The essential contradiction in the human condition is that man is subject to force, and craves for justice. He is subject to necessity, and craves for the good. It is not his body alone that is thus subject, but all his thoughts as well; and yet man’s very being consists in straining towards the good.
Simone Weil, The Gateway to God, 29.
As more and more people in the academic and ministerial world become familiar with online social networking it is important to consider the most effective use of these tools. Dana Coffey at crazeegeekchick.com has posted an interesting article on “How I Use Social Networking,” that is a must read. I recommend it.
In 1973, Dr. Russell P. Spittler presented a paper entitled “The Theological Opportunity Lying Before the Pentecostal Movement” to the Society for Pentecostal Studies in Seoul, Korea. He moves to the conclusion of his highly charged article with the following paragraphs:
. . . I suggest to you, an unprecedented opportunity lying before the pentecostal movement. On the popular level, there is a world full of men who’ve had it up to here with science and reason and technology and materialism and liberalism. They thirst for things of the spirit - small “s” - without knowing that God is Spirit - capital S. Let those how know what it is to be baptized in the Spirit gird up their loins anew for a boldly renewed evangelistic assault! Whom men seek unknowingly, let us proclaim experientially.
But there is more to do on a theological level, too. In these days of rising education levels of the general public, let us not leave unreached the reflective thinkers who also search for reality.
Pentecostals have always been better at evangelism than at writing theology. We are known more for foreign missions than for theological books. That is as it should be: in my opinion, the theologian must always be the servant of the Church.
But the time has come to pluck a ripened pentecostal theology.1
In a similar vein to that Spittler, Charles Malik’s now infamous dedication message delivered at the dedication at the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College in the fall of 1980 is significant. He wrote:
But just as we are not alone with God and the Bible but also with others, so we are not only endowed with a soul and a will to be saved but also with a reason to be sharpened and satisfied. This reason wonders about everything, including God, and we are to seek and love and worship the Lord our God with all our strength and all our mind. And because we are with others we are arguing and reasoning with one another all the time. Indeed every sentence and every discourse is a product of reason. And so it is neither a shame nor a sin to discipline and cultivate our reason to the utmost; it is a necessity, it is a duty, it is an honor to do so.
Therefore, if evangelization is the most important task, the task that comes immediately after it - not in the tenth place, nor even the third place, but in the second place - is not politics, nor economics, nor the quest of comfort and security and ease, but to find out exactly what is happening to the mind and the spirit in the schools and universities, between the perfection of thought and the perfection of soul and character, between intellectual sophistication and the spiritual worth of the individual human person, between reason and faith, between the pride of knowledge and the contrition of heart consequent upon being a mere creature, and once he realizes that Jesus Christ will find Himself less at home on the campuses of the great universities, in Europe and America, than almost anywhere else, he will be profoundly disturbed, and he will inquire what can be done to recapture the great universities for Jesus Christ, the universities which would not have come into being in the first place without Him.2
Malik’s “two tasks” are a challenge beyond the Evangelical confines of Wheaton College. The very fact that Pentecostalism has done so well “evangelistically,” does not excuse it from fulfilling the second task of winning the minds of men and women. This is at the heart the Pauline “spiritual warfare.”3 Malik further warns, “The problem is not only to win souls but to save minds. If you win the whole world and lose the mind of the world, you will soon discover you have not won the world. Indeed it may turn out that you have actually lost the world.”4
Mark Noll shocked the Evangelical world with the first words of his challenging monograph, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.”5 If what Noll writes from the bastion of Evangelism, Wheaton College, is in any sense true, then Pentecostalism should be classified as brain dead, D.O.A. And yet when one begins to read recent scholarly Pentecostal literature, one wonders if we might not be able to say that the a spark of life can finally be detected, the heart is faint, but resuscitation now seems possible.6 The only problem is that I fear that unless we are careful we will be producing a living being that is not unlike Shelly’s frightful tale of Frankenstein. The Pentecostal tendency to piece together bits and pieces of borrowed hermeneutic and theological propositions all warn of a monster on the table.
1 Russell P. Spittler, “The Theological Opportunity Lying Before the Pentecostal Movement,” in Vinson Synan, ed. Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins (Plainfield, New Jersey: Logos International, 1975), 242-43.
2 Charles Malik, The Two Tasks (Westchester, Illinois: Cornerstone Books, 1980), 25-26.
3 The argument in 2 Corinthians 10.3-6 is that a Christian is to “destroy arguments and every proud obstacle raise up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to obey Christ.” This has nothing to do with casting out territorial spirits or any such thing. It is a cognitive issue.
