I wonder...

I've been blogging for close to five years now, and I am starting to wonder if it is worth my while. Originally, I intended to use my blog as an opportunity to keep my writing sharp while I prepared for seminary. I do think it was helpful in that regard. However, now that I'm in a PhD program, I find myself having less time and less of a desire to blog.

My thinking on this is threefold:

First, blogging in general is dangerous. It is easy to publish stuff without a great deal of thought. This really came home to me this past week. I watched people publish inappropriate material and have it hurt them or other people. Inappropriate material comes in all forms and types. It is not just the "rants" that I am thinking of right now. I am also thinking of sandbagging other scholars without reading their books, publishing material that was not intended to be public, etc. Because there is no peer review process, it is simply too easy to do this sort of thing, and once it is out there with your name on it, it's out there.

Imagine a future employer googling your name and discovering one of your less careful posts. I've seen this sort of thing happen.

Second, academic blogging can also be dangerous. Once you have put your ideas out there, anyone can pick them up and claim them as their own. This is why I have become more and more reticent about publishing my thoughts on the Hebrew Bible, New Testament, etc. I may want to use some of my work in my dissertation, but if I put it out there ahead of time, it is possible that someone might steal my idea. I know I sound paranoid, but I think caution is in order.

Third, I have become somewhat cynical about blogging. Many bloggers (myself included) can easily develop an inflated sense of scholarly worth based on sub-par work ("Hey everyone! Look how many hits I got on that post! I must be amazing!"). Similarly, much that passes as blogging is basically a modified form of academic narcissism ("I did this today... I read this..."). I wonder how many people really want to know what I've been reading.

Perhaps I am being too hard on the medium, but I am seriously considering putting my blog to bed. If anyone has any thoughts/arguments on why I should continue blogging, feel free to comment. I haven't officially decided yet, but I am leaning towards stopping.

continue reading I wonder...

Dooyeweerd, Derrida, (and Vanhoozer... Sort of)

The other day I was rereading some of Herman Dooyeweerd's Prolegomena to his A New Critique of Theoretical Thought, when I came across Dooyeweerd's most famous paragraph (trust me, it's worth it to read beyond the fold!):

"This universal character of referring and expressing, which is proper to our entire created cosmos, stamps created reality as meaning, in accordance with its dependent non-self-sufficient nature. Meaning is the being of all that has been created and the nature even of our selfhood. It has a religious root and a divine origin." (I:4)

Given that I've also been reading Kevin Vanhoozer's discussion of Derrida (in his Is There a Meaning in This Text?), I find this paragraph more striking than ever. While deconstructionism is busy suggesting that everything is a text subject to the vicissitudes of interpretation (and thus always lacks meaning), Dooyeweerd (who, incidentally, agrees with post-modernity about the naivete of Enlightenment epistemologies) begins his work with an appeal to God as the source of all meaning. I find this very telling. For Dooyeweerd the cosmos itself is inherently meaningful because God has spoken it into existence. Likewise, reality is stamped with dependence. Apart from God's activity, reality lacks existence and meaning. Because of this divine origin, Dooyeweerd can presuppose the meaningfulness of being and of writing because there is something (Dooyeweerd would say, "Someone") beyond the boundaries of created reality.

Vanhoozer has commented time and again in his book on how deconstructionism begins with the assumption that God, and thus the "author," is dead. As a result deconstructionists complain that any attempt to find "meaning" in a text via the "author" is nothing more than a power play. Indeed, to the deconstructionist any attempt to differentiate between a "good" reading or a "bad" reading of a text is inherently oppressive and authoritarian. Readers (in this view) should be allowed to play freely with a text, creatively constructing their own meaning.

Now, at a certain level, I can sympathize (and even agree) with the deconstructionists' point, but at another level, this all feels like a teenage temper tantrum to me: "How dare you tell me what to do! You're destroying my life with all of your rules! What right do you have to come in here and tell me how to live my life?" I'm not trying to trivialize someone like Derrida's concerns, but every now and then all the talk about getting rid of the "authoritarian author" strikes me as a tad childish. I realize that if there is no God left in the universe, then there can be no final arbiter of interpretation. Yet, if one starts with the assumption of God's initial and continual creative activity, it is hard not to conclude that certain aspects of deconstructionism (nota bene: I said "CERTAIN" aspects) are little more than an expression of fallen humanity's resistance to submission to the Divine Author.

In summary, then, it would seem that a philosophical system like Dooyeweerd's would stand directly opposed to some of the central assumptions of deconstructionism.

continue reading Dooyeweerd, Derrida, (and Vanhoozer... Sort of)

Luther's works...

