The new resource I speak of is Bible Ref Shelf. John has already mentioned it, but this is potentially too great a resource to keep quite about. There is not a great deal of resources yet on the reference shelf, but I imagine that the number will grow as time goes on.

If you need me, I’ll be reading my new PDF of A.B. Davidson’s Job Commentary.

With the Fall semester just around the corner, it’s time for my beginning of semester run-down of classes. This semester is going to be a doozy – I have 5 resident classes and 1 SemLink (GCTS’s distance ed), not to mention doctoral apps and ministry at church (including the Hebrew class that I am now teaching).

Advanced Hebrew Grammar with Tom Petter
Calvin and I are really looking forward to this. It’s an independent study, but since we’re both taking it we’ll essentially be doing all the work together – which will include translating and syntactically tagging the entire book of Judges. I’m excited to see how this goes.

Intermediate Greek with Dave Mathewson
I’m kinda neutral towards this class – it’s required for my MABL and I really need it anyways to help further cement my Greek. But, as I’ve mentioned before on multiple occasions, Greek isn’t really my first love. However, I’ve heard that Dr. Mathewson has a different take on the Greek verbal system than we learned in Greek I & II so that should be at least mildly interesting to learn about.

Prophetical Books with Donna Petter
This is the first class I will have taken with the other Petter at GCTS, so I’m curious to see what her teaching style is like. You may remember that I took Poetical Books with Doug Stuart last semester and had fun typing my Lamentations exegesis paper, which has shown up in various parts over the summer on this blog. This time, I’m hoping to be able to do something in Jeremiah. I may also find out if I can sub in a research paper instead of the exegesis paper – since I’ve already done one at the 700 level.

Exegesis of James with Sean McDonough
I took Exegesis of John, my required Gospel exegesis course this past summer, and now I’m getting the epistle requirement out of the way this fall. I am, of course, neatly avoiding Paul. James is one of my favorite NT books, so I’m sure this class will present some fun tidbits for thought (even if it is more GREEK).

Middle Egyptian I with Alejandro Botta
We are taking advantage of the BTI again this year, and will be taking this class at Boston University. From what I understand, it’s a joint offering from the School of Theology and the Archaeology Department. We already have our textbooks for this one (just came in today!) and I’m pretty psyched. It’s going to be a lot of work, but worth it, I think.

Contemporary Theology and Theologians
This is the SemLink that I have had all summer to work on but have barely touched. Unfortunately, between two summer classes and visiting family for the past 3 weeks, I haven’t had a whole lot of spare time. That means this is essentially a sixth class I have to do this semester, which will make my life very hectic, to say the least. Nevertheless, I am and have been looking forward to some of the reading.

Daniel and Tonya have requested that I make some posts that have to do with Greek. I am currently in the midst of writing an exegesis paper on John 1.1-5. From a text critical perspective the pericope is fairly straightforward. However, there is a punctuation issue in John 1.3-4 that has been causing me some difficulties. John 1.3-4 read as follows:

παντα δι αὐτου ἐγενετο, και χωρις αὐτου εγενετο οὐδε ἑν ὁ γεγονεν ἐν αὐτῳ ζωη ἠν, και ἡ ζωη ἠν το φως των ανθρωπων

The question is whether or not ὁ γεγονεν should be taken as part of verse three, or as part of the phrase which begins verse four. Most modern translations place it with verse three, translating, “All things came into being through him, and apart from him not one thing came into being which has come into being. In him was life…” This rendering is somewhat tautological, but the Prologue has a tendency towards repetition. The alternative way of taking the verse is to associate ὁ γεγονεν with verse four, and translate “All things came into being through him, and apart from him not one thing came into being. That which has come into being in him was life…”

The second way of understanding the association of ὁ γεγονεν with its surroundings is supported by the oldest manuscripts (with punctuation) and by all the ante-Nicene fathers (orthodox and heretical). It is the reading adopted in the NA27. However, I can’t make heads or tails of what it means. I can translate it just fine, but trying to figure out what is being said when the remainder of verse four, and all of verse five, is taken into account is truly mind boggling. It seems to me that taking it as part of verse three, although it ruins many attempts at structuring the passage and goes against the oldest known understanding of the way to separate the text, lines up better with Johannine theology (particularly John 5.26). In addition, it seems to be the more natural way to read the text–but that could be my own relative inexperience with Greek showing through.

