Not Sure of which Shore
I’ve been reading and preparing a week of lectures on the gospel of Mark. Among the small rabbit trails that will undoubtedly not make it into class discussion is the issue of where the stories in Mark 5:21-43 take place.
Mark 5:21 states:
When Jesus had crossed again in the boat to the other side, a great crowd gathered round him; and he was by the lake (NRSV).
Mark usually uses the phrase “the other side” to mean the Transjordan ( e.g. 5:2; 6:45; cf. Deut among other books in the HB). However, most of the commentaries seem to assume that Mark holds the events in Capernaum.
So what? Well, at least there are at least three implications to seeing Mark 5:21-43 in the Transjordan: 1) It changes the nature of the interaction between the woman with the issue of blood and Jesus. Purity, while important, wouldn’t be quite the taboo as if the woman had been rubbing up against Jews in Palestine. It would keep the focus on faith rather on purity issues. 2) The story would point to interaction between Jesus and Jewish communities outside of Palestine (i.e. Jairus). 3) It would cloud the issue in regards to where Jesus is in Mark 6:1-6. UBS 4 and most commentators want to place Jesus’ rejection in Nazareth (c.f Luke 4). However, Mark has Jesus at home in Capernaum (Mark 2:1; 9:33). If 5:21-43 is in the Transjordan, it makes the case for 6:1-6 in Capernaum stronger.
This is definitely an unpopular interpretation and admittedly a rabbit trail, but I find it fascinating in its possible implications.
Seminary Musings
It’s funny how the grass is always greener on the other side of the septic tank.
The other day Daniel Kirk posted on a new website by Westminster Seminary (PA) alumns: saveourseminary.com. Their major concern is the recent theological shift at Westminster.
Westminster Theological Seminary has always been a place where historic traditions and cutting-edge scholarship go hand in hand…. But the Westminster we loved is in danger of disappearing. It is being replaced by exceedingly narrow interpretations of the Westminster Standards, by an atmosphere of suspicion that stifles inquiry, and by embarrassing flirtations with a far-right-wing political agenda.
Rather ironically, this reminded me of a similar website run by alumns from Biblical Theological Seminary (also in PA): postbiblical.info. However, their major concern seems to be that Biblical’s older exceedingly narrow interpretations of the Bible, atmosphere of suspicion that stifles inquiry, and embarrassing flirtations with a far-right-wing political agenda are being replaced by historic traditions and cutting-edge scholarship. (Though, I grant that such traditions and scholarship are being addressed with in an emerging paradigm.)
One wonders if those who had once considered going to Biblical are now attending Westminster for the very reasons that have caused the latter’s alumns vexation…
Roll Your Own Study Bible
While looking for something else, I ran across this cute little ESV Journaling Bible. A quick look at a sample of the inside (Genesis 1-2; 307KB PDF file) shows a nice amount of space for taking notes and the like.
. A quick look at This is a great concept and has some features I would love to incorporate into my Bible classes at Eastern University. My NT class this semester is being forced given the opportunity to make their own study Bibles. However, the margins in the NRSV’s we’re using don’t allow much room for comment. This Bible would be perfect. I just wish it was with a different translation.
I’m not a big fan of the ESV. I have some sever reservations with a few of their translation choices; but this Bible would allow students to write those reservations into the margins. A bigger problem, however, is that it’s missing all of the deuteroncanonical books; and I almost always make students read Sirach and Maccabees.
So, unfortunately, unless the ESV suddenly decides to come out with an”Ecumenical” or “Catholic” edition, I don’t know if I’ll be using this one in class anytime soon.
The Heart of my Problem with Wyatt
While I think that Nicolas Wyatt is an amazing Ugaritic scholar and one of probably the top three interpreters of Ugartic myth alive today, I nonetheless often find myself at odds with many of his readings (especially of the Baʿlu Cycle). In reading his essay “The Religious Role of the King in Ugarit” I think I’ve found the heart of my problem with Wyatt.
