Drew Tatusko has chimed in with his Top 10 list, limiting it to 20th century thinkers (he also has a pretty cool road trip question up, disguised as an 'autobiographical widget'). I'm embarrassed to say that, other than Nieburh, I've not read or even heard of a single scholar on the list. Looks like it might be time to try and expand the library...
[related posts: Sunday Afternoon Blogging: Top 10 Lists]
i had never tagged or labeled posts until yesterday, when i decided it would be a good idea. it would've been much easier to simply have started off doing this. at least i can look at my cool technorati tag cloud now.
[irony of ironies, i initially posted this without tags]
I must be gettin' antsy, 'cause it seems like a pretty good time to start poking Jim West again. Upon review of a recent article purporting that Islam has now exceeded Catholicism in terms of adherents, Jim West had this to say:
while Christians fuss about turning off lights and whaling and pandering to the lowest common denominator by dumbing down the faith and making it palatable to the mamby-pamby by being ‘emergent’ and ’seeker sensitive’, Islam is evangelizing by word and sword and soon will surpass Christianity as the dominant world religion.Now, never let it be said that I begrudge anyone an opportunity to have a little fun at the emergent/-ing church's expense. However, this particular instance of Gen Y Christian bashing seems excessive. What exactly does the seeker sensitive movement have to do with Catholics and their inability to outnumber Muslims?
...to keep track of your comments? I'll usually subscribe to a comment feed to keep track of responses and others' thoughts and whatnot, but is there a better way I'm missing?
Nick Norelli started by absolute favorite (and the only tolerable) kind of 'meme': a good idea that people naturally latch onto. Nick posted a Top 10 list of scholars he wished had blogs (followed by a Top 10 Church Fathers list along the same lines). Beyond his commentators getting in on the action (of course Peter Kirk would add Jesus), Bryan L and Pat McCullough (whom I still have to bug for info on the UCLA program he recently got into) went ahead and posted their own Top 10 lists. Not one to try and think of original things to post, I thought I'd do the same! Without further ado, my Top 10 scholars I wish had blogs:
1. Bruce Metzger
2. C. S. Lewis
3. Bart Ehrman
4. C. S. Lewis
5. J. K. Elliott
6. C. S. Lewis
7. Karl Barth
8. David Parker
9. C. S. Lewis
10. (and for good measure...) C. S. Lewis
Hey, the list was originally just me writing C. S. Lewis' name 10 times. So be happy that I added anyone else at all.
Well, the thing my internship has been geared toward, and that I spent the last seven months working on, is done. I presented my paper yesterday morning, to a crowd of about 12 in Houston. It went pretty well, and there were some good questions that I will try and incorporate into the next revision, as I move toward my thesis. For now, though, I'm just happy to be done.
I saw some awesome papers presented throughout the day, which I will hopefully link to here, as soon as I get permission from the authors. Matt Morgan presented a paper entitled, "Egregious Regius: Sabellianism or Scribal Blunder in John 1.1c." Matt took on the single 8th century reading that has an articular θεος in John 1.1c. Bart Ehrman uses this as one of his examples of orthodox corruption in scripture, but Matt made a pretty airtight case for recognizing it as an unintentional scribal error instead.
Philip Miller also took on Ehrman's orthodox corruption, arguing that Ehrman appears to be arguing from a position closer to rigorous eclecticism than reasoned eclecticism in his paper "The Least Orthodox Reading Is to Be Preferred: a New Canon for New Testament Textual Criticism?"
Finally, Adam Messer provided a mountain of patristic evidence in discussion of the textual problem in Matt 24.36. The paper was titled "Unveiling Patristic Impressions."
It was an enjoyable conference, and I am glad I was able to go. I just hope it returns to the Dallas area in case I want to go next year!
P.S. Also, there was a debate about intelligent design. I had no thoughts on it.
isn't there some quote from lewis about a colony of mollusks attempting to describe 'light' or another creature or something, and it's supposed to be analogous to our attempts to describe God? did i totally make that up in my head? if you know, please tell me, 'cause the googlipedianet didn't help me, and it's going to drive me crazy.
i just, for the first time ever, linked to a random image i found online, without any attribution whatsoever. that was probably wrong. do me a favor, and go buy a bicycle from performance first. they put performance...first.
oh, the title is actually 'performance bike.' a little on-the-nose if you ask me (calling something 'on-the-nose' in film school was like the worst insult ever. i could kill your whole family and it wouldn't be as bad as calling your joke 'on-the-nose.'). i like my imaginary website name better.
