Sione Havea is a well-established Tongan biblical scholar, now at Charles Sturt University. His paper "Displacing Bible, Drifting Homes, Restless Tellings" was a lively repeat of the usual post-colonial warnings about the ways in which the (Western) missionary enterprise of the 19th and 20th centuries left the Bible as a problematic book. It was engagingly delivered, and even the jibes at "Western Men" did not seem to hurt the Western males in the audience ;-)
The words were enlivened by "works by artists from Oceania who expose the partnership of the Christian mission with Western colonization"). I somehow missed the argument of the second part, where he spoke about "how and why the Western bible [failed to] function as 'home' for the natives (for whom 'stories give home'). The third part, spoke of "the power of telling" this was a passionate plea, but sadly the example based on the "witch of Endor" (which was promised in the abstract) did not feature in the paper as presented.
Nasili Vaka'uta, a doctoral candidate at the University of Auckland (declaration of interest: I have co-supervised his thesis for the last few years) belongs to the next generation of Pacific scholarship. Nasili spoke on "Myth of (Im)Purity and Peoples of the (Is)Lands: A Tongan Reading of Ezra 9-10" To me Nasili's great achievement is to have prodcued a reading of his text which uses Tomgan vocabulary and culture as the categories that shape the reading. His "Tongan reading" is not merely a Western reading in Tongan clothes therefore, but more genuinely Tongan. I remember encouraging my Congolese students in the 80s to begin, trying to achieve this task, of discovering the thought patterns and processes that would lead to African readings that were African in their intellectual framework as well as their appearance! Back then we made little progress, but I think Nasili's paper represents a strong beginning to such a process for Tongan Tu'a readers. Here is his abstract:
Ezra 9-10 is narrated with a gaze. It gazes at the “peoples of the lands” not merely to identify, but also to belittle and discriminate against. In this paper, I offer a Tongan reading of Ezra 9-10 with attention to objects of deriding gazes, and the myth/ideology behind the gaze vis-à-vis the colonial construction of the Oceanic island 'natives.' This reading is situated in the social location of Tongan commoners (tu'a), and theorized with the Tongan notion of fonua (land, place, sea, and people). Methodologically, it weaves together insights from various methods and categories from Tongan culture. This interpretive framework provides the lenses for enga[g/z]ing (gaze back at) the text.
Labels: biblical.studies, pacific, sbl
¶ 5:53 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
There's glory for you!'There's what I think is a fine example of Humpty Dumpty theology quoted on Mary's blog - I can't comment there as to stop the dreaded spammers she has comments set so that only people with a login to her blog can comment :(`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs, they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
See Lewis Carrol, Through the Looking Glass, "Humpty Dumpty" here
It comes from a wonderful small book called The Practice of Communicative Theology, by Matthias Scharer and Bernd Jochen Hilberath. On page 38 of that book they write:Whatever the Latin ad gradere meant - and although no Latin scholar I suspect that (or perhaps even more relevant what the range of meaning of agressus was the English "aggression" simply does not mean what these authors want to make it mean - no dictionary I have consulted permits it, and even the recent usage in phrases like "an aggressive advertising campaign" permit it either. Aggression means attack, whatever the Humpty Dumpty theologians wish. The etymological fallacy is still a fallacy, even as we near the half-centenary beyond the publication of Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. London: OUP, 1961.The word “aggression,” from the Latin ad gradere
(”moving toward”) has a positive as well as a negative meaning. It includes no only the life-destroying forces of exclusion but also that force which can find expression in a living, loving relationship. All-encompassing peace and harmony among all creatures without doing away with their differences are ideals corresponding to the transformation of life that God promises for God’s future…
Labels: biblical.studies, semantics, theology
¶ 7:38 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
Dude! Do we really need to skip over Faith, Truth and Freedom to find a word theologists have twisted beyond all comprehension?
