Book, Chapter, and Verse -- Failing?

Caleb Adkisson, in his blog Spellgage's Web Emporium, makes some good points concerning the modern day methodology of many in the Churches of Christ. Namely, that the ability to rattle off verse numbers to coincide with ideas, and the assumption that such a tactic serves as irrefutable proof of their corectitude. Adkisson notes:

Modern readers of the Bible have a book that is conveniently divided into chapters and verses. On the one hand, such an arrangement makes finding a particular passage more efficient. It can even make quoting scripture more efficient, but only if all parties involved are intimately acquainted with the content of the text and the chapter/verse coding that accompanies the content. On the other hand, it may be the greatest instrument for spiritual laziness that Christendom has yet developed.

Adkisson further refutes the concept that this "B,C,V" approach is biblical in his succinct statement:

The Lord and his followers did not have such a system. The common method of quoting scripture (and understanding the quotation) was to have memorized the text, or at least to have been intimately familiar with it, with an aim to simply reciting or recounting the scripture that one was quoting. In several instances, one would include an attribution to a book or group of books ("the Psalms," "the Prophets," and so on). In some instances, there is no such attribution; consider the Hebrew writer's infamous "someone said somewhere."

I have long maintained that memorizing a verse is useful, but one's ability to apply that verse relies almost entirely on that individual's understanding of the chapter, book, and author's intention as a whole. In other words, what did the author mean when he said this?

As I heard once, "If you are not reading the bible, then it's your opinion. No matter how many verses you can quote, the application and synthesis are your own." Lets keep this in mind when we attempt to discuss biblical things.

The Value of Archeology?

Archeology is a fascinating science. The adage that “greatest study of man, is man,” rings true, as people of any background eagerly examine the newest broadcast in archeology. In the study of the bible, archeology plays an important role in numerous contexts and in multiple areas, and it is understandably natural for bible believers to get excited with each new find. Many students learn about archeology in their evidences classes, sometimes as the primary focus of apologetics; a new seminary student who picks up BAR (Biblical Archeology Review) for the first time is instantly invigorated, thinking that all of his evidential problems will be instantly solved by this irrefutable evidence of God’s truth and the bible’s accuracy. Archeology paints an attractive picture, and it is based on the presupposition that one can study the past and arrive at a definitive conclusion. Sadly, this is not often – if ever – the case.

The fact is that in the realm of biblical debate, archeology makes a poor sword. Archeology is a subjective science that hinges on interpretation and stratification. At every turn, interpretation must be made, and it often has more to do with one’s presuppositions than it does with the actual evidence. Men like Israel Finkelstein have achieved fame based on claims that there was no biblical Israel during the time of David, and if it did exist, he was nothing but a shepherd king. Men like that will not be influenced by other evidences to the contrary, at least not as long as there is any doubt in the evidence – which there always is. This, of course, is not to say that bible believers do not fall into the same pitfall, but on the other side. As debates on biblical archeology raged in the past century, the Israelite occupation of Canaan was one of the main battlegrounds, with both sides fielding archeologists to prove that either a) the evidence supported an Israelite conquest ca. 1445 BC, or b) the archeological evidence supported that there was no conquest then, or any time by an Israelite force. Sometimes these archeologists were even studying the same area! The fact is this: archeology will not overrule faith: faith in God was not rocked when archeologists said the bible must be false as there was no evidence of a Hittite people; faith in evolution was not dispersed when evidence of the Hittites was found. Neither side places archeology at a higher value than they do their beliefs, and they will – to the greatest extent possible – interpret archeology to suit those beliefs.

Archeology may be prove an ineffective weapon, yet in spite of the innate limitations archeology possesses, it still provides important contributions to the field of biblical studies—namely, it keeps the text from being completely mythologized by placing it firmly within the realm of history. I would humbly submit that archeology works best when it is applied as a foil to the critic and a shield to the believer. Critics of the bible often put forth assertions based on lack of evidence for the bible, and have time and again been proven as foolish when the exact evidence to the contrary surfaces shortly after. First, critics said there could be no early date for a Torah as there was no evidence of writing in the region, then Ebla was found. Then critics postulated that the Torah had to have come from a much later time period as it displayed far too developed a theology and law code, but then Hammurap/bi was discovered. First, there were no Hebrews, then there was no ancient Israel (which was silenced by the Merneptah Stele), and now the ancient Israel that there was, was nothing but a tribal kingdom of no political significance (which may be debunked by the ongoing archeological dig at Khirbet Qeiyafa). Yet, at each discovery proving the bible to be accurate, critics have raised another theory in opposition.

Ultimately, archeology can only bring evidence to bear that is disputable. There will never be an irrefutable proof that the bible as we have it now is perfect, that God undeniably exists, and that we must therefore follow biblical authority. Why? Because God demands faith, not surety. While archeology firmly places the biblical account beyond reasonable doubt, nothing will ever remove God from a shadow of a doubt. Therefore, when examining any archeological find, understand that your faith does not derive from man’s interpretation of events, because the interpretation will always have a different angle. In the same way, do no expect archeology to be the answer to all of life’s apologetic questions. It is simply a tool like any other, helpful when used correctly, and hurtful when used incorrectly – from either believers or critics.