WAIT...not so imaginary. nice!
I was being a narcissist, and combing through old posts on Google Reader, when I came across this one and thought, "hey, where'd Ryan go?" Turns out he went on vacation. From blogging.
I know the feeling. Sometimes I'm super-motivated, and I'll read something, and I'll want to respond, and everything's flowing. Other times (like earlier this month), it's pulling teeth to find anything to post on. Or if, like right now, I happen to have a lot of free time, and an internet connection, then away we go! In the end, it's probably like riding a bike: if you think about it too much, you're probably just going to fall over.
"i have a headache."
"did you take advil?"
"yes."
"did it make the headache go away?"
"no."
"why not?"
"this is the kind that can be cast out only by sleep."
i hate curved shower curtain rods. they give the illusion of more space, without any of the advantage.
also, i don't need a triangle on my toilet paper roll. who does?
yes, i am at a hotel. i would upload a picture of said shower curtain rod, but my phone is not cooperating with me.
Tracking Thomas: A Text-Critical Look at the Transmission of the Gospel of Thomas
Much has been written regarding the Gospel of Thomas and whether or not it truly represents a Gnostic text, particularly in its fuller Coptic form. Often this thesis rests on the slightly altered parallels that share their form and content with the Synoptic Gospels. However, much less attention has been paid to the alterations within the extant manuscripts of Thomas itself. We will conduct a rigorous examination of the overlap between the three Greek fragments of Thomas, which represent just under 20% of the text, and the Coptic text. Through reconstruction of the original text wherever possible, we will attempt to discern the nature-Gnostic or otherwise-of the additions, omissions, transpositions, and substitutions in the transmission of the Gospel of Thomas, and how that reflects on the transmission of the New Testament.
[Update: For various reasons, I've removed the link for my paper. If you're really interested, email me and I'll be happy to send you a copy.]
I just hit google's hive mind to try and figure out if the expression is 'bear it out' or 'bare it out'. All I got were a bunch of hits on bear stearns and, predictably enough, bears. Lame, internet!
I like the NET bible. I was introduced to it a few years ago through the NET/NA27 diglot. While I am not always the biggest fan of some of its translations, the notes alone are more than worth the price of admission. If I'm looking for some of the major exegetical issues in a given passage, it's among the first tools I look to for help.
As I was reading through my RSS reader tonight (instead of going to sleep or working on my paper as I should've been) I saw a couple different posts that intersected with my enjoyment of the NET bible. The first was Mike Aubrey's post on translation difficulties in Eph 1.22. As he goes through his explanation of why certain translations get the verse so wrong, a little note at the end confirming that the ESV and NET got it right gave me that same feeling when "my team" wins the game and I get to talk about how great "we" did that night.
Unfortunately, that feeling was short-lived, as a few moments later, I began reading Tyler Williams's post on "Satan" in Job. Off my high of the NET getting it right in Eph 1.22, I thought, "why not check out the NET notes and see how they handle the issue." Unfortunately, it seems they handled it very poorly.
The lesson, of course: don't get wrapped up in Bible translations.
Chris Brady declared January "International Biblical Studies Writing Month." At the time, I had a project that desperately needed completion: my paper for this weekend's Southwest Region ETS conference, but I didn't want to say anything about (I think this is all I've posted online), to avoid any public accountability. Well, I finally finished it! Sort of. I have a few edges that need sand-paper, but as of tomorrow, I will print off the copies, and post it here, for all those who are in desperate need of sleep.
[extended entry]
this is as good a place as any to re-post my favorite biblical scholar quote of all time, courtesy of Stevan Davies, on the Gospel of Thomas:
"It may be our best source for Jesus's teachings. And then again, it may not be."
Dan Wallace has posted on his Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts' (CSNTM) discovery of up to 34 previously unknown New Testament manuscripts. I link to it not only because it's awesome, but because I was on the trip!
This started as another post (and indeed, started a few hours ago), but I've seen more than a few posts on Barack Obama and the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination in the biblioblogosphere (such a long word!) that I thought I would highlight:
To: Interested Parties
From: Clinton Campaign
Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Re: Keystone Test: Obama Losing Ground [Get ready for a good one.]
The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can't win there, how will he win the general election?
