Category Archives: Bible

Bible Stops Bullet

Posted on by

The Bible can save your life — literally! Associated Press reports about a man in Florida “credits two small Bibles in his shirt pocket for saving his life when they stopped a bullet.”

Wow… just think what they could have stopped if he actually had the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible as well!

UPDATE: This is a bit from Woody Allen that Michael noted in the comments that I felt should be included in the actual post.

Woody Allen: “Years ago, my mother gave me a bullet…a bullet, and I put it in my breast pocket. Two years after that, I was walking down the street, when a berserk evangelist heaved a Gideon bible out a hotel room window, hitting me in the chest. Bible would have gone through my heart if it wasn’t for the bullet” (source).

Tags: ,

Is the SBL in Need of Medicine?

Posted on by

The most recent Chronicler of Higher Education has an article entitled, “What’s Wrong With the Society of Biblical Literature?” by Jacques Berlinerblau.

While I don’t have time to fully engage the article, I think it raises a number of good points, but misses the mark on just as many. I agree that it would be good to have a “census” of members (“census” sounds so biblical; I just hope our census fares better than King David’s!) to see where people are at on a whole variety of issues. I agree that the society should make a concerted effort to popularize good biblical scholarship (I think that the “SBL Forum” is a step in the right direction). Perhaps a glossy magazine is in order?

In regards to the academic freedom issue, I don’t see how an academic society (which is what SBL is and will always be; sorry Jacques) can really have much input except by encouraging standards to which institutions can strive. The SBL is not an accrediting agency. Finally, in regards to his recommendation to create “a form of biblical scholarship that goes beyond theology and ecumenical dialogue” I am not quite sure I agree with this proposal or even his perception that is is already not happening.

Perhaps the biggest problem I have with Berlinerblau’s article is that it seems just too American. Perhaps it is just my sensitive Canadian ears, but many of the examples seem to be too nationalistic (e.g., “America is in the midst of a religious revival,” suggesting that the SBL should aspire to the likes of the Brookings Institution [PEN isn’t quite as bad a comparison since one of its goals is to foster international literary fellowship], or that it should address “the rising use of Scripture in American public life,” etc.). The SBL is an international organization with members from every continent in the world; it needs to focus on promoting and fostering excellent biblical scholarship on an international level.

I also think that many of Berlinerblau’s criticisms are unfair. For instance, in regards to the great divorce between AAR and SBL, the reason why AAR tries to explain their position on their website is because they are the ones who went forward with divorce proceedings, not SBL. I guess the SBL could have a little note on their site saying, “We don’t want to separate, we love you, please come back,” but I don’t think it would work!

Anyhow, its an interesting article and I imagine it will generate much discussion in the weeks ahead.

(HT Blue Cord)


Laments, Complaints, Prayers, Pleas, or Petitions?

Posted on by

In response to my post on The Costly Loss of Lament for the Church, Tim Bulkeley over at SansBlogue rightfully noted that I have tended to continue employ the designation “laments” when referring to what Gunkel called Klagepsalmen. Tim prefers the term “complaints” when referring to the same psalms:

These psalms claim that something is wrong with the world, usually complaining that God has not acted to right the wrong and go on to petition God to put it right. They seldom stop at merely lamenting the wrong.

Tim highlights a fairly common critique of the appropriateness of the term “lament.” I would agree that the term “lament” isn’t entirely satisfactory since in English “lament” tends to be understood passively as a cry of sorrow or grief. In this regard, the psalmist isn’t really “lamenting.” Rather he is describing his distress and appealing to God for aid. That being said, I don’t think that “complaint” is entirely satisfactory either. In common usage, “complaint” tends to be a minor expression of displeasure; you complain about poor service at a restaurant or when your ride is late. In this regard I wonder if using the term “complaint” trivializes the psalms in question.

A number of scholars don’t use either term, but prefer to use terms that derive from the biblical text itself. Thus, Hans-Joachim Kraus, in his excellent commentary on the Psalms, calls laments “songs of prayer” based on the general Hebrew term for prayer, תפלה tefilla. Craig Broyles makes a similar move in his commentary by calling these psalms “prayer psalms.” The rationale for this move is twofold for Broyles. First, he prefers to employ a designation derived from the psalms themselves (as I already noted). Second, he finds that the term “lament” gives undue prominence to one motif in the psalms.

