A Better Way to Produce a Bible Translation

For hundreds of years, the King James Version was the standard translation of the Bible across all of the Anglosphere. The early and mid-20th Century saw renewed interest in up-to-date and accurate translations, leading to the creation of the ASV and RSV. But in recent years, it seems like there's a new translation out every week. Bible translation is big business, but it is typically not approached with a business mindset. So I figured, 'hey, I could start milking the cow of the Christian Stuff Industry if I think of a better way to translate the Bible.'

You see, Bible translation is not approached as a business enterprise, but as a scholarly endeavor. But if you go strolling through your local LifeWay superstore, wading through Thomas Kinkade prints and Precious Moments figurines, you can readily grasp that this is not a current model.

Bibles are expensive because translating a Bible is an expensive process. It requires a carefully-formulated process of gathering top-notch scholars in Biblical languages, checking each others' work from the original manuscripts. In terms of costs of production, it all boils down to this: exorbirent labor costs.

And that, my friends, is where we can cut costs. Businesses thrive only when they strive to lower their costs so that they can increase their profit margins. And other Bible translation projects will not be able to compete with the prices that I can offer customers due to one simple change: cheap Mexican labor.

I am, of course, referring to the business institution of the maquiladora -- a factory lying just over the Mexican side of the US-Mexican border. For years, US-based companies have shipped parts to maquiladoras for assembly where labor costs are far reduced, and finished goods back into the US duty-free. Americans benefit by having cheaper goods; Mexicans benefit from having increased industrialization.

So here's what we do. Acquire a maquiladora, such as those used for assembling small machines like household appliances, and begin shipping Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic manuscripts to them. The workers will then translate the documents into English and ship finished Bibles back into the United States. Here is an illustrative diagram:

What are the savings? Well, the average maquiladora worker earns about $0.90 an hour. Match that up against the $5.15 per hour wage that American holders of Ph.Ds in Biblical languages earn by waiting on tables, driving taxis, or pastoring churches. Our Bibles should cost a fifth of what other Bibles cost. That means that LifeWay customers will be able to slip that Prayer of Jabez collector's edition beer stein into their shopping carts all because they purchased our Bible instead of the Holman Christian Standard, or whatever else is the hottest American-produced translation on the market. And that, my friends, translates into profit.

Art Blogging: Grant Wood

Grant Wood (1891-1942) was an American Regionalist painter. Born in Iowa, he attended the Art Institute of Chicago. He served as a US Army camouflage painter during WWI and then travelled through Europe during the 1920s. Although exposed to contemporary Impressionists and Expressionists, it was the Northern Renaissance painters, such as Hans Memling, that left an enduring mark on his style. He founded the Stone City Art Colony in 1932 before settling down to teach at the University of Iowa until his death a few years later.
American Gothic (1930, oil on beaverboard, the Art Institute of Chicago). Instantly famous after its debut, American Gothic depicts a Midwestern farmer and his unmarried daughter in front of their Gothic Revival style cottage -- hence the title. The rigid formality and precise realistic depiction is in direct imitation of Northern Renaissance painting. As an icon of the Regionalist style, this work celebrates the beauty of the American Midwest in both its landscape and culture.


Young Corn (1931, oil on masonite, Cedar Rapids Iowa Community School). Here Wood idealizes Iowa as a peaceable kingdom of order, harmony, and prosperity. Compare.


Hired Girl (1935, gouache on paper, Cedar Rapids Museum of Art). In contrast to contemporary European depictions of women, Wood emphasizes the qualities of work, perseverance, and steadiness.

Caption Contest

Previous contest winners

WINNER: John Meunier: And Peter turned to Jesus and said, "I told you the long hair and robes thing was a bad idea."

Conspiracy Theory

Click on the image for a larger view. Everything is starting to fall into place now. It all makes sense, once you think about it. Doesn't it?

Caption Contest

Previous contest winner

WINNERS:

Allan R. Bevere: The prize at the end of the rainbow was not what Shamus expected, but given the fact that it had been a long trip, he could live with the disappointment.

Rev. Ed: Phew, Toto... I don't think we're in Kansas anymore. Smells more like Kentucky!

Jeff the Baptist: So I looked at the Leprechaun and said "Hey, I thought there was supposed to a be a pot 'o gold at the end of the rainbow."

And he says to me with a smile, "Oh there is laddie, but it's at the other end. But you're welcome to what's a this end, a whopping great pile of ..."

And that, Your Honor, is when I hit the little green bastard.

Art Appreciation and Christian Values

I have no formal training in art theory, so readers will forgive me for these erratic thoughts as I try to piece together a coherent thesis.

I have, of late, developed an appreciation for the Art Deco period of illustration, design, painting, and sculpture. I have described it as "a geometry of clean, crisp lines drawn in broad, sweeping gestures" that makes no pretense of subtlety or attempt to mask its aesthetic yearnings. It is not in any way ashamed of being beautiful. But there are many different kinds of beauty, and Art Deco (and to a large extent its parent movement, Art Nouveau) is one in particular: elegance. Elegance is the glorification of the elite -- of refinement, poise, and finesse -- and seen as qualities of the upper tier of society.

