way of answering this part of the question by proposing the term ‘perfect.’ by ‘perfect’ i mean to say that scripture is perfect for the purpose which god has given it to his people. this allows the interpreter to read scripture in such a way that gen 1-11 can be viewed as mythological appropriation while the resurrection narratives can be read as an account of something that really happened in history while still saying that both are ‘perfect.’ sometimes that ‘perfection’ includes correspondence to history; other times it does not. the latter, however, does not make it any less perfect for the purpose that god has given it to his people.

in the final part of the essay i argued for the historical-critical method. i see the logic (and even the necessity, in some cases) for a theological or literary reading, but i don’t prefer those methods at all. for a confessing community, a theological reading makes sense. for a community focused on the text as a literary artifact, the literary method makes sense. i simply prefer to study scripture historically, in the same way that any historical text is studied. i think methodologies can co-exist (see joel baden’s article on the tower of babel in the latest jbl) and hope that any historical work i do on scripture can benefit from both literary and theological readings.

at the end of the course we need to revise and expand our initial essay to 2000 words. that will give me a little extra space to argue for my particular viewpoint, but it will still be a struggle, especially when the issue is so enormous as the doctrine of scripture.

how would you answer the question?

this semester has just gotten a bit busier. my paper proposal for the mid atlantic region of the society of biblical literature was accepted. here is the title and the abstract.

The Development of Vicarious Sacrifice in Late Antique Judaism: The Appropriation of the Martyrdom Accounts of 2 Macc 6:18-7:42 in 4 Maccabees
Abstract
The martyrdom accounts of Eleazar and the seven brothers found in 2 Macc 6:18-7:42 are found again within the book of 4 Maccabees. These accounts are not simply re-told, but are re-interpreted in order to fit the purposes of the author of 4 Maccabees. This paper will focus on comparing and contrasting the martyrdom accounts of Eleazar and the seven brothers found in 2 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees. Special attention will be given to the re-interpretation of the martyrdom accounts in 4 Maccabees and propose reasons for the changes the author makes based on both cognate literature and historical context. It will propose that the shifts in focus, purpose, and function of the martyrdom accounts in 4 Maccabees play an important role in the development of the idea of vicarious sacrifice in late antique Judaism. The re-interpretation of the martyrdom accounts, it will be argued, both meets the needs of the original audience of 4 Maccabees and functions as an important part in the development of doctrine within late antique Judaism.

the meeting will be 11-12 march in new brunswick, nj (a few minutes from where i live). what better way to celebrate my 29th birthday (10 march) then by presenting a paper at sbl! if you are attending, please feel free to bring birthday gifts (cash and amazon gift cards accepted and especially encouraged) and positive comments on my paper. any hard and/or negative questions will be ignored by reverting to van tillian fideism.

dr. robert cargill has posted the information regarding the earliest hebrew inscription extant…all depending on whether a) it is proven to be genuine and b) the language is proven to be an early form of hebrew and not another canaanite dialect. it will be interesting to hear more about this when details become available. make sure to click through for more information.

this past weekend my wife and i went to see avatar after hearing some great reviews of the movie and hearing good things from friends. even though we saw the movie in 2-d, i still really enjoyed it (i heard the best way to see it is in 3-d). i was curious to read some reviews of the movie when i got home since i now had seen the movie and could throw my own two cents into the fray.

one review that i read charged the movie with being racist. the reviewer saw racism on several different levels.

first, the na’vi are presented as being savages. they are portrayed as being less than human throughout the movie.

second, the beliefs of the na’vi are not taken seriously until they are proven scientifically, thereby showing that western ideology and methodology still reigns supreme.

third, the savior of the na’vi savages was a european male, conveying the idea that the savages could not save themselves, but needed a european to save them.

in case you think this is a joke…it’s not. i don’t want to link to the review in question because i think it is utter nonsense. i think it is nonsense because if you watch the movie without the urge to whip out the race card at any and every turn, you’ll see that each of the points that the reviewer makes could be taken from any number of perspectives and not be seen as being racists in the least. in fact, i took the complete opposite view on the movie and think that it is promoting racial awareness and uses the medium of an interesting story line (though, it is not a new storyline), spell binding special effects, and a fascinating new world to slowly chip away at how people think about other cultures and the oppression that may be taking place in our capitalist economy.

