One Year Blogiversary & 40,000th Visitor Contests

Posted on by

Things in my little universe are converging. The visitor count for my blog is approaching the magic 40,000 number. My one year blogiversary is also approaching on April 8, 2006. What is more, my own 40th birthday is fast approaching (I was born on the morning of April 1st, 1966 — and yes, I know that is April Fool’s day! And yes, I know how appropriate people who know me think that is! :-)).

At any rate, if I have done my math right, it may be possible to reach the 40,000 visitor mark on my actual 40th birthday! This will mean that my vistor count will also have to be a bit above average for the next three weeks. In order to meet this goal and to reward my 40,000th visitor, I have decided to have a couple contests.

Tell-A-Friend about Codex Contest

First, in order to raise my visitor count to ensure I hit 40,000 on or before my birthday, I am going to have a “Tell-A-Friend about Codex Contest.” The rules of the contest are simple:

  • Email a friend about Codex: Biblical Studies Blogspot — whether about the blog in general or about a particular post that you liked — and tell them to visit. The email should say something about my blog (“It’s the greatist thing since sliced bread”) and include the url to the blog (http://biblical-studies.ca/blog). Here’s the catch: you need to CC me the email at “contest[at]biblical-studies[dot]ca.” The cc’d email will constitute your entry. (Remember to CC me or I won’t know you entered.)
  • Then after 12 noon on my 40th birthday (April 1, 2006, MST), I’ll pick an email completely at random from the cc’d emails sent to the above address and, presto, that individual will be the lucky winner. (Don’t worry, these emails will only be used to pick and contact a winner of this contest. I promise.)

So get those emails going! And remember to tell them to visit us here at Codex! Feel free to email as many friends/enemies as you want or have — multiple entries are more than welcome! (BTW: email lists will only count as one person!)

In addition, a post on your blog with a trackback or a link back to this entry or this blog will also constitute one entry. All you need to do is email me at at “contest[at]biblical-studies[dot]ca” and let me know about the post.

40,000th Visitor Contest

As I have done in the past with my 10,000th visitor (see here), whoever is my 40,000th visitor will also be a winner! There is not much you can do but visit here often and perhaps even read something! Once I have hit the 40,000 mark, I will blog the time and location of the lucky visitor and then they can contact me via email and verify with their IP address. To be fair, I will change my site meter icon once we get closer to the 40,000 mark so that no one just sits there refreshing the webpage!

The Prizes

The lucky winners will be able to select a free book from a number of possible options (that I will provide you) that relate to the focus of this blog (e.g., Biblical Studies, Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, Classical Hebrew, Faith & Film, Religion & Popular Culture, etc.).

Stay tuned for contest updates and good luck to everyone!


Fractures in Genesis: Karamat on Carr

Posted on by

Kevin Wilson over at Karamat has a good review of David Carr‘s book, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Westminster John Knox Press, 1996; Buy from Amazon.ca or Buy from Amazon.com).

While it has been a few years since I read Carr, I can say that this is an excellent work on contemporary source criticism of the book of Genesis. Carr takes an approach that tries to balance traditional source criticism and synchronic approaches (or at least take them into consideration). At any rate, if you are interested in source criticism of the book of Genesis, take a look at Kevin’s review and then take a look at Carr for your self.


Hebrew Tattoos: Buyers Beware!

Posted on by

Believe it or not, one of the more frequent Google searches by which individuals happen upon my blog is a search for “Hebrew Tattoos.” This search, which appears to happen once every few hundred visits to my site, leads readers to my tongue-in-cheek post “Posh Hebrew Tattoos, David! (Beckhams Inscribe their Love).” I have also had individuals email me asking advice on Hebrew tattoos, primarily wanting verification about the spelling of this or that word. My own students also ask similar questions (the latest being just last week).

This interest in Hebrew tattoos intrigues me. It obviously piggy-backs on the popularity of tattoos in general, though I suspect that the fact you have high profile celebrities like David and Victoria Beckham, Madonna, and Britney Spears with Hebrew tattoos boosts their popularity. And, of course, you have the religious crowd that likes tattoos of a biblical character, whether Hebrew, Greek, or even Aramaic.