As I've developed this appreciation for the Art Deco and Art Nouveau movements, I have at the same time been bothered by certain values conveyed by them. They glorify and even deify science and technology as the saviors of humanity. And perhaps most disturbingly, they idealize wealth -- that to be rich is the best of all possible worlds. This idea, of course, stands in sharp contrast to Christian values. One cannot be both wealthy and a Christian. 'Wealthy' is a subjective term, and I suppose that as a Christian grows richer, s/he tends to define the term ever upward. But whatever we may definitively nail down as 'wealthy' is alien to Christianity. And yet Art Deco glorifies wealth, suggesting that one should not be ashamed of being rich.

Let me provide an example of the contrasting concepts of beauty in Art Deco and Academicism. This is Young Shepherdess Standing by the Academic Neoclassical master William Adolphe Bouguereau. Depictions of barefoot peasant girls were among Bouguereau's most common subjects. He idealized the lifestyle of the poor rural Frenchman, attributing Edenic qualities to the agrarian lifestyle. This shepherdess is not an icon of beauty for her splendor and grace, but for her simplicity. The fact that she smells like sheep and will lose most of her teeth by the age of 30 is unmentioned. Bouguereau suggests that true beauty is found not in wealth, but in poverty.







Now a contrasting image: This is Dancers by Art Deco sculptor Demetre Chiparus. These are not peasants, but the wealthy elite of society. The woman is not dressed in a converted flower sack as the peasant girl above is, but a carefully designed and tailored gown. She wears high heels, an item of fashion which prevents a person from engaging in manual labor (and is therefore a conspicuous display of wealth). The couple is engaged not in an effort to create food and clothing, but an economically useless activity: dancing. This sculpture is a rejection of Bouguereau's concept of beauty, and instead replaces that definition with one of wealth and high social class. Both images express beauty; both define them very differently.

So am I moving away from Christian values by appreciating a movement which highly esteems wealth (Art Deco, Art Nouveau) instead of one that highly esteems poverty (Academic Neoclassicism)? Ah, but here is where the ethical formulation gets complex! The Bouguereau in question was produced once and is worth millions of dollars, whereas the Chiparus was mass produced and is worth thousands of dollars.

So a century ago, a profoundly wealthy person might have had one of Bouguereau's peasant girls hanging on his wall. He might think to himself "If only I were a simple peasant, without a care in the world, instead of having to worry about my many investments all hours of the day!" And a middle-class person might have a Chiparus knock-off (or maybe an original) on his mantle and say to himself "If only I were rich, dancing without a care in the world, instead worrying about the mortgage all hours of the day!" The rich glorify the poor, the poorer (comparatively, but not absolutely) glorify being rich. To each, the grass is always greener on the other side.

So even though Art Deco glorified wealth, its decisive element was not a particular concept of line and form or color, but mass production. What makes Art Deco Art Deco is that it was produced in vast quantities by machines. There are exceptions, of course, such as painters whose work could not mass produced (until the advent of clever businessmen like Thomas Kinkade). Whereas once art was the sole possession of the very wealthy, thanks to the tools of capitalism, it is now available to everyone. Art Nouveau and Art Deco represented the new Age of Capitalism -- when the rising tide lifted the boats of all people, most especially the poor. Capitalism invented the middle class, which took advantage of its newfound wealth to access the arts once restricted to the elites. And that's a good thing, because being poor sucks.

Still, these movements glorify wealth, though they make art accessible to the non-wealthy. Its predecessor did not glorify wealth, but was only accessible to the wealthy. Here is a reflection of one of the ironies of Christian ethics. We are told to give our resources to the poor so that they may no longer be poor. But what if we succeed and the poor become rich men stuck in the eyes of needles? We are told that greed is evil, but greed is the essential motive of capitalism, which among all economic systems does the most good for the poor. Christian objectives and the means to achieve them seem to be in conflict.

Now I've written myself into a corner as my attempt to synthesize my faith and my aesthetics is still fuzzy. This is a work in progress. What do you think of the ideas that I have put forth here?

Methodist Blogs Weekly Roundup # 106

...is up, thanks to the tireless efforts of Dr. Allan R. Bevere.

Suicide Googlebombing

When setting a Googlebomb, make sure that it doesn't explode in your face.

Hat tip: Puppy Blender

Bad at Math

Hilarious answers to actual math test questions.

Hat tip: Ace

Art Blogging: Louis Lozowick

Louis Lozowick (1892-1973) was an Art Deco lithographer. Born in the Ukraine, he was educated in Kiev before immigrating to the United States. He then studied at the National Academy of Design and Ohio State University. Lozowick composed innumerable prints over a fifty-year period about American life.