By 
Scott Ferguson, at
July 3, 2008 7:55 AM
Hi, Scott, it sounds as if you have been hurt by some theologians, but I don't agree if you are saying that as a matter of course theologians misuse any or all of the words you mention - though evidently some do.
Why should anyone expect theologians to be better than anyone else?
People (of whom theologians are merely a sub-set ;) regularly stuff up. We often do the wrong thing for the right reasons, and sometimes the wrong things for the wrong reasons, just occasionally we do the right thing - that's life.
In theology as elsewhere one job of scholars is to try to improve the balance, which is what my post seeks to do, in pointing out this example of (what I take to be) wishful thinking.
By Tim, at
July 3, 2008 8:10 AM
The Hebrew word for foot is רגל (regel). Like "hand," most of the time regel means exactly what you think it should mean, the things at the lower end of your legs that you put in shoes and stand on. For the record, at least in Rabbinic Hebrew, regel sometimes also means "leg."And begins his case with Ezekiel 16:25. Now, evidently this verse is concerned with sex, so obviously "feet" here do not mean what is at the bottom of ones legs, but rather what is between them ;-0
Or does it... If instead of assuming a euphemistic use of רגל why not just assume that רגל means "leg" here, as it does in 1 Sam 17:6 and as Rashi, and various later translators and commentators have thought it does here?
Having failed to convince me that his first example requires a euphemistic reading Duane passes on to Judges 3:24. I discussed this at some length in my first post, now I would just add that (as Rashi again noted) "Targum Jonathan renders עָבִיד צוֹרְכֵיה (doing his needs), i. e., moving his bowels" this does not require an equation of feet with anything other than "feet", but does seem to me to suggest possibly anachronistic forms of clothing. Actually, the more I look at this passage the more puzzled I become. Everyone seems agreed that the mention of "covering his feet" is a reference either to urination or to defecation. Yet the location in which Eglon is "covering his feet" is the (same?) "upper room" in which in v.20 he received Ehud - was the Moabite king in the habit of inviting guests into his toilet?
Duane's example from 2 Kings 18:27 is thoroughly convincing. Here the Hebrew text of the Bible reads that the besieged Judeans will be doomed:
לֶאֱכֹ֣ל אֶת חֲרֵיהֶם וְלִשְׁתּ֛וֹת אֶת־שֵׁינֵיהֶם
The Masoretic scribes found this a little too explicit, so for both terms they suggested alternative "readings":
"to eat their own dirt, and drink the water of their feet"
The trouble with this for my purposes is that all it demonstrates is that by the time of the Masoretes "feet" had possibly come to have a euphemistic meaning of the sort proposed. There is according to Duane no clear cut example in Ugaritic (which anyway uses a word that is not a cognate of רגל. And: "I was unable to find and did not look too diligently for examples in Akkadian or Egyptian."
It still seems to me that the case for a common euphemism רגל = sexual organs is simply unproven. Biblical scholars should stop appealing to this supposed euphemistic use until there is better evidence to support it for biblical Hebrew. (That it existed later I do not dispute. The example above is (almost) enough to convince me ;-)
Labels: 1 Kings, bible, biblical.studies, ezekiel, isaiah, judges
¶ 7:26 PM
[to Del.icio.us]
Tim
Thanks for the engaging discussion. If I were to write those posts again, I would no doubt see them differently in some details, but I do remain convened that feet/legs sometimes means something other than feet/legs. You have convinced me that my Ezekiel 16:25 example is weaker than I had thought at the time. And I'm a little more confused about what "covering his feet" means than I once was. As you might guess, I object to the use of the word "unproven." Rather, I take it that you think it unlikely that רגל was regularly used as a euphemism in Biblical Hebrew. I no doubt think that it is more likely that it was than you do. These days, I would much rather speak in terms of probability and synthesis of evidence and let the logicians and the mathematicians have their "proofs." I sometimes wonder if there is purposeful ambiguity in some of these passages. The Ruth example comes to mind. Anyway, one thing that you and Sean-the-Baptist will likely find, as I have, is that these post will become among the most often linked to from Google searches.
