It irks me when people say that they’ve put end notes in a book to make it “more accessible” or “less intimidating.”  This end note apologetic is lame and nonsensical.  What exactly is intimidating about footnotes?  They’re words!  You’re reading words in the main text, right?  Why should more words in a footnote intimidate you or make the book less accessible?  And what does that mean anyway?  As if the presence of footnotes make a book harder to open or something like that.  Nonsense I say, nonsense!

B”H

In the comments to my post on my love for the KJV translation of Hebrews we got into discussing Greek texts, manuscript families and the like.  John Poirier and Tony Hunt expressed their preference for the Alexandrian text type as the most accurate of the bunch over and against the Byzantine or Western texts.  I mentioned how “I’ve read some stuff from Maurice Robinson [on Byzantine priority] and I know that the Byzantine text is the basis of the Orthodox Church’s Bible (although I’ve not read any Orthodox scholars in defense of it) but other than him I haven’t seen much of anything on the subject.”  Tony’s response was:

The Orthodox churches really have put themselves in an embarassing position in regards to their Greek texts, not least the LXX. They locate authority for the Greek over the Hebrew in Divine providence without so much as a shred of good argument to so demonstrate God’s intent.

Ever the instigator, I’d like to see if any of my Orthodox readers would like to challenge Tony’s assessment of the situation.  Have the Orthodox churches put themselves in an embarrassing position?  Is there a good argument to demonstrate God’s intent?  If you don’t feel like presenting an argument but you know of a book or article on the subject then feel free to recommend it, but I would enjoy seeing some arguments to the contrary, assuming (as I do) that such arguments exist.

B”H

IVP sent along a copy of John Sailhamer’s The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation.  I hadn’t requested it so it was a nice surprise.  I don’t know when I’ll have a chance to get into it because there’s plenty of book ahead of it, but I can say that I used Sailhamer’s commentary on Genesis in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary set with some profit so I can reasonably expect the same here.

B”H

Jacob Neusner:

Monotheism is not a matter of arithmetic—one God against many gods. It is a completely different way of explaining the world. Monotheism posits one God, wholly other than humanity, transcendent over nature, in charge of all things, responsible for all reality. And monotheism as set forth by Judaism (and its offspring Christianity and Islam) insists that the one, all powerful God is good, merciful, and just. While a religion of numerous gods finds many solutions to one problem, a religion of only one God presents one to many. Life is seldom fair. Rules rarely work. To explain the reason why, polytheisms adduce multiple causes of chaos, a god per anomaly. Diverse gods do various things, so, it stands to reason, ordinarily outcomes conflict. Monotheism by nature explains many things in a single way. One God rules. Life is meant to be fair, and just rules are supposed to describe what is ordinary, all in the name of that one and only God. So in monotheism a simple logic governs to limit ways of making sense of things. But that logic contains its own dialectics. If one true God has done everything, then, since this God is allpowerful and omniscient, all things are credited to, and blamed on, him. In that case, God can be either good or bad, just or unjust—but not both. (Italics mine)

“Monotheism” in The Encyclopedia of Judaism, 3.1740.

B”H

Posted in Quotes, Theology ]]> http://rdtwot.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/neusner-on-monotheism-polytheism/feed/ 0 Nick Norelli http://rdtwot.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/40-and-60-off-sale-at-gorgias-press/ http://rdtwot.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/40-and-60-off-sale-at-gorgias-press/#comments Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:59:53 +0000 Nick Norelli http://rdtwot.wordpress.com/?p=10310 ]]>

I came home to an email from Gorgias Press reminding me of the great sale that they’re having.  It’s definitely worth reproducing for those who don’t know about it:

Just a reminder of our most exciting sale of the year. Now you can get books between 40% and 60% off. Below you will find more information about the sale.

We just received from the printer Sokoloff’s A Syriac Lexicon. Make sure to order your copy now.

Scholars and students have ben waiting for this dictionary for some time now. Treat youself to the holidays and get a copy.

.
How to Get the 40% – 60% Discount?

The 40% discount is available on books ordered online at www.gorgiaspress.com. Simply add books to your cart, and you will get the 40% discount.