At any rate, after reproducing the Google search for “Hebrew Tattoos” you will come across a number of web sites that specialize in tattoos, even ones devoted to Hebrew Tattoos that want to cash in on the craze. Most of these sites have sample pictures of actual Hebrew tattoos. What I found troubling is the number of mistakes in these tattoos. As a public service to any individuals thinking of getting a Hebrew tattoo, I thought I would highlight some of the mistakes so that others may avoid them in the future.

Hebrew Tattoos You Don’t Want

hebrew_eloheem.jpg

This first example of the Hebrew term for “God” makes a simple mistake of confusing Hebrew characters that look similar (of which there are a few!). The bottom letter on the tattoo is a samech (a Hebrew “s”) while it is supposed to be a mem (a Hebrew “m”). Another possibility that Yitzhak Sapir noted in the comments, is that the final letter is the Rashi script for final mem. He suggests that “some Jewish figure who was uncomfortable writing out the name of God changed scripts as a result.” While this is certainly possible, it seems odd that the rest of the tattoo is standard Aramaic square script. I am also not sure how many Jewish tattoo artists are out there who know Rashi’s script! I think my explanation makes a bit more sense. This tattoo is an example of a simple mistake made by someone who was trying to match the letters from a picture or something (I get quite a few papers from students who know a little Hebrew and try to include Hebrew words but they confuse stuff like final mem and samech, resh and dalet, etc.). Either way, if you are going to get a tattoo, it’s probably better to use the same script for the entire thing!

holy_spirit_freedom.jpg

This tattoo, which has a Hebrew word purported by the website I found it on to mean “freedom” (perhaps based on Lev 19:20?) has the vowel points shifted incorrectly to the left. As such it is nonsensical. Moreover, as the comments to this post indicate, in modern Hebrew this word (if correctly pointed) means “vacation” — which I am pretty sure the individual who got the tattoo did not want (especially considering the symbol of the Holy Spirit above it!).

holy-to-the-Lord.jpg

This tattoo, which means “holy to the LORD/Yahweh,” has letters which are either not drawn very carefully or confused (note the difference in width in the second last character in the bottom word; the tattoo has what looks like a dalet or resh, which it should be a vav) as well as incorrect vowel pointing.

In_blood1.jpg

This tattoo is supposed to say “in blood” according to the website where I found it. The expression is not biblical Hebrew, but a modern Hebrew phrase for “blood relative” or the like (see the comments by Yitzhak Sapir). Of course, the tattoo is still incorrect since it is missing the silent sheva after the resh (and the resh looks a bit like a yod). (If I was going to write “in blood” in Biblical Hebrew, I would simply do it as I have it on the bottom.)

aramaic_yhwh.jpg

This tattoo of the name of the God of Israel, “Yahweh,” is fine, though the web page identified it as Aramaic. In fact, this is a paleo-Hebrew script of the divine name.

Hebrew_love.jpg

There is nothing wrong with this Hebrew tattoo. I just thought it’s funny because the word inscribed can possibly mean both “love” as well as “leather” (some scholars suggest that there is a homograph [×?הבה II] which means “leather” [see KB3]). It arguably occurs in Hosea 11:4 [perhaps] and Song 3:10 [more likely]). Perhaps this can be taken as a warning not to spend too much time in the tanning salons?! (Of course, in modern Hebrew ×?הבה clearly means love, and as I already noted, there is nothing wrong with this tattoo.)

The lesson here is that you cannot trust pictures of Hebrew tattoos on the internet! Make sure to double check the spelling of the Hebrew word you want tattooed!