By Duane Smith, at
June 12, 2008 5:45 AM
If one understands it in the sense of mathematical "proofs" then the word was very badly chosen, sorry! I had in mind the image of a law court, which is where I come across the form "unproven" (I think). All I meant was that if instead of doing as generations of biblical scholars have done, and assuming there is a common euphemism feet = sex organs, but rather regards this as a novel reading whose probability has to be demonstrated then the case is (I think) still "unproven", that is there is not enough evidence to convict ;-)
Though if there was such a usage, then in the Ruth example it would certainly add to the general air of innuendo in that chapter!
By Tim, at
June 12, 2008 6:29 AM
The Hebrew has gone out of proper word order (at least on my computer screen).
By N T Wrong, at
June 13, 2008 9:14 AM
Hi, Milord Wrong, at a guess you are using Internet Explorer, at least to reproduce the problem I had to fire IE up as in Firefox everything was fine. At a guess FF is more tollerant and IE stricter or something about Unicode RTL. In any case I have - I hope - got it all orderly in both browsers.
Thanks for pointing it out. I also fixed the quote that had the line breaks as a bonus extra!
Now all it needs is someone using a Mac to still find problems to really make my day ;-) and I thought that Unicode would solve all this "problems with Hebrew on the web" stuff.
It does... BUT only when all the programs play nicely by the (same) rules.
By Tim, at
June 13, 2008 9:48 AM
It all looks good now (and I am using IE). Thanks.
I've just given up on the Aramaic (square script) font, and stick to transliteration. I'm sick of finding that words have changed places when I open up a Word doc that had been saved before. And if I save a Word doc as a pdf, often the Aramaic font flips around again. You don't get those problems with transliteration.
On a more substantial note, my interest was piqued by this topic - not only for the obvious and banal reasons - because I once tried to pursue the idea that one the sources in the David & Goliath story involved Goliath being struck in the goolies - a comic below-the-belt hit that fits well with David's general character in Samuel. I might revisit it.
By N T Wrong, at
June 14, 2008 10:47 AM
Let me be clear on what I am claiming; it is very modest indeed. The strongest thing I want to say is that the "hand" has been used as a euphemism or, perhaps better, metaphor for penis or phallus from time to time in human history. While I think that it was a widespread usage in the Northwest Semitic world, I have not proven that.I think this is a careful and accurate conclusion, each of the examples is a strong one, where almost any reader will suspect that the word is being used euphemistically. But they are too few to demonstrate a regular usage.
The follow-up post A Euphemism for Pudenda deals with the evidence for "feet" as a euphemism. I will return to that post when I next have time for blogging.
Labels: bible, biblical.studies, isaiah
¶ 9:08 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
Hi, I saw this on Goodacre's blogroll and thought I'd drop by.
There is a chapter about euphemisms in "Ancient Israel: The Old Testament In Its Social Context", Philip Esler being the editor. I read it many months ago so I can't provide any useful details; I only remember it taking on a couple of ANE laws about crushing testicles.
By J. Archer, at
June 11, 2008 12:49 PM
Thanks, our library doesn't have the book - on order I hope, but perhaps I missed it - so I'll get it on ILL. It is not (as I think I suggest at least in my reply a minute ago to Duane's comment above) that I am quite convinced that there was not such a euphemistic usage, rather that no one has taken the trouble to convince me there was, so I'd rather assume there was not till the case is made!
By Tim, at
June 12, 2008 6:42 AM
On Deut. 11.10: the point is exactly that the Promised Land will be naturally fertile and thus will not require irrigation by other means (of course the language is symbolic, irrigation is as necessary there as in Egypt in reality). Tim asks 'in Egypt is most irrigation done by peeing?' - well no, but neither is there literal milk and honey flowing in Israel-Palestine, and perhaps good deal more irrigation took place by this means than by carrying water on your foot (images of hopping with a bucket attached anyone?)But why interpret the language as "symbolic" whatever that means here, I had assumed that even read as a euphemism the use was intended literally.