[Answer: I suppose by holding obviously Democratic states like California and New York, and beating McCain in swing states like Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia and Wisconsin where Clinton lost to Obama by mostly crushing margins. But good question.]
After setbacks in Ohio and Texas, Barack Obama needs to demonstrate that he can win the state of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the last state with more than 15 electoral votes on the primary calendar and Barack Obama has lost six of the seven other largest states so far -- every state except his home state of Illinois.
[If you define "setback" as netting enough delegates out of our 20-plus-point wins in Mississippi and Wyoming to completely erase any delegate advantage the Clinton campaign earned out of March 4th, then yeah, we feel pretty setback.]
Pennsylvania is of particular importance, along with Ohio, Florida and Michigan, because it is dominated by the swing voters who are critical to a Democratic victory in November. No Democrat has won the presidency without winning Pennsylvania since 1948. And no candidate has won the Democratic nomination without winning Pennsylvania since 1972.
[What the Clinton campaign secretly means: PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT WE'VE LOST 14 OF THE LAST 17 CONTESTS AND SAID THAT MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA WOULDN'T COUNT FOR ANYTHING. Also, we're still trying to wrap our minds around the amazing coincidence that the only "important" states in the nominating process are the ones that Clinton won.]
But the Obama campaign has just announced that it is turning its attention away from Pennsylvania.
[Huh?]
This is not a strategy that can beat John McCain in November.
[I don't think Clinton's strategy of losing in state after state after promising more of the same politics is working all that well either.]
In the last two weeks, Barack Obama has lost ground among men, women, Democrats, independents and Republicans -- all of which point to a candidacy past its prime.
["A candidacy past its prime." These guys kill me.]
For example, just a few weeks ago, Barack Obama won 68% of men in Virginia, 67% in Wisconsin and 62% in Maryland. He won 60% of Virginia women and 55% of Maryland women. He won 62% of independents in Maryland, 64% in Wisconsin and 69% in Virginia. Obama won 59% of Democrats in Maryland, 53% in Wisconsin and 62% in Virginia. And among Republicans, Obama won 72% in both Virginia and Wisconsin.
But now Obama's support has dropped among all these groups.
[That's true, if you don't count all the winning we've been up to. As it turns out, it's difficult to maintain 40-point demographic advantages, even over Clinton]
In Mississippi, he won only 25% of Republicans and barely half of independents. In Ohio, he won only 48% of men, 41% of women and 42% of Democrats. In Texas, he won only 49% of independents and 46% of Democrats. And in Rhode Island, Obama won just 33% of women and 37% of Democrats.
[I'm sympathetic to their attempt to parse crushing defeats. And I'm sure Rush Limbaugh's full-throated endorsement of Clinton didn't make any difference. Right]
Why are so many voters turning away from Barack Obama in state after state?
[You mean besides the fact that we're ahead in votes, states won and delegates?]
In the last few weeks, questions have arisen about Obama's readiness to be president. In Virginia, 56% of Democratic primary voters said Obama was most qualified to be commander-in-chief. That number fell to 37% in Ohio, 35% in Rhode Island and 39% in Texas.
[Only the Clinton campaign could cherry pick states like this. But in contrast to their logic, in the most recent contest of Mississippi, voters said that Obama was more qualified to be commander in chief than Clinton by a margin of 55-42.]
So the late deciders -- those making up their minds in the last days before the election -- have been shifting to Hillary Clinton. Among those who made their decision in the last three days, Obama won 55% in Virginia and 53% in Wisconsin, but only 43% in Mississippi, 40% in Ohio, 39% in Texas and 37% in Rhode Island.
[If only there were enough late deciders for the Clinton campaign to actually be ahead, they would really be on to something.]
If Barack Obama cannot reverse his downward spiral with a big win in Pennsylvania, he cannot possibly be competitive against John McCain in November.
[If they are defining downward spiral as a series of events in which the Clinton campaign has lost more votes, lost more contests and lost more delegates to us ... I guess we will have to suffer this horribly painful slide all the way to the nomination and then on to the White House.]
[Thanks for the laughs guys. This was great.]
but only a little more. there are A LOT of david simon interviews floating around right now, but this is the one that i enjoyed the most, partly because it included an illuminating passage on the almost-universally derided media story-line in season 5:What else did we miss, besides the train tracks?
[interview via heaven and here]
What do you think the main thing that happens in the newspaper story? What is the most dramatic consequence depicted? I'm going Socratic on your Jersey ass.