In discussing the theological and royal dimensions of the Baʿlu Cycle, Wyatt contends:
The theological dimension is always a function of the real world, whether it offers a validation or a critique of it. It has no other conceivable purpose. (47)
Now, I’m all for an ideological reading of the Baʿlu Cycle; but to say that the royal dimension has no other conceivable purpose than to critique or validate (and for Wyatt, it is the latter) is reductio ad absurdum. If the scribes of Ugarit are to be considered on par with those of ancient Greece (see Wyatt, 46), shouldn’t we also hold that Ugaritic works could be multivalent in the way that those of Hesiod or Homer have been shown to be?
While my actual differences with Wyatt are numerous (mostly relating to his tendency to make up rituals for his reading of mythic texts), I think this reductionist logic is actually the heart of my problem with his writings.
Wyatt, Nicholas. “The Religious Role of the King in Ugarit.” Pages 41-74 in Ugarit at Seventy-Five. Edited by K. Lawson Younger Jr. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007.
Digital Lacunae
Yesterday Duane Smith blogged on the blunders of modern technology during a recent visit to the UCLA library — with an online catalog, computer outages prevent one from finding books.
Today I had a similar problem accessing online journals. On several occasions, my home institution only had online versions of journals I needed; but the online versions didn’t extend back to the issue I needed.
What good is having only digital access to a journal if you aren’t going to have all the issues? *Sigh* looks like more ILL….
The End is Nigh… sort of
With Moltmann’s books on my shelf and having study with Miroslav Volf, I think this quiz actually has me pegged pretty well:
| What’s your eschatology? created with QuizFarm.com |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You scored as Moltmannian EschatologyJürgen Moltmann is one of the key eschatological thinkers of the 20th Century. Eschatology is not only about heaven and hell, but God’s plan to make all things new. This should spur us on to political and social action in the present.
|
(HT to James Spinti.)
Biblical Studies Carnival XXV
Biblical Studies Carnival XXV is up at Targuman. Note especially his thought on the whole inerrancy debate:
Regarding this whole thread, you know Godwin’s Law? It states, “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” I think the we could establish a similar law in Biblioblogdom. When the terms “inerrancy,” “fundamentalist,” and “liberal” are used in conversations relating to the Bible the volume will increase in diametric opposition to the value of the content. But that’s just my view.
It’s a humorous idea, but some how I don’t think it would work…
Apparently I know my Bible…
Wow! You are awesome! You are a true Biblical scholar, not just a hearer but a personal reader! The books, the characters, the events, the verses – you know it all! You are fantastic!
Though I must confess, I would have answered “none of the above” for some of the questions.
(HT: Len Flack)
Best Christmas Gift ’07
It seems odd, but the best Christmas gift I received this year was an electronic Hebrew blessing reciter for those who can’t remember all the words to the Modeh Adonai or the Shema.
What makes this gift great, however, is neither the humor of having to rely on an electronic device to remember ten two-line prayers, nor the possible problems of using said device on shabbat, nor even the simple fact I got this for Christmas.
What makes this gift so great is the accent of the guy saying the prayers.
Take a listen here.
The Error of Inerrancy
As promised in my earlier post on Misunderstanding of the Fundamentals, I feel that a comment on the error of inerrancy is in order. (Nick Norelli has a nice summary of the ongoing discussion in the blogosphere here.)
As a biblical scholar I’ve become convinced that the entire discussion of inerrancy is irrelevant and erroneous from the outset. There were no autographs to begin with.
Now, I should point out, I am not saying that the mere absence of extent autographs disproves inerrancy. An argument from silence is an argument from silence.
Nor am I ignorant of the second half of Article X of Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:
We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.
Rather, looking at the growth of tradition as recorded not only in the scholarly constructs of P, DtrH, Q etc. but also in the various textual traditions already attested in the DSS, LXX, etc., it is evident that there is no clear dividing line between textual genesis and textual transmission. There is no indication of where one stops and the other begins.
The precious quest for an Urtext is itself a leap of faith. Inerrancy is not only a belief in a hypothetical, perfect, error-free text, that in itself is predicated upon a belief in a hypothetical, original text. In the end, there is no spoon.
Ketuvim: the Writings of James R. Getz Jr. 