Tips for Getting Hebrew Tattoos

If you are thinking of getting a Hebrew tattoo, consider the following:

First, think long and hard about getting a tattoo because they are permanent (notwithstanding modifying tattoos or erasing them). If you are set on the idea of getting a tattoo, think about getting a temporary one first. Also think about where you put your tattoo. Based on the experience of friends, I wouldn’t suggest getting a tattoo on any place where your body may change drastically as you age (and women, beware of tattoos on your stomach as if you ever get pregnant, your tattoo may be stretched beyond recognition (and it may not go back to its original shape — ask my friend!).

Second, if you are getting a Hebrew tattoo, make sure to double check with someone who knows Hebrew (or Greek if you are getting a Greek one) whether or not you have the proper spelling of the word. It would be a bummer to get a tattoo like those above — the only consolation would be that most people wouldn’t know you have a spelling mistake permanently inscribed on your body!

Third, one thing to decide before getting a Hebrew tattoo is whether or not to just use consonants (as Hebrew was originally written) or use consonants with the Masoretic vowel pointing (the little dots and dashes above and below the consonants). The vowel points were added to the text of the Hebrew Bible in the early centuries of this era by Jewish scribes called the Masoretes. While the vowel points represent an ancient reading tradition, they are not original to the Hebrew text, so you may not want to include them. (I personally wouldn’t include them if only for aesthetic reasons)

Finally, make sure to go to a reputable tattoo shop!

As a side note, I don’t have any tattoos nor any intention of getting one — and I hope that this trend will die down by the time my kids are older! My primary problem with tattoos is that they are too permanent; what you may think is cool when you are younger, you may later regret.


Movies Worth Watching (Oscars, Razzies, and Essential Films Follow-Up)

Posted on by

oscar_small.jpgTonight The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will put on their yearly spectacle called the Oscars. I may watch the 78th Annual Academy Awards tonight, though I find the actual award ceremony to be way too long and way too boring — and I just can’t stand all of the glitz and glamour that surrounds the telecast. I really don’t care what so-and-so wears on the red carpet or what expensive gifts the already grossly over-paid and self-important celebrities received for the hard work of reading a prompter when presenting an award!

That being said, I like films and I consider myself an armchair movie buff. So I am interested in who the winners are; if only to see how misguided the Academy is! At any rate, if you are interested, a list of the nominees is available here. The only films that I hope win an award include A History of Violence (2005; IMDb) and Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (2005; IMDb); otherwise I don’t have any strong opinions.

razzieLogo.jpgMore significantly, the 26th Annual Golden Raspberry (Razzie) Awards were just announced. Legendary actors such as Rob Schneider, Jenny McCarthy, Hayden Christensen, and Paris Hilton all won well-deserved awards. The worst picture award (as well as three ohers) went to Dirty Love (2005; IMDb), which I didn’t manage to watch this last year — actually I hadn’t even heard of the film! (Don’t worry if you didn’t see it either; from the reviews it received it appears to have been very pathetic!). Perhaps the best category was the “Most Tiresome Tabloid Targets” in which Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes, Oprah Winfrey’s Couch, The Eiffel Tower, and “Tom’s Baby” were all honoured.

Now to some movies truly worth watching…

Essential Films Follow-Up

I have enjoyed the response to my two lists of “Essential Films for Theologians” (see my “Essential Films for Theologians: The ‘Director’s Cut’” and my “Essential Films of 2005 for Theologians – Extended Edition“). In the discussion of my lists (both on my blog and Ben Myer‘s Faith and Theology here and here), individuals have noted many excellent films that are definitely worth watching. In many cases these are films that I seriously considered adding to my own lists or are movies that I really should have considered but failed to remember them. In addition, David Williamson also came up with his own list of Top Ten Spiritual Films which is worthy of a gander.

In regards to my Essential Films for Theologians list, there were a number of other films highlighted in the comments that are definitely worthy of viewing. Most of them I had considered including on my list, while others I had not even heard of before and are now on my “films to view” list. Perhaps the only film which I feel I should have included for sentimental reasons is The Princess Bride (1987; IMDb).

