The Wall Street Journal has a nice review of the Oxford Companion to the Book that is worth checking out–they also have an excerpt as well.

A good friend and I share a mutual appreciation for the writings of N.T. Wright and we have had several discussions trying to find an OT doppelganger for Wright.  I’ve had a really hard time coming up with someone but my best try is John Goldingay.  Anybody have another suggestion?

The Faith & Leadership blog from Duke has an interview with Nicholas Wolterstorff on his perspectives regarding Christian education.  Here is a snippet; for the full interview click here.

As a young professor at Calvin, I was involved in curricular studies. About two years after I got there, I proposed that the entire curriculum should be revised. I’m astonished to this day that the senior people didn’t just silence this brash newcomer. Instead I became head of a curricular revision committee. It became important for me to figure out what holds a curriculum together. You’ve got sciences and arts and my own passion, justice. What holds it all together? It eventually became clear to me that there is a biblical category of flourishing, of shalom. [It is] “peace” in the New Testament, but eirene in Greek is a pretty weak translation of what the Old Testament means by shalom. It means flourishing.

That’s what a Christian college should be about. Not just planting thoughts in people’s heads and getting them into professional positions but flourishing, in all its dimensions.

The publishing world is in a crisis.  I have just learned that there are no longer enough ISBN numbers for new books because there are so many biblical Hebrew grammars taking up numbers–they are having to switch from 13 digit numbers to 21 digit numbers just to accommodate them.

With the upcoming release Jo Ann Hackett’s new biblical Hebrew grammar Karyn Traphagen has a review based on electronic galleys sent by the publisher.  From her review it seems that the only thing really new about this grammar is Hackett’s terminology of the so-called waw-consecutive/conversive, etc. as the “consecutive preterite.”  This is a good descriptive term but does it really justify an entirely new grammar?  It doesn’t seem to me that she is doing anything pedagogically new with this book.

I think the time may have come to place a moratorium on the publication of new biblical Hebrew grammars unless they do something that present grammars do not do, that is, unless they teach people better.  I think there are a couple grammars in the works that will do this but they are extreme departures from the standard deductive fare.

What do you think?

For your weekend enjoyment; a dramatic reading of one of Lord Byron’s best poems.

One of Simo Parpola’s more controversial proposals–that the Neo-Assyrians had a form of monotheism–is available for free on scribd, “Monotheism in Ancient Assyria.”  This essay first appeared in One God or Many? Concepts of Divinity in the Ancient World: Essays on the concept of monotheism/polytheism in ancient Assyria, Egypt, Greece, and Israel, ed. Barbara Nevling Porter. Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute, Vol. 1, 2000, pp. 165-209.  Enjoy!

I commonly get an assertion framed as a question with the preamble: “Isn’t it possible that…”  Before the student has time to finish the sentence I say, “Yes.”  It just doesn’t matter what the rest of the sentence is because pretty much ANYTHING is possible.  Just because something is possible in and of itself means almost nothing–it is possible that I might spontaneously combust while writing this post; is it likely?, heck no so I keep typing.  However, biblical scholars keep supporting tenuous interpretations under the rubric, “it is possible…” (or the at times closely related, “it is plausible”).

I think the “it is possible” defense is used to support interpretations for two main reasons:

• Someone can provide a sense of justification for holding onto opinions no matter how slim their support
• One can short circuit hard thinking or opine on issues in which they are ignorant by employing the “it is possible” trump card

However, we should realize that almost any interpretation is possible to at least some degree.  What we really should be asking is, “is it probable.”  Those who desire properly warranted biblical interpretations and beliefs should be concerned about the likelihood that their interpretations are accurate and probable according to available data.  The “it is possible” assertion provides only a thin veneer of support that is easily peeled back upon a moment’s reflection.  “It is possible” isn’t saying anything because it includes everything.

The new round of book reviews in RBL is out.  Among them is Gilbert Lozano’s review of Benjamin Sommer’s The Bodies of God which I reviewed here.  I found it rather humorous that Lozano included a catalog of the book’s typographical and grammatical errors while Lozano’s own review contained it’s own fair share of these.  For instance:

Christian readers of this book will appreciate the sensitivity with which Sommer treats this cornerstone of their belief. Protestant readers, on the other hand, will be surprised by Sommer’s comment…

As I Protestant I object to Lozano distinction between “Christian readers” and Protestants, what, am I not a Christian or something?  Furthermore, this is surprising coming from someone who teaches at a Mennonite graduate school–someone who I assume is a fellow Protestant!

Lozano provides a rather detailed summary of the book but I don’t get any sense of his evaluation of it.  He always keeps it at arms length and doesn’t weigh or assess it.  In my opinion a summary is not a review.

If you’d like to check out my take on this book, click here, and you can see more of my reflections on writing reviews here.

Wiseman was a great scholar of both Bible and Assyriology.  For a brief bio see the Australian Institute of Archaeology page.  He will be missed.

Want to see a teaser of what is in store for my OT class tomorrow?  You can see the video here on my Facebook account.  While you’re there why don’t you friend me if we don’t already know each other.