i’m always weary of those who whip out the race card any chance they get. in my opinion, doing so weakens the real arguments against racism. racism, as well as the the oppression, exploitation, and social injustice that comes along with it, is still alive and well. but that does not mean that it is found under every nook and cranny that one looks. to make a saturn-sized planet out of issues that one has with a movie in the name of fighting racism doesn’t make you look informed or intelligent. it makes you look daft. what is worse, it can cause collateral damage to those raising awareness of real racial issues and cause people to think that those people are also making something out of nothing. we see this all the time in christianity, a recent example being some christians who swear that our president is the anti-christ. they make stupid statements that don’t only make themselves look like idiots, they tend to make people think that all christians are idiots. the same kind of thing can happen when people rant and rave about racism being in places where it is not. many times the only racism that is found in these things is the result of the a person reading racism into everything with which she or he comes into contact.

for instance, the reviewer’s three points can be taken from other perspectives where race is not an issue.

yes, the na’vi were presented as a different culture with different ideals, values, worldviews, practices, etc. that is no different than the elves being presented differently than the hobbits in the lord of the rings. they are presented differently precisely because they are different, not because the one presenting them is racist.

yes, the na’vi’s beliefs were not taken seriously until they were shown to be proven scientifically. that, however, is not racist. it was, quite to the contrary, an indictment on those who only take the beliefs and practices of other cultures seriously if they can benefit from them. the real motives and desires of the people exploiting the na’vi were brought to the surface: they were there for their own benefit. if the na’vi’s belief system turned out to be scientifically proven and could benefit those who were seeking to exploit pandora, then they would take their beliefs seriously. it was a plot point that was meant to show the arrogance, ignorance, and greed of the oppressors. apparently this point was missed by the reviewer.

yes, the na’vi were saved by jake, who is presented as being a caucasian male. i’m not quite sure that this can be considered racist since he had to adopt himself to their culture and incarnate himself as a na’vi in order to save them. taken from a different, more religious, angle, this could be seen as a picture of the gospel…unless, of course, you think jesus was racist because he thought the jews couldn’t save themselves and he, therefore, had to become a jew in order to save them.

i thought avatar was a good movie. it was entertaining, the visuals were extremely interesting, and the storyline was decent. do i think it was racist? no, i don’t. i think racism could be read into the movie by those obsessed with finding racial issues under every rock, but that is not as much an indictment on avatar as it is on people obsessed with reading issues into everything they see.

what did you think about the movie?

….or, not.

in her new book, going rogue, palin attributes the following quote to legendary ucla basketball coach john wooden:

“Our land is everything to us…I will tell you one of the things we remember on our land. We remember our grandfathers paid for it — with their lives.”

that sounds very inspiring, right? every joe plumber and hockey mom would take time away from shooting moose out of a helicopter to appreciate the price our forefathers paid in order to give us this great land after reading such inspiring rhetoric.

one problem though: this quote is not actually something john wooden said. the quote was actually from an essay entitled “back on the war ponies” by a native american war activist called john wooden legs.

hilarious.

i suppose the end of the year always comes with a bit of reflection. the close of this year also brings with it a bit of reflection on the entire decade. i’ve been thinking about not only this year and everything it has brought, but also the past ten years. it is truly amazing to look back at all the experiences that god has brought all of us through over the past ten years. many times i questioned what was going on in my life and wondered if god really did have a plan for my life. there were times when i was angry with god, confused with life, and just generally overwhelmed with everything that life was throwing at me. there were also times when i was totally excited about what god was doing in my life, happy with life, and at peace with where i was at in life. i guess those are the types of ‘up-and-downs’ that people always tell me about.