Here are some other movies worth watching that were mentioned in the comments (in alphabetic order):

  • Andrey Rublyov (1969; IMDb)
  • The Best of Youth (La Meglio gioventù; 2003; IMDb)
  • The Butterfly (La Lengua de las Mariposas; 1999; IMDb)
  • Come and See (Idi i smotri; 1985; IMDb)
  • Diary of a Country Priest (Journal d’un curé de campagne; 1951; IMDb)
  • Fight Club (1999; IMDb)
  • The Game (1997; IMDb)
  • Itallian for Beginners (Italiensk for begyndere; 2000; IMDb)
  • Mean Streets (1973; IMDb)
  • Ordet (1955; IMDb)
  • Passion of Joan of Arc (La Passion de Jeanne d’Arc; 1928; IMDb)
  • The Pledge (2001; IMDb)
  • Pulp Fiction (1994; IMDb)
  • Pi (1998; IMDb)
  • Run Lola Run (Lola rennt; 1998; IMDb)

A couple films that I did not include in my “Essential Films of 2005 for Theologians” list or in the extended discussion, included Millions (2004; IMDb) and Stage Beauty (2004; IMDb).

All in all, there are many excellent films — as well as many not-so-excellent films — produced every year. The challenge, of course, is being astute enough to figure out which ones are worthy of our time! I only hope that I may have highlighted a few films that are worthy of viewing!


I Would Like to Thank the Academy…

Posted on by

Wow! Talk about unexpected awards! I didn’t even know I was nominated!

Jim West of Petros Baptist Church fame (formerly the biblioblogger known as Biblical Studies Blog) has awarded me with an “Oscar” in the category of Best Biblioblog (Hebrew Bible Category).

Thanks, Jim! I didn’t have time to prepare an acceptance speech, but I would like to thank the academy, my long-suffering wife, my kids, and, of course, all of my supporters who really should be doing something more productive than reading my blog! 🙂

Seriously, I would like to thank all who frequent this site. I’ve been blogging for almost a year and I have to admit that I have thoroughly enjoyed the expereince!


Cancer and John Piper Follow-Up

Posted on by

I wanted to post a follow-up to my previous post on “Cancer, John Piper, and the Falleness of Creation” in order to tie up some loose ends and offer a bit more reflection.

First, I would like to thank everyone who commented on my original post (I have moved all of the comments to WordPress) as well as those who have offered reflections on their own blogs (e.g., see the divergent perspectives offered at Christ and Culture and rhettsmith.com). As an armchair Barthian, I especially appreciated Ben Myer’s quotation from Karl Barth, which is so good I must reproduce it in full:

“[Sickness] is opposed to [God’s] good will as Creator and has existence and power only under his mighty No. To capitulate before it, to allow it to take its course, can never be obedience but only disobedience towards God. In harmony with the will of God, what man ought to will in face of this whole realm … and therefore in face of sickness, can only be final resistance.” Church Dogmatics III/4, pp. 367-8

I encourage you to read Ben’s own reflections (as well as the interesting discussion in the comments to his post) at Faith and Theology.

In my post, I was not espousing open theism, nor was I offering a critique of John Piper’s reformed theology as a whole; I was just offering personal reflections on two points of his post “Don’t Waste Your Cancer.” As such, I didn’t think I needed to engage everything Piper has written on suffering and the sovereignty of God! In regards to Piper’s “proof-texting” my point was simply that when offering scriptural support to a particular argument, it is important to understand the verse(s) in their larger context — as well as the larger context of the canon of Scripture. I did not feel that Piper did that in the post I was responding to (his second point was especially problematic IMHO).

