Christians and thinking

Roger Olson talks about anti-intellectualism in this post. Read the whole thing, but to give you a taste of it...

To a very large extent American “Christianity” simply fits in with our overwhelmingly secular and increasingly pagan culture that is driven by money, entertainment, celebrity obsession, sex, personal autonomy (“above all be true to yourself”), and “freedom” (lack of accountability).

One aspect of this I’d especially like to point to is—anti-intellectualism. American society is saturated with antipathy toward the life of the mind. We love “experts” but disdain “scholars.” How often is someone identified on a television news or talk program as a “scholar?” Almost never. I recognize some as scholars but see that they are routinely introduced as “experts.” What’s the difference? A scholar is a researcher who knows all knowledge is ambiguous and continually growing. A scholar is someone who only reluctantly, if ever, will offer a media talking head’s required “sound byte.” An “expert,” on the other hand, is someone who is knowledgeable about a particular subject, usually a skill, has statistics at her fingertips, and is willing to package information without ambiguity or complication. One person can be both, of course. Americans despise scholars but love experts.

Isn't that the truth! You can't nuance things in a sound bite. And you can't take more than 15 seconds of the viewers time or they will turn off...we have more important things to do than think! After all, there are new cat videos on the Internet!

A little further on he laments:

Some years ago there was a television commercial for black colleges with the motto “A Mind Is A Terrible Thing to Waste.” If we were honest about it, the motto of many American Christians would be “A Mind Is A Terrible Thing To Use”—especially in relation to faith.

Many contemporary American churches do not even care whether their pastoral staff members have any formal education. The big question is whether they are talented, attractive, charismatic, articulate and personable. The result is the pastor I heard preach at a mega-church a few months ago. His “sermon” was nonsense—literally. It made no sense. He claimed the Bible says things it absolutely does not say. But he was handsome, youthful, animated, well-dressed, wore the right glasses, passionate and engaging. And funny. If he ever went to seminary he has left whatever he learned there behind. He had the approximately one thousand people in that one service eating out of his hand.

His parting shot is so true it hurts:

A great irony is that supposedly “conservative” churches are often the most eager to imitate secular/pagan culture in terms of style and substance—even as they point accusing fingers at “liberal churches” for accommodating to modern or postmodern thought forms.

Apocalypticism as theology?

Apocalypticism can therefore be interpreted as an attempt to mediate between a basic theological starting point and historical data that appears to contradict it. Its attempts to address this problem are so radical that they generally call for new revelations. In terms of form, apocalyptic literature is therefore more “revelatory” than “theological,” but its concerns are genuinely theological.— Is There Theology in the Hebrew Bible?, page 113

Get rid of the dreams

The victim confirms a relationship between himself and the clod of earth. Once he tells the contents of his dream to it, he then utters three maledictions. The first is a simile curse. It affirms and establishes the function of the clod’s disintegration. This is followed by two unconditional maledictions. One focuses on dissolution (naḫarmuṭu). The second centers on removing the evil to a distant place. Then, the victim tosses the clod into the water. The full and complete execution of these imprecations is clearly dependent on the discharge of the curse-act itself. Certainly, the victim cannot hope for release from his nightmares until he throws the clod into the water. One also suspects that the victim gains additional comfort from actually watching the clod break apart as the current sweeps away the dissipated earth.

Some of these dream rituals require the use of a specific type of clay. LAG IZ.ZI ša2 AŠ/ina dUTU.ŠU2.A ‘A clod which is from a western (that is, facing the setting sun Šamaš/dUTU]) wall’. LAG ša KA2 pi-ḫe-e TI-qi2 ‘You take a clod from a blocked door’. The officiant of these rituals chooses each of these clays for their unique properties. The first kind of clay is connected with nonexistence and the daily disappearance of Šamaš. Once the clod is thrown into the water, its dissipating particles are to take the nightmares into the underworld with the setting sun. The clay from a blocked door has already demonstrated its propensity to impede and thereby keep things at bay. This characteristic is to merge with the evil dreams so as to prevent them from returning to the victim.— Cursed Are You!, page 442

Self-help christianity

Though self-help Christianity has been around for thousands of years, there are some deep-rooted tendencies that keep it alive. At the core of it all, we are selfish beings and we believe we are at the center of the universe, not God. When we think we can fix everything ourselves, we actually glorify ourselves above God.—What’s Your Secret? page 107