New York (1923). For Lozowick's generation, New York City was the icon of progress.
Bridge Repair (1938). Art Deco emphasized clean, crisp lines glistening in the light of industrial, mass-produced perfection. Lozowick wrote: "The dominant trend in America of today, beneath all the apparent chaos and confusion, is toward order and organization which find their outward sign and symbol in the rigid geometry of the American city: in the verticals of its smoke stacks, in the parallels of its car tracks, in the squares of its streets, the cubes of its factories, the arc of its bridges, the cylinders of its gas tanks."

Weekend Rabbit Blogging

Christian Ethics and Biblical Literalism

Dan Trabue has a relative who was nominated by his church to become a deacon (as a congregational polity defines the term). He drank a few alcoholic drinks a year, though his denomination frowns on drinking entirely, and so encountered resistance:

Being aware that the Bible nowhere condemns the drinking of alcohol (and, in fact, encourages it in small amounts for one’s health), he figured that wasn’t a problem, but he brought it up to his pastor ahead of time to ask if it were a problem.

He said he’d even be willing to forgo drinking alcohol while a deacon, if it were a stumbling block for anyone. But, being a member of a church where biblical literality was essential and since alcohol isn’t condemned biblically, he figured he was okay.

Well, Baptists being what they are, he wasn’t okay. His nomination was rejected out of hand until such time as he’s “been off” alcohol for a few years to prove that he’s not a drinker.

My relation was stung by the “Literalists.”

Although still quite conservative, he was a bit put off by the incident. He didn’t realize that what he needed to believe literally was not the Bible but the traditions of that particular church (and denomination, for the most part).

We agreed that no one takes the Bible literally literally, page-for-page, word-for-word. Anyone who values biblical teaching has to weigh what the Bible says in each part against the whole and against our God-given reason.

And while it’s obvious that no one takes the Bible word-for-word literally (kill disrespectful children, don’t go to banks, don’t invest, free prisoners every seven years, return land to the original owners every 50 years, pluck out our eyes, love our enemies, overcome evil with good, etc, etc, etc), many prefer to think that the beliefs of their church ARE the literal teachings of the Bible – even the ones that contradict biblical teachings.

How very true. That's why it's critical that all Christians -- lay and clergy -- engage in thoughtful ethical reflection. And read the whole Bible routinely. Because what we think the Bible says often isn't.

Caption Contest

Picture via The Donovan

Previous contest winner

WINNER: Quipper: Why use sheep's clothing when everyone now accepts the wolf?

Art Blogging: The Chrysler Building

One writer referred to this Art Deco masterpiece as "a timeless work of Jazz Age poetry in steel." Constructed from 1928 to 1930, it was the first building to surpass 1,000 feet in height and was for several months the tallest building in the world. Though it lost that position to the Empire State Building, it remained the pinnacle of Art Deco achievement.

The spire is clad in stainless steel, that quintessential medium of the age, representative of a time of industrial optimism. It glistens gloriously in the sunlight, parabolic curves punctuated by triangular windows in a rhythmic verticality.
Steel eagles intentionally resembling car hood ornaments look out over the New York skyline from the 61st floor. Eagles -- what a particularly American gargoyle. And they do not simply rest on ledges, but jutt out far in flight over the city in a fierce but silent stillness.


Flying hubcaps celebrate the achievements of capitalism and industrialism.

Energy, Result, Workmanship and Transportation by Edward Turnbull -- an enormous mural inside the lobby, restored in 1999.


The elevator doors remind us that the Art Deco voice is one not only of capitalistic dynamism, but refined elegance as well. They are masterpieces of marquetry -- the medium of bonding thin sheets of wood together to create intricate textures and patterns.

Caption Contest

Picture via The Donovan

Previous contest winners

WINNER: Jim Morrow: Joseph Smith never realized the mess he was getting into...

Hildreth Meiere at Radio City Music Hall

As mentioned previously, Rockefeller Center, particularly its entertainment venue of Radio City Music Hall, was intentionally designed as the pinnacle of the Art Deco movement. It is the grandest achievement of that style in architecture, sculpture, and interior design. Among its landmarks are three sculptures hanging on the exterior of Radio City Music Hall by Hildreth Meiere (1892-1961), an American mosaicist, sculptor, and muralist. These three steel sculptures, designed by Meiere and executed by Oscar Bach, represent the insistence of modernism to remain optimistic in the midst of the Great Depression. True to ideology, in these works, modernism calls upon the gods of the arts to rescue it from suffering.
Song.






Dance.





Drama.

Question of the Day

You gonna eat that?

Proof for Intelligent Design

Intelligent design is a branch of scientific creationism which holds that the structures of the universe (such as living cells) are sufficiently complex that they could not have evolved on their own, but necessarily required a powerful, intelligent designer. I've long been skeptical of this perspective and wholly disinterested in this hyperventilated debate of human and universal origins, but now I have decisive evidence that proves that there was, in fact, an intelligent designer.

What is it? The Hebrew language. I have begun studying it this semester at Asbury and its staggering and needless complexity suggests some intentionality behind its origin. Languages are products of evolution. We see, for example, changes in English from its Anglo-Saxon origins, 11th Century Norman influences, and ongoing metamorphosis through the past centuries until today. There is a slow, steady, and gradual change punctuated by occasional epochs of rapid change (e.g. the Norman invasion, which introduced Romance characteristics) as the needs of communication have changed over time. The human need to communicate clearly and easily has shaped the development of the English tongue.

