Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Managing Evidence for Evolution

    I think that nearly everyone who has debated issues about creation and evolution has been disturbed by the breadth of the topic. Sometimes you provide evidence X, only to have someone point out that what you just presented doesn’t prove Y, not to mention Z. The theory of evolution is many-faceted and really incorporates many theories.

    I’ve been really appreciating the Biologos Foundations Science and the Sacred blog. Today they’re starting to post on managing the evidence. I’m going to be following this series with interest.

  • David Ker is Bored

    Well, at least he’s finding the blogosphere boring. He finds that there are only two interesting Christian bloggers left, James McGrath and Eddie Arthur. What’s interesting is that, while I don’t seem to generally agree with David as to what is interesting, I agree with him that those two bloggers are very interesting. I read everything they write, except for the stuff James writes about LOST.

    My purpose here is not to complain about David’s tastes. What interests me is just what people do find interesting. I’m pretty much going to blog what I feel like irrespective of whether it gets read or not. In fact, I’ve found that my most read posts are almost universally ones that I would regard as a sort of filler. On that basis, this post should be popular, because I’m just rambling, though I’ve found things aren’t quite that predictable.

    My own comment levels are down, though my readership has held pretty well. I suspect that has to do with the fact that I’m not blogging about the creation-evolution controversy nearly as frequently as I used to. Looking back, most of my comments were on those posts, followed closely by political ones.

    I have always been surprised as well by what attracts links. It is very rare that a post I have labored over and lovingly read and re-read attracts many links. When I write unedited, dashing something off in the heat of the moment, it attracts much more attention. It also embarrasses me, because I’ll find the link, then look back at the post to discover just what I wrote, and I’ll find numerous errors.

    The most interesting change over the last year, however, has been that this blog is not my primary blog any more, at least by readership. When I split this blog into three based on interests (Threads for general commentary, Participatory Bible Study blog for Bible study notes, often related to classes I’m currently teaching or to books I’m working on, and Jevlir for fun an fiction) I expected that this would be my main blog, I would have a few readers for the Bible study blog, and family and friends, if that, for the fiction blog. The latter is true, well, except that family and friends rarely read Jevlir, but I still have the sort of hit numbers that go with a “family and friends” type blog.

    But Participatory Bible Study has climbed, while this one has remained steady or dropped a bit. The discouraging part of that is that most of the hits over there have to do with biblioblogging even though I rarely link to anything about that. One way to generate a bunch of visits is to write something about who is a biblioblogger or about one’s current ranking.

    For a long time Participatory Bible Study wasn’t on the biblioblog list, which was fine by me. In fact, I didn’t think I fit the definition. But when I was added, my rank was fairly respectable (#7, last I checked). But it totally amazes me how many posts are written and links provided just to keep up with who has a higher Alexa ranking.

    OK, so this is rambling, and perhaps blatantly linking into David’s post to generate some traffic, though I think my traffic is adequate to my purposes.

    If you read this far, have fun! I’m amazed!

  • Counting the Independents

    Each election various pundits and politicians seem to be surprised at the way independent voters swing. I think they have a bit of a problem comprehending the word “independent.” I am a bit wary of using “we” when discussing independents, but as an independent voter myself I am generally not that shocked by the swings.

    Following last year’s election I wrote:

    I’ve voted Republican before. I voted Democratic this time, for the most part. I could easily be persuaded to vote Republican again–or for a third party if sufficiently provoked.

    The problem, I think is that politicians and the vast majority of the media think in terms of the two major parties. One either supports the Republican agenda in general, or the Democratic agenda. Thus it is often difficult for them to understand how so many people switch allegiances. Now there are a certain number of folks who are voting on appearance or personality, or perhaps because someone they know votes in a particular way.

    For me, it is almost always a case of holding my nose and voting. It is very rare that there is a politician who really sounds good to me and also has some realistic chance of being elected. So each candidate race is a separate decision. Who do I agree with the most and also on the most critical issues? Is that person a person of integrity so that I can count on them to be who they say they are?