Irrigating with the feet would then refer to the habit of opening and closing irrigation ditches using the feet. While I cannot really see how the euphemistic reading works, in the promised land water falls from the sky, while in Egypt humans had to pee to water the ground - presumably entailing frequent trips to the irrigation ditch to drink...
On Ruth we basically agree - except whether Boaz' "feet" are literal or euphemistic (I still wonder at the plural euphemism here?).
On Is 6:2 Sean brings up the topic of ANE iconography, as Jim Getz said in a comment on a post: Another "Feet" Euphemism in the Hebrew Bible? on this topic on Shibboleth I think I was convinced by Keel's identification of the Seraphim here with Egyptian uraus snakes, my copy of Keel is at college, so i can't check, but I do not remember these snakes as having prominent phalluses which might need covering to preserve Hebrew modesty! On Is 7:20 I am quite willing to agree thsat ritual humiliation is in view, and that a euphemistic reading is possible. But when the "head to foot" shaving seems to cover that pretty comprehensively I do not see the need to invent a new "euphemistic" reading. (And that is really my point, I believe that those who repeat conventional wisdom and claim a common euphemism in Biblical Hebrew "feet" = "phallus" need to provide some evidence to support this view. And where simply reading "feet" as "those two things we walk on that stop our legs fraying at the ends" works fine then they have NOT provided such evidence EVEN IF "phallus" works just as well.
Result, I am still unconvinced that this particular item of "popular wisdom" has a leg to stand upon! Sometimes in the Bible, when you read "feet" they do simply mean "feet", now on the basis of Ugaritic evidence one might I think (someone could ask Duane about the abnormally interesting uses of "finger" in those texts, and perhaps also look at Hebrew Bible texts like 1 Kings 12:10).
Labels: 1 Kings, 2sam, bible, biblical.studies, isaiah, ruth
¶ 6:08 PM
[to Del.icio.us]
That is that the word for feet רַגְלָיו sometimes refers to what we might politely call 'other parts of the (male) anatomy'.I have never really been convinced by the claim. Sean cites the following passages as the best evidence for this supposed usage (the order is mine, as are the comments in straight type):
Exodus 4.25 But Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched Moses’ feet with it, and said, “Truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me!”
Now why on earth would one suppose that "feet" here is a euphemism - after all no euphemism was used for "foreskin" עָרְלַת seems explicit enough.
Deuteronomy 11.10 For the land that you are about to enter to occupy is not like the land of Egypt, from which you have come, where you sow your seed and irrigate by foot like a vegetable garden.
In Egypt is most irrigation done by peeing? No wonder they brewed so much beer! Or maybe the small earth dams on irrigation ditches are quite easily broken by foot?
If this one is a euphemism, does it not remove all the tension from the chapter where the most significant "gap" the hearer must fill is: "Did they or didn't they?" there is plenty of other innuendo in the chapter to build up the tension, without this (possible, maybe) one.
Isaiah 6.2: Seraphs were in attendance above him; each had six wings: with two they covered their faces, and with two they covered their feet, and with two they flew.
Really? Now why should face and feet not simply mean face and feet? Please explain!
Isaiah 7.20: On that day the Lord will shave with a razor hired beyond the River—with the king of Assyria—the head and the hair of the feet, and it will take off the beard as well.
Hairy feet or hairy [euphemism]? Which is more plausible? Though I suppose if the euphemism is for the whole genital area, this one might make sense.
Judges 3.24: After he had gone, the servants came. When they saw that the doors of the roof chamber were locked, they thought, “He must be relieving himself (literally 'covering his feet') in the cool chamber.” cf. 1 Sam. 24.3
At first sight, this one is good! In this sample I am almost convinced, there is a good case to answer, though why "covering his feet" should be a euphemism for peeing, and not merely another example of the rather gross schoolboy humour of the passage I am unclear.