this past year as been very eventful for me. i graduated from one seminary and now am a student at another. i got married. i moved to a state that i always made fun of (and still do!). i went to fenway (always the highlight of the year…except this year, as i am obligated to say my wedding was more of a highlight!). but this year felt like a year where it was not only the events that happened that defined the year for me. this past year i feel as if i have matured in ways that i haven’t in the past. i suppose marriage will cause anyone to have to grow up quickly, but it hasn’t just been that. i feel as if i’ve come to understand myself in a way that i haven’t in the past. my shortcomings are all too clear to me now, whereas in the past i was blind to them. i know where i struggle in life and i know steps i need to take to either avoid or overcome those struggles. that has been a huge blessing in my life as i know it is the spirit working in my life to transform me into the man that god wants me to be.

i have also gone through somewhat of a spiritual revival in the past few months. my time at my former seminary was very tough. the first two years were amazing and i felt as if i grew by leaps and bounds not only intellectually, but also spiritually. the last two years were much different. while i continued to read and study and grow intellectually, the climate there completely stifled my spiritual growth. moving to on to a new seminary completely changed that. these past three months have been key in rebuilding the spiritual life that i loved, yet had grown stagnant. while i still have more doubt than faith and more questions than answers, i feel renewed to seek those answers and to strengthen the faith that i count so central to who i am as a person. i go to church and can actually worship god authentically now. it’s more exciting than anything else i could imagine.

well, now that the boring introspection and reflection is over, i wanted to list some of the highlights and/or events that i will always remember from the past year and the past decade.

this past year I was married to elizabeth ann hohl, who i love more than i could possibly put into the english, hebrew, aramaic, ugaritic, greek, or ethiopic language (or any other linguistic system for that matter!).

this past decade i attended three colleges and two seminaries.

this past year the nobel peace prize winner turned around and deployed 30,000 military troops to enter a country upon which we have not declared war.

this past decade god has brought me from a pot-smoking, agnostic phish-head to a seminary student.

this past year i have become the member of a new family, who i absolutely adore.

this past decade i switched from windows to mac and will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever look back.

this past year the evil empire struck again.

this past decade the red sox have won more world series than they had in the past 8 decades and did not lose a world series game.

this past year i have grown to have a deeper appreciation and love for my parents and family.

this past decade i lived in 5 different states.

i’m sure there is much, much more than could be said. i’d love to hear some of the your highlights from the past year or decade and how god has worked in your life.

i hope that everyone has a very happy christmas and a blessed new year. liz and i send our greetings from the cold tundra of ohio (it’s not really that cold, i just like being dramatic). we are having a great time with lizzy’s side of the family. it’s always great to spend time with them.

Scot McKnight has created a way for people to contribute to the needs of the children of Mabantaneni, which is located in the Nsoko region of southern Swaziland. After discussing it with my wife, we have decided to sponsor Asandze Mahlaba (pictured). We are looking forward to writing to him, praying for him, and (Lord willing) perhaps even meeting him someday.

In case the you are new to the idea of Advent Conspiracy, this is what it is all about:

The story of Christ’s birth is a story of promise, hope, and a revolutionary love.

So, what happened? What was once a time to celebrate the birth of a savior has somehow turned into a season of stress, traffic jams, and shopping lists.

And when it’s all over, many of us are left with presents to return, looming debt that will take months to pay off, and this empty feeling of missed purpose. Is this what we really want out of Christmas?

What if Christmas became a world-changing event again?

Welcome to Advent Conspiracy.

Although there are some nay-sayers out there, I would encourage everyone to participate in Advent Conspiracy in someway (there are also some great people giving encouragement to participate). You can join the Jesus Creed community in our mission with CarePoints or you can find another way to manifest the first fruits of the Kingdom of God that Christ brought to near in his advent, life, death, and resurrection. I hope you do.

When I first started seminary back in 2005, I remember thinking that my faith would be more secure and more robust because of everything I was learning.

What I’ve found is that the more I learn, the more I need to work on my faith.

Faith doesn’t become easier with more learning, it becomes more difficult.

The end of the year is upon us all and it is usually tradition for bloggers to list their favorite books of the past year. As someone who loves liturgy, who am I to break with tradition?