Having said this, I’m looking for opinions on the text. Should I take ὁ γεγονεν as part of verse three (with Barrett, Borchert, Schnackenburg, and most modern translations) or as part of verse four (with NA27, Brown, Bultmann, and Beasley-Murray)?

In the process of writing an exegesis paper on Lamentations 2:18-22 this past semester, I came across an intriguing book: Daughter Zion Talks Back the Prophets: A Dialogic Theology of the Book of Lamentations, by Carleen R. Mandolfo.

I did not have the chance to read the book thoroughly in the course of writing my paper, but what I did read interested me enough that after turning in my paper, I returned the library’s copy and ordered my own, which just arrived. I hope to be able to read completely and review the book sometime this summer.

I also hope to be able to devote a little more time to blogging in general, now that summer is here. I will be taking 3 classes throughout the course of the summer: Interpreting the New Testament, Gospel of John, and Contemporary Theology and Theologians. None of these are my area of study (darn degree requirements), but I expect I’ll find them at least mildly entertaining. Maybe I’ll at least get some blogging fodder out of them!

John Hobbins has some excellent, if lengthy, thoughts on loving one’s enemies. I would love to interact at length with John’s thoughts, which I find to be quite introspective on the one hand and pragmatic on the other. However, I have papers to type, exams to take, and all the other good stuff that goes with being a student at this time of year.

Yesterday I posted on N.T. Wright’s assertion in his book, The New Testament and the People of God, that Biblical studies and theology need one another as disciplines. Today, I want to interact with his reasons and give some thoughts. From the outset I’ll say that I’m disinclined to agree with Wright, as you can read about here.

Wright’s first two reasons had to do with understanding the worldview of the author(s) and understanding one’s own presuppositions, respectively. I agree wholeheartedly with Wright on the subject of being sure to understand where the authors/editors/redactors/what-have-you are coming from. Normally I don’t consider such a task “theology,” though under Wright’s somewhat broad definition it does seem to fit.

Wright appears to define theology, and specifically “Christian theology” as the worldview which Christians hold generally. I don’t have a problem with this per se. In fact, I’d rather like it if Christian theology could stop at the broad strokes that Wright paints. However, it doesn’t–which is why I don’t find Christian theology, and here we might say Christian systematic theology, all that helpful in ascertaining either my own presuppositions or the presuppositions of the authors of the text. To imagine that the authors of the New Testament held anything remotely as developed as our own present day Christian theology is, I think, entirely incorrect. I’m quite sure, based on other things that Wright has written, that he would more or less agree with me on this, though obviously I cannot speak for him.

As to Wright’s third reason–that theology needs Biblical studies, I wholeheartedly agree. However, since theology is completely separated from Biblical studies (how many MTS students do you know who are learning the same number of languages and spending the same amount of time in the text as the Biblical studies majors?) it is, at present, merely wishful thinking. Systematic theology cannot exist without proof-texting. All systematic theologians create a system which seeks equilibrium within itself and, for this reason, is forced to discard much of the Biblical narrative; albeit in a variety of creative ways.

Now, to be fair, I believe that my disagreement with Wright comes down to one of semantics. When he says “theology,” I believe he means the broad strokes of Christian theology (ie, that there is a creator God who is interested in his creation; that human sin/rebellion has somehow hindered that interest; but that this creator God has intervened in creation and provided some type of correction to the world). In some ways, it is as if Wright holds a view of the world that I wish were real, but that simply does not exist in reality. That is to say, “theology” means those broad strokes of Christian faith; in which case I agree with his arguments. However, in reality theology is a very highly developed and specialized field that spends more time studying philosophy than the Bible, and more time reading Barth than Qoheleth.

So, at the end of the day I agree with Wright if we limit ourselves quite severely in our definition of theology. If we do this, than I think that he is correct in saying that Biblical studies and theology need one another, because it would, in this case, help to reveal the presuppositions of the authors as well as the readers (assuming for the moment that those readers consider themselves part of the Christian community). However, if we accept a more broad, and I believe more realistic, definition of theology I believe that Wright’s arguments quickly fall apart and that we are left with theology being more philosophy than Biblical studies, and as such something that is quite helpful in determining current beliefs of certain sects as well as various leanings of theologians, but not so helpful in determining the presuppositions of the authors.

