Author Archives: Karyn

The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1 (Mark S. Smith’s new book)

I just received my copy of Mark S. Smith’s new Fortress Press book The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1 which Jim West announced in August. For the record, I bought it myself. Perhaps with my newly earned position of #28 in the Biblioblogs Top 50 for October (up 127 places from last month), I will be able to convince some publishers to send me review copies of books to discuss on my blog (feel free to contact me for a mailing address!).

Priestly Vision of Genesis 1

I am looking forward to reading this book. I only want to note right now that this is truly a Mark Smith book: the text itself ends on page 159 and the appendices, endnotes, and indices take up pages 161-315. Since the book has a 2010 copyright, I feel like I am reading the future!

More anon.

Much ado… or much to do?

Gary Manning, on his blog Eutychus, has gone through the effort to produce a very good line by line refutation of the argument found in the Alef-Tav video that I pointed out at the end of my post ( Etymology Studies Live ) the other day.

I am going to bump a comment into this post to hopefully get some discussion going.

Bob Macdonald commented on my original post:

I wondered if you would get any comments on this painful video. The poor fellow is looking for certainty and absolutes where there is a different kind of knowledge available but its absolutism is unspeakable. Still it may be that by the foolishness of such preaching, even the wrongly impressed will find themselves moving towards a refreshed image.

To which I replied:

Bob, I struggle with these kinds of videos (and whether or not I should draw attention to them) because I vacillate between wanting to point out the misuse of language and recognizing that he is (probably) not trying to be deceptive/manipulative. On the one hand, his air of authority is distressing because I know an entire congregation is hanging on his every word as truth (and it’s not). On the other hand, his methodology seems to be simply an overly creative type of midrash (perhaps on steroids) and as you point out, may lead to a refreshed image. I don’t agree with what he is doing, but I don’t want to mock it either. It actually saddens me. There are a lot of people like this who are part of the Church, and as such, are brethren. How to lovingly relate, correct, challenge, and encourage are the tasks I wrestle with.

I think it is important to point out things that are erroneous or untrue. But I also think we sometimes cross a line and forget that some of these people who err (in our opinion) are often brothers and sisters in Christ. Would I say the same things that I do in a post (or in jest to a friend) to the person in the video? Do I take too much delight in pointing out someone’s shortfall? I also care about the people listening to this kind of teaching and wonder about the misunderstandings being fed to them. But the last thing I want to come across as is a “know-it-all” (which I don’t) who is tearing down without building up.

What is the best way to handle these types of issues? We all know churches and individuals who are different than us. When do we step up and try to correct, when do we sit back and let things go, and how do we do all of this in a godly manner?

Etymology Studies live

Yesterday, I heard that young Éva thought we should cheer for the Phillies because her dad’s name is Phil.

That reminded me of some other crazy intersections of words.

We usually drive on the parkway, but park on the driveway. Although, one can drive on the driveway (from the street to the garage) and also park on the parkway (if you aren’t too concerned about getting hit).

Why is it that kidnapping is a federal offense, while catnapping is merely an enjoyable pastime?

Why are things which are transported by ships called cargo and things transported by cars called shipment?

Why does your nose run and your feet smell?

If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?

Why do people recite at a play and play at a recital?

If people from Poland are called Poles, are people from Holland called be Holes? and are the Germans, Germs?

(A few of these and quite a few more can be found here.)

We laugh at these because we understand that the meaning resides in more than the form of the word. This is harder to see in another language and we are tempted to make connections where they do not exist. I think these English wordpairs highlight this type of (mis)understanding of language that we know as illegitimate semantic transfer.

If English isn’t enough of a potential hotbed of misapplied word etymology, try throwing Greek and Hebrew into the mix. Which is how you end up here:

“One Should Eat to Live…” Moliere

Moliere‘s quote (from “The Miser”): “One should eat to live, not live to eat” is often paraphrased and used to motivate dieters or over-consumers. I’m going to take it in another direction today.

We need to eat to live. Truly live. Eating involves not only nutrition and sustenance, but also community and beauty. To truly live life, we must eat. And we should eat well. That doesn’t mean decadence.

This weekend Michael Pollan spoke about sustainable food at the Pop!Tech conference in Camden, Maine. The video of his talk is currently unavailable online but you can read the live-blogging summary of the Velveteen Rabbi. Best soundbite of that talk: “A vegan in a Hummer has a smaller carbon footprint than a meat-eater in a Prius.”