At any rate, the primary reason I wanted to follow-up my original post was due to the fact that a student in my Biblical Theology course I am teaching this semester (the topic of his post came up in class discussion) contacted John Piper with some questions about the appropriateness of thinking of cancer as a “gift from God.” The John Piper Ministry, Desiring God, responded with the following (note that the reply is not responding to my blog post, but to an email my student sent):

Thank you for your email to Desiring God. My name is Brian Tabb, and I work at Desiring God and will answer this email for John Piper. Your questions/comments come in response to “Don’t Waste Your Cancer,� posted by John Piper the day before his cancer surgery. Piper cited Job 2:7-10 as support for the statement “You will waste your cancer if you do not believe it is designed for you by God.� This passage begins, “So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and struck Job with loathsome sores from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head� (Job 2:7). Satan is the instrument and intends Job’s harm and ultimately his denial of God. Yet he can not so much as lay a finger on Job without asking God and God saying yes. God’s role in Job’s suffering is not minimized by the Biblical author or by the character of Job or his wife. Both knew that God was behind the boils. Job’s wife responded negatively (a common way to respond to cancer/boils/etc.) “Curse God and die.� This is exactly what Satan wanted out of this affliction. Job’s response is rebuke and humble submission, “You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?�

You want to emphasize that suffering exists only because ours is a sinful, fallen world, and I agree. That does not exclude Piper’s position but talks past it. You argue, “In a sinless and unfallen world, cancer would not be a gift from God so how can this be in our sin-filled world?� However, this is arguing for a hypothetical world in which cancer is not a gift rather than arguing from the world we live in. God did not ordain cancer in Genesis 2 and there will be no more in Revelation 21. But we live in between, and while the kingdom of God has been inaugurated in the ministry of Jesus (Lk 11:20), it will not be consummated until Christ’s return (Rev. 12:10). Jesus did come to heal, yet in God’s wisdom he also died a criminal’s death as the crowds jeered “Save yourself� (Lk 23:37). Why did Jesus not go immediately to heal Lazarus, his beloved friend, in Jn 11? For the display of the glory of God. Why was Paul not healed of his thorn in 2 Cor. 12? He said “so that the power of Christ may rest upon me� (12:9).

You are correct to point out that we must deal with the sinfulness that is real and pervasive in our present world, and Piper and I certainly agree with you. But it is too simplistic to say that such and such happens because of sin. Job’s friends did that and were heartily rebuked at the end of the book because they had no clue about God’s wisdom and design. The disciples in John 9 said “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?� Jesus’ answer blows their retribution theology out of the water, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.� Sin is a very real cause of suffering, but it is not ultimate. What we want to stress is that God is ultimate as this seems the clear witness of the above passages and more. I hope this helps to clarify the article and I welcome any further feedback.

For the Supremacy of Christ in All Things,

Brian Tabb
Desiring God
2601 East Franklin Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55406
888.346.4700 (toll free)
612.338.4372 (fax)
www.desiringGod.org

I have a couple reactions to this response. First, I would agree that God is presented as absolutely sovereign in the book of Job. The adversary (hasatan) only does what God permits. That being said, the point of the book is to undermine traditional retribution theology that sees all suffering as the result of sin. I don’t think its point is to argue that all suffering is caused by God (nor is that the point of John 9). The prose prologue to the book of Job gives us a metaphorical glimpse into God’s council chambers in order to provide an incontrovertible example an individual whose suffering is not the result of his own sin (and let’s face it, Job is presented as the poster-boy for traditional retribution theology). It’s point is not that all suffering should be seen as a gift from God anymore than it should be understood as the result of a wager between God and a celestial adversary!

Second, I would agree that it is “too simplistic” to say that suffering is the result of sinful actions (I don’t think my post would have given this impression; I imagine that it is more in response to my student’s email). I would also say that it is “too simplistic” (or reductionistic) to attribute all suffering/sickness to direct divine agency. The question of suffering is complex and I believe ultimately mysterious. In the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (and in parts of the New Testament as well), the dominant theological view saw a direct connection between action and consequence (for more on retribution theology, see my reflections on hurricane Katrina here). The book of Job dismantles this reductionistic view and ultimately argues that only God knows the solution to the question of suffering (hence, passages like the mediation on who is truly wise in Job 28 is not extraneous to the message of the book as a whole). The biology lesson that God gives Job in the final chapters of the book forcefully makes the point that if we as humans can’t understand the world that God has put us in, how do we think we could understand the divine economy? Suffering has many sources. If we take into consideration the entire biblical witness, then suffering may be understood as the result of human, demonic, or divine agency, or its origins may be the result of the fallen state of the world. To reduce it to any one of these is saying more than Scripture allows.