2 Samuel 11.8 Then David said to Uriah, “Go down to your house, and wash your feet.” Uriah went out of the king’s house, and there followed him a present from the king.
Could be a euphemism, but then it could be that the sentence is euphemistic even if the "feet" are literal. "Wash your feet" = "make yourself at home"...
So, in the end, what evidence is there for this conventionally supposed common euphemism? Two cases where you might argue with some strength that reading euphemistically is the "best" reading, a couple more where it might just be possible but overall I'd say: No case to answer. In the Bible feet are just that. And Eglon as well as excessively fat, and greedy, also was known to his servants as having a poor aim. As the sign in our downstairs loo read for a while (we had teenage boys in the house) "We aim to please. You aim too, please!"
Labels: 2sam, bible, biblical.studies, deuteronomy, exodus, isaiah, judges
¶ 10:35 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
So how about a session at CARG devoted to recommending citations styles for e-texts, which could then go to the proper quarters to be included in the next edition (ten years is a very long time in scholarship in the 21st century ;-) of the SBL Handbook of Style.
Labels: biblical.studies, biblical.studies.online, bibliography, digital
¶ 9:25 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
- Genesis 22 (Powerpoint)
- Genesis 1 (as a pyramid):
Labels: biblical.studies, gen 1, gen 22, teaching, video
¶ 6:59 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
The first is Duane's abnormally interesting, and credulous(?), Isaiah 38:9-20: An Abnormal View in which he provides a strong sketch of arguments that might be made to claim that Hezekiah actually wrote part of the Bible in his own hand. (At the moment I hope he does expand the post to a paper, it would be fun to hear the discussion! And perhaps I will as I continue to follow the blogs over the next few days/weeks :)
The second I am also noting for my Genesis class reading list (for next semester) where John (Hobbins) asks: Does Genesis 1 describe the creation of things or the assignment of functions to things? A Response to John Walton frankly he takes John (Walton)'s special pleading more seriously than I would, but he provides a really good clear discussion that I want my students to follow.
Two fine examples of why (biblio/biblia)blogging is both fun, and useful!
Labels: biblical.studies, genesis, is.38, isaiah, open.biblical.studies
¶ 2:00 PM
[to Del.icio.us]
Tim,
Thanks for your interest in my post on Isaiah 38:9-20. I continue to think about developing this into a paper. The main problem is one of methodology. Whatever is going on here, it is likely too underdetermined to say much of anything with certainty. As to "credulous:" I tried to be as equivocal as possible and still be more or less coherent. I doubt very much that Hezekiah wrote any or much of this. Some part of it may, I say "may," go back to him. Despite a complex history of editing, even in Isaiah, every text began with something. My underlying purpose in doing this post is to (continue to) lay some groundwork for something quite different. What that is will unfold over time.
By Duane Smith, at
May 5, 2008 3:48 AM
The word was probably badly chosen, what I meant to mean was that I find the argument intriguing, fairly convincing, but only because it is an idea I like. If I am properly critical there are too many "probables" in it that maybe multiply together into an "unlikely".
But I still think discussing it is abnormally interesting and could be fun. (And useful too, if only in that it might help clarify some of the issues, such as the distribution and nature of literacy in the Iron Age Levant.
By Tim, at
May 5, 2008 6:11 AM
Dr. Walton is "the man" - just had to say it.
By Tim, at
May 7, 2008 1:50 AM
I haven't met him, though he writes and speaks (judging by the Wheaton 'cast http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/research/symposia/conferences03/ ) clearly and simply yet with interesting and useful ideas - a great combination when one finds it in my book :)
By Tim, at
May 7, 2008 6:27 AM
Look NOW ;)
Tyler is doing the next one himself, so send your nominations to him over the next three weeks...