But this same need to express oneself easily has not been an influential factor in Hebrew. It has, for example, no vowels. This itself is not that serious a problem. Croatian and Czech are often lacking in vowels. But Hebrew expresses vowel intonations through a vast variety of tick marks, jots, and tittles surrounding the consonants. These are not constant, but the meaning of the different markings varies depending upon the order of the letter within the word, order within the syllable, the nature of the preceding consonant, and the following consonant, and all possible combinations thereof, as well as a number of other factors that I lack the time and patience to detail. Suffice it to say, Hebrew is so hopelessly and purposelessly complex a language that it could not have evolved on its own and must point to some greater, intelligent designer. And one with a seemingly sadistic streak.

But does the design of Hebrew call into question the moral character of God? No. Let us look at the history of the language. It only came into being after the Fall. No manuscripts survive from the Edenic period. This is not a coincidence, rather, Hebrew was created out of the wrath of God as judgment upon humanity for its rebellion, just like death, tilling the soil, and painful childbirth. It is wrong to shake our fists in outrage to God for the Hebrew language, when its existence is our just punishment for our sins. And who came to pay that punishment for us? A person whose gospel accounts are written in the far easier Greek -- Jesus Christ, our liberator from Hebrew. And in the great Fulfillment at the end of the present age, yet even this language shall be wiped away, and we shall all speak a far easier and systematic language, Klingon.

Caption Contest

Previous contest winner

WINNERS:

Andy Bryan: "...authorities suspect the Wookie's arrest may have been part of an elaborate rebel ruse designed to facilitate the escape of Princess Leia Organa, arrested earlier in the day for alleged anti-empire activities."

Tom Ream: In breaking news...Chewbacca was arrested this evening following a pool hall brawl for allegedly maiming the victim.

A witness told our news crews, "The dude had it coming...everybody knows that wookies are known to rip arms out of sockets when they lose."

A Modified Two-Source Hypothesis for the Synoptic Gospels

It's rather surprising that in hundreds of years of source criticism, no one has thought of this hypothesis before. But now it's so obvious!

Where is my evidence? Simple. The Parable of the Lost Sheep appears in Luke and Matthew, but not in Mark. But it does appear in Wikipedia. Likewise the Parable of the Talents appears in Luke and Matthew, but not Mark. But again, it is present in Wikipedia. Numerous similar examples abound in the three works.

I'm a genius! Now it's time to cash in on my discovery. Because, as we all know, the big money is in Biblical source criticism. I can finally get that lakehouse that I've always wanted, paid for by drooling seminarians who are forced to pay $85 for a fifty page book on the subject.

Lenten Preparations

John Wilks is gearing up for the Lent at his church and is hosting a discussion about different Lenten activities for congregations. We're doing the Stations of the Cross with other neighborhood churches. How about you?

Ripped from Actual Court Transcripts

ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All my autopsies are performed on dead people.

ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?"
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan.

ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Would you repeat the question?

ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: But could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.

Here's the complete list.

The Three-Kick Rule

A big city lawyer went duck hunting in rural Texas. He shot and dropped a bird, but it fell into a farmer's field on the other side of a fence. As the lawyer climbed over the fence, an elderly farmer drove up on his tractor and asked him what he was doing.

The litigator responded, "I shot a duck and it fell in this field, and now I'm going to retrieve it."

The old farmer replied, "This is my property, and you are not coming over here."

The indignant lawyer said, "I am one of the best trial attorneys in the United States and, if you don't let me get that duck, I'll sue you and take everything you own.

The old farmer smiled and said, "Apparently, you don't know how we settle disputes in Texas. We settle small disagreements like this with the "Three Kick Rule."

The lawyer asked, "What is the Three Kick Rule?"

The farmer replied, "Well, because the dispute occurs on my land, first I kick you three times and then you kick me three times and so on back and forth until someone gives up."

The attorney quickly thought about the proposed contest and decided that he could easily take the old codger. He agreed to abide by the local custom.

The old farmer slowly climbed down from the tractor and walked up to the attorney. His first kick planted the toe of his heavy steel toed work boot into the lawyer's groin and dropped him to his knees. His second kick to the midriff sent the lawyer's last meal gushing from his mouth. The lawyer was on all fourswhen the farmer's third kick to his rear end sent him face-first into a fresh cow pie. The lawyer summoned every bit of his will and managed to get to his feet. Wiping his face with the arm of his jacket, he said, "Okay, Now it's my turn."

Click here for the punchline.

Cartoon Ren

Worth 1000 has a hilarious photoshop thread going of cartoon characters inserted into classical paintings.

Spring by Alphonse Mucha, 1896.

Question of the Day

Regular Methoblogospheric commentor Keith Taylor has requested this Question of the Day:

Is Freemasonry compatible with Christian teaching? Is it proper for Christians to be Freemasons?