Finally, back to the topic of cancer. In my humble opinion, cancer is not a gift from God. Perhaps the difference between Piper’s views and my own are semantic, though I don’t think so. What is a gift, however, is the grace, hope, and healing that God may give to those who are struggling with cancer.

In terms of an update, I am happy to report that my father-in-law and good friend have both had their first round of chemotherapy and are doing remarkably well, all things considering. I have not heard anything more on John Piper’s condition (I couldn’t find anything on his website, so I assume no news is good news). Please continue to pray for these individuals as you see fit.

Once again, I encourage you to consider supporting one of the many agencies or foundations who work towards cures and more effective cancer treatments, such as the Canadian Cancer Society or the American Cancer Society.


Biblical Studies Carnival III is Online at ricoblog

Posted on by

Rick Brannan of Pastoral Epistles.com and ricoblog fame has done a “fab-o-riffic” job of pulling together biblical studies posts from the blogosphere for the month of February into the “sheer chunky goodness” that is Biblical Studies Carnival III. As is clear from his post, February was a good month in regards to biblical studies in the blogosphere and I encourage you to take a gander at Rico’s “super kool” post… but now I wax poetic…

Upcoming Biblical Studies Carnivals

Bibilical Studies Carnival IV (BSC:IV) will be hosted by Loren Rosson III at The Busybody in the first week of April, 2006. Look for a call for submissions on his blog soon.

Submissions (which should be blog entries posted in March 2006) for the next Biblical Studies Carnival may be emailed to biblical_studies_carnival [AT] hotmail.com or entered via the submission form provided by Blog Carnival here.

For information about the Biblical Studies Carnival please consult the Biblical Studies Carnival Homepage.

Previous Biblical Studies Carnivals

  • Biblical Studies Carnival II (Tyler F. Williams, Codex Blogspot – February 2006)
  • Biblical Studies Carnival I (Joel Ng, Ebla Logs – April 2005)

The Editing of the Book of Psalms: A Tribute to Gerald H. Wilson

Posted on by

GWilson.jpgI was shocked and saddened to read of Dr. Gerald H. Wilson‘s passing in today’s up-date to the SBL Forum (I was also surprised that it took so long to hear the news since he died in November; but perhaps it was a consequence of not attending the SBL Annual Meeting). While I did not know Gerald really well, we did have lunch together on a number of occasions at SBL meetings to talk shop and interacted via email on a number of topics surrounding the study of the book of Psalms. He was an able scholar, a man of integrity, and a great guy — and he will be sorely missed.

Here is an excerpt from the obituary posted in the SBL forum:

Dr. Gerald Wilson, Professor of Biblical Studies at Azusa Pacific University since fall 1999, died on 11 November 2005, immediately after suffering a heart attack. He was deeply respected by his students and colleagues. In 2002 he was awarded the Faculty Outstanding Scholarship Achievement Award.

Professor Wilson was a graduate of Baylor University in Waco, Texas. Afterwards he took an M.Div. and an M.A. from Fuller Theological Seminary. There he was inspired in the study of biblical Hebrew by Prof. William S. LaSor. He continued his studies at Yale University, under the direction of Professors Robert R. Wilson and Brevard S. Childs. There he earned an M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D. On the basis of his work at Yale, he established himself as a pioneering scholar in the study of the Psalms as he undertook examination of the canonical shape of the Psalter.

Wilson’s Pioneering Work on the Psalms

Professor Wilson was truly a “pioneering scholar” in the study of the Psalter. Some of the most exciting — and theologically fruitful — work being done on the Psalter in the last quarter-century has been by those employing “canonical” or “synchronic” methods — and Wilson’s ground-breaking study of the editing of the book of Psalms led the way. In fact, his 1981 Yale thesis, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (SBLDS 76; Scholars Press, 1985; Buy from Amazon.ca or Amazon.com) was one of the first comprehensive English-language works on the shape of the book of Psalms. This volume, as well as Wilson’s numerous articles and essays (see bibliography below), have served as the foundation for much of the research done in this area.

