Feb 29, 2008
Posted | 1 comment
I just bought the Theological Journal Library, vols. 1-10. I had 1-8, so the upgrade only cost me 80 bucks or so direct from Galaxie Software. Great resource. I find I use the book reviews a lot, and frequently I avoid a trip to the library by looking up a citation on my own laptop. (Incidentally, they now offer a $50/year online subscription: pretty cool, but I’ve already plunked down too much money on the CDs.)
But I’ve got a problem. I just wanted to add the resources to my library, so I copied them into my Libronix/Resources/Journals/TJL folder (I’m really fastidious like that). But now they’re locked. So I have to unlock them but I can’t connect to the Libronix servers through my work’s proxy. I could have installed the resources through the official route, but I’d like to think I’m pretty computer savvy (IIDSSM) and yet I always get frustrated with it.
Oh, that every program were as lithe as BibleWorks. Oh, BibleWorks, Logos will never take your place in my heart—or at the top of my Start Menu.
Feb 25, 2008
Posted | 0 comments
(Ok, this post isn’t what you’re thinking based on the title, but I thought it might grab your interest. Gelerntner was a Unabomber victim.)
David Gelerntner, professor of computer science at Yale, has just written a great article on the generic “he” and all its putative replacements. This is an issue of importance to Christians because it affects Bible translation as well as our many-faceted witness to the world.
Take some time and read the article.
I was especially struck by these two points:
1. The same writers who would never use a generic “he,” either turning it plural or somehow adding in “she” (either with he/she or random replacement), eschew “authoress” and “priestess.” They’re insisting on giving women their place among pronouns, but taking away women’s place among nouns!
2. The “generic she” isn’t generic! It shouts femaleness.
How can English style enthusiasts keep limpid prose coming when ideologues are hovering over their keyboards with a ruler, ready to slap knuckles at every infraction?
And the basic point of the article: Since when does our beloved melting pot called English get to be ruled, French-like, by some linguistic bullies?
The question for evangelical Christians is where we fall in the debate. We can jump in like any citizen, but it’s like Calvinism-Arminianism debate. If I know that the use of the label “Calvinist” or “Arminian” (whichever position I take!) is just going to create misunderstanding with those who only know a caricature of the theology behind the label, am I being spineless to avoid using it when it’s extraneous to my purpose? Likewise, if I know that the generic he will be offensive (I’m not saying I know that; it depends on the writing situation), do I want to lose my readers to score a conservative cultural point?
Feb 22, 2008
Posted | 0 comments
My fiancée thinks it’s a bit amusing (but also sweet, she’d say) that I think so often about this, but I really do: What Bible(s) will I give my kids?
Let’s tick through the options:
- KJV: I want them to be familiar with it for its cultural value (both in American culture and in evangelical culture going back through Spurgeon to earlier times), but not at the expense of misunderstanding God’s words. Because the latter is so weighty to me, the KJV is probably out—though they can read it when they get to exegesis courses in home school =) because of its relevance to the history of interpretation.
- ESV: I like it. It’s my main version. There are lots of editions. The editors and backers are generally people I can trust for sound hermeneutics. This translation is catching on, I think, better than the NAS has. And Crossway has become a wonderful conservative publisher.
- NAS: Wooden, sure, but not so bad. Already I think it’s available in fewer editions—and certainly fewer adventurous or innovative ones—than the ESV, despite being substantially older. I plan to have my kids make regular use of this translation.
- NIV: I want even my youngest readers to read the Bible. For that reason, I’ve considered the NIV (and the TNIV). A little of the old irrational fear of the NIV persists in my heart, grabbing at me from the early 1990s. And I can’t shake the feeling I get from reading the regular criticism of the NIV in, of all places, the Expositor’s Bible Commentary. The EBC is based on the NIV, and the commentary’s authors often find what they consider poor renderings.
- NLT: The NLT goes a bit too far afield into interpretation for my tastes, even for young readers, but I admit that making the Bible text easier to read necessitates interpretation. The translators for the NLT were some real theological heavy-hitters: Carson, Bock, etc.
- NET: Great for strong readers who have some experience asking questions of the Bible text. I know I would have loved to have those notes when I was in 7th grade and beyond. I really imbibed the notes in my King James Study Bible during those days. I could have soaked in some good advanced hermeneutics if I’d had a NET.
- HCSB: Not sure what to think here yet. Seems similar to the NIV.
Probably I’m just going to be eclectic, to have each child read one translation per year and to have them all using different ones at any given time. A regular feature of family devotions will be low-level comparison of translations. I want to inoculate my children against any kind of -Onlyism. NAS-Onlyism or NIV-Onlyism is just as bad as KJV-Onlyism. It’s just not as popular or virulent.
Feb 22, 2008
Posted | 0 comments
I’m almost done with Deuteronomy now in my now-not-so-new-looking TNIV edition, The Books of the Bible. I’m enjoying reading the Bible unencumbered by chapter and verse divisions.
One little benefit has come up now several times in my reading of the Pentateuch: I’m surprised when I finish a book! Normally chapter numbers chart my progress for me whether I want them to or not. And, let’s admit it, many of us find ourselves wondering how much longer Leviticus is going to last… With The Books of the Bible, I reached the end without ever thinking that.
I did, however, think several times that the weight of those laws and stipulations and procedures was so overwhelming as to be almost crushing. Indeed, it was a yoke that Peter admitted “that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear.” So I wondered: what if Israel had said, “Oh, Lord, we know we cannot obey such laws unless you change us from the inside! Have mercy on us!” How might God have responded to such a plea?
Feb 21, 2008
Posted | 0 comments
An article in the Chronicle of Higher Education mentions some of the findings from a study done by a mixed-political-affiliation couple asking why conservatives don’t get Ph.D.’s as often as liberals. The couple, Matthew Woessner and April Kelly-Woessner issued their findings in a report titled, “Left Pipeline: Why Conservatives Don’t Get Doctorates.”
There was some evidence that the already overwhelming number of liberals and moderates in the professoriate (90%, the article says) is self-replicating, but that’s not where the Woessners focused their answer.
Instead the Woessners looked at differences in interests and personality. They found that in a variety of ways, conservative students were less interested than liberals in subject matter that often leads to doctoral degrees, and less interested in doing the kinds of things that professors spend their time doing.
I find this to be a little too convenient:
For example, liberal students reported valuing intellectual freedom, creativity, and the chance to write original work and make a theoretical contribution to science.
But this was interesting and plausible:
They outnumbered conservative students two to one in the humanities and social sciences—which are among the fields most likely to produce interest in doctoral study. Conservative students, however, put more value on personal achievement and orderliness, and on practical professions, like accounting and computer science, that could earn them lots of money.
And this stuck out to me the most:
The Woessners also found that conservative students put a higher priority than liberal ones on raising a family. That does not always fit well with a career in academe, where people often delay childbearing until after they earn tenure.
I find that to be fairly persuasive. I myself am about to enter my first year of marriage while working on a dissertation. It’s not likely to be easy. And I’ve seen others drop out of our Ph.D. (or other graduate) programs because of wife and marriage, baby carriage.
