Who is Waltke?

Update to my prior post: I found a bit on Waltke here.

I didn't know.

Now I know.

Now I know

from Wikipedia

who he is.

What a terrifying change has occurred in the 20th century. Waltke is in the tradition of Jim Packer and John Stott. J. Packer's book Knowing God influenced me greatly when I was in my late 20s just after 'conversion'. Knowing God is impossible. Even being known by God is a lifetime of opening one's hidden self to scrutiny. To be known is of the highest order of business. As Job himself knew to his comfort (OK repentance but not necessarily repentance), it is the reestablishment of the foundation of creation. So he will not say to us - depart from me, I never knew you.

While it is true that such knowledge embraces every response we make at every moment - from the ignoring of the homeless man sleeping outside the office, to the interaction we have with wife or husband, to the mystery of our participation in the church, to the trivial round and common task, it is also true that such knowledge is not communicated to us by the tradition but only by the One who is ultimately unknowable (in a dominant 'imposition' sense) - by definition. Knowledge puffs up - so the King James bible so poetically puts it, but love builds up. Yet our knowledge is 'in part' and is good, for then we will know as we are known. But let it be that we are known. Why does the tradition fail?

Stafford Beer begins his book 'The Brain of the Firm' with an image of the wave pounding on the seashore, the collapse into chaos of a beautifully coherent system of an oscillating mass of water. Here shall your proud waves break. So it is that the proud waves of Christendom broke over the course of the 20th century on the reality of the land of more people and more war and more greed and more dysfunction than is imaginable. The late 19th century scholars take for granted that the teachers in the church could read their Greek and Hebrew. But for generations, the text had been passed through the assumptions of empire. The knowledge of God had become a triumphant assertion of superior power at the service of the self-interest of an oligarchy. God's knowledge of us was a hell-fire and brimstone morality. Our knowledge of God was propositional and absolute, kept in the form of words, not to be questioned. And if you thought differently, your soul's secret was best kept to itself or you would find yourself being beaten for insubordination at the hands of those who, appointed (so they took Romans 13:1 as meaning) by God, were his powerful representatives on earth.

John Stott's 'The Authority of the Bible' and related tractarian publications was also an influence on me. Who's the Boss is a fundamental question. The truth of the matter is in my eldest son's early comment: you're not the boss of me. Bless the stubbornness of childhood. I have constantly taught this undermining of authority (even though I also am a boss).

Because the authorities I was brought up under

(I am not speaking of Packer or Scott)

did not know.

They did not know the power they preached.

They did not know the healing that was in the Lambkin for themselves.

They could not reveal their soul's secret even to themselves.

Whether they found a measure of healing, I cannot say, but the failure to communicate was, I fear, based on ignorance and rote learning of words that were not working in them.

I bracket that I am not speaking of Packer or Scott because my own stubbornness, resilience, and distortions were formed long before I read them. They were in some sense part of the can-opener that first pierced the metal of my defensiveness.  But though I credit them so, I do not attribute to them infallibility.

In the beginning, God let the dry land appear so that the waves of the deep might find their limitations. Their work in shaping the land is still important, but their systemic coherence is destroyed in their work.

Spark? Fire? or just Polemics

For the record, I have enjoyed some of Bruggemann's writing though I certainly have not read much more than a few of his books. I do not know any Waltke. Should I read him? Why would I want to critique the thoughts of another person? Why would I read a theologian? John Anderson has written a few extracts of Waltke's critique of Bruggemann here.

There are additional posts on translation also - Making sense isn't enough, says Joel Hoffman (and I concur). Language as proposition and imposition by Kurk Gayle in three parts and more to come here, here, and here. (And I am not sure what to think at the moment.)

And this nice quote on Job relayed from, appropriately, Adam, here

The satan has uncovered an ideological contradiction in the religious discourse that, when brought to light, threatens to render meaningless the fundamental category of that discourse.

The accuser is a vital character in this tale, whether he has a pitchfork and horns or is simply a bunch of beni elohim like us throwing accusations and judgments around.

So given this tale and its fundamental nature as parable, does Hashem, Elohim, Eloah, or El Shaddai actually have a solution? What do you mean you are not interested! It is the foundation of creation that is at stake. The root of the matter is in Job himself as he notes.