ShapePsalterChart.jpgUsing a number of ancient collections of hymnic material as a comparative “control group,” Wilson sought to demonstrate that the Hebrew Psalter has an overall shape or structure that was brought about by purposeful editorial activity. From his study of the comparative material and the book of Psalms itself, Wilson isolated a number of indicators that helped identify the editorial pattern behind the canonical form of the book of Psalms. Indicators such as author and genre categories from the psalm headings; thematic grouping of psalms; the placement of previous collections; the function of the first psalm as an introduction to the Psalter as a whole; and the Psalter’s fivefold division were understood by Wilson to have editorial significance (Click on the image to the right to see a handout I developed that graphically displays Wilson’s understanding of the editorial structure of the Psalter).

Because of the different methods used in putting together psalms in Books I-III and IV-V, Wilson suggested that the Psalter underwent two (likely distinct) editings, one for Psalms 1-89 and another for Psalms 90-150. The first segment (Psalms 1-89) is organized principally by author and genre distinctions, with royal psalms used as buffers between the collections (e.g., Psalms 2, 72, 89). According to Wilson, these royal psalms give the collection a Davidic framework that traces the events of the Davidic monarchy from its inception (Psalm 2) to its failure and exile (Psalm 89). The second grouping (Psalms 90-150) is dominated by smaller collections organized by common themes or catchwords. In particular, book four (Psalms 90-106) functions as the editorial centre of the book of Psalms and answers the lament over the demise of the monarchy expressed in Psalm 89. Wilson argues that these psalms point back to the Mosaic era (cf. the heading to Psalm 90) when Yahweh alone served as Israel’s king and refuge, and promise that Yahweh will continue to be such in the future. Book five (Psalms 107-150), like book four, answers the lament of the first three books by encouraging Israel to trust in Yahweh alone through obedience to the Torah (cf. the overwhelming effect of the placement of Psalm 119). Finally, Wilson argues the placement of Psalm 1 at the beginning of the Psalter indicates that “the Psalter is a book to be read rather than be performed; to be meditated over rather than to be recited from.” For Wilson, the message that the shape of the book of Psalms declares implicitly is that kingship and the Davidic monarchy are false hopes. Yahweh is the only true king and refuge for Israel, and in him alone should they trust.

Wilson_Psalms1.jpgIn the years following the publication of his thesis, Wilson produced a whole series of articles that refined his views (see below). His most significant publication since his thesis, however, is clearly his Psalms Volume 1 (The NIV Application Commentary; Zondervan, 2002; Buy from Amazon.ca or Buy from Amazon.com. This commentary on Psalms 1-72 is written for a more popular audience in mind, yet is based on a careful analysis of the Hebrew text. What is more, Wilson does not just deal with the psalms individually, but explores the connections between the psalms in a way that is both academically sound and theologically relevant. I highly recommend it for all students of the Bible.

When all is said and done, Gerald Wilson’s research on editing of the book of Psalms has been an inspiration — whether directly or indirectly — to countless scholars. And with his passing, biblical scholarship has lost an able scholar. I extend my condolences to his family, friends, and students.