An invitation

For Paul, we have seen, peace and peacemaking are constitutive of Jesus’ identity, his father’s identity, the Spirit’s identity, the kingdom’s identity, and the church’s identity. That is, the Triune God is the God of peace, and the peace of God is a fundamental mark of God’s reign and God’s people. To make peace, empowered by the Spirit and in the shape of the cross, is to be like Christ and thereby like God. It is to participate in the mission and identity or, better, the missional identity, of God. Paul is fully in sync, therefore, with the words of Jesus in Matthew: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” (Matt 5:9, similar in vocabulary to Col 1:20). This Jesus is, for Paul, the Lord of peace, the one who made and who makes peace on behalf of the Father and in the power of the Spirit. Similarly, for Luke, Jesus is the one who inaugurates God’s reign of shalom and invites his followers, both before and after his nonviolent, peacemaking death, to follow in “the way”—the way of God, salvation, and peace: the way of Jesus himself.— The Death of the Messiah and the Birth of the New Covenant, page 201

Strange things you learn along the way (δʼ/δέ)

Caution: Heavy duty Greek ahead.

Weird. I was editing along on this discourse handbook on the book of James when I noticed the phrase δὲ ἐν.... It occurred to me, why isn't the ε elided to give δʼ instead? For that matter, how often does δέ get elided in the GNT? I don't recall it happening that often. It's fairly common in Classical Greek (it occurs over 3000 times in LSJ alone), so I just didn't think about it much until today.

So, I did a search for δʼ in the GNT. Ready? In the SBLGNT it occurs 28 times (including the apparatus) and in NA27 it occurs 24 times (also including the apparatus). Not very common. But get this! In both editions, all but one of the occurrences is δʼ ἄν! The only other occurrence is in Matthew 27:44 where it occurs as δʼ αὐτό.

Fascinating! Why the lack of elision in the GNT? I need to look at the apparatus in NA27, too. The witnesses should be interesting...

By the way, in Classical δὲ ἐν does elide, so that isn't a problem. I don't have time to chase it right now, but I wonder if this is a synchronic occurrence? Do the Apostolic Fathers elide δέ? What about Josephus and Philo? Xenophon?

Anybody know?

[Update]I posted to the Classics-L e-mail list and Claude Pavur suggested I check the Septuagint (LXX). Here's what I found: 60 occurrences (including the apparatus), of which the majority are δʼ ἄν, but the more "regular" elisions occur also. It doesn't seem to matter whether the books were composed originally in Greek or not.

Here's an strange one, in Wisdom 16:23: τοῦτο πάλιν δʼ, ἵνα τραφῶσιν δίκαιοι

I doubt the wisdom (pun intended) of that text critical choice—elision across a clause boundary? Seems strange. The text critical note: παλιν δ B†] δ > S, δε παλιν A
In English, that means the B (Vaticanus) has the reading, S (Sinaiticus drops the δ, and Alexandrinus puts the δε in front of παλιν.

More, probably useless, information...nothing to see here, carry on? Or, these are the droids you're looking for? : )

Grab the talisman!

Curse-acts supporting unconditional curses are perhaps the most horrifying and are generally used reactively. Because no stipulations are attached to the malediction, the harm the curse-acts depict are to guide the deities in their present judgment of the situation that precipitated the need to perform the curse-act. This means that the target of the unconditional imprecation has very little control over the predicament and must rely solely on the just ruling of the deities for deferral of the execution of the malediction’s injury. Because this is the case, if the target ever becomes aware of the unconditional curse and is innocent, then the only means of defense against the malediction is the direct petition of the heavenly realm to relent. Sacrifices, prayers, and purification rituals would be the only methods available to the victim against the effects of any and all unconditional curse-acts.—Cursed Are You!, page 435

Have you asked these questions?

Just ran across this post: 28 Questions Every English Language and Linguistics Student Has Asked.

My favorite is number 26: Are half of these terms even real words?

But number 27 is a close second: Why does Microsoft Word not appreciate my language skills? There are red and green lines everywhere.

Number 27 is the story of my life as I edit all kinds of interesting stuff with lots of technical terms. And that is also why number 26 is so relevant: I'm not always sure what is a typo and what is a technical term. Yesterday I had to e-mail an author to check on a word that I hadn't ever seen before. It turned out to be a typo, but it looked enough like a technical term—and was placed in a context where it could well have been—that I couldn't be sure!

Verbosity in prayer

The efficacy of prayer in not grounded in the verbosity of the orant, but rather in the good disposition of the Father to respond to his children. The recitation of the LP [Lord's Prayer] is not an exercise in magic. Proper working is important, but this prayer is more than just a formula or a transaction. It is an expression of relational trust in the God who sees and hears.—David A. Clark, The Lord’s Prayer: Origin and Early Interpretations (PhD diss, University of Nottingham, 2014), page 230

<idle musing>
Amen and amen! A healthy corrective to some (throughout history) who see the Lord's Prayer as some kind of magic key. This ties in nicely with the thoughts in Cursed Are You!—the power isn't in the words or the rituals. The power is in the god(s) that are invoked.