He writes:

I ask this very seriously. I am not a mason, but my own grandfather was a 33rd degree mason. I used to think of such esoteric or secretive organizations such as the Shrine, or the Masons, or other secret organizations as harmless, social clubs. I know they do many good works. But as I have become more serious in my Christian walk, I have begun to wonder about this. There was a time when I would have wanted to be a mason, but since I have become older and much more serious in the Christian faith, I have completely lost that desire.

I know that there are many Freemasons and Order of the Easter Star members in United Methodist Churches all across the nation. I know that many are sincere in their Christian faith. As I think back in my life, some of the men who where Christian role models to me, wore Masonic rings. But are we not admonished by the Bible to remain open, non-secretive, to walk in the light, not in secretive societies and organizations? Do masons not take secret oaths and swear allegiance to their lodges to the point of death if they betray their oaths and secrets? They hold their meetings in secret. They meet in windowless buildings or chapter rooms. They refer to ancient pagan gods and goddess rituals in their secrete rites and ceremonies. They exclude membership based on things such as faith, economic status, ethnic background, and/or gender. How can such be compatible with the Christian faith? And if that is the case, then are Greek esoteric or secretive organizations compatible with Christian teaching as well?

So, while I know there are many members of such organizations in the Christian Church and the UMC specifically, are their membership oaths, their secretive meetings and actions, their extra biblical beliefs and rituals, contrary to Christian faith and behavior?

[cross-posted]

Art Blogging: Me

Portrait of Hazel Narry (1994, linocut).

Engineering Skills + Beer = Beer Cannon

The video is a bit fuzzy, so I can't quite identify which one of these guys is Jeff the Baptist.

Hat tip via

Caption Contest

Previous contest winners

WINNER: Mark Winter:

When ManBearPig failed to materialize, Al Gore came up with another threat to mankind

Art Blogging: Sybil Andrews

Back when I was actually producing art instead of just talking about it, my favorite medium was the linocut. That's carving an image into a block of wood-mounted linoleum and making prints from it. The medium emphasizes the heavy, angular lines and sharp tonal contrasts that suit my Art Deco tastes. So I decided to have a look at what other artists have done with that medium. Sybil Andrews (1898-1992) was a British-born Canadian printmaker who largely composed linocuts. She studied under Claude Flight, a British linocut artist and futurist. Andrews' works emphasize the rapid motion and energy of the modern age.
Storm (1935). This violently swirling landscape reminded me of Andrew's contemporary in America, Thomas Hart Benton.








Water Jump (1931).




















The Dive (1994).

Blogging Etiquette

Andy Bryan had a particularly nasty string of comments recently and is thinking about how to respond:

So, what do you think? Should bloggers respond to anonymous or name-only comments? Or should bloggers limit the back-and-forth commenting to either people we know or who have a blog of their own?

I don't think that we should limit our conversation to other bloggers. That only limits the medium and discourages people from blogging themselves. But I don't respond to anonymous comments because I think that we should all be held accountable for our words. This doesn't necessarily mean requiring comment registration, but I do want to see a name in name field of a comment, such as those of frequent commentors Keith Taylor, Tom Ream, or Dark Gable.

Waterfall as an Artistic Medium

Amazing.

Hat tip

The March of the Librarians

A documentary examining the migratory behavior of librarians in the flavor of March of the Penguins.

ALA annual meetings are notorious/legendary as fora for drunken debauchery. Seriously. When librarians party, they party really, really hard.
Hat tip

How To Move a Church

Hat tip

Caption Contest

Previous contest winner

WINNERS:

Gavin Richardson:
Chinese food anyone?

Cat, It's what's for dinner.

Oloryn:
Kittens, too, have those moments when they realize they should have listened to what Mom said.

Jeff the Baptist:
Tonight on cooking with Alf...

The Hidden Christian

From an episode of Seinfeld.
Hat tip

"Thou Shall Not Kill" or "Thou Shall Not Murder"?

In my recent post about abortion, Stephen Fife objected to my differentiation between killing and murder:

To push the point the Bible very clearly states Thou shalt not kill (we mistranslate it as murder to appease our consciences, but the Hebrew is kill). So to say one is not being immoral by killing of the foe can be argued against from a biblical standpoint.

I've only just begun studying Hebrew, but thanks to BibleWorks 7, a little goes a very long way. So I looked up the verse Ex 20:13 (and Deu 5:17) in the Westminster Hebrew OT Morphology. I shall provide only transliterations of the Hebrew, as I've never figured out how to get non-Latin letters to display properly in Blogger. The word is 'pual' -- to crush, murder, or slay.

It is used frequently in the OT. Num 35:6, 35:11-12, 35:16-19, 35:21, 35:25-31 use the term in reference to those who have committed manslaughter and the legal consequences thereof.

Deu 4:42, 19:3, and 19:6 address the same topic. Deu 22:26 states that murder is punishable by death. If Stephen's interpretation is correct, then this verse contradicts itself.