They're covering a story that doesn't exist and they're devoting all their resources to it.
Ehh! Try again.
They're demoting the one guy in the newsroom who knows what he's doing?
(Disappointed sigh) Oh, Alan, Alan, Alan. “The Wire” is always about subtext. What isn't happening?
They're not writing about the stuff that matters.
Ding ding ding! We know that they mayor is cooking the stats so he can become governor. We know that he's taking apart the Marlo task force. We know that he's backing No Child Left Behind, and hyping a dubious gain in the 3rd grade test scores though the schools remain an unmitigated disaster. We know that these politically charged prosecutions of Clay Davis are being undercut behind the scenes by a variety of conflicting interests, that there's turf wars that result in complete lapses of any anti-corruption effort. We know that Prop Joe is the biggest drug dealer in the city with the main connect, and when he's killed, it's a brief. We know who Omar is -- and, listen, you'd need a really good police reporter to write a story about Omar, but it could happen, but it certainly isn't going to happen at that paper.
if you've noticed an up tick in posting the last few days or so, and guessed that it's because i am out of school for spring break, then you are a very good guesser.
Both the Better Bibles Blog and εν εφεσω have posted recently on so-called "natural" language in Bible translation. I am probably an outlier on this, but I definitely fall on the side of more familiar/traditional language in Bible translation. Partly because in some cases ("in Christ" language is the first that comes to mind), I think there is good evidence that some portions of the Bible would've been as strange to ancient ears as to modern. Partly because I'm not as concerned as others about losing the "specialness" of some phrasing at the cost of using odd phrasing too often. Regardless, Mike Aubrey has asked for translations of 1 Tim 6:10, and I thought I would give it a shot:
For the love of money motivates all kinds of evil. Some, because they desired that love, have strayed from the faith and impaled themselves upon much sorrow.
bryan l has made a move i've considered, but have thus far decided against: from blogger to wordpress.
[i think this post falls in category/reason #10]
when i first saw the title and content of this faithfully liberal post, i immediately thought, "what stupid 'christian-y' commentary is this." but i was totally wrong. i actually think it's a really good idea. i'm sure it would never, ever, EVER happen, but it's a good idea nonetheless, considering the circumstances.
(attempting to de-offend post script: i enjoy the faithfully liberal blog. my initial reaction was more about "christian" blogs than that particular one.)
While it may not happen (indeed, that seems to be my pattern), I'm saving my thoughts on the The Wire finale and hope to post something on The Greatest Television Show of All-Time a bit later. In the meantime, enjoy Vulture's all-encompassing coverage.
The ‘genitive absolute’ (GA) is one of those nits that, once identified as “absolute” [1] or “free,” grammarians can’t help but pick at. “Yes,” they say, “it is meant to be independent from the main clause, but…” and off to the races they go. Most everyone recognizes that the GA is usually independent from the main clause.[2] Wallace, for example, nuances the GA as being “unconnected with the rest of the sentence (i.e., its subject—the genitive noun or pronoun—is different from the subject of the main clause).”[3] While there are a few exceptions even to this definition (from three to seven, depending on who’s counting[4]), it is probably closest to what is going on in Koine Greek.