This list is broken up into two parts: the first is for popular level books and the second is for academic books. I realize that that is subjective so if you have a problem with it then please send your complaints scribbled on the bottom of a Nintendo Wii to my house. Otherwise your complaints fall on deaf ears!

Also, a few of these books are older, but I just got around to reading them this year. Please forgive me for being so incredibly out of style. The lists are in alphabetical order by author, five in each category, sans annotation.

Popular Level Books
Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament edited by Kenneth Berding
Counterfeit Gods by Timothy Keller
Blue Parakeet by Scot McKnight
Unfashionable by Tullian Tchividjian
The Lost Word of Genesis One by John Walton

Academic Books
Sin: A History by Gary A. Anderson
Seeking the Favor of God: Volume 2: The Development of Pentitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism edited by Mark J. Boda, Daniel K. Falk, and Rodney A. Werline
Jesus Remembered by James D.G. Dunn
Unlocking Romans by J.R. Daniel Kirk
Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible by Karel van Der Toorn

What were some of your favorite reads in ‘09?

Matt Chandler, pastor of The Village Church, recently had a seizure. After going to the doctor, he found out that the cause was a tumor located in his frontal lobe. If you aren’t familiar with Matt’s ministry, he is an extremely gifted pastor and one of the podcasts that I look forward the most to listening to each week. Here is a letter that the elders at the Village put on their Facebook page today:

Pastor Matt Chandler will have surgery Friday afternoon to remove a tumor located in the frontal lobe of his brain. The surgery will be performed by Dr. David Barnett.
Dr. Barnett told Matt that he was positive about recovery but won’t know the full results until the surgery is performed. The doctor was uncertain about the malignancy of the tumor, and a biopsy will be performed as part of the surgery.
The outpouring of support and prayers from all over the world has been overwhelming to Matt and Lauren. Continue to pray and fast on behalf of the family. The church’s monthly prayer service will be Wednesday at 7 p.m. at the Highland Village, Denton and Dallas Northway worship centers. We encourage you to fast throughout that day and join us to pray that evening. If you cannot join us, pray wherever you are.
We continue to rest in the knowledge that Matt is in the sovereign hand of our heavenly Father who loves him immensely more than we can comprehend, and He alone understands the reasons for this trial. Along with your prayers, continue to give Matt and Lauren and their family time and space for their continued rest.

Do pray for Matt, his family, and his church family during this time.

In case you haven’t heard via Twitter or some other blogs, Pete Enns has written some great essays on the BioLogos blog entitled Science and the Sacred. The latest essay focuses on ANE mythology and, what Pete calls, “genre calibration.” Here is a peek at what Pete is getting at:

Placing Israel in its broader cultural and religious context has been referred to as the “comparative approach.” This is a sometimes-maligned term, as it is unfortunately understood by some to imply that Israel was simply copying or “borrowing” what was around them. This is not the case. Rather, the literature of Israel and that of her predecessors and neighbors reflect a common way of looking at the world. The value of these ancient texts is not in telling us from where Israel got her ideas. Instead, they help us understand what kind of a text Genesis is. I like to refer to this as “genre calibration.”
By comparing Genesis to the creation and other primordial tales that other cultures of antiquity produced, we gain a clearer understanding of the nature of Genesis. I understand that some object to allowing something outside of the Bible to tell us what the Bible is doing. It seems to put ancient stories on the same level as the Bible, so to speak. But the fact of the matter is that faithful readers of the Bible looking to things outside of the Bible to help us understand what the Bible is doing. A glance at a good study Bible will put to rest any notion of trying to isolate the Bible from its ancient setting.

You should definitely keep your eye on the BioLogos blog as well as check out their website here. What I appreciate the most about the organization is that is takes both science and the Bible seriously. Too many people take one seriously at the expense of the other. It’s refreshing to see an organization dedicated to seriously grappling with these issues.

Quick update from my phone since the wireless at the Marriott is sketchy. I think my paper went well. There were a few friends and fellow biblioblogger present, which was exciting. Don’t think I blew anyone away, but I didn’t get tore up in the question and answer time. I’ll count that as a win!