Labels: biblical.studies
¶ 6:24 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
acerbic? moi? heaven forfend!
By Jim, at
May 3, 2008 9:43 AM
Jim, the words are yours. Indeed may "heaven forfend!"
By Tim, at
May 3, 2008 10:38 AM
PS: ;-)
By Tim, at
May 3, 2008 10:38 AM
Remediation, aura and technologies of (biblical) authority
The notion that the Bible has authority has been very significant in statements of faith and constitutions of many churches and Christian movements. Yet understandings of what textual authority might mean are inevitably different when the text is expressed in different media. Concepts of textual authority that have dominated understanding of such church documents have been drawn almost exclusively from print-dominated cultures. Yet, in addition to a historical progression from oral to written, from scroll to codex (at least in Christian circles), and from manuscript to print, the biblical text has always been variously mediated. Oral and written mediations of the text existed alongside each other since the precanonical phase. The biblical manuscript tradition remediated (Bolter's term) the text in many ways, adding spaces between the words, adding commentary around the text, illumination and other "decorations".
Contemporary remediation of the Bible is even more varied and extensive. In print medium a plethora of consumer Bibles each mediates the text in distinct ways, as each also imitates earlier mediations of the authoritative text. From early renderings of the Bible in audio tape and video film, more recently digital delivery and production of such non-written media has enabled an explosion of non-written biblical "texts".
This paper examines the "technologies of authority" (the term used in different fields by Akkermans and Schwartz, Katznelson and Zolberg, Salmón Muñiz, and Tatlock) that different mediations of the biblical text utilise. It will also explore how the concept of "aura" (Benjamin) throws light of discussion of biblical authority in an electronically dominated media culture. It then attempts to generate a framework for understanding how notions of the (biblical) text as authority interact with changes of medium.
Akkermans, Peter M. M. G., and Glenn M. Schwartz. The Archaeology of Syria: From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban. Cambridge UniversityPress, 2003.
Bolter, Jay David, and Richard Grusin. Remediation: Understanding New Media. The MIT Press, 2000.
Katznelson, Ira, and Aristide R. Zolberg. Working-Class Formation: Nineteenth-Century Patterns in Western Europe And. Princeton UniversityPress, 1986.
Salmón Muñiz, Fernando. “Technologies of Authority in the Medical Classroom in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries.” Http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/text. http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=1312778.
Tatlock, Lynne . “Authority, Prestige, and Value: Professionalization in the Musicians' Novels of Wolfgang Caspar Printz and Johann Kuhnau .” In The Construction of Textual Authority in German Literature of the Medieval and Early Modern Periods . Edited by James F. Poag and Claire Baldwin. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2001.
Labels: biblical.studies, media, writing
¶ 9:51 PM
[to Del.icio.us]
PS: in view of Jim's request below, and because I am one person who certainly does not know what it is all about - but I suspect most others in the biblioblogger circus don't either (except AKMA who knows everything, or at least everything that Dr Jim West does not ;) I'll explain, at least what I understand by the proposal, and therefore what I am offering to "sign up for".
Once upon a time a bunch of people who thought they "had a novel in them" got together (virtually) and assigned the month of November to write, to proclaim on their blogs how much they had written - or confess how little - and to support and encourage each other in writing. They called the scheme MiNoRoMo or some such name (NineOhTooWonOh?), then years later a bunch of academics, who know a good thing when they see it, and who must publish or die, made up their own version with a much more serious and grand name. Few if any biblical studies writers joined in. But many among the biblioblogger circus have writing projects, theses, articles, books... and perhaps we could leverage (trendy marketing term thrown in to make this all sound respectable) the community spirit of blogging to help us actually write and finish something... We're proposing now till the end of January.
The idea is you announce on your blog what you'll be writing, and then post updates on progress, and link to other people's updates and projects. As a result (a) you are encouraged or shamed into writing and (b) you get feedback that may improve what you are writing...