The 60% discount is on selected overstocked items. A list of these overstocked items can be downloaded from our PDF catalogue (click here to download). See pp. iv-ix for a listing of these discounted books. Quantity is limited. In some cases we only have 1 overstocked item, and in others a few. These items are available only through email to helpdesk@gorgiaspress.com. Make sure to put in the subject line “60% Off Order”; otherwise, the order goes through the normal channels and you only get 40%. You can authorize Helpdesk to charge your credit card on file if we have one. Otherwise, make sure to fax your payment information to +1 732-885-8908. Our Helpdesk will notify you if the books you ordered are no longer available as quantity is extremely limited.

B”H

It Matt Evans’ 24th birthday so head on over to his blog and wish him a happy one, and if you’re so inclined buy the boy a book.

B”H

I’m pretty sure that Libronix 3.0f had a text comparison feature but I never figured out how to use it.  That’s why I appreciate the ease with which I was able to use it in Logos 4.  Just go to tools and select “text comparison.”  It couldn’t be easier.  Tony Hunt left a comment that made me go and check out the difference between the NA27 and the 1881 Scrivener TR in the book of Hebrews.  It turns out to be a 15% difference.  But what I really like is that the differences are all highlighted in blue letters and where a red superscript ^o appears next to the word you can hover the cursor over it and the reading in your selected base version will  pop up.  It’s very useful.

B”H

The University of Pretoria Electronic Theses and Dissertations database where you can find a number of theses in Biblical and Religious studies, NT studies, and OT studies.

Of interest to me was Seong-Su Park’s PhD thesis “Christology as Motivation for Ethical Exhortation in 1 Peter and Philippians” (unfortunately it’s divided into multiple PDF files, but such is life) and Sergio Rosell Nebreda’s PhD thesis “‘Have This Mind’: A Socio-Scientific Reading of Philippians 2:5-11” (multiple files).

Of interest to students of the book of Hebrews (such as Brian Small) will be Daewon Kim’s PhD thesis “Perseverance in Hebrews” (multiple files) and Lance Craig Laughton’s MA thesis “The Hermeneutic of the Author of Hebrews as Manifest in the Introductory Formulae and Its Implications for Modern Hermeneutics.”

I also commend to your attention Bogdan Bucur’s homepage on which he features many of the articles, book chapters, and book reviews he’s written.  I’ve had a number of these articles in my possession for some time but it was nice to find them all collated in one place and also to be able to download a few new things.  If you’re interested in things like angelomorphic pneumatology, christology, and patristics then you’re sure to find something of interest.

Enjoy!

B”H

Remember sports fans, UFC 105: Couture vs. Vera is going to be on Spike TV tonight at 8 PM.

The main event is Randy “The Natural” Couture vs. Brandon “The Truth” Vera.  It could go either way.  Two years ago I would have picked Couture hands down, but he lost his last two and that might be an indication of his age (he’s 46!)  Vera on the other hand has won his last two fights but they weren’t anywhere near the level of competition that he has in Couture.  I know everyone thinks that if Couture can take it to the ground he’ll win and if Vera can keep it standing he’ll win, but it’s never that simple.  This is anyone’s fight but I’m going to give the slight edge to the older and more experienced Couture.  I like both fighters though so I’ll be happy with a good fight no matter who wins.

I’m most interested in the undercard bout between Dan Hardy and Mike Swick.  Swick had fast hands and good submissions.  Hardy hits hard but got beat up for 12 out of 15 minutes in his last fight against Marcus Davis (a fight he won even though he shouldn’t have).  I don’t like Dan Hardy very much because I think he’s arrogant and arrogance annoys me.  I do like Mike Swick though because he’s not arrogant, but also because I’ve been following his career since he was on season 1 of The Ultimate Fighter and he impressed me back then.  The problem is that Swick is just coming off of a concussion and we don’t know what kind of shape he’ll be in.  I think this one will go the distance, and unfortunately I think Hardy is going to take it.