Today I picked up the 4 volume set of the Selected Writings of Martin Luther (1517-1546) edited by Theodore Tappert and published by Fortress Press for $10 at Half Priced Books here in Ft. Worth! Talk about a deal! While I'm not a Lutheran, I think that this should be a fine investment.

continue reading Luther's works...

4QInstruction Fragment 2, Column iii...

For those of you who wonder what I spend hours a day doing as a PhD student, this is proof that I'm not twiddling my thumbs :).

Below the fold are the first seven lines (with one word from the 8th to finish the sentence) of the third column of fragment 2 of 4Q416 (i.e., 4QInstruction, one of the Qumran Sectarian Documents) with my glosses and parsing provided. This section of text is much more coherent than the previous, and thus provides easier reading.

4Q416 f2iii:1‏ [וכ°ל -- ]כ֯ה֯
1. [...] of you

‏ וזכור כי ראש אתה֯ [ -- . ]° ומחסורכה
2. Remember (> 2ms Qal Imperative, זכר) that you are poor [...] and your poverty

‏ לוא תמצא ובמעלכה ת°°°[ -- ]°יׄם פ֯ו֯קד לכה
3. You will (or shall) not find (> 2ms Qal YQTL, מצא), and in your treachery you... [...] ... being entrusted (> 3ms Pual QTL, פקד) to you.

‎‏ אל תשלח ידכה בו פן תכוהׄ [ו]בׄאשו תבער גויתכה. כׄאׄ[שר לקח]ת֯וׄ כן השיבהו
4. You shall not put forth (> 2ms Qal YQTL, שלח) your hand into it lest it is scorched (> 3fs Niphal YQTL, כוה) [and] your body is burned (> 3fs Niphal YQTL, בער) with fire. Just [as you to]ok it (> 2ms Qal QTL, לקח), thus you shall return it (> 2ms Hiphil Imperative, שוב).

‎‏ ושמחה לכה אם תנקה ממנו. וגם מכל איש אשר לוא ידעׄתה אל תקח הון
5. And you will have joy if you are innocent (> 2ms Niphal YQTL, נקה) of it. Also, from any man whom you do not know (> 2ms Qal QTL, ידע), you shall not take (> 2ms Qal YQTL, לקח) wealth.

‎‏ פן יוסיף על ריׄשכה. ואם שמו בראוׄש֯כ֯ה למות הפקידהו ורוחכה אל תחבל
6. Lest he (or it) add (> 3ms Hiphil YQTL, יסף) to your poverty. But if he places it (> 3ms Qal QTL, שים) in your top place (?) until death, entrust it (i.e., deposit it > 2ms Hiphil Imperative, פקד), and you will not ruin (> 2ms Piel YQTL, חבל) your spirit with it (or perhaps "your spirit will not be ruined (> 3fs Qal YQTL) with it"--However, this would seem to be a problematic use of אל. Cf., Williams, §401-405.)

‏ בו. ואז תשכב עם האמת ובמותכה יפר֯[ח לעו]ל֯ם זכרכה ואחריתכה תנחל
7. And then you shall lie down (> 2ms Qal YQTL, שכב) with the truth (or "the mothers"), and in your death (or "when you die" if participle or infinitive), your memory will spr[out (or blossom > 3ms Qal YQTL, פרח) for etern]ity, and your future lot (or "your end of days"--perhaps eschatological overtones. See BDB, s.v.) will inherit (> 3fs Qal YQTL, נחל) joy (from line 8).

continue reading 4QInstruction Fragment 2, Column iii...

Qumran lines for the fun of it...

Just for the fun of it, I thought I'd post some of the stuff I'm translating in my Qumran class. Below the fold is the first four lines/verses from a scroll found in the 4th cave at Qumran. Anything in brackets has been reconstructed (in these four lines that's about everything). Keep in mind that the text is in fragments (that's why it does not make sense). Part of the reason why this particular text is in such poor shape is because it was the outside layer of this scroll (4QInstruction) and thus it suffered more from moisture, insects, etc. than the inner layers (i.e., what comes later):

4Q416 f2i:
1 ‏ [ -- לב]לׄתיׄ
‎2 ‏ [...ואיש עול אל תחשוב עזר וגמ אין שונא ...]ל֯תיׄ
‎3 ‏ [... רשע מעשיו עם פקדתו ודע במה תתהלך עמו ...]°קהׄ ‎
4 ‏ [... אל תמיש מלבכה ואל לכה לבדכה תרחב נפשכ]ה בׄראשכה.