Indeed, the Classical Greek usage of the GA is where it was most, though still not completely, absolute. Porter notes that (emphasis ours) “This connection between the clauses is more in Hellenistic Greek than in earlier classical Greek, although it was far from unknown then.”[5] Zerwick states the evolution of the GA from Classical to Koine/NT Greek even more strongly: “In classical usage this construction is properly restricted to expressions whose subject does not occur in the main sentence, whether as subject or in any other function…. The neglect of concordance of the participle in favour of its absolute use is to be found in classical Greek, is fairly common in popular and Hellenistic Greek, and is still further extended in the Greek of the LXX and of the NT, where the general tendency of popular speech towards coordination instead of subordination is reinforced by the particular predilection of Semitic speech for juxtaposition of independent clauses in place of syntactical subordination.”[6] Finally, the great C. F. D. Moule betrays the most affinity toward Classical Greek usage in his statement on the GA that (emphases once again ours) “All that need be noted here is the growing laxity of Greek of the N.T. period, as compared with the Classical. It countenances the use of a clumsy Genitive Absolute where a phrase in agreement with an already present (or implied) Nominative, Accusative, or Dative would be both correct and neat.”[7] Suffice it to say that, whether we are speaking of Classical or Hellenistic Greek, the GA, while nominally independent, is in reality often linked to the main clause.[8]
Our goal here, however, is not to conduct a comparison of the GA in Classical Greek versus the GA in Hellenistic Greek. Instead, it is our determination to analyze the GA in the Apostolic Fathers, and to determine if it is in line with the trajectory of the GA from Classical Greek into Koine/Hellenistic Greek. That is, we expect the GA in the AF to show increasing linkage to some portion of the main clause rather than maintain grammatical independence from it.[9]
First, let us define precisely what we mean when we speak of the GA construction. Spieker put it quite nicely when he said, “a noun in the genitive, with a participle agreeing with it, may stand, in a sentence of which it is ordinarily not the subject or object, in what may be termed an absolute way, that is to say without any case dependence on any other word, practically (though not really) the equivalent of a subordinate clause, and expressing whatever relations the participle is capable of expressing: time, cause, concession, condition.”[10] We may also define our structural parameters with the help of Wallace, who notes “the genitive absolute consists of the following: 1) a noun or pronoun in the genitive case (though this is sometimes absent); 2) a genitive anarthrous participle (always); 3) the entire construction at the front of a sentence (usually).”[11] We take as our first step, therefore, that which we know to be true always: the presence of anarthrous genitive participles. With that in mind, our terminus ad quantum, so to speak, will be 274. This is the total number of anarthrous genitive participles in the AF.[12] That list will be utilized as a catch-all, against which we will check other, more narrowly-parametered searches (e.g., a search for anarthrous genitive participles in agreement with genitive nouns, toward the beginning of clauses, within a few words of each other, etc.). Having culled together the total number of GAs in the AF, we will attempt to categorize them first by their independence (i.e., whether they are closer grammatically to Classical Greek [more independent] or to Koine Greek [less independent]), and then by their syntax (i.e., in what sense are they circumstantial). Finally, we will illustrate all of their grammatical and syntactical uses through representative examples coupled with every other reference that could conceivably be contained with a given category.
Bibliography
[3] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 655.
[4] Mt 1.18 has near universal recognition in the grammars as one of these exceptions (Friedrich Blass, Albert Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), §423; A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1934), 514; Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek
(Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1963), §49.). The other two upon which there is general agreement are Acts 21.34 and 28.6 (so Phyllis Healy and Alan Healey, “Greek Circumstantial Participles: Tracking Participants with Participles in the Greek New Testament,” Occasional Papers in Translation and Textlinguistics 4, no. 3
(1990)). Lois K. Fuller (“The ‘Genitive Absolute’ in New Testament/Hellenistic Greek: A Proposal for Clearer Understanding,” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 3 (2006): 153–54) also argues for Mk 6.22, 8.1; 2 Cor 9.13-14; and Heb 8.9 (quoting the LXX).
[5] Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 183–84.
[6] Zerwick, Biblical Greek, §§48–49.
[7] C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 2d ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 43.
[8] See Fuller, “‘Genitive Absolute’ in New Testament/Hellenistic Greek,” 145 for a detailed analysis of the GA in the NT. Her estimate is that as much as 26% of the time, the subject of the GA is referred to in the main clause, rendering “independent” a relative term.
[9] The language of “grammatical independence” can get us in a bit of trouble. Even when the subject of the GA is included in some form in the main clause (i.e. referred to again by a genitive, accusative, dative, or nominative in the main clause), it is still grammatically (or formally as Porter (Idioms, 183) puts it) independent. But it is no longer logically independent. With that caveat in mind, we will continue to speak of “grammatical indepence.”
[10] Edward H. Spieker, “On the So-Called Genitive Absolute and Its Use Especially in the Attic Orators,” The American Journal of Philology 6, no. 3 (1885): 311.
[11] Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 655.
[12] The search for anarthous genitive participles (and indeed every other search included in this paper) was conducted utilizing the Apostolic Fathers module (AF, edited and revised by Michael Holmes, ver. 2.3) in Accordance 7.4. The parameters of the Greek construction were as follows: ARTICLE (masculine, feminine, neuter) + VERB (participle, genitive).
Christopher Heard, demonstrating sanity. It's in pretty low demand these days.
UPDATE: Hmm... Chris seems to have taken this post down.
UPDATE 2: Nope, link corrected. See comments for details (they're juicy!).