The other undercard to look for is Michael Bisping vs. Dennis Kang.  Bisping almost got his head knocked off in his last fight against Dan Henderson and I can’t seem to recall much of anything about Kang.  I don’t care much about this fight but I have a sneaking suspicion that Bisping will win a decision.

I’ll check back after the fights and see how I did.

B”H

What do you make of folks who take the “now” in the opening to Hebrews 11 “Now faith is…” to speak of a “now faith,” i.e., a present faith.  Are they reading too much into the “now” or are they on the money?

B”H

I’m pretty flexible when it comes to Bible translations.  I’m happy to use whatever is handy which on my desk means either the TNIV, the NET, or some critical editions of the Old and New Testaments in Hebrew and Greek.  If I’m closer to the bed then I have a NKJV and an NLTse nearby.  So when I started to read Hebrews in the NLTse the other day I couldn’t really get into it.  I generally love the NLTse as a translation but for Hebrews it just wouldn’t do.  So I grab the NKJV and sadly that wasn’t doing it for me either.  TNIV?  Nope; missed with that one as well.  So I cracked open a KJV and there it was in all its splendor: Hebrews as it should be in English.  Don’t ask me to explain it, but those guys ruined me for all other translations of this book.  Just bask in the glorious English of the KJV Hebrews 1:

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? (Heb. 1:1-14)

B”H

Am I alone in noticing that most favors are inconvenient?  Think about it, when someone asks you to do them a favor you’re almost always asked to do something that’s going to make you have to go out of your way, put something else on hold, etc.  There are the rare occasions when the favor coincides with something you’re already doing but that’s not generally the case, is it?  I only mention this because when people complain about doing favors for folks because it’s inconvenient for them to do so, I always think to myself, yeah, but that’s what favors are!  Another thought on favors: If you complain about doing them, then are they actually favors?  Aren’t favors supposed to be acts of [inconvenient] kindness?  Wouldn’t a favor done begrudgingly just turn into a chore or something of the like?

B”H

Rob Bowman, Jr. is looking for a non-Trinitarian who’d be willing to engage in a written debate with him on the Parchment & Pen blog.  Go here for details.  I for one would be very interested in reading such a debate.  It would be nice if perhaps Servetus the Evangelical would be willing to participate given that he’s getting ready to reveal his identity and he’s just written a book arguing against the doctrine of the Trinity.

B”H

There are a number of important volumes on Christology that I feel that I need to read but cannot because they are much too expensive for me to purchase and too old for me to obtain review copies of.  Those books are:

• H. Douglas Buckwalter, The Character and Purpose of Luke’s Christology, (SNTSMS 89; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
• David B. Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology (WUNT II/47; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992).
• Peter R. Carrell, Jesus and the Angels: Angelology and the Christology of the Apocalypse of John (SNTSMS 95; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
• Timo Eskola, Messiah and the Throne: Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation Discourse (WUNT II/142; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001).
• Mehrdad Fatehi, The Spirit’s Relation to the Risen Lord in Paul: An Examination of Its Christological Implications (WUNT II/128; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000).
• Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis, Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology, and Soteriology (WUNT II/94; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997).
• Charles A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence (AGJU 42; Leiden: Brill, 1998).
• Peter M. Head, Christology and the Synoptic Problem: An Argument for Markan Priority (SNTSMS 94; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
• James F. McGrath, John’s Apologetic Christology: Legitimation and Development in Johannine Christology (SNTSMS 111; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).
• T. E. Pollard. Johannine Christology and the Early Church (SNTSMS 13: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970).
• Loren T. Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and the Christology of the Apocalypse of John (WUNT II/70; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,1995).

If ever you come across any of these for a good price then let me know.  If you happen to own any of these and are willing to trade for something else then let me know.  And if you’re extremely wealthy and just want to buy any of these for me then please, feel free. ;-)

B”H

I have a general question for all researchers, but I’m especially interested in hearing from students working on Masters or Doctoral theses.  My question is how often do you read entire books that are related to the area you’re working in?  I know it’s quite common to simply skim a work for the relevant bits but I have to imagine that some folks are a bit more circumspect and don’t want to miss any part of the argument.

B”H