Would that reality might conform to my desires in this case.

I’ve been reading The New Testament and the People of God for my New Testament Interpretation class. I’ve found the reading to be engaging all around. Wright has a certain style of writing whereby he is able to engage the reader when lesser writers simply bore.

As I was reading today I came across a section where Wright discusses Christian Theology as a worldview. As part of this section, he makes the (in my opinion, rather bold) assertion that Biblical studies and theology need one another. Below, I summarize his arguments (which can be found on pp. 137-138 of the aforementioned title) and in a subsequent post I hope to interact with them to a greater or lesser extent.

Wright’s arguments for why theology and Biblical studies need each other:

1. Biblical studies needs theology because the original authors wrote with a theological worldview in mind. In order to understand this worldview, one must be engaged in the theological discussion.

2. Biblical studies needs theology because one needs to be aware of one’s own presuppositions, and this is only possible through a “theological analysis of contemporary culture.”

3. Theology needs Biblical studies since theology must needs interact with the stories of the Bible. This goes doubly for Christian theology which must include the stories of the Bible or risk falling into “ad hoc use of the Bible,” (ie, proof-texting, etc).

Yesterday and today, I read over Doug Mangum’s series of posts comparing the new ESV and NLT study Bibles. Of particular interest to me was the third and final part in the series, where Doug compared the study notes of the two Bibles. In the course of his post, Doug pointed out several notes where he felt that the ESVSB over-theologized based on the Hebrew grammar. I scanned the Book of Jonah, available for viewing online, myself, and felt he was fairly justified in his points of contention with several of these notes.

When Doug ended with the statement, “what I’ve seen so far leads me to think it will be a worthwhile addition to the study bible market,” it started me thinking about whether or not I would say the same thing. I am in agreement with Doug in that I would be interested to see how the rest of the study Bible turns out (and certainly before making any bold judgments on the overall quality of the ESVSB – which I wouldn’t do based on one excerpt). However, considering the notes of the ESVSB brought this thought to my mind: in general (not speaking now of the ESVSB specifically) can a study Bible that makes theological or hermeneutical claims based on the Hebrew grammar, and on closer inspection, it turns out these claims are flat out wrong (or at least highly tenuous), really be considered “worthwhile”?

My problem is this: those of us who know the Biblical languages (or in my case, Hebrew and Aramaic, Greek to be added in this coming school year) have a great responsibility toward those who do not. There is enough self-perpetuated ignorance among lay people as it is, without those who have training in Biblical languages to be spreading more of it around. To me, this is almost unforgivable. Consider the general audience of study Bibles: the average Bible-minded Christian who doesn’t know Hebrew or Greek, and really has no resources to look up something a study Bible says about the language to verify its accuracy.

When it comes to interpretations based on the English, at least the lay person has English resources, if they so chose to utilize them, to look up and see if the information being given has some credence. However, when a claim is made based on the original language, what further resource does the lay person have? They are left with basically two options: trust that the person writing the study notes knows what they are talking about and accept what they say, or try to find someone personally who knows the languages to verify it with them. Since there are, sadly, hardly a glut of people running around in local churches who have a handle on Hebrew and Greek, most are left with option one. There is the option of looking in commentaries by people who know the languages to see if they say something similar, but ultimately it’s the same idea: they can’t know for themselves.

Therefore, I repeat what I said earlier: those who know the languages have a great responsibility. We cannot afford to be careless in our statements based on Hebrew words or grammar. There are hundreds of thousands of people depending on the accuracy, diligence, and scholarship of study tools to get it right. I, of course, realize that we are all human and we all make mistakes, nor do any of us have unlimited knowledge, and some are further down the road of understanding the languages than others. Obviously, there will always be some enterprising person who will make something of nothing regardless of how careful one is. However, to the very best of our ability and knowledge, when we are dealing with educating lay people (which study Bibles, among other tools, ultimately purport to do), we must be very careful in how we use the biblical languages to add theological meaning to the text.

Of course, ultimately, this would all be solved if every Christian would learn the Biblical languages. I am in full agreement with my husband there.