Here we are 'making sense' of the Bible and translating 'with meaning' - and all the while we don't notice that the meaning of the discourse is undermined. Making sense - yes but not primarily. Making justice, healing the broken, being recreated, recognizing love. These 'matter'. Perhaps this is how the written word 'makes sense' in us.

How does G-d by any name restore the meaning of the discourse in the parable that is Job? Or is it something else that we need from God that we refuse to name or identify with in our broken state? I wonder if I am beginning to ask the right questions.

The Word and other things - human nature and stuff

Today I listened to myself in a talk (scroll to the very bottom) I gave 20 months ago on the techniques I was using for reading the psalms and the progress I was making in reading Hebrew. I had not realized how much my talk was like a sermon - though light and assuming an acceptance of my presumption in my audience. All that I said then I take for granted now. I am a little more sure of my reading in Hebrew. The product I use to diagram and hold my learning stages has grown. We are in the process of rolling out a measurement system built with that product for a program of the United Nations. How could a surface used to design an evaluation and measurement system be used to analyze Hebrew? I marveled then as I still do, wondering to where the skills wrought in me will be called. In some ways I do not dare to hope but simply to follow minute by minute, day by day, in the midst of so many responsibilities and foolishness.

Also today, I finished reviewing the complex of papers submitted for consideration of a theology of sex within our Anglican tradition. What a curious mixture of words. The link is here. Walter Deller (c 140 pages) gives a summary of TNK as a critique of patriarchal power. It is a severe reading - but quite worthwhile. Stephen Andrews misreads Romans 1 (it is a common problem). There are a couple of short papers on the development of doctrine. Paul Jennings gives a rationale for blessing same sex relationships. My dear friend and advisor Gary Thorne gives a theological argument against.He also writes on 'Friendship: the end of marriage'. I concur with all Gary's premises and love his reflections on friendship, but I agree with none of his conclusions. He though, largely alone among all these pages, seems to have taken the cross as our means of sanctification into account. Paul Jennings then has a short (mostly unmemorable) article on the Grace of Eros. Jamie Howison traces the changes in the Marriage ceremony in the Anglican prayer books from the 17th to the 21st century. It is curious how negatives cannot be read and how positives seem to reflect the commonplace rather than the Gospel. Jamie also has a hilarious section on Augustine. (It is worth finding the footnote just for a chuckle. Search for wind. But I don't use such words on my blog.) Bishop Victoria Matthews has a short article on Holiness. And Walter Deller again on Suicide and the baptism of children born out of wedlock. I have still to read Gertrude Lebans on Tradition - too many books... And I skipped ahead and read Anglicans and the Abolition of Slavery - a marvelous read (way near the end of that pdf.) And there is a short paper on Marriage and Divorce in the Anglican Church of Canada.

What do I really think of all these things? Archaism and tradition have not been successful in communicating the love of God in Christ Jesus. It is God who quickens the dead, the Son who gives life to whom he chooses. Only Gary makes that point explicitly. And it is for that reason, the work of the Spirit through the death of Jesus, that I cannot concur with his conclusion. He makes a better case in favour of blessing than against it. Perhaps what the church should do is try to avoid being an impediment to the gift of God.

There is no need to consider celibacy painful. It is only painful when imposed by humans rather than learned as a charism from Hashem. There is no need to mistrust those who desire a blessing from the believing community. If they are Christ's then surely Christ Jesus will lead and teach them. Who are we to impede? There is unfortunately a need to mistrust the commonplace understanding of church practice and tradition - even those things that have been accepted without question for so many years. When we ask - why does the church marry people - what kinds of response are we expecting? Should blessings be extended to those who are without commitment to Christ Jesus? Is marriage just a social habit that needs to happen 'in church'? That seems to be the way it used to be when the wave of Christendom hit the rocks of the post-war generation.

One day perhaps I will find a way to write something useful on this subject. I do think that the word of the Bible is worth loving, however many years it takes to discover its work.

Anglicanism and invitation

It is curious to me that we Anglicans have a special invitation from the Pope to join the Roman Catholic Church under special governance arrangements. Quite by co-incidence, our Rector has been writing these past two weeks on 'what is Anglicanism':

... It is commonly held that the Anglican Church 'began' when King Henry VIII severed the Ecclesia Anglicana from the authority of the Pope. But by his politically motivated actions, Henry neither began a new church nor laid down principles of what the English church was to become. "Anglicanism is not a system;" nor has it ever "considered itself to be a sect or denomination originating in the sixteenth century, (but) continues without a break from the Ecclesia Anglicana founded by St Augustine." ... its 'genius' was to seek a synthesis between its unbroken catholic heritage (including things like 'apostolic succession,' adherence to the traditional creeds, and the authority of early church councils) and those urgent 'protesting' voices from continental Europe. ... under Elizabeth's reign, with the institution of the 1559 prayerbook, ... a ... via media began to emerge ... .

(no citation for the quote - may have been influenced from here.) It is clear even from this extract that the Anglican church is older than some may have thought and is catholic in attitude, and moreover, while anyone may be specially invited, the table is open without question to all baptized. No special permission or governance is required.

Rethinking translation

What are we to believe about translation? Can it be accurate or is it inherently undermining the original? Is, in fact, the original even accurate? Was there even an original? Some people say that reading a translation is like kissing your beloved through a sheet. Can the beloved be known in another tongue?

And what about our methods? Even a sense of accuracy is undermined by this post. According to his blog header, Kurk Gayle has 'much recovery yet to do' in changing his readers reading of taxonomies and motivations for reading. As I write this, Joel Hoffman adds another key question here: "Should a translation reflect our improved understanding?"

There is a lot of background and training in translation around. And a lot of argument among those who are trained. Even translating English to English can be a real problem (Deck yourself! as noted in my post from several days ago translated from the olde English 'deck thyself, my soul, with gladness'.)

A recurring theme in various blogs is discussion on functional equivalence, dynamic equivalence and cognitive equivalence, all intended forms of accuracy in translation. I doubt that any of these does full justice for the original drawing out of the language first chosen for the story, pericope, phrase or poetry. But neither does any commentary on or in any language. Language by itself is not sufficient. To put it plainly - language requires a hearer. All words - and especially those in the Bible are open to various cognitions. No amount of precision - language based, linguistic, grammatical, pragmatic, syntagmatic, syntactic, or communicative - can come to a final and unique and all-encompassing conclusion about 'the meaning', whether original or translated.

But I recall some other adjectives used for translations - 'decent' or 'satisfactory'. Decent will not do as a modifier. Testing its negative leaves me with unnecessary connotations. But satisfactory - that is a perfect word, reflecting the completeness that comes from engagement with the One behind the text, and also the cost of that completeness in blood. A satisfactory translation translates us from the realm of darkness into the realm of likeness, from the formality of God to the Beloved of the Song. And our tongues are loosed. And to give this poignancy, the word אלהים for God  (elohim) produces ha'eyalim האילים by simply moving one letter (and adding a yod!) - but there is a 'sounds like' relationship. In the Song, we are taught likeness, itself more costly than might be anticipated. And God finds a way in (three times) even when not mentioned.

So are we stuck with a canonical pointer? What should we do? Love the pointer? Yes - and marvel how it was even possible to suggest that there is One to whom it points. Should only one who is completed translate? This is an impossible judgment (for the human). Even the creating word that is the Potter allows itself to be subject to the will of the pots.

This week's commentary (or last week's or the week's before last) ends with this thought:

God's Torah requires human involvement in order to achieve its meaning—it is incomplete without the participation of humankind.

I would say not 'humankind' but any human that will respond. I would not say 'meaning' as if it could be extracted without the Measurer or the measured. Then it is not Torah that is completed, but the measured human who responds.

As I said too quickly in an earlier post that this one replaces: It's just you and me, kid. And we've got work to do.

Sanders on the relevance of Paul

This lecture from last year on the NT Pod is very worth hearing.

The Galilee Report

This may be old news to some, but I first saw it today. It is a major piece of theological work. The first 33 paragraphs alone are worth the read for their careful consideration of the frame of reference: scripture, tradition and reason. [Part way through - I might have arguments about some of the linguistic claims but I think there is promise and I expect some disagreement. Perhaps I will blog later on it.]

God of the gaps

There have been a number of posts this month on Genesis. John Hobbins and Karen Traphagen point us to and beyond the Crumb version. John has two other posts on Genesis 1 on the general subject of sexuality and the image of God: here and here. The Higgaion podcasts - all four to date - are lovely. Hear here and here for the image of God section. Doug Chaplin at clayboy has two posts in his series on the Anglican articles of religion, here and here, that frame issues and refine questions. Joel Hoffman at "God didn't say that" comments on the first word of the Bible as does the weekly commentary from JTS and Rachel at the Velveteen Rabbi. A host of posts (Joel many times and many many others, e.g. here, here, and here) were stimulated by Ellen van der Wolde's attempt to remap ancient Hebrew cosmological concepts and the verb 'create'.
It happened quite by chance that I also was reviewing Genesis with the Sunday School class and the adult Bible study at St Barnabas. And Joel kindly responded in real time to some of my questions. (Joel has a nice invitation on his 'about' page re questions.)

What has this to do with the God of the gaps? It's all in "the space between the notes", to quote Debussy's definition of music. The words and the spaces are important to faith. I could build faith on the gap following the first word in the bible. In this it is the JTS commentary that gives me the best chuckle. Bad grammar in the first sentence. Perhaps we should translate really slowly.

In the beginning of ...

(pause)

God created

the heavens and the earth

All this month, with some warnings and answers to comments from the above bloggers, I have been wondering about that other gap in Genesis 1 on image and likeness. Likeness is stated in intent but missing in action.

How is likeness to God and the heavenly council to be achieved? Can anything, should anything, be constructed or thought about this gap? (I find myself a little reserved on the 'our' of the image in the heavenly council - I wonder how the podcasts from Higgaion will proceed and if they will deal with the council in Job?) Note in a comment, Joel wrote about Ellen van der Wolde's response to this gap here.

Clayboy has pointed the way

Doug Chaplin's sequel was worth the wait. In particular I think this sentence is important: "This is what will have happened by the time the story ends."

I have left a question on several blogs recently - why is 'the likeness' not repeated in the creation of the human?  Two responded with 'form critical' suggestions. One with a caution not to build too much on the omission. Why? Isn't everything a house of cards - why not build another on a gap in the table?

The gap in the table is really obvious. With all the careful repetition in the first chapter of Genesis, this omission sticks out for me like a sore thumb.  Repeating myself:

Have you noticed this?

ויאמר אלהים נעשה אדם בצלמנו כדמותנו
And God said - let us make a human in our image after our likeness 

וירדו בדגת הים ובעוף השמים
to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of heaven etc

ויברא אלהים את־האדם בצלמו
So God created the human in his image

בצלם אלהים ברא אתו
In the image of God he created it
זכר ונקבה ברא אתם
male and female he created them

God says - let's make the human in our image according to our likeness
But then God creates the human in his image

What's missing? In a poem where repetition is a pattern closely followed, this 'after our likeness' is not repeated.

Likeness without image is used in Genesis 5 - image without likeness in Genesis 1. How are we to understand the missing words? The use of likeness with respect to the human is not taken up again till the visions of Ezekiel.

My self-discipline is not adequate at the moment to this question. John Hobbins may be right - maybe it is just a synonym.

I can read

Yesterday my keyboard broke - too many cooties. So I turned off the computer. (This morning I am using the portable 's built in keyboard and have turned off the mouse to avoid the accidental deleting of large portions of text due to my thumb hitting the mouse. I have such warm thumbs they set off the highlight and delete on a whim.)


While the machine was turned off, I decided to begin reading the first few verses of every book of the TNK and writing them beginning at the back of my note book. I started with the other writings first (Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles), then began the end of the 12. Thus I discovered that - after three years of daily slogging and still refusing to learn grammar - I can read. I did it out loud - and practiced writing in the big square letters that are so hard to make. The brain still works - if you persist, you will be able to do it too.

אהבתי אתכם אמר יהוה

I have loved you-all says יהוה

Huh?

במה אהבתנו

what's this about your loving us?

Childs takes on a tough problem

I think I need some Childs in my library and reading background. The Reviews are missing this link (it is correct in the email copy). The book looks very interesting.

The latest in pocket bibles

Here they are - all the books of the Bible in an unopenable state. Perfect!