Jos 20:3-6 also consider the crime of manslaughter and remedies for it, as do v.13, 21, 27, 32, and 38. This Hebrew word is also used to describe the brutal murder of a Levite's concubine which caused a scandal in Jdg 20:4. It appears to describe Jezebel's murder of the vineyard owner Naboth in 1 Ki 21:19, condemned by God in the same verse. In 2 Ki 6:32, Elisha uses it to describe the wicked king of Israel.

Job 24:14 describes the murderer as a criminal. The narrators of Psalms 62:4 and 42:11 use forms of the word to describe the actions of their enemies. Psalm 94:6 uses the word to describe the wicked who kill specifically widows, orphans, and sojourners. Pro 22:13 uses it to describe a lion attack.

Isa 1:21 uses it to describe the depravity of Jerusalem. Jer 7:9 lists it among a number of commands for righteousness. Eze 21:27 uses it to describe the crushed remains of Babylon. Hos 4:2 lists murder among the many sins of the Israelites and 6:9 compares the priests of Israel to robbers and murderers.

With a handful of exceptions, all uses of pual refer to the criminal act of murder. At no point is it used to describe killing in battle, so I think that there is a clear difference between the two concepts. But I await the assessment of those with a stronger command of Hebrew than me. Perhaps Michael will chime in, as he is (if I recall correctly) fluent in Hebrew.

UPDATE: Dr. Joe Cathey e-mails:

will throw my hat into the ring so to speak. I have a Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible so I know a bit about the language. You are correct in that the commandment should be translated as "You shall do no murder."

Probably the best indactor of this is the semantic domain of the word in question here. If we trace out the semantic domain and see how this word is used in relation to other words for "kill," "put to death," "murder," "slay," "slaughter," etc. we see that the Hebrew's had a great many of words they could have used here.

I find it interesting that the word used here is not the same one used in Levitical laws for sacrificial killing. In the laws of the Hebrew bible there were strict laws for killing. (Yes, the Hebrew bible does sanction killing of animals, in other cases humans. Those who argue to the contrary either deny parts of the scripture or are unfamiliar with certain passages).

In any case, I can cite a good number of scriptures if you wish or you can read my review of a book which dealt with this very topic here - http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/4948_5178.pdf

In this review I cover most all of what I have brought up above but with examples.

I will throw my hat into the ring so to speak. I have a Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible so I know a bit about the language. You are correct in that the commandment should be translated as "You shall do no murder."

Probably the best indactor of this is the semantic domain of the word in question here. If we trace out the semantic domain and see how this word is used in relation to other words for "kill," "put to death," "murder," "slay," "slaughter," etc. we see that the Hebrew's had a great many of words they could have used here.

I find it interesting that the word used here is not the same one used in Levitical laws for sacrificial killing. In the laws of the Hebrew bible there were strict laws for killing. (Yes, the Hebrew bible does sanction killing of animals, in other cases humans. Those who argue to the contrary either deny parts of the scripture or are unfamiliar with certain passages).

In any case, I can cite a good number of scriptures if you wish or you can read my review of a book which dealt with this very topic here - http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/4948_5178.pdf

In this review I cover most all of what I have brought up above but with examples.

I will throw my hat into the ring so to speak. I have a Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible so I know a bit about the language. You are correct in that the commandment should be translated as "You shall do no murder."

Probably the best indactor of this is the semantic domain of the word in question here. If we trace out the semantic domain and see how this word is used in relation to other words for "kill," "put to death," "murder," "slay," "slaughter," etc. we see that the Hebrew's had a great many of words they could have used here.

I find it interesting that the word used here is not the same one used in Levitical laws for sacrificial killing. In the laws of the Hebrew bible there were strict laws for killing. (Yes, the Hebrew bible does sanction killing of animals, in other cases humans. Those who argue to the contrary either deny parts of the scripture or are unfamiliar with certain passages).

In any case, I can cite a good number of scriptures if you wish or you can read my review of a book which dealt with this very topic here - http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/4948_5178.pdf

In this review I cover most all of what I have brought up above but with examples.

For the record - The bible not only says that you shall not do murder but it also says that if you see someone about to be murdered and you do not stop it then you are guilty of their blood.

Medieval Tech Support

Hat tip

Question of the Day

Is capital punishment compatible with Christian teaching?

Does Evangelical Art Set Off Your Gaydar?

Unless your taste in art is restricted to Dogs Playing Poker, you can expect that having an appreciation for the fine arts can lead to doubts about your sexual orientation. I was once called an "art fag" for recognizing that a Vanity Fair cover was a subtle reference to a Manet painting. And I may rave about Greuze's airly play with light in the blogosphere, but I know better than to do that at the monthly United Methodist Men meetings. Still, there is an emerging and very kitschy evangelical art movement, since there clearly isn't enough expensive Christian-themed junk filling up LifeWay stores. Jeff Sharlett took a look at the movement:

Is evangelical art really that gay? If only. DiCianni's, Blackshear's, and God's personal preferences aside, this massively popular reveals an unexplored facet of the Christian men's movement: The manly desire for beauty. Or, to be more precise, the manly desire to look pretty. What's wrong with that? Doesn't that suggest a slightly-expanded idea of gender? Indeed, it does -- the masculine gender ex[anded to encompass and appropriate one of the few virtues fundamentalist men had previously reserved for women.