    For whom can one vote if one generally opposes war and also opposes abortion? What does one do if one believes we have a duty, as a society, to aid those less fortunate, but at the same time supports civil liberties and generally light handed regulation? All of these things become individual factors.

    I find that the Democrats are frighteningly trusting of government solutions when it comes to social issues, and frighteningly unconcerned with the track record of existing programs, just as long as those programs seem to support their goals. I find Republicans frighteningly trusting of government in the law enforcement, defense, and intelligence fields, and oblivious to the horrible track record of our agencies in those areas.

    Both parties are very good at spotting the failures of the other, but much less so at looking carefully at themselves. So independents tend to swing back and forth a bit, just trying to find someone, anyone better.

    Now we have this election today in Massachusetts. (Note that I’m in Florida and don’t have a vote today.) There is great shock that the Republican may win. With possible errors in polls, I wouldn’t make that a prediction, but it looks pretty likely to me. In many ways this is because the Democratic candidate is not that good. Even if I agreed with her in general, I would have serious doubts about voting for her due to some of her actions as a prosecutor. (I doubt my misgivings are a driving force in the election, however.)

    The question is just what question Republicans are going to take from this. I know they will crow at such a victory. But whether they get long term benefit from it or not will depend on whether they are listening or not. Many of us out here are quite clear on the message not to trust government too much, but in general, we don’t trust government with any of the power, and we want every aspect of government, including law enforcement and defense, to be accountable. We want all our politicians, not just the ones out of power to be ethical, and we expect the ethical standards to be enforced.

    I have not been very surprised by President Obama. I expected that the idealism would largely die when he got to Washington, DC, and it has. He has been more moderate than his platform, but again I expected that. But being pragmatic, and letting the issues you said were important during the campaign die, are two different things. Many of those who voted for candidate Obama hoped that President Obama’s stance against such things as torture would stand. But now in many cases the Obama White House is defending positions staked out by the Bush administration.

    Some Republicans are claiming this is because Bush was right after all. I disagree. I think it is because of the corrupting power of power. The current administration doesn’t want to investigate torture because it might appear partisan. But let me ask what it looks like when you don’t investigate it?

    I expect to disagree with much of what goes on in the halls of government. I pick and choose my issues when I vote for candidates. What I expect, however, is that a politician will stand up for what he believes. If I voted for him, and I knew I disagreed with some position, I do not give him credit for failing to live up with that position even if he changes it to one closer to my own.

    So my message to Republicans is much what it was to Democrats after 2008–Don’t count on me. You’ve got to earn my next vote.

    I suspect many independents are thinking something very similar.

  • Martin Luther King Day 2010

    Two personal experiences shape my thoughts each day on Martin Luther King day. The first was the memory of those in our small north Georgia community who were gratified that he had died. Few of the young folk had any idea why they should think that way, though we had regularly had “scares” that there would be riots in nearby Chattanooga, Tennessee, not that it was likely such things would touch our heavily segregated community.

    For my parents and our family, the experience was a little bit outside of our experience. We were Canadians transplanted into the American south and so attitudes took turns that we did not expect. My parents were very clear that we were not to make racist remarks, and they challenged racist attitudes on an individual level. I don’t think they really comprehended the extent of institutional racism at the time, as we didn’t discuss the politics in any detail.

    The second experience that shaped my understanding was living in Georgetown, Guyana when I was in my teens. There I learned what it meant to be a minority, when I was the sole white member of my youth group. Now let me be clear that I was treated well by all concerned. I did not experience prejudice in that circumstance, but even without prejudice there is a certain feeling of isolation that goes with being the only person of an identifiable type.

    I was listening today to a commenter on one of the TV programs–I don’t recall which–who said that the laws had changed, but people’s hearts and minds still had a long way to go.

    I think that caller was right, but I should note also that laws may help change hearts and minds, but they are not fully efficient at the task. For example, desegregating education has given many young people experience of other races, which is helpful in changing their future attitudes. But the attitudes still exist.

    During the last election I was getting my hair cut at a local barber shop while early voting was open. The general consensus was that “those people” were busy stealing the election through early voting. It didn’t take long to realize that “those people” were African Americans, not Democrats or Republicans.