Labels: biblical.studies, writing
¶ 11:53 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
I didn't know what Chris was talking about when he posted the idea and I still don't know what it is he is after. What exactly does he have in mind?
By Jim, at
December 13, 2007 7:32 AM
Ah--- so, we're supposed to be writing something (anything in biblical studies) and tell folk that we are writing and thus all be together in a great and grand orgy of 'get it done thou foul slacker or thou shalt be mocked'?
That the gist? Cuz I think we are ALL working on something- whether it be a paper (for those lowly students amongst us) or an article or a book review or a book.
If I've got it aright then I'll be happy to join in the fun. But if I've missed the boat (as Michael Halcomb thinks I did in relation to gross rap and hip hop) then please instruct me more fully.
Or, as the Ethiopian eunuch said to Phillip- "how can I understand this mysterious thing unless someone explain it to me..."
By Jim, at
December 13, 2007 11:09 AM
Yea verily I think thou hast grasped the idea rightfully, unless I'm up the pole, except I suspect the goal is to focus more on encouragement than threats - though even in our society the threat of public shame can work wonders ;)
By Tim, at
December 13, 2007 11:43 AM
As I understand it, the point of NaNoWriMo entails getting around to writing a novel, in a month. Some of my friends actually did write novels (of a sort); more often, people's literary energy peters out after ten days or so.
This is an extremely awkward month for me, holidays and an excursion to Canada and all, but I would welcome the public obligation to make some headway on writing projects (of which, I hesitate to confess, I just accepted another today). So count me possibly in, and I'll try to keep you posted about how I'm doing.
By AKMA, at
December 13, 2007 4:37 PM
Good idea to include January. I could use the public accountability too, so I've joined in.
By 
Zephyr, at
January 11, 2008 5:19 AM
You can also make submissions via the submission form at BlogCarnival.com or you may email them to biblical_studies_carnival AT hotmail DOT com. I'm off to make mine now...
Labels: biblical.studies, blog
¶ 1:31 PM
[to Del.icio.us]
Retarded.... ;-)
By Jim, at
December 1, 2007 2:40 PM
Perhaps on mature reflection "behind the time" is a more accurate and less offensive way to express the chronologically challenged parts of the globe ;-)
By Tim, at
December 1, 2007 8:43 PM
(1997:123):
We honor both the discipline and our students by teaching them how to think likeWhich as Nichthus recognises raises, for teachers, the question: How do theologians think? I'm delighted that in seeking to answer this he returns to my favourite description of theology, Anselm's "Faith seeking understanding". In the light of this what theologians do is seek to understand (life, the universe and everything) as believers.
historians or biologists or literary critics rather than merely how to lip-sync the conclusions others have reached.
However, this is where it gets tricky, especially in the world of traditional academic theology. For as the discipline has grown and developed it has "evolved" several strikingly different specialities. In theology as academic discipline a "(systematic) theologian" seeks understanding differently from a "practical" theologian, and neither follow the same paths in their search for wisdom and understanding as a biblical "scholar"! Life is totally different in the real world. The neat corridors in the academy that one follows in the search for understanding are not like the winding paths and thickets of the forest of life in which we (whether "theologians" or "lay" - what a daft distinction, as if the untrained punter in the pew does not do theology!) are confronted by experience with requires our faith to "understand" it.
Please do not understand me wrong, I do not mean that the techniques and tools my discipline can offer to faith (all the methods and techniques that generation after generation of Bible readers in academy and church have struggled to develop, and now also adding some of the tools that secular readers of secular texts have added to the arsenal) are unnecessary. Students if they are to become competent readers of the Bible still need to recognise the genre of a passage, still need to listen to how others have read it... Discipline skills and knowledge are not unnecessary, they are vital. But, they are not the core of what a "theologian", qua theologian, does.
Labels: biblical.studies, teaching, theology
¶ 11:43 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
