Ancient Hebrew Poetry

Peer Reviewed Online Publication: A Response to Chris Brady

Is it a good idea for short notes, essays, text editions, book reviews, bibliographies, newsletters, and full-length books published online by an academic blogger to be submittable for peer review according to a SBL-sponsored mechanism such that, following requested and executed revisions, a publication would count toward attaining tenure or an academic promotion?

Chris Brady thinks so. So do Chris Heard, Tim Bulkeley, and Mike Aubrey. I concur.

But I’m not sure the specifics of Brady’s proposal are the best going forward.

Is SBL an organization dedicated to the propagation of evangelical Christianity?

    In a recent post, Rebecca Lesses raises a provocative question:

[M]y experience of the SBL has been very positive. In the years that I have gone to the annual meetings I have seen Jews, Christians, people of other religions, and people without any religious belief or practice cooperating in the study of texts in a way that once would have been impossible. It was not necessary to be a Christian, or pretend to be one, in order to be an active participant in discussions at the SBL. Will this continue to be true?

    Rebecca’s post is excellent. Read the whole thing. It got me thinking: if only there were “a societas for the rest of us.”

Why web publishing is ten times better than dead tree publishing

SBL-Atlanta is upon us. One of the many sessions I am looking forward to: the SBL Blogger and Online Publication Section, 1:00-3:30 pm in Room: A702 - Marriott Marquis, on Monday, November 22^nd. The cast of presenters is top-notch: James Davila, Christian Brady, Michael Barber, James McGrath, and Robert Cargill.

Online publishing is just beginning to come into its own. It is not a matter of either/or, but it cannot be denied that online publications are ten times more useful than dead-tree publications, for the following reasons:

A Lunch Get Together for Bloggers and Friends at SBL Atlanta

Many of you may have seen the invitation for a dinner of biblical bloggers on Sunday night November 21st, at SBL- Atlanta, here for example. I can’t make that, but will make reservations for anyone who RSVPs, for lunch on Monday November 22nd, at the SEAR restaurant in the Marriott Marquis at 11:45 am. The lunch will set you back about 15 dollars give or take. Go here for the menu. After lunch, of course, we will be heading to the SBL Blogger and Online Publication Section, 1:00-3:30 pm in Room: A702 - Marriott Marquis.The lineup of presenters is top-notch: James Davila, Christian Brady, Michael Barber, James McGrath, and Robert Cargill. 

I will look into a private dining room space at the SEAR on arrival. More than a dozen bloggers have expressed interest so far. The following blogs and sites are down as definite yes’s as of this morning.

Understanding Jeremiah 2:1-3

The only way to pursue a grounded understanding of a biblical passage is by reading it in Hebrew and thinking it through from the point of view of structure, themes, and diction. If attention is given to fine detail, what is now the consensus interpretation, more often than one might imagine, will seem to stand in need of correction.

Most widely used Bible translations are products of committees that adjudicate by bowing to consensus. They are products of a herd mentality.

Most modern commentators do not take the time to re-examine the text from the ground up. Few give older, traditional understandings of the text their due, or deign to notice that older construals clash, in whole or in part, with what is now the consensus interpretation.

But if one thinks a passage through in Hebrew at the level of diction, structure, and themes, in full pursuit of connections with potential co-texts, “new old” discoveries await.

Consider, for example, Jeremiah 2:1-3.

A Reply to Rick Mansfield

In the aftermath of the online publication of the new NIV, Rick Mansfield and I have gone back and forth about why we prefer one Bible translation over another (here, here, and here). We have very wide areas of agreement; in this post, I will dwell on them. But I will also note our fundamental disagreements.

A Review of the New NIV of Qohelet 11:1-2

    The translation choices of the new NIV are similar to those of the old NIV. NIV 1984 and NIV 2011 are often but not consistently traditional in diction. Here and there new NIV returns to the wording of what one might call the “common English Bible tradition.” More typically, NIV 2011’s wording departs, sometimes radically, from the wording of the Tyndale-Geneva-KJV tradition where NIV 1984 did not. An example is discussed below.