Ancient Hebrew Poetry

תשוקה in Genesis 3:16, 4:7, and Song of Songs 7:10

In a previous post, I noted my dissatisfaction with NLT Genesis 3:16. The translation NLT offers of Gen 3:16 is, it seems to me, indefensible on philological grounds.

Forthcoming Bible Commentaries: A Master List

Jeremy Pierce keeps the list. Go here. I find the book-by-book list easier to use, but it is not quite as up-to-date. Add a comment to his post(s) if you have more recent or additional information. Jeremy updates the lists on a regular basis.

The Christianity of Sarah Palin

In earlier posts (here, here, and here), I spoke at length about the spiritual roots of Barack Obama. I described a Sunday morning at Trinity UCC in Chicago, the congregation that Rev. Jeremiah Wright nurtured for 36 years, and the spiritual home of Barack and Michelle Obama and their daughters from the time of Barack’s conversion to the Christian faith nearly 20 years ago up until a few months ago. My point: the Obama family’s spiritual home, despite ill-informed opinion to the contrary, is fundamentally evangelical in outlook and emphasis. The only reason someone might deny it is for partisan political purposes.

Sarah Palin is also an evangelical Christian. Her politics are a little bit different than Barack Obama’s, but not the fundamental structure of her religious faith. In particular, she has been active in FCA, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Just watch how partisan opinion-makers will deal with this. They will paint FCA in extreme, wacko colors. This is nonsense.

Eyes = Stars in Ezekiel 1 and 10

That is Mike Heiser’s thesis, and he argues it well. Go here. You will learn a thing or two if you read his fascinating post. Mike also makes this statement:

[T]his is also what the apostle John says he saw in Revelation 4-5 when he looked up into the heavens — animals with stars in them. 

To be honest, I’m not seeing in Revelation 4-5 what Mike says John the Seer saw: animals with stars in them. I assume my eyes are playing tricks on me.

Azusa Pacific Rules

No, I’m not referring to the fact that the world’s greatest athlete, Bryan Clay, is a student at the evangelical Azusa Pacific University (go here for a video that brings out Eric’s persona). That’s impressive, I admit. I’m referring to the fact that a textbook by one of APU’s many first-rate educators, Don Thorsen, is now being used as the textbook for a required introduction to theology course at a Roman Catholic institution. The title of the textbook: An Exploration of Christian Theology. This says something about the place evangelical Christianity now occupies on the cultural slope of American religion: at its peak. Runoff from the crest now enriches (and muddies) the streams of all other components of the symbiotically interconnected world of American religion.

Collins vs. Knohl on the Vision of Gabriel: Knohl responds

With characteristic verve, Israel Knohl responds to Collins’ critique of Knohl’s “Suffering Messiah before Jesus hypothesis.” Here is Knohl's response:

I have just seen in your blog the quotations of John Collins criticism of my article in the Journal of Religion, about the Gabriel Revelation. I would like to reply here to his main arguments.

Can I recommend the New Living Translation?

I would like to recommend NLT. I really would. All things considered, it is the best full-bore DE (dynamic equivalence) translation on the market today. But I’m not sure I can. The reason is simple: the translation NLT offers at Genesis 3:16. The verse in question isn’t any old verse. It’s a significant one. I really want a translation that gets this verse right. Almost all do, so I see no reason why I should recommend NLT, which doesn’t. Once again: NLT, in particular NLT2, has a lot going for it. NLT’s translation of Genesis 3:16 is, therefore, all the more disappointing.

While preparing this post, I consulted, thanks to LOGOS software and other translations on my shelf, a hundred translations of the Bible in more than a dozen of ancient and modern languages. NLT stands almost alone in translating as it does. In the case of a text like the Bible which has been translated thousands of times in ancient and modern times, NLT Genesis 3:16 sticks out like a very sore thumb.

The case against NLT Genesis 3:16 is multi-faceted. The content of NLT Genesis 3:16 is unconvincing on philological grounds. It represents an erratic mass viewed from the context of the biblical canon. It is out of line with classical Jewish and Christian exegesis. Its foundation in the great theological tradition of Judaism and Christianity is nil. Within the meager possibilities of a blog series, I will illustrate these claims.

Collins vs. Knohl on the Vision of Gabriel

John Collins and Israel Knohl are world-class scholars. Knohl is known for daring hypotheses. Collins is known for his caution and rigor.

Collins, wouldn’t you know it, has severe reservations about Knohl’s take on the Vision of Gabriel. Below the fold, I excerpt, with Collins’ permission, some key graphs from his forthcoming article for the Yale Magazine.

“Train Up a Child”: Michael Fox on Proverbs 22:6

Did you know that the best commentary on the book of Proverbs ever written is by Michael Fox? (I’m not biased, of course.) So far, it is in print through Proverbs chapter 9. Proverbs 10-31 was submitted to the publisher years ago. It will appear in what is now known as AYB, put out by Yale University Press. AYB’s general editor, John Collins, informs me they plan to have Proverbs 10-31 in print this spring.  

Below the fold, in an exclusive preview, you will find Fox’s translation and commentary on Proverbs 22:6. Some dirt on Fox: I chatted recently with another student of his, who told me that Fox extensively rewrote his Proverbs commentary based on feedback he received from a student reader and others. Fox did the same thing when I was his project assistant and he wrote his Song of Songs book and his Qohelet book.

There is a lot to be learned by watching the process of ongoing revision of a manuscript if the author of the manuscript cares about detail as much as Michael Fox. We, his student readers, are grateful for having had the opportunity to watch the revisioning in stages.

Psalm 1 and the Issue of Gender-Sensitive Translation

Psalm 1 begins this way in Hebrew:

אַשְׁרֵי הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר 

O the happinesses of the ish who

As ESV suggests in a note (go here) and as David E. S. Stein has persuasively demonstrated (go here), in cases like these, the masculine singular ish ‘man’ is used generically, to refer to an individual of either gender. How then should Psalm 1 be translated? Here is my attempt: