In the recent Biblical Studies Carnival XXVI, our friend Kevin Edgecomb (who did a truly superlative job) revived his earlier suggestion that the term “biblioblog” be altogether abandoned in favor of “biblicablog.” In spite of this latest attempt to advance his preferred term, it seems that Kevin’s cause is set to lose some major ground with the upcoming publication (also announced yesterday by Jim West) of James Crossley’s Jesus in an Age of Terror, which includes a chapter entitled “The Politics of Bibliobloggers.” The “barbaric” term shall now be enshrined in the literature, alas!
Lingamish, who (much like myself) knows not what the meaning of the word “missional” might be, is sure to appreciate this: in a recent book announcement, Scot McKnight notes that he has taken a stab at defining this elusive term in his Blogglosary. To be sure, I still I don’t understand it, even after reading Scot’s brief definition; however, I certainly appreciate any attempts to parse this most bewildering locution, so often thrown around these days.
And speaking of the Rev Mr Ker, he has recently explained to us all why a translation is closer to the original than the original. This earned him a (well-deserved) reprimand from the Rev Dr West, to which the aforementioned Rev Mr Ker replied by more fully explaining himself, which in turn caused his earlier post to seem almost reasonable. (And for a wholly speakeristic aside: in this later post, he speaks of “the mass of men who are leading lives of quiet desperation and would like to dabble in the original languages.” I wonder: is it really only men who sink into quiet desperation due to their inability to read Hebrew and Greek?)
Mike Aubrey posted some keenly insightful musings on πᾶς, but then turned right around and mused that, if he wants to build a readership, he should probably stay away from producing such marvelous posts (!). Cardinal Aubrey should remember that, if all one wants is raw readership, inserting random terms like “Paris Hilton” and “my shizzle’s gone fazzizle” here and there will suffice to effortlessly attract the masses to one’s blog. However, if what he wants is a worthwhile readership, more posts like his musings on πᾶς should be forthcoming! If you haven’t read that excellent post, go thence at once and show Mike some love by commenting—and perhaps also by contributing to the fund to replace his tragically lost copy of Hoehner’s commentary on Ephesians.
The amazing John Hobbins has written a typically brilliant discussion of the reasons why systematic theologians make poor biblical interpreters, complete with a compelling exegetical case study. Jim West was quick to concur with John’s excellent post (long live the exegetes!), but I must note that, while I certainly agree with Jim that Barth’s exegesis was particularly weak, I cannot concur with his comments on Calvin’s. I really don’t know where Calvin got his reputation primarily as a systematician rather than as an exegete, anyway; it has always seemed to this assiduous reader of Calvin’s corpus that his greatest strengths were precisely the keen exegetical eye and rigorous exegetical method displayed in his Commentaries. As exhibits A and B for this I submit the infallible Moisés Silva’s “The Case for Calvinistic Hermeneutics” (chapter 18 in Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning) and David Steinmetz’s “Luther and Calvin on the Banks of Jabbok” (chapter 13 in Luther in Context).
Michael Bird has offered some very revealing insights into the inner workings of the beast known as the Society of B…aseball Literature; if you haven’t read his delightful (and frighfully true-to-life) piece, make sure that you do it forthwith.
And for the grand finale: Jim West took the beginning of Lent in the Pope’s calendar as an opportunity to encourage all to be like him, whereas my superfriend Juhem took credit for Barack Obama’s statistical tie with victory over somebody named Hillary Clinton in Tuesday’s Connecticut primaries. Ever wonder at my delusions of grandeur? Just look at the company I keep! (EDIT: This version CORRECTS the extent of Juhem’s megalomania. ;-)