4 Malik, The Two Task, 32.
5 Mark A. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994), 3. Noll has especially singled out the Fundamentalist, Dispensationalist and Pentecostals. See the articles: Donald N. Bowdle, “Informed Pentecostalism: An Alternative Paradigm,” in The Spirit and the Mind: Essays in Informed Pentecostalism, eds. Terry L. Cross and Emerson B. Powery (Lanham: University Press of America, 2000), 9-19 and Cheryl Bridges Johns, “Partners in Scandal: Wesleyan and Pentecostal Scholarship,” 237-250 in the same volume as above for a lively response to Noll from a Pentecostal-Holiness tradition.
6 N.B. It is important to note that Noll was not referring to the lack of scholarly Biblical and Theological investigations by Evangelicals. However, when we turn to Pentecostalism, even this avenue of intellectual challenge was missing.
Only he who loves God with a supernatural love can look upon means simply as means.
Power (and money, power’s master key) is a means at its purest. For that very reason it is the supreme end for all those who have not understood.
Simone Weil, “Metaxu”
Brad Boydston offers a helpful list of links, including some of his own works in a post entitled: Church Planting Resources. This is an older post, but it is still helpful for those of us that are praying and making plans to start a new worshiping community.
Carl Trueman’s article, “The Day They Tried to Recruit Me,” discusses a topic that should be part of any teacher orientation, but even more so when it comes to academic instructors of religion. His statement that the “cult of professor worship is perhaps the most dangerous and reprehensible cult in the theological world,” is all too true. Trueman depicts this “cult” as having three components:
“First, there is the fact that the relationship is built on a mutual beneficial dynamic of basic vanity: the professor tell the student how clever they are, despite the limitations of their educational background so far, and the student reciprocates by allowing the professor, magus-like to introduce them to the wonderful, liberating world of real thought.”
“Second, the focus of these groups becomes the professor and then the little group of acolytes, not the gospel or, indeed, proper thinking, scholarship, or anything else for that matter.”
“Third, the long-term impact is that the views of the particular leader get transmitted to the spheres of influence in which the students themselves progress.”
Yesterday, I mentioned this problem to a colleague, before reading Trueman’s post. I have for many years seen this take place, outside of the Western academic world. I have seen some instructors of religion use it to develop a political power-base to promote themselves. I have seen other instructors, who, seeing this power-base develop, retaliate by developing their own group. Within an educational environment where an apprenticeship model is strong and the Master/Disciple imagery is the ideal teacher image, the potential is profound.
Trueman gives an example of how to resist this temptation, but in a non-western context the temptations are not as clear-cut. On a personal level, Ardel Caneday (See: Carl Trueman on the Cult of Professor Worship) shared his motto on this topic:
“Criticism, no matter how bitter, must never wither me; accolades, no matter how lofty, must never flatter me.”
In cultures where interpersonal relationships are valued more than abstract truth claims, the temptation is even greater. I must say that Trueman and Caneday’s post has called me to “repent” and challenged me to be more vigilant about resisting this stumbling block that is placed before teacher and learner alike.
HT: Ardel Caneday: Carl Trueman on the Cult of Professor Worship at his blog Biblia Theologica
The BibleWorks Blog, which contains the mother lode for user created BibleWorks files has served the BibleWorks enthusiasts well and James Darlack and Michael Hanel are to be commended for their service to all. Recently the www.dabar.org has added a BibleWorks Modules page that provides more public domain addons. The page includes the following:
Epictetus (English)
Sumerian Wisdom Literature
The Burden of Isis (Egyptian Hymns)
Dynastic Tablets of Babylon
Babylonian Chronicle
Dies Irae
Code of Hammurabi
Descent of Ishtar into the Underworld
Seven Evil Spirits
Lucian of Samaosata
Westcar Papyrus
Enuma Elish: “When on High”= WOH filename
Peter Abelard, Historia Calamitatusm: The Story of My Misfortunes
Lao-tzu, Tao-te Ching, Translated by James Legge
Protevangelium Jacobi
Tacitus, Histories
The Mainichi Daily News noted that “Japanese only take average of 8 days paid vacation a year.” Japan is a country driven by a high work ethic, at the same time this positive trait taxes the strength and creativity of many. The much reported “karoshi,” or “death from work exhaustion” points to the need for regular rest and recreation.