These 'blocks' are for the children to learn the books of the Bible. The TNK is coloured in TNK order with the traditional subdivisions of Torah, Prophets - early, later and the twelve, and Writings, the Books of Truth (Psalms, Proverbs, and Job, an acronym in reverse order), the five Megillot, and the rest. The colours are such that the Old Testament order can be seen. Where a book has two colours, it can be re-sorted in the OT order of Law, History, Wisdom literature, and Prophets.

Note how the Song is the Holy of Holies as Akiva said. It reflects such light you cannot read the puzzle on it. (The Song is the 28th book from the left. It is the 35th from the right. There are 35 books in the TNK and 27 in the NT. Does that add up or is there one extra!) Addendum: and the case against me will be that I hid the books of truth behind the Song. Or will it be that that's where truth is to be found?

I have put a puzzle on each book. Mostly, the puzzles are to translate something - but there are number puzzles and word puzzles too. Where I did not use the first verse of the book, I also included a translation. If you look at the Song you can see the verse I chose in English. My picture is fuzzy because it was taken with a 1/5th of a second exposure and no tripod. Such is the nature of theology.

The wood is courtesy of my friend Sherman Oraas. The creation of the blocks took some time. A whole day after printing to cut and affix the labels - but it was fun.

Enjoy this commentary

The weekly commentary from JTS is here. Genesis is all the rage these days. The commentary is a hoot. Go back and click it and enjoy. I am so glad my Rashi has had coffee spilled on it. It shows at least it was near me.

Why do I go to church?

The Anglican Diocese of BC here on Vancouver Island has had published several articles on declining church attendance. I thought a few weeks ago that I would attempt to write why I keep attending. Is it inertia, fear, or ignorance on my part? Or is it knowledge and love that motivate me? I have my share of all five of these. The Anglican service I attend is one that I have known since I was 8 years old. There are a few changes but the high church has retained the Prayer Book service for the most part and we follow a full liturgical year with a complete traditional musical program. We do not sing full Gloria and Credo with orchestra but we regularly sing a Missa Brevis from some ancient (or at least wannabe ancient) composer. My parish is online here - and don't forget to browse the Sunday School blog where I record the Hebrew lessons.

So is it inertia - is it easier to keep going than to stop? There have been many forces acting against my momentum. Given the laws of motion, it is not inertia that keeps me attending church. Is it fear? Perhaps the fear that things will fall apart if I change my pattern of worship. But things fall apart anyway. Fear won't keep things up. Ignorance then - I just don't know any better. There's lots I don't know - but what is better? Would it be better to be alone rather than in community? Would it be better to be silent than sing? (Definitely sometimes! Especially some hymn books whose editors have rewritten poetry not their own. I remember a very old post of mine (2003.01) on the hymn Deck thyself, my soul, with gladness which had been rendered as Deck yourself. No one validated that translation, eh?)

I live with lots of momentum and habit, degrees of fear, and plenty of ignorance, but none of these provides reason for attending church. Is it then love or knowledge? If it were my love or my knowledge, then I could be accused of seeking power. That may be true, but surely making money would be a better way of doing this than going to church. Why support a crumbling structure with dwindling numbers?

I am looking for a reason - I know there is one but it is hard to create the space in which it can be stated. I have known many bad experiences from church. It is a wonder, given all the publicity over sex and violence in this tradition that there ever has been anyone left. Was the church only a successful power broker all this time and now it is exposed for what it is? I am no stranger to abuse. I spent 9 impressionable years at an Anglican boarding school in the years where adult misconduct was not adequately corrected. Why would I not tar the church with this experience? Actually, that is too easy. The harder thing is to note that the abusers and the violent power seekers were themselves in terrifying need and did not know the recourse that they had in the very structures which they inhabited.

Such abuse and violence was inflicted on the body of Jesus and he did not retaliate or defend himself. Within the life of Jesus, somehow the liturgy 'works'. Prayer, music, thanksgiving, confession, absolution, and Eucharist work. They create wholeness. That's not to say that there are not differences. And there are some things I think I don't like that I cannot change. That's not to say that such healing is confined to church or even as well known in the church as it should be. But these are all opportunities for love, for service, and for developing patience, and for getting to the important issues.

I have been fortunate to worship in some very beautiful liturgies with some very fine musicians and preachers.  So I think the liturgy should be done with an eye and an ear to the great tradition. It should be done well. It should be learned. It should be more complex than a human can understand with one attendance. It should be rich food and enable growth. So I teach - music and Bible. But the growth is not mine to give - nor will I necessarily see the fruit of my labours.