David Ker of Lingamish wrote last month (while I was off in the jungles of my upcoming ETS paper) of the value of the 'original' texts versus the translations most Christians use day to day:
For the sake of preparing for the course I thought I would read the epistles beginning with Ephesians. My hand hovered over my Greek New Testament but then settled on my Contemporary English Version. At some point I do need to go through and acquaint myself with the Greek language but what I really need at this point is to get the big picture on the epistles. And certainly it’s the Big Picture that Paul was interested in getting across in Ephesians. He didn’t expect his readers to focus on verb tenses and grammar. His letter was written to the Ephesians (or Laodiceans, or whoever…) with a purpose in mind.I am of two minds on the issue. I understand that most people aren't going to submerge themselves in the original languages to the point that they'll be able to pick up NA27 or BHS and start reading along. I've been studying Greek and Hebrew for 3 years now, and I'm only just becoming comfortable with the Greek (and, while I don't mean to brag, I'm a pretty quick study). On the other hand, I think a pastor, or teacher, who is taking his congregation through the text, is in some way doing them a disservice if he is unable to dive into the exegetical issues, many of which only come up if you're interacting with the original text. There are, of course, various shortcuts, such as a well-footnoted translation, or liberal use of commentaries, but even those are only so useful if one is unwilling or unable to also open up a lexicon or grammar to get some more insight on a passage.
For my Advanced Greek Grammar course, the first draft of our term paper is due this Friday. I don't know how much I'll be able to turn in, but here's the bibliography I've come up with so far:
Argyle, Aubrey W. “The Genitive Absolute in Biblical Greek.” Expository Times 69, no. 9 (1958).
Boyer, James L. “The Classification of Participles: A Statistical Study.” Grace Theological Journal 5, no. 2 (1984): 163–79.
Cox, Steven L. “Are Genitive Absolutes Always Absolute?” A paper given at the SBL National Meeting in San Antonio, TX (November 2004).
Culy, Martin M. “The Clue Is in the Case: Distinguishing Adjectival and Adverbial Participles.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 30, no. 4 (2003): 441–53.
Fuller, Lois K. “The 'Genitive Absolute' in New Testament/Hellenistic Greek: A Proposal for Clearer Understanding.” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 3 (2006): 142–67.
Healy, Phyllis, and Alan Healey. “Greek Circumstantial Participles: Tracking Participants with Participles in the Greek New Testament.” Occasional Papers in Translation and Textlinguistics 4, no. 3 (1990): 176–259.
And of course, a healthy dose of the grammars, including Wallace, Robertson, BDF, and Young.
...to run for President. He's not a natural born citizen of the United States.
From a recent assignment...
English:
James, the brother of the Lord, was called the “Just” by all people from the Lord’s time until ours, since many are called James, but he was holy from his mother’s womb. He drank no wine or strong drink, nor did he eat meat. He used to enter alone into the temple and would be found kneeling and praying for the forgiveness of his people, so that his knees grew hard like a camel’s because of his constant worship of God, kneeling and asking forgiveness for his people. So from his excessive righteousness he was called the “Just.”
Greek:
Ἰάκωβος ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίου ἐκλήθη ὁ δίκαιος ὑπὸ πάντων ἐκ κυρίου ἕως ὑμῶν ἐπεὶ ἐκλήθησαν οἱ πολλοὶ Ἰάκωβοι, ὁ δὲ ἅγιος ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ. οὔτε ἔπιεν οἶνον οὔτε σίκερα οὔτε ἔφαγεν κρέα. εἰςήρχετο μόνος εἰς ναὸν καὶ ηὑρίσκετο γονυπετῶν προσευχόμενος ἄφεσιν τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ ἵνα προσκεκυνηκὼς ἀδιαλείπτως τῷ θεῷ γονυπετῶν αἰτῶν ἄφεσιν τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ πωρώσωσιν τὰ γόνατα ὡς καμήλου. ἐκλήθη γὰρ αὐτὸς ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ τῆς μεγάλης δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ.
Ryan Jones writes of the credit due Bishop Spong for his interest in Biblical Studies:
If blogs take a few days to assimilate, then books, I think, take a little longer. Spong’s book was essentially my introduction to biblical studies. So after a little time to reflect on his book, I realized that he had forever shut the door for me to ever read scripture and assume there are no difficulties. So despite the many theological disagreements I might have with Spong, I wonder if he may have been more foundational in my Christian life than I have given him credit for. Many of my faith questions have come from an implicit wrestling with the theological agenda he set for me over a decade ago.
Posts
All Comments