Brueggemann wrote about the Sabbath:
It looks backward to the rule of Yahweh and imagines that Yahweh on the seventh day was either spent and needed rest - thus vulnerable - or was serenely situated in creation and able to be at ease. Either way, the conduct of Yahweh on the seventh day is in sharp contrast to the world of pharaoh, in which there is no rest but only feverish productivity. . . . The command on Sabbath also looks forward; to a human community, an Israelite community peaceably engaged in neighbor-respecting life that is not madly engaged in production and consumption, but one that knows a limit to such activity and so has at the center of its life an enactment of peaceableness that bespeaks the settled rule of Yahweh.
To my colleagues, friends and family in Japan, I can only repeat the words of Brueggemann once again, “we find at the core of creation the invitation to rest.” As my wife and I prepare our hearts to return to Japan, I keep saying these words to myself.
I hope that the following material will help in the discussion concerning the dating of the Septuagint that was started by Ben Byerly in a post called, “The LXX doesn’t exist,” and Jim West’s response called “The Madness of Good King Ben.”
Utilizing Septuagintal manuscripts and citational evidence, Ulrich has argued that the Greek translation of the Torah was made by the late third century B.C.E.1 Nina Collins, on the other hand, focusing primarily on text critical and comparative analysis of the Letter of Aristeas, concludes that the Septuagint2 was translated in 281 B.C.E.3 Whether such a precise date based on the Letter of Aristeas is viable is an open question that has been debated for years.4 Recently, Frank Clancy reflects an extreme opposite opinion from that of Collins when he states:
. . . neither “The Letter” nor Demetrius should be dated to the third century or even the early second century, and neither should be used to support the claim of a third century date for the LXX. Other Jewish-Hellenistic writers who used the LXX have been placed in the late third and early second century B.C. The most significant writers, such as Eupolemus, Ezekiel the Tragedian, Aristobulus and Artapanus, have been used to support the claim of an early date for the LXX. However, in many cases, it is their use of the LXX which influences scholars to date their works so early. Without witnesses it may be possible to date the LXX no earlier than the mid second century, after the Hasmonaean rededication of the Jerusalem Temple in 164 B.C.5
Although the mainstay of scholarship would not be as pessimistic as Clancy, agreeing more with the dating of Ulrich and Collins, they generally find that the most viable aspect of the Letter of Aristeas may be the understanding that the LXX had its origin in Egypt and most probably in Alexandria.6
Vocabulary and linguistic evidence has been marshaled to support an Egyptian provenience for the translation of the Septuagint. John Lee has cautiously concluded his study of the vocabulary of the Septuagintal Pentateuch with the observation that, “our text is probably older than the middle of the second century B.C.”7 His work has supported the A. Deissmann understanding that the lexicography of the LXX should be categorized as reflecting a Koine that was used as a vernacular in Ptolemaic Egypt.8 T. V. Evans focused his study of the Greek Pentateuch on verbal syntax. He concludes that, “the features analysed in detail, as well as the general structural similarity of the Pentateuchal verbal system to that of the Attic system, are strongly suggestive of production early (probably very early) in the post-Classical period. They are thus consistent with the consensus view of a date of c. 280-250 BC.”9
The Judean Desert has provided us with a total of 9 Greek biblical manuscripts, 8 at Qumran and the important Minor Prophets scroll (8HevXIIgr) at Nahal Hever. They are as follows:
1. 4QLXXLeva [(4Q119) Rahlfs 801] - some date it no later than the 1st century BCE because of the scriptio continua writing style, although Skehan dated it to the 1st century CE.
2. 4QpapLXXLevb [(4Q120) Rahlfs 802] - 1st century BCE, n.b. with the unique Ιαω for the Tetragrammaton.
3. 4QLXXNum [(4Q121) Rahlfs 803] - 1st century BCE.
4. 4QLXXDeut [(4Q122) Rahlfs 819] - Possibly early to mid second century BCE.
5. 4QUnidentified Text gr - (4Q126) - 1st century BCE or so.
6. 4QpapParaExod gr - (4Q127) - 1st century BCE to 1st century CE.
7. 7QpapLXXExod (7Q1) - too small a fragmentary to date.
8. 7QpapEpJer gr [(7Q2) Rahlfs 804] - too small a fragmentary to date.
9. 7QpapBiblical Texts? gr (7Q3-5) & 7QpapUnclassified Text gr (7Q6-19) - ?
10. 8HevXII gr - dated 50 BCE to 50 CE.