That points to the real reason I go to church. I did not learn Christ there as I should have, but now that I have some knowledge of Jesus, the church is the place where he is taken seriously and therefore I do not stay away. I have learned that this person who is not me has demonstrated  love for me - and therefore for others also. This human casts out fear. The relationship is close - like being married. But no one enters into this mystery by the intellect. In spite of contrary forces, I am invited to enter. So I continue to respond. It is a hearing and doing. It is because I am sought that I seek and find. It is because I am loved, that I learn to love.

Showing my cruel humour

From Rich Rhodes this morning on listening to the King James Version

That use of mental bandwidth keeps me from simply hearing God.

One might risk being thought narrow minded.

Quote of the moment

Here's a good one from Living Wittily

Isaiah 40 is a text for a culture like ours, which bought into the worship of finance and lost heavily when its god began to dissolve by acid of its own making - a culture that now needs to find a less exhausting deity, a different liturgy and a new vocation as stewards of a fragile creation.

Messy office after spilling coffee

Here is a study of a study.The coffee stain is on the bottom of my Rashi commentary on the psalms. The pile of books on the right largely escaped the spill. On the left is a broken cup holding pens and stuff. The black book in the middle background is a Hebrew Latin concordance. The blocks at the front done my my friend Sherman Oraas will be covered soon by labels illustrating the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Each will have a Hebrew lesson on the front. - A verse from the book. For Torah, I have chosen the first verse.

Good interview

There is a good interview with Peter Enns here

I like this quote - (warning, almost out of its context)

reading in Hebrew reminds me constantly how very foreign this text is. It is too often tamed in English translations and Christian theology. The Hebrew also raises basic questions of meaning that are wholly lost in translations

As to how I read - ask me later (I should live so long), but it is not by memorization of paradigms. His instruction to read out loud is a good one.

God's blog is short

God writes in sound bites and doesn't drown the reader with explanations.

The kingdom of heaven is like a blog

The kingdom of heaven is like a blog with a pearl in it, so the reader reads every post to find it.

Creation - tomorrow's Sunday School lesson

I have read and reread in Hebrew the first pericope of Genesis. It seems to me that Herbert was right - there is but one day - so this creation account is not in the past. Then I was reading Matt's long article on Cana - and I wonder how to interpret the days and hours of John's gospel. Here he writes:

By beginning his gospel with these allusions to the creation story in Genesis 1, and in mimicking this first creation story by way of rhetorical imitation, John was also telling his readers that a New Creation has begun in and through Jesus Christ.

Really? I know this is traditional sequential thinking - old creation then new creation. But does the first chapter of Genesis (to 2:4) exclude redemption? I have a hard time thinking this. Why would Jesus say to Nicodemus that as a teacher in Israel he should have known about being born from above? Surely such teaching is in the knowledge of Israel or how else would the son know it?

The whole gospel is implied in one word. Hear.

More words only means 'explanation' and explanation is not hearing.

Tomorrow, I hope to immerse the children in a strange tongue. I may read the whole of the creation story in Hebrew - it is so musical, perhaps it will stand on its own. I will remind them what they know already so as to encourage 'hearing'. And we will sing the Shema first and learn the word for one: .אֶחָד

I have a Korean boy in the class - I bet Hebrew will be as easy for him as English.

Understanding is nothing. Hearing is everything. As is implied in that creative Ker, Jesus said 'follow me'. All else is commentary.

Chagall and Interview on the Psalms

Go here just for the Chagall - but read the interview on the Psalms with Dr. Nancy deClaisse-Walford (no longer available 2010-10-25). It's in the air that the Psalms are shaped. I learned this from Magonet before I had heard of Wilson. (And do reread my silly translation of Psalm 145 - three times a day if only to up the ratings of the blog that published nothing since August 30.)

New Blog on the block

Matt Estrada has started a blog - HT the old Johannine Literature elist - I haven't looked at elists for some time. They were good for questions.

His approach to the symbolism of John will give some pause - but maybe that's very good. There's no point in believing a fiction and missing out on its love. The opening article on the Cana Miracle is inviting some serious commenters. The second article also is a substantial read - but will take more time than I have immediately.