In Christianity (and Judaism), there is the realization that you can't rope God into doing what you want. Well, let me qualify that! Seeing the rampant spread of Word of Faith/Name it, claim it! theology, one must qualify it : ( In Christianity that operates in the great tradition there is the realization that you can't control God by certain ritual ways of saying things or by conjuring up faith. God is dependable, certainly, but he isn't controllable. He is faithful, but he is not your personal genie.

This is in stark contrast to the carefully described rituals that you find in the ANE curse texts and anti-curse texts. The goal is to control the gods, to make them obey you. Sure, ultimately it is their decision, but you can heavily influence their decision. This is also true in the classical Greek and Latin tradition. Think of Odysseus reminding the gods of his sacrifices to the gods when he petitions them as just one example. The Romans, as always, were meticulous in their religious routines.

After reading Cursed Are You!, I've become even more convinced that as Christians, we still far too often think in those lines. We think we can manipulate God—that we can coerce him into doing what we want. Think of fasting as just one example. Scot McKnight, in his marvelous little book Fasting, calls this the instrumental view of fasting. We fast in order to get God to answer. Wrong!

When we take that view of things, we are trying to manipulate God. We have reduced him to a thing to be controlled. We have gone back to the garden and committed the same sin that Adam and Eve did: We want to be God rather than godly. We want God to obey us rather than submit to him.

I would further submit that we do it because we don't really believe that God is good and loving. We think he has a hidden grudge against us. After all, we put his son to death. We fight him all the time.

How would you respond if one of your kids did that? Or, how long would a pet last in your house if it kept peeing on your pillow every night? Once again, we reason from the given (our reaction) to the divine. We create God in our own image.

I believe that holiness is getting rid of that warped picture of God. Wesley described it as "feeling nothing in your heart but love toward God and your neighbor." And he believed it was attainable in this life. Scripture seems to point to it as being attainable—just read 1 John!

OK, that was a long rabbit trail, wasn't it? or maybe it was just an
</idle musing>

It's a two-step process

And the door to repentance is confession. Confession is the statement that says, “I can’t do it on my own. I am responsible for what I have done, and I need help.” Confession is the admission of a need. Repentance is engaging God as the answer.—What’s Your Secret? page 104

From beneficiaries to instruments

Those who are beneficiaries of God’s peace become instruments of God’s peace. This peace, we must remember, is the comprehensive shalom promised by the prophets, inclusive of restorative justice and coterminous with the kingdom of God.— The Death of the Messiah and the Birth of the New Covenant, page 195

Sad news

I just heard that my Hittite professor from the University of Chicago, Harry Hoffner died unexpectedly yesterday. Sad news indeed. You can read a bit more about him here.

I know that some students didn't like him, but I found him to be an excellent teacher. Eisenbrauns published a Festschrift for him several years ago. And his Hittite Grammar was also published by them. I'd like to think that one of the reasons Eisenbrauns got the grammar instead of Harrassowitz was because I was at Eisenbrauns...but we'll never know, will we?

Here are the links to the two books:

Hittite Studies in Honor of Harry A. Hoffner Jr. on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday

Edited by Gary M. Beckman, Richard Beal, and Gregory McMahon
Eisenbrauns, 2003
xxiv + 396 pages, English
Cloth
ISBN: 9781575060798
List Price: $65.00
Your Price: $58.50
www.eisenbrauns.com/item/BECSTUDIE

A Grammar of the Hittite Language, 1: Reference Grammar
Part I: Reference Grammar
Languages of the Ancient Near East - LANE 1/1
by Harry A. Hoffner Jr. and H. Craig Melchert
Eisenbrauns, 2008
xxii + 468 pages + CD-ROM, English
Cloth, 7 x 9 inches
ISBN: 9781575061
List Price: $69.50
Your Price: $62.55
www.eisenbrauns.com/item/HOFGRAMMA

And the teaching grammar

A Grammar of the Hittite Language, 2: Tutorial
Languages of the Ancient Near East - LANE 1/2
by Harry A. Hoffner Jr. and H. Craig Melchert
Eisenbrauns, 2008
vi + 75 pages, English
Cloth, 7 x 10
ISBN: 9781575061481
List Price: $32.50
Your Price: $29.25
www.eisenbrauns.com/item/HOFTUTORI

A loose cannon?