My gloss/translation:
1. To not...
2. [... and you shall not consider (or think) a man of injustice a help, nor (or "and also" + negative) shall there be one hating...]...
3. [... the wickedness of his deeds with his punishment. And know in what way you should walk with him...]
4. [... You shall not depart from your heart, and do not broaden your soul for yourself alone (i.e., don't be greedy)] in your poverty.

It is odd translating fragments of a text. Without context it is difficult to know what is going on. Another thing of interest is the fact that none of the Hebrew (or Aramaic) has any vowel pointing. This makes it intriguing to observe the various readings people will come up with.

Take for example an earlier fragment in this same text (4Q415 f9:1):

7. [-- יחד ממשל זכר את נׄ[קבה
8. [--]רוחה המשל בה כ֯

One could translate it a few different ways depending on the vocalization (i.e., what vowels you add where):

7. together dominion, male with fe[male...]
together from a proverb, male with fe[male...]
together, male dominating fe[male...] (this is Florentino Garcia Martinez's reading)

8. Cause her spirit to have dominion within her...
her spirit. Have dominion over her... (Martinez's reading)
her spirit of the proverb is in her like...
her spirit. The proverb is with/in her like...

I liked my second vocalization of 7 (i.e., the "proverb" one); however, within context it probably does not work given the problems it causes for line 8 (i.e., one would have to go with the 3rd or 4th translations of line 8 to be consistent, and they seem a bit awkward, and translation 3 may actually not work--I'm not sure the first noun in a construct chain is allowed to have a pronominal suffix on it... Though apparently it occurs in Gen. 9:24 (בנו הקטן)).

All of this gives you a sense of how much wiggle room there is in some of this work. Nonetheless, this does not mean all readings are created equal. Some are definitely better than others.

continue reading Qumran lines for the fun of it...

Spurgeon quote....

I just ran across this great quote from Spurgeon:

"If anyone asked me if I believed in perfect men, I should have to say that I have seen too many of them to believe in them."

An All-round Ministry, 211.

continue reading Spurgeon quote....

My personal pet peeve... The Young, Restless, and Reformed are NOT Neo-Calvinists!

Okay... So I was reading a blog post about ecumenism between Protestants and Catholics in Germany during WWII. At the end of the post, the author references how he wished "neo-calvinists" and emergents could learn to get along better.

I assume by "neo-calvinist" that he meant those who are big followers of John Piper, Mark Driscoll, etc. (basically the "young, restless, and Reformed" group).

I have heard people thoughtlessly throw this label out before, and it just galls me. Piper, Driscoll, and all of the hip Calvinists are not (I repeat, NOT) neo-Calvinists. Neo-Calvinism as a movement originated in the Netherlands in the late 19th, early 20th century out of the work of Abraham Kuyper. It continued on in the philosophical work of Herman Dooyeweerd and Dirk Vollenhoven. Today, the movement continues on in the work of people like Al Wolters, Sylvia Keesmaat, the late (?) Gordon Spykman, Roy Clouser, and others. In addition, at least three institutions of higher learning here in North America are decidedly in this tradition: Dordt College, Redeemer University College (Ancaster, ON Canada), and the Institute for Christian Studies (which has strayed a bit from its roots, but that's a different story).

The central tenets of neo-Calvinism include a strong conviction that Christ's lordship extends over all of creation (and thus, all lawful callings are good and Christ-honoring--i.e., pastors, missionaries, theologians, etc. don't have a leg up on anyone), a suspicion of dualistic theoretical constructs and categories (especially Platonic influences within the Christian faith), an affirmation of creation as structurally good but able (through human sin) to be misdirected (vs. again Gnostic/Platonic versions of Christianity which devalue the "material" world), and a determination to think Christianly about all things (politics, biology, ethics, agriculture, etc.). (And yes, N.T. Wright has been influenced by neo-Calvinism--I always find it intriguing listening to people trying to figure out where he gets his antipathy towards Gnosticism, etc.)

While Piper, Driscoll, et al. may be in favor of many of these things, they work out of a very different stream of Calvinism. Their heroes tend to arise from British and Puritan Calvinism which has some significant differences with its continental counterpart (for one thing it tends to be heavily dependent upon Scottish Common Sense philosophy). Perhaps, it would be more accurate to refer to them as Neo-Puritan (though that term may be taken already as well! :).

In any event, the next time you hear someone say something about these "neo-calvinists," ask them who they are referring to and chide them (gently) for being sloppy in applying labels.

Again, let's be perfectly clear. The Young, Restless, and Reformed are NOT "neo-calvinists!" Sorry, but the name has already been taken. We neo-Calvinists have already had it for the last century or so.

Okay, so that's my personal pet peeve :)

continue reading My personal pet peeve... The Young, Restless, and Reformed are NOT Neo-Calvinists!