    I hope that we will all become much better at seeing ourselves in other people’s circumstances. As Christians, we need to understand how religious minorities feel here in our communities. That might help us become even more sympathetic for Christian minorities overseas. Understanding what it means to be in the minority would, I think, make us better people.

    For me it took a very long time to put it all together, and I can’t guarantee I’ve understood it all even now. But by the grace of God I’ll continue to progress in understanding others not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character (slightly paraphrased from the I Have a Dream speech.)

  • Epiphany 3 in The Mosaic Bible

    While none of the Mosaic Bible texts [Holy Bible: Mosaic NLT (Meditations)] overlapped the lectionary texts for today, I think it was quite appropriate, if coincidental, that the texts chosen deal with dealing with the poor and outcasts.  The texts were Leviticus 19:1-18, Psalm 119:33-40, James 2:1-7, and Luke 6:27-42.  These passages emphasize that our care for others should not be an emergency response, but rather a way of life.

    In addition, all of the readings are excellent, focusing on our attitude and relationship and the things that make up who we are.

    I particularly liked the NLT rendering of a verse from one of my favorite chapters, Psalm 119:

    Give me an eagerness for your laws rather than a love for money! — Psalm 119:36

    Combined with the reading from Leviticus 19:1-18, ending with one of the two commands on which Jesus said all the law and the prophets hung, I found it quite powerful.

  • Biblioblog Rankings Update

    Jeremy at Free Old Testament Audio is continuing tinkering his system for acquiring and displaying the rankings, and thinking about how to decide who belongs on the list.

  • Taking Offense Easier than Logic and Evidence

    Kevin DeYoung makes this claim at the evangel blog. Amongst many good things, he says:

    For starters, being hurt is easier than being right. To prove you’re offended you just have to rustle up moral indignation and tell the world about it. To prove you’re right you actually have to make arguments and use logic and marshal evidence. Why debate theology or politics or economics if you can win your audience by making the other guys look like meanies?

    While I like to avoid giving unnecessary offense, when one must offend in order to speak what one believes is the truth, then it’s time to speak. We truly are an easily offended culture.

    HT: One Eternal Day

  • Introduction to Numbers – Cornerstone Biblical Commentary

    I’m trying to return to my pattern of posting short notes from my morning reading.  My schedule has been disrupted recently to the extent that my “morning” reading sometimes has taken place in the evening.  But today I moved from Leviticus to Numbers in Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary), and I read the introduction.

    I have my standard complaint about most commentaries on books in which there are substantial critical issues, which certainly includes any book in the Pentateuch, which is that whatever the author’s approach, the introduction and notes rarely take the time to get to the nuts and bolts.  I have to assume that this is audience driven.  Not that many people will take the time to hear the arguments of why an author accepts or rejects sources; they just want to hear the view proclaimed in a scholarly tone.

    As a result, many non-specialists who nonetheless do considerable reading on biblical topics simply assume that whatever their community and church culture accepts is pretty much established.  This applies, in my experience, to both conservatives and liberals.  Any of these scholars could address these issues, I’m sure, but they don’t do it all that often.  This even reflects my experience in undergraduate Bible classes in which, for example, I learned what the two and four source hypotheses were for the gospels, but didn’t learn just how one would go about demonstrating the validity of those views.

    Thus Dale Brueggemann dismisses JEDP in the course of two paragraphs (admittedly substantial ones), while establishing a relatively moderate position that claims substantial rooting in historical sources and even eyewitness accounts, but allows for added material and redactional effort.  I can’t really call this a criticism of his work, however, because those two paragraphs are better done, in my opinion, than the average for such material in a commentary not addressed primarily to experts.

    He goes on with an excellent introduction to the structure of the book, literary style, and major themes, and provides a welcome presentation of the large numbers in the book, which covers a wide variety of arguments and solutions, occupying six pages overall.  It’s interesting to see the difference in the amount of space dedicated to this issue as opposed to source and redaction criticism, but again I would say this is audience driven.  In my experience people want a yes/no answer on Pentateuchal sources.  They want to hear more about those big numbers.