[snip]

We might write off these sterile representations of women to prudishness, but that still leaves us with the ripped golden muscles and leatherman fetish of DiCianni's man-art. My tentative theory: As religious art traditionally uses eroticism to channel worldly desires toward spiritual concerns, contemporary fundamentalist art uses eroticism to channel sex -- the visual currency of power in an advertising culture -- away from women and toward men. Either that, or it's a vast gay conspiracy.

Sharlett has a very quiet standard for what counts as eroticism, but I get his point: some Christian art looks like it belongs on romance novel covers. As for me, I prefer the classics of Christian art, such as Christ In the Wilderness by Kramskoy:


Hat tip: In the Agora

Can You Oppose Abortion Personally But Support Its Legality?

SimplyComplexJen:

Ok, ok... I have a friend that I go round and round with. She tells me you can not be against abortion on a personal level, yet on a political level support choice. I still stand by my argument that a person can and I do.

I can understand the reasoning behind a 'yes' answer to the question in the title bar of this post. It fits in (hypothetically) with my libertarian politics. For example, I believe that idolatry is immoral, but should not be illegal. I believe that homosexual conduct is immoral, but should not be illegal. I believe that smoking is immoral, but should not be illegal. I believe that using marijuana is immoral, but should not be illegal. No action should be illegal which harms only those who consent to the action.

Following this thread, I think that an unborn child is a human life and that abortion does not acquire the consent of all of the affected people, namely the child. It is, therefore, the deliberate, non-consensual killing of a person, i.e. murder.

I also believe that the state has only a few legitimate functions:
1. Protect citizens from crime.
2. Protect citizens from invasion.
3. Enforce contracts between citizens.

Abortion, being murder, would fit into category 1, and is therefore a legitimate concern of the state.

So, assuming that one holds:
1. That abortion takes a human life without consent
2. And that one purpose of the state is to prevent non-consensual harm

...then one cannot morally reject abortion but support its legality.

UPDATE: On the rape/incest exception: I don't support it because of Assumption 1. The unborn child is still an innocent human life. S/he has done nothing to merit death because of his/her origins. The mother deserves our compassion, love, and assistance, but not our permission to kill a child.

Also: Henry Neufeld responds:

Frankly, I think John has left out most of the logic on this one. Hidden assumptions lumber through this like elephants, just begging someone to see them. One may, for example, simply disagree with the idea that the state always has a duty to accomplish the goals John states.

Wow. He's a lot more libertarian than I am.

Rabbit Agility Competition

Caption Contest

Previous contest winners

WINNER: Jeff the Baptist:

"If I pull in enough money," thought Jimmy, "I can be the first one in line for Episode Seven."

The Public Acceptance of Adultery

David Bernstein wrote about a curious wedding announcement in The New York Times. An older couple gets together decades after a teenage romance:

Very nice. But if I follow the story correctly, the groom hooked up with the bride well before he was separated from his wife of about thirty years, and apparently well before he made it clear to her that he was pursuing other relationships. The Times's story contains this choice line: "He suggested to Dr. Drager that they meet in Las Vegas the next year and go on a group river-rafting trip through the Grand Canyon. He told his wife about the trip but not about his companion." I understand these things happen, I haven't walked a mile in their shoes, I'm not being judgmental, I certainly wouldn't want my private life to be judged by others, and so forth. But what interests me is how social mores have changed. When did such things become not only not at least somewhat embarrassing, but something a prominent doctor (the bride) would willingly (eagerly?) share with friends, family, and millions of strangers? And isn't this the sort of things that newspapers would have refused to publish in their wedding pages not too long ago?

And how did the presiding pastor at the wedding feel about couple's infidelity?

Rabbi Jacqueline Mates-Muchin, who married the couple, spoke to them about love “kept in the recesses of your hearts.” As the ceremony was ending and the procession was leaving the room, the bride turned to her friends and family and gave two thumbs up and silently mouthed the word, “Yes!”

I'm not a pastor yet, but if an adulterous couple came to me seeking a wedding, I'd refuse.

Hat tip: Glenn Reynolds

Art Blogging: Christopher Hartshorne

Christopher Hartshorne is a Philadelphia-based printmaker. This is Girl Ignoring Stress, a linocut on mulberry paper. It depicts a translucent snake moving across a woman's face. The broad, sharply contrasting shapes of the girl's face and hair lend themselves well to the linocut medium.

Hat tip: Libby Rosof

Methodist Blogs Weekly Roundup # 104

...is up.

Calvinist Scandal

Leading Calvinist blogger David Wayne -- who founded the League of Reformed Bloggers -- is scandalized to discover that he is actually a Wesleyan.

This is, of course, not the first time that a Calvinist blogger has moved on to perfection. Hopefully many Methodists will follow their example.

24 vs. Aqua Teen Hunger Force

Who can stop Master Shake, Frylock, and Meatwad? Only Jack Bauer.

Hat tip: Ace

Caption Contest

Previous contest winners

WINNERS:

Bruce Alderman: The movement to legalize abortions for men never really caught on.

Jeff the Baptist: What? No, I'm just holding this for my hot protest-girl-friend. Honest. See, here's her purse too.

Art Blogging: Hunter Stabler

Hunter Stabler is a cut-paper artist. He slices up sheets of paper to create elaborate sculptures from that material. His work is simply mesmerizing.

Roberta Fallon has written about his work extensively.

Can You Be Christian And Politically Conservative?

Alan of Thinklings:

Conservatism aims first at preserving institutions and virtues that are gifts from God. We and our families, our work and our wealth, our bodies and our minds, our homes and our cities-- they are all gifts from God. We hold them in trust, as good servants, to give account at the last judgment for what we have done with our gifts. Have we squandered them? Or have we kept and preserved them, using them to the glory of God and handing them over to the next generation to further Christ's kingdom?

So conservatism does have a positive agenda: to hold and invest God's gifts, and pass them along as an inheritance. Its battle is not to create something out of nothing (which is why it seems so out of place next to programs which would radically re-create society, such as Marxism), but rather to tend a garden that another has planted.

I'm skeptical of this response, or any that tries to pin a modern political ideology on the Gospel. And let's not forget that conservative notions like limited government, personal and economic freedom, and republican (lower-case 'r') government are predicated more on humanism than on any Biblical worldview.

Hat tip: Jeff the Baptist

A New Meeting Place for Christian Peacemakers

Michael Westmoreland-White has started a webring for Christians of the pacifistic persuasion. Hie thee and join if you are similarly persuaded.

Hat tip: Jonathan Marlowe

The New UMC Website: A Review

A lot of Methobloggers got e-mailed invitations a couple of weeks ago to attend an online chat about the UMC's new website, billed as the first "faith-based social networking site".

This is exactly the sort of institutional buy-in that the Methoblogosphere has been seeking for two years now. But, unfortunately, I had a meeting at that hour that I could not get out of.

But I respect Janice Laurente and United Methodist Communications for seeing the value of the Methoblogosphere and thank her for the invitation.

The social networking end of the website is very impressive. It isn't just a neglected Conference website message board. It's a flexible software setup called 7Villages. One can create different online communities within this larger UMC context. There are many present for different churches, conferences, and interest groups.

It's a very fluid program that takes advantage of the Army of Davids available through communications technology.

What will this mean for the UMC? There are 433 registered members of this Methodist society so far, and it's growing rapidly, day by day.

At the MethoBlogCon dinner, each of us introduced ourselves and spoke about what the Methoblogosphere means. I said something like this: "Our denomination is battling schismatic forces, tearing us away from united community. The Methoblogosphere is a counterweight to these tendencies, bringing people together who strongly disagree with each other. We find that we have some differences, but so much in common. Our friendships show vividly what we have in common. So as much as I may find myself in routine disagreement with my brother Jonathon here, I can't imagine ever schisming away from him. That is what the Methoblogosphere does: it helps keep us united for mission."

And that is what the new UMC website can do on a much larger scale.

Here is Beth Quick's more comprehensive review, as well as thoughts from Josh Tinley.

Meeting Other Methobloggers

Yesterday, Spring Term classes started as Asbury. I saw a student in my Hebrew class that I didn't recognize, so I introduced myself. It was Methoblogger Jim Morrow of the South Georgia Conference. He has, of course, been added to the Asbury Bloggers' Blogroll.

Today, Gavin Richardson was in town while his wife was attending a business convention. I picked him up at his luxurious hotel/resort and we went to a Colombian bakery. Orlando has a large Colombian community and their unique baked goods substantially add to the city's menu. It was great to get to sit down with a colleague and talk shop and such for two hours.

I took a couple pictures, but the computer is being ornery about loading them. None of them include the infamous tattoo, anyway.

Caption Contest

Previous contest winners

WINNERS:

Allan R. Bevere: They put mustard on it! I hate mustard!

Theresa Coleman: My dog seems sluggish today.

Art Blogging: Edward Hopper

Edward Hopper (1882-1967) was an American Scene painter. The American Scene movement was a US-based style which depicted scenes from everyday, socially realistic life as a rejection of Modernism. Hopper was raised in Nyack, a small town on the Hudson River and educated at the New York School of Art under Realist painter Robert Henri. He had his first successful solo exhibit in 1924, from which he began to climb out of obscurity. Hopper and his wife travelled across America, gathering images to portray on canvas. His portraits of American life are austere and simple, if not bleak, but these reflect his love for his subjects through the Puritan streak in American thought. His popularity waned in the 1950s and Hopper died forgotten, only to be rediscovered in the decades after his death.

Nighthawks (1942, oil on canvas, at the Art Institute of Chicago).






Chair Car (1965, oil on canvas, private collection).





Lighthouse at Two Lights (1929, oil on canvas, at the Met).