A Bibliography of Gerald Wilson’s Work on the Psalter

  • Wilson, Gerald H. “The Qumran Psalms Manuscripts and Consecutive Arrangement of Psalms in the Hebrew Psalter.” CBQ 45 (1983): 377-88.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “Editiorial Divisions in the Hebrew Psalter.” VT 34 (1984): 337-52.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, SBLDS 76. Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1985.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “The Qumran Psalms Scroll Reconsidered: Analysis of the Debate.” CBQ 47 (1985): 624-42.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “The Use of ‘Untitled’ Psalms in the Hebrew Psalter.” ZAW 97 (1985): 404-13.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “The Use of Royal Psalms at the ‘Seams’ of the Hebrew Psalter.” JSOT 35 (1986): 85-94.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “A First Century C.E. Date for the Closing of the Hebrew Psalter?” In Haim M. I. Gevarjahu Memorial Volume. English-French-German Section, edited by J. J. Adler, 136-43. Jerusalem: World Jewish Bible Center, 1990.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “The Shape of the Book of Psalms.” Interpretation 46 (1992): 129-42.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “Shaping the Psalter: A Consideration of Editorial Linkage in the Book of Psalms.” In The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, edited by J. Clinton McCann, 72-82. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “Understanding the Purposeful Arrangement of Psalms in the Psalter: Pitfalls and Promise.” In The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, edited by J. Clinton McCann, 42-51. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “The Qumran Psalms Scroll (11QPsa) and the Canonical Psalter: Comparison of Editorial Shaping.” CBQ 59 (1997): 448-64.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “A First Century C.E. Date for the Closing of the Hebrew Psalter?” Jewish Biblical Quarterly 28 (2000): 102-10.
    Wilson, Gerald H. Psalms Volume 1, NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.
  • Wilson, Gerald H. “King, Messiah, and the Reign of God: Revisiting the Royal Psalms and the Shape of the Psalter.” In The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception, edited by Peter W. Flint and Patrick D. Miller, 391-406. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Blogger Move Over… biblicalia Converts to WordPress

Posted on by

Kevin Edgecomb over at biblicalia has made the move from Blogger to WordPress, a move that I just made earlier this week. So you will have to update your feed to his site if you use a RSS reader.

I am quite happy with WordPress so far. I’m still playing around with settings and adjusting the look of my blog (how do you like the new “Codex” header?), as well as checking out some useful plugins.

I highly recommend checking out WordPress if you are not satisfied with your current blogging program.


Email and the Student-Teacher Relationship

Posted on by

The New York Times published an interesting article the other day by Jonathan D. Glater entitled, “To: Professor@University.edu Subject: Why It’s All About Me” (To read the full article you will have to sign-up for a free account). The article explores the implications of technology such as email on the student-professor relationship. Here are some relevent excerpts:

At colleges and universities nationwide, e-mail has made professors much more approachable. But many say it has made them too accessible, erasing boundaries that traditionally kept students at a healthy distance.These days, they say, students seem to view them as available around the clock, sending a steady stream of e-mail messages — from 10 a week to 10 after every class — that are too informal or downright inappropriate.
….
While once professors may have expected deference, their expertise seems to have become just another service that students, as consumers, are buying. So students may have no fear of giving offense, imposing on the professor’s time or even of asking a question that may reflect badly on their own judgment.
….
But such e-mail messages can have consequences, she added. “Students don’t understand that what they say in e-mail can make them seem very unprofessional, and could result in a bad recommendation.”

Still, every professor interviewed emphasized that instant feedback could be invaluable. A question about a lecture or discussion “is for me an indication of a blind spot, that the student didn’t get it,” said Austin D. Sarat, a professor of political science at Amherst College.
….
A few professors said they had rules for e-mail and told their students how quickly they would respond, how messages should be drafted and what types of messages they would answer.

Meg Worley, an assistant professor of English at Pomona College in California, said she told students that they must say thank you after receiving a professor’s response to an e-mail message.

“One of the rules that I teach my students is, the less powerful person always has to write back,” Professor Worley said.

This raises a bunch of interesting questions for instructors. As a professor who encourages students to email me and one who is pretty informal, I don’t see it as a huge issue. I find email a great way to communicate with my students. I try to respond to most emails in a timely manner and I don’t necessarily reply to every email, especially if they are not directly tied to the course (as a rule I do not like email responses that require too involved a response; I will typically ask the student to catch me after the next class if possible).

I do like the idea of setting up some guidelines for emails at the onset, as I have received some emails that were too informal and bordering on inappropriate. I am not sure I would expect students to send a thank you reply. I do have “netiquette” rules that I use for class discussion lists and boards that I could adapt.

What do you — whether instructor or student — think? The comment board is open.