I wonder if a more appropriate name for these psalms may be “pleas” or “petitions.” Gunkel and most other psalms scholars after him have recognized the most important element of the lament psalm is the plea or petition for help. Gerstenberger calls it the “very heart of a complaint psalm” and claims that “in fact, all the other elements can be interpreted as preparing and supporting the petition” (Psalms, FOTL, 13).

I am happy to continue to employ the traditional term “lament” — and even to alternate it with “complaint.” But if I wanted to adopt a more appropriate name, I would probably use something like “prayer of petition” or “plea.”


Kosher Concubines?

Posted on by

There is an interesting article on “Kosher Concubines” in Arutz Sheva, an Israeli national online newspaper. The news story reports on a controversial article written by Professor Tzvi Zohar that proposes to deal with the problem of sex between unmarried religious Jewish young people by renewing the biblical institution of the pilegesh (פלגש×?), a sort of “kosher concubine.” The article (in modern Hebrew) appeared in the spring edition of the Israeli periodical Akdamot.

Here is an excerpt:

The thesis of Zohar’s article is that since scores of young men and women from the religious-Zionist community are shacking up together out of wedlock, something must be done to make this permitted in the eyes of Jewish Law.

….

To his understanding, there is no obligation for a couple to marry at all. However, in order that young unwed couples can have a clear conscience and shack up with each other until they find their permanent sanctified mates, he proposes to reinstate the Biblical practice of ‘kosher mistresses.’

This practice, he asserts, has been approved by a long list of respected halachic authorities in the past. All that a pilegesh has to do is go to the mikvah (ritual bath) according to the laws of Jewish family purity, in order to guard against the grave infraction of niddah, which outlaws physical contact with a woman during and shortly after her menstrual cycle. This would allow, Zohar asserts, young people to live together in a loving relationship without getting married, all under the “chuppah” [canopy] of Jewish Law.

The rest of the news story critiques Zohar’s questionable interpretation of the Jewish law. The biggest problem to his argument is that the in the Hebrew Bible a man who had a concubine lived with her on a permanent basis, just like a wife. In fact, concubines were pretty much the same as wives, though of a secondary rank. At any rate, the practice of taking a concubine in OT times is not really comparable to modern practices of casual sexual relationships.

Furthermore, while polygamy (technically polygyny) was practiced according to the Hebrew Bible and that men had more than one wife and/or concubines, this is never presented as an ideal. If anything, it is just the opposite. Here are a number of examples of polygyny in the Hebrew Bible:

  • Lamech with his two wives, Adah and Zillah (Gen 4:23)
  • Abraham with Sarah and his concubines Hagar and Keturah (Genesis 16; 25:1–2)
  • Jacob with Leah and Rachel (Gen 29:15–30)
  • Esau and his three wives (Gen 26:34; 36:2; 28:9)
  • Gideon with his “many wives” (Judg 8:30)
  • Elkanah with Hannah and Peninnah (1 Sam 1:2)
  • David with seven named wives (1 Sam 18:17–30; 25:38–43; 2 Sam 3:2–5) and additional unnamed wives and concubines (2 Sam 5:13)
  • Solomon and his royal harem of 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kgs 3:1; 11:3)
  • Rehoboam with his 18 wives and 60 concubines (2 Chron 11:21).

A few conclusions may be drawn from this list. First, it was rare to have more than one wife. Most of the examples cited are significant, whether leaders or rich or both. In addition, those that had more than one wife and/or concubine often suffered the consequences! In many of the above households polygyny was a major cause of significant problems. It is not very difficult to read between the lines and recognize the negative characterization of polygynous relationships (and of course, in some cases the condemnation is rather blatant).

At any rate, the article is certainly interesting — especially the discussion of Jewish halakah.


Large Isaiah Scroll Online

Posted on by

This is a very slick online resource: The Dorot Foundation has made available an online version of the large Isaiah Scroll from Qumran (1QIsa-a).

This online image of the scroll is interactive; you can “unroll” the scroll via the slider at the bottom left and zoom in on portions of the scroll using the magnifying glass icon at the bottom right (click for larger image).

isaiahscroll_sm.jpg

The zoom feature doesn’t magnify the image quite enough for serious research, but it is still a very useful online resource.

(HT ANE-2 List)