    While I like the discussion, I would object to one part of the solution.  On page 226, Brueggemann states:

    … Any solution shold work for the high numbers elsewhere in the Bible, especially analogous numbers (e.g. military counts), …

    The problem I have with this is that it is quite possible that words like ‘elep might be used differently at different periods in Israel’s history.  I think it would be foolish to assume that the language remained the same over the several hundred years between this census (if one assumes it derives from a source near the time of the exodus itself, as Brueggemann seems to do) and the census in the time of David, or various military reports during the divided kingdom.  I am nowhere near clear enough on this to assert that the solution must be different; I simply don’t see sufficient reason to require that the same solution fit all.

    I’m being fairly nitpicky here, as I enjoy interacting with commentaries as I read, but despite my picky comments, I regard this as an excellent introduction to Numbers, especially for the pastor or teacher at the popular level.  You’ll get the material that your congregation or class members are most likely to be looking for.

  • Three Commentaries on Leviticus

    I just compared two commentaries on Leviticus on my Participatory Bible Study blog. In addition, I’d like to link to my older review of Jacob Milgrom’s three volume commentary on the same book. From that review:

    The only possible adjective for this commentary is “incredible.” It is not just long (2,468 pages of text), but it is packed with useful information, well organized, with the details of the process used in coming to understand the text laid out for examination. A book can be long but not informative. This one uses its space effectively to contain useful information.

    All three of these commentaries have been useful to me. Check them out!

  • Leviticus – Two Commentaries Compared

    The first is by David W. Baker, one of three in Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary), which is based on the NLT text.  The second is Samuel E. Balentine, Leviticus (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching).

    Yes, I have been reading both of these commentaries simultaneously, though in different portions of Leviticus. At the moment, I’ve completed David Baker’s commentary and am about to go on into Numbers by Dale A. Brueggemann in the same volume. I’m about half-way through Balentine’s commentary, but I think I have seen enough to make this comparison useful.

    Briefly, most of the comments I will make on the two commentaries are implied in the purpose of each series. There are really no surprises. First, let’s look at the total amount of commentary each provides. The portion of the Cornerstone volume on Leviticus is 208 pages excluding front and back matter. The Interpretation volume has 213 pages, but each page has about 25% less text. The total is changed, however, by the fact that the Interpretation volume does not include the Biblical text, whereas the Cornerstone volume does (NLT).

    It is rare that I read two books together that both exceed my expectations, but these did. Having started with Milgrom’s three volume commentary a few years back, I have been continually looking for commentaries that will help me express some of the things I found in this much neglected book of the Bible. While I still regard that study of Leviticus as a high point in my personal study of the Bible, I found that both of these commentaries helped me with thinking of ways to express what I have both learned and felt.

    It is not surprising, considering the breadth and high quality of Milgrom’s work, that both commentaries cite his views extensively and favorably, frequently choosing Milgrom’s interpretation in controversial cases.

    The critical difference between the two commentaries is one of focus.  I would say that if you want to get pointers toward specific doctrinal issues or ethical positions, Baker’s is more likely to satisfy you. If you’re more interested in theological themes and the broader sweep, then choose Balentine.  Both cover the basics and both are, not surprisingly, well referenced.

    One might even say that Balentine tends to get a bit more poetry out of Leviticus than does Baker, while Baker gets more prose.  If I were preparing a sermon, I think Balentine would get me to material I could use more quickly.  I would also note that you’ll probably be happier with Balentine if you are more concerned with liturgy.  Baker tends to learn non-liturgical things from the liturgy; Balentine tends to learn about liturgy and ritual.  Neither of them completely neglects other topics.  I’m speaking hear of emphasis, not exclusivity.

    That is one of the joys of using these two commentaries.  I can generally recommend them for a range of uses.  The only caveat would be that neither deals extensively with issues of source and redaction criticism that often take up space in a commentary on the Pentateuch.  If you want to study those areas, you’ll have to look elsewhere.  They are mentioned, but not dealt with extensively.

    I’m very glad to have read both of these commentaries.  For me their primary contribution was in application and in communication, but they would provide an excellent grounding for someone who was just beginning a study of the book of Leviticus.