It is far from certain that the professional curser required a view of the target on every occasion. Indeed, this may not have been always feasible. Even so, some kind of connection between the specialist and the intended victim appears to be essential. While viewing the target would be the easiest way to establish a link, the practitioner could also manipulate something the target owned or touched, a piece of cloth, some hair, or dust from a path he or she takes daily. The tactic is precautionary. It gives the curse direction and safely limits its operation. Without this careful restriction, a malediction could spread uncontrollably, allowing it to find and settle on alternate, unintended targets.— Cursed Are You!, page 398

<idle musing>
Unintended targets—like yourself! Dangerous stuff, which is why cursing was illegal—even though most everybody did it...
</idle musing>

Luke on prayer

Prayer is a determining factor in the unfolding of the Heilsgeschichte [salvation history]. God’s divine plan of salvation is driven forward by the prayers of Jesus and his followers. Plymale concludes that, “Prayer is God’s way of guiding and implementing the accomplishment of His will.” [Plymale, The Prayer Texts of Luke-Acts, page 105] Luke goes to great lengths to model prayer, to teach on prayer, and to document prayer being answered—because he believes that God shapes the world by means of prayer. This is Luke’s theology.—David A. Clark, The Lord’s Prayer: Origin and Early Interpretations (PhD diss, University of Nottingham, 2014), page 178

Just how important is the cross?

Is the cross fundamental to your faith? What would happen if the cross were removed from your walk with God? Would anything change? There is no better place to engage God, who is the spiritual solution to our spiritual problems, than at the cross. It is there that Christ dealt with the spiritual condition of humanity.—What’s Your Secret? page 104

Non-retaliation and the Christian

Practicing peace is therefore a form of bearing witness to the gospel in the most difficult circumstances, the expression of the teaching and example of both Jesus and Paul to refrain from retaliation and to love one’s enemies. By obeying and imitating both their apostle and their Lord in this regard, believers would become a living exegesis of the gospel of peace. Such peaceful relations with outsiders would include the rejection of violence toward them, apparently even in self-defense, for as Richard Hays has put it, “There is not a syllable in the Pauline letters that can be cited in support of Christians employing violence.” Non-retaliation, for Paul, is not an option for peacemakers in Christ; rather, it is the way of Christ.— The Death of the Messiah and the Birth of the New Covenant, page 190

Thought for the day

Do not allow me to judge according to the light of my bodily eyes, nor to give sentence according to the hearing of ignorant men’s ears. But let me distinguish with true judgment between things visible and spiritual, and always seek above all things Your good pleasure. The senses of men often err in their judgments, and the lovers of this world also err in loving only visible things. How is a man the better for being thought greater by men? The deceiver deceives the deceitful, the vain man deceives the vain, the blind deceives the blind, the weak deceives the weak as often as he extols them, and in truth his foolish praise shames them the more. For, as the humble St. Francis says, whatever anyone is in Your sight, that he is and nothing more.—Thomas à Kempis, The Imitation of Christ

Fear mongering

Why the sudden irrationality of Muslim baiting? What's going on? Is this the U.S. version of the lead-up to Kristallnacht? I agree with this guy's post (read the whole thing, but here's the summary):

I’ve seen nothing in my Muslim neighbors worthy of a general fear of them, as some Christian leaders want us to hold. The absolute worst-case-scenario with my Muslim neighbors is being invited over for food and tea on a day where I have a super busy schedule.

I’m not scared of Muslims. But I have to be honest, I am scared of white guys with guns.

So just remember when you see all of the anti-Muslim fear baiting from Christian leaders: the real looming threat in our country has nothing to do with people who wear a hijab, but people who have been indoctrinated into the acceptability of violence, and who carry guns snuggled neatly underneath their flannel shirt.

<idle musing>
Why the fear mongering? Is Jesus no longer Lord? Has he abdicated the throne and placed the U.S. on it instead? I don't get it...
</idle musing>

Conference on the Greek Verb

This conference looks great. I wish I could attend, but I have it on good authority that there will be a conference proceedings volume. Look for it in November at AAR/SBL...

Translation theory

The action of the main clause is the focus of attention. The comparative frame presents the manner in which the main action should be done by establishing it as the basis for the clause that follows. We probably would accomplish this kind of task most naturally in English by using a rhetorical question: “You know how you judge other people? That is the way you will be judged. You know the measure that you use for others? That is what will be used for you.” Thus there is a bit of a mismatch between Greek and English here in terms of preference, but it can be easily bridged in exposition through using comparable constructions like rhetorical questions. Both frames and rhetorical questions can accomplish the task of activating a specific state of affairs in our mental representations of the discourse. The task accomplished is what matters, not the specific device used in one language versus another.—Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament, page 234