He concluded his talk by naming three action items (quoted here from the Velveteen Rabbi’s post):

  1. Plant a garden. “If you invest seventy dollars in a home garden you can yield $600 worth of produce in a year.” Organic produce isn’t expensive if you grow it yourself. Our non-productive land could be feeding us and giving us exercise without using fossil fuels at all!
  2. Get back in the kitchen and cook. “Corporations…don’t cook very well,” he says — they use too much salt, sugar, and fat. The only way to get control of our diet and our food system back is by cooking again and involving our families in that.
  3. Eat meals! Eat food at tables with other people! “This doesn’t sound radical, but it has become that.” Twenty percent of our food is eaten in the car, in front of a screen, on the run. “Food isn’t just fuel; it’s about communion,” he says. “Bring back the meal as the sacred communal activity it is.”

Yes!

I can tend to be a little too utilitarian at times. I’ll choose function over form (especially if it costs less). That’s not necessarily a bad thing. But I have come to realize that there is a place to invest in beauty. Gardens are, of course, functional (and so much more, but that is for another post). However, taking the harvest and truly drawing out the richness of the colors, textures, flavors, and aromas is an art. The preparation and presentation of the meal is not just a task, but a sacred vocation. Sacred, because it transforms the ingredients from mere food into delectable and artistic instruments for a communal rite: sharing a meal.

Join in the Feast blog

Some people are just gifted with a flare for cooking. I have a friend who recently started a food/recipe blog: Join in the Feast. She is going by the moniker, The Chef Chef, Interrupted. This is not just another recipe blog. She embodies for me an approach to food, cooking, and eating that is a marriage between responsible food choices and a theology of being truly human. The way she cooks and entertains dovetails perfectly with what I know of her life and her participation in ecclesia. Check her blog (which just started, but which I know will begin to be filled with succulent suggestions) for inspiration and instruction.

Mounce on Translating

Bill Mounce answers a question about the ESV handling of Romans 2:27, 29 in Conflicting Translation Procedures on the Koinonia blog (you can also find it at Bill and Bob’s Blog). The ESV, in these verses, chose to use different English words to translate the same Greek word. He defends this choice by highlighting the following list of procedures to keep in mind when making translation decisions:

1. Concordance. As much as possible, use the same English word for the same Greek word so the user can follow the author’s train of thought, as long as doing so does not misrepresent the semantic range of the Greek word.

2. One for one. Prefer a single word translation for one Greek word.

3. Less interpretive. While all translations are interpretive, the ESV prefers the less interpretive. “Written code” is more interpretive; “letter” is less.

4. Euphony. The single word “letter” provides a nice poetic balance to the single word “Spirit” in 2 Cor 3:6. (The NIV/TNIV do the same.)

5. Must make some sense. But wait! There’s more! (Sounds like a Greek infomercial.) Why does the ESV use “written code” in Rom 2:27. Because saying “you who have the written letter and circumcision” makes no sense. Now granted, the ESV is content to make its readers work a little to understand the text, just as Paul was content to make his readers work a little to understand the text. But “letter” just sounds weird.

6. Open to misunderstanding. The ESV is especially sensitive to this problem, a problem all formal translations share. If the ESV read, “you who have the letter and circumcision but break the law,” would people unfamiliar with Paul’s theology think of an actual letter?

What would you prioritize in translating a text (Hebrew or Greek)? Would you add anything to his list?

Hebrew Without Whining

Dr. Ellen Davis (Professor of Bible and Practical Theology at Duke Divinity) has been spearheading a partnership with Renk Theological College in Southern Sudan.

Listen to her describe what the Sudanese prioritized for their theological training, and why:

A FEW YEARS AGO, when I asked the head of Renk Theological College in Southern Sudan to name his top priority for the school’s faculty and curriculum, he said without hesitation: “We need biblical language teachers.”

I work at persuading American students just to give Hebrew a try, so I was surprised to hear that it was the seminary’s first choice. Moreover, crossing the ocean to teach Hebrew in short spurts seemed like a pedagogical stretch.

The leaders of the college held firm, however, and they were unanimous in their reasoning: “We live in the Old Testament. Ours is a tribal culture, like Israel’s. We are pastoralists and farmers, like the Israelites. And like them, we have suffered terribly in war and exile, and from oppressive imperial regimes. The Bible is our story, and our people must have it in their own languages. Why should we read it in English and Arabic, the languages of colonialism? Why should we translate it from those languages and not from the original? We all speak several languages; we know how much difference a translation makes.”

Read her full article, “Hebrew Without Whining,” here.