Some of the Qumran manuscripts reflect an Old Greek textual tradition better than the later majuscules10 manuscripts, while others vary,11 while the Nahal Hever manuscript represents the kaige-Th group. The significance of these differences has been summarized by Tov:
. . . at least some of the Greek texts from Qumran probably reflect an earlier form of Greek Scripture, while 8HevXIIgr reflects a later Jewish revision deriving from proto-rabbinic Jewish circles. Both the Hebrew and Greek texts from Qumran thus reflect a community that practiced openness at the textual level, without being tied down to MT, while the other sites represent Jewish nationalistic circles that adhered to the proto-rabbinic (proto-Masoretic) text in Hebrew and the Jewish revisions of LXX towards that Hebrew text. The difference between the texts and sites derives from their different chronological background, but more so from their different socio-religious background.12
1 Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids and Leiden: William B. Eerdmans Publishing and Brill Academic Publishers, 1999), 207-208. This is a reprint of “Origen’s Old Testament Text: The Transmission History of the Septuagint to the Third Century C.E.,” in Origen of Alexandria: His World and His Legacy, edited by Charles Kannengiesser and William L. Petersen, Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 1, (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988). It has been in large part reproduced in “The Old Testament Text of Eusebius: The Heritage of Origen.”
2 Septuagint technically refers only to the Torah/Pentateuch and actually to the “original” translation, while the “Old Greek” is the term that is used to identify each “original” translation of the books or parts of the books of Greek Bible. These were followed by transmissionaly developed “early Greek text/s.” Which were further developed as “early recensions” and the “hexaplaric recension (Origen’s fifth column, i.e., o,). The term “Septuagint” however has become generally attached to the whole Greek Bible canon.
3 Nina L. Collins, The Library in Alexandria and The Bible in Greek, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 82, (Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 2000), 7-57.
4 Henry Barclay Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), 10-23, 533-606; Natalio Fernandez Marcos, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible, trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson (Boston and Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2001), 35-47; Jennifer M. Dines, The Septuagint (London: T. & T. Clark, 2004), 27-38; Erich S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 206-222; Raija Sollamo, “The Letter of Aristeas and the Origin of the Septuagint,” in X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Oslo, 1998, ed. Bernard A. Taylor (Atlanta: Society for Biblical Literature, 2001), 329-42 argues that it was written to stress the importance of the Torah to the Alexandrian Jewish community and that it should not be interpreted literally.
5 Frank Clancy, “The Date of the LXX,” SJOT 16, no. 2 (2002), 207.
6 Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 210.
7 J. A. L. Lee, A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch, SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series 14 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1983), 148.
8 See the reprinted article, Adolf Deissmann, “Hellenistic Greek with Special Consideration of the Greek Bible,” in The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays, ed. Stanley E. Porter, JSNT Supplement Series 60 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 39-59.
9 T. V. Evans, Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 263.
10 See David C. Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 9 where Parker reserves the use of the more standard “uncial” for Latin manuscripts of the same.
11 See Emanuel Tov, “The Greek Biblical Texts From the Judean Desert,” in The Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text, Scot Mckendrick and Orlaith A. O’Sullivan, eds., (London: The British Library & Oak Knoll Press, 2003), 97-121; Eugene Ulrich, “The Septuagint Manuscripts from Qumran: A Reappraisal of Their Value,” in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and Its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings, G. J. Brooke and B. Lindar, eds, (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992), 49-80, reprinted in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible, 165-183.
12 Tov, “The Greek Biblical Texts From the Judean Desert,” 118.
Concerning Archibald Alexander (1772-1851), Rogers and McKim notes his mentor,
“Graham smiled and told him, ‘If you mean ever to be a theologian, you must come at it not by reading but by thinking.’ This piece of advice he remembered for the rest of his life.” [Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible, 267]
David Levy’s google lecture “No Time to Think” is thought provoking.
Basing his thoughts on Vannevar Bush and Josef Pieper, David Levy suggests that:
Thinking takes time.
Creative thought can’t be rushed; it is a slow-time activity.
But it can be nurtured: the mind can be trained to be quieter and more receptive (through concentrative and contemplative practices), and mind chatter can be reduced.
Therefore:
1) Become more aware of the nature and extent of the problem.
2) Design contemplative physical environments.
3) Design contemplative virtual environments.
4) Design contemplative information practices.
How does this relate to doing theology / biblical studies in both the parish and academy?
HT: Lifehacker.com: David Levy on Having No Time to Think.