This will most likely be my last post for the next week, unless I shoot off a few posts from my iPhone while at the SBL annual meeting. I leave this Friday morning for New Orleans and am looking forward to meeting with old friends and also meeting up with some people that I communicate with through various biblioblogs and Twitter. I’m also looking forward to the book exhibit, meeting with some professors, and a few papers that sound very interesting. If you need some SBL Annual Meeting advice, check out the wisdom of Mark Goodacre.

In case you were wondering, here is the information for my paper (although I’m sure everyone has it highlighted on their calendar):

---

23-210

---

Book of Psalms
11/23/2009
1:00 PM to 3:30 PM
Room: St. Charles Suite – MR

W. H. Bellinger, Baylor University, Presiding
Will Kynes, University of Cambridge
Doxology in Disputation: The Use of Psalms 8 and 107 in the Book of Job (30 min)
Arthur Boulet, Princeton Theological Seminary
The Prayer of Manasseh: A Window Into the Shape and Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter (30 min)
Roy Garton, Baylor University
The Death of a Psalmist: A Structural Analysis and Literary Reading of Psalm 88 (30 min)
Joel M. LeMon, Emory University
The Ethics of the Psalms and the Problem of Violence (30 min)
Christopher M. Corwin, New College Berkeley
Psalms 23-29: A Sequence? (30 min)

If you are on Twitter, check out the hashtag #sbl09 for updates from attendees who are on Twitter.

If you’re going to be at SBL and see me wondering around aimlessly, be sure to stop me and say hello.

Just found out this movie is now on iTunes. I will be begging my wife to be able to buy it from this moment forward.

Has anyone seen it yet? I’ve seen a few clips and can’t wait to watch it.

I was alerted via Scot McKnight’s blog that Tim LaHaye is at it again. Zondervan and LaHaye have an agreement for a new end-times themed series entitled The End. It is not specified how many books will be in this series, only that the first book entitled Edge of Apocalypse will be published in April of 2010.

What hit me is that LaHaye is a caricature of the end-times obsessed, prophecy-chart toting, dispensationalism that many in my generation find quite odd. I know people who believe in a similar end-times scenario as LaHaye and I respect and empathize with their viewpoint. When I see this type of hype (read: crap) being done in the name of dispensationalism, I cringe on behalf of my friends who hold to this belief. Not because they would believe what LaHaye is pushing, but because they would cringe as well. While I’m not a dispensationalist, I’m not an amillennialist or postmillenialist either. There are too many holes in each system for me to consider one ‘biblical.’ The problem, from my perspective, is in the attempt to make a “system” from what Scripture teaches about the future…but that is for another blog post…

The bottom line is that, in my opinion, LaHaye is as cooky about his dispensationalist theology as some TRs are cooky about their confessional identity (or is it confessional idolatry?). Both are caricatures of the real thing. The real thing, in both cases, is much more balanced and much more sophisticated than its caricature.

What do you think about this new book series?

Now I understand why John Walton is so insightful when it comes to the background of the Hebrew Bible! (I hope he didn’t save any of those peanut better and jelly on manna sandwiches!)

The narratives of the death of Judas (Matt 27.3-10 and Acts 1.15-26) present themselves as a perpetual problem to those who seek to harmonize parts of Scripture. Here are the two passages:

Matthew 27.3-10 [NRSV]
When Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. He said, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” But they said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” Throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself. But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since they are blood money.” After conferring together, they used them to buy the potter’s field as a place to bury foreigners. For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one on whom a price had been set, on whom some of the people of Israel had set a price, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”
Acts 1.15-26 [NRSV]
  In those days Peter stood up among the believers (together the crowd numbered about one hundred twenty persons) and said, “Friends, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit through David foretold concerning Judas, who became a guide for those who arrested Jesus— for he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry.” (Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. This became known to all the residents of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) “For it is written in the book of Psalms,
‘Let his homestead become desolate,
and let there be no one to live in it’;
and ‘Let another take his position of overseer.’ So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us to his resurrection.” So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. Then they prayed and said, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

The usual harmonization states that Judas hung himself (ala Matthew’s account) and remained there for a few days while his dead body became swollen. Then the branch on which he hung himself broke and he fell ‘headlong’ onto the rocks and his swollen body exploded.

That sounds like a reasonable answer to the question of harmonizing these two accounts…but what about the other conflicting details?

Why is this field called ‘the Field of Blood’? Is it because the priests bought the field with the blood money given back to them by Judas (ala Matthew’s account)? Or is it because Judas fell in the field and his intestines poured out of him (ala the account in Acts)?

Who bought the field? Was it the chief priests (Matthew) or was it Judas himself (Acts)?

Did Judas show remorse for his actions, which ended in his suicide (Matthew) or did he get the just reward for his wickedness and fall in a field and die (Acts)?

And which text of the HB was this narrative told to fulfill? Was it Jeremiah (Matthew, supposing he had the citation correct) or Psalms (Acts)?

It should be obvious that I don’t consider these two narratives able to be harmonized. I think a better way to look at contradictions like these in Scripture is to attempt to understand what the author is attempting to say by shaping her or his narrative in the way she or he has chosen to shape it.

The interesting thing about the death of Judas in Acts is its relationship with other literature describing the death of a wicked person. In the narrative of 2 Macc 5, we find the description of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes which reads:

But the all-seeing Lord, the God of Israel, struck him with an incurable and invisible blow. As soon as he stopped speaking he was seized with a pain in his bowels, for which there was no relief, and with sharp internal tortures-and that very justly, for he had tortured the bowels of others with many and strange inflictions. Yet he did not in any way stop his insolence, but was even more filled with arrogance, breathing fire in his rage against the Jews, and giving orders to drive even faster. And so it came about that he fell out of his chariot as it was rushing along, and the fall was so hard as to torture every limb of his body…. And so the ungodly man’s body swarmed with worms, and while he was still living in anguish and pain, his flesh rotted away, and because of the stench the whole army felt revulsion at his decay…. So the murderer and blasphemer, having endured the more intense suffering, such as he had inflicted on others, came to the end of his life by a most pitiable fate, among the mountains in a strange land.

This is a graphic description, to be sure, but I bring it up to note how it relates to the death of Judas in Acts: both deaths are seen as a punishment of wicked deeds and both deaths graphically describe the bowels or intestines of the person being punished. There is another passage that is found at the end of the Hebrew Bible that also relates to both of these death narratives. That is the death of King Joram found in 2 Chron 21.

And after all this the Lord smote him in his bowels with an incurable disease. In the course of time, at the end of two years, his bowels came out because of the disease, and he died in great agony. His people made no fire in his honor…he departed with no one’s regret. They buried him in the city of David, but not in the tombs of the kings.

Again in this narrative we see a wicked person being ’smote’ by God resulting in his death…a death that includes a description of his ‘bowels.’

There are similarities between these two accounts and the death of Judas in Acts, but there are also some differences. I’m not saying there is a one-to-one relationship here. But there is enough similar material to question as to whether the author of Acts was influenced by these two narratives and whether, by being influenced by them, she or he was attempting to say something about just how wicked Judas was.

Another interesting question to ask is why the author of Acts turned the seemingly repentant, or at least remorseful, Judas of Matthew into a wicked person whose death mirrors the death of two other extremely wicked people? What social or theological situation would make this shift in presentation necessary?

Being a Hebrew Bible student, I don’t have the answers to these questions and I’m not familiar enough with the scholarship of Acts and early Christianity to even research it further. The reason I bring it up is because we talked about it in class yesterday and I thought that it would be an interesting topic to write about and discuss.

Does anyone have any familiarity with the proposal that the author of Acts was influenced by the death narratives of Antiochus Epiphanes and Joram? If so, is there some situation going on in early Christianity that you are aware of that would cause the author of Acts to cast Judas is a more negative light that how he is cast in Matthew’s narrative? Any comments/thoughts would be appreciated.