"Therefore I say, 'Listen to me; let me also declare my opinion!'" -Elihu, Job 32.10

The HealthCare debate is raging in our enraged nation. Both sides of the issue are polarized, and each side is marshaling its troops to win this war of public opinion. Even FaceBook has been caught aflame by questions and concerns by users. I, personally, have a pretty one-sided friend base, so I don't catch the full blow of what I'm sure is going on around me, but I read the news. As I'm sure you saw, if you read his post, there have been peaceful (and not so peaceful) demonstrations. This has been one of the most dividing issues, in my humble opinion, that our nation has been over an issue since that of slavery (though, several other issues do come to mind: Civil Rights, WWI, WWII, Vietnam). All the while I have sat -- more or less -- on the sidelines of the discussion, quietly reading and commenting on others' thoughts.

However, several things pop up to me immediately, and non of the people I've read are identifying some of the main issues in this debate: everyone is arguing against or for "ObamaCare" based on different criteria and from different angles.

Frankly, I'm a bit overwhelmed trying to decide how to approach the issue.

Should I discuss how I'm against government-run healthcare from an economic perspective? Surely it would be easy to list of the differences in private corporations and gov't run ones. Or I could note how "for profit" doesn't make something evil, and how "not for profit" doesn't make something helpful. I could note how the government runs everything it gets it hands on inefficiently, and indefinitely, and could cite our President's own defamation of the United States Postal Service as proof. Or I could note how such a government "option" would destroy the private industry and create a gov't monopoly. But is the economics of the issue really at the root cause?

Should I talk about how I'm against government-run healthcare from a medical perspective(a sub-category of the Economic discussion)? We can look at any number of countries who have universal healthcare plans, and see how the lower and middle class of each of these subjects have their government "option" but non of the Elite do. Or I could discuss how setting prices creates a landscape where "you get what you pay for," -- and none of these prices will be high. I could discuss how doctors in many of these countries work only 30hr weeks, how they quit work for the year after they've reached their salary cap, or how those doctors who are the cream of the crop, instead decided to drop out of medical school and instead chose another profession in which they can make more money. I could discuss how mid and higher-levels of education has steadily declined in America, because "we just can't get the best teachers for the money we're paying!"? But do I really think this is the root of the discussion?

Should I note why I'm against gov't-run healthcare, in spite of the arguments that Jesus promoted a "gospel of social revolution and reform"? I really don't even have the space to begin how to answer that question!

Each of those issues above, and many more, are each worthy of discussion. Both sides of the issue, will, I'm sure, wrestle with how to answer them. But I feel, in many ways, inadequate to discuss most of those issues in print. I'm not an expert in any of them, and I don't care to take the time to find the correct sources for each and every one of the arguments, something I'm sure some opponents of mine would have me do. What I will discuss, however, the one issue that most people seem to disregard in the current debate is this: The government has no authority to do this.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if Universal HealthCare would or wouldn't be a good thing for America; it doesn't matter whether you think that the US government would make a good insurer; it doesn't matter whether you think that the current regime is composed of evil, maniacal juggernauts (which they may be), or not, because the only thing that should be questioned is whether the Constitution -- that document which we have pledged to hold to -- allows for such a venture. And it absolutely, unequivocally, certainly, does not.

We shy away from this because we as Americans have so utterly abandoned anything that symbolized the nation that the Founders and Authors of the Constitution envisioned. We live in a country that has a variable income tax. We live in a country that has Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security, and Unemployment Benefits, and Welfare of all sorts. We live in a nation with a nationally funded school system, and road system, and thousands of other, smaller, programs that are so ingrained into us that we cannot begin to even notice them, let alone declare them as wrong.

The reason we shy away from this potent argument is that it is a slippery slope. This is the Pandora's Box of citizenry. If we make the argument, then we must call to question the rest of the unConstitutional growth of America. And that steps on a lot of people's toes.

Proving Ground

Having been awhile since I last updated here, I guess it would be appropriate to give an account of where things have gone since the last post.

I have already turned in my rough draft and received one of my Reader's comment pages back, but my other two are still MIA. It was easier than I had expected to write the thesis, the length was not an issue at all, except for in the reverse (It was supposed to be 25pgs, I wrote 41). But I see it as good practice for Graduate school.

My Portfolio, which serves as a sample of all of the Upper Division work that I've accomplished at Florida College proved an intriguing foray into the past, and instead of nostalgia I met my work with a sense of disappointment and humor. I remember that paper I had written my freshman year as excellent, it was barely mediocre, that sort of thing. However, somehow, some pieces still met my current approval, and caused me to think about what I will think of my current work, come a few years.

Monday is my Presentation. The Presentations are open to the public, and I will be recorded and the video posted somewhere (when I know where, I'll post it). There'll be a 20-30 minute presentation along with a 15-20 minute Q&A session afterwards. I know the information, so that won't be a problem, but narrowing down my topic to such a small section has proven challenging.

A semester's worth of work, I guess we'll see what I have to show for it.

Writing this Semester

I've decided to make a habit of updating my progress on my thesis project this semester, as it's a constant interest to me and might even interest some of you. As part of the review process, I've had to make several submissions, each of them approved by the pair of advisers which I chose. Today was the deadline for my final thesis statements.

Thesis: The study of ancient historical works, particularly with respect to purpose, structure, and content, compared to the biblical Chronicles demonstrates that the Chronicler conveyed historical information in a format consistent with ancient historiography.

As I work through the various articles, books, theses, and dissertations, it reminds me of how often the easy answer slips by unnoticed simply because it isn't obvious. Understanding Chronicles as historiography is incredibly helpful and certainly obvious, but it's not been looked at that way before for the ironic reason that everyone since the Septuagint's (LXX) translators named fatefully named it παραλειπονομενων -- or, "Things omitted."

World of Warcraft as an intellectual pursuit?

Laugh if you will, but people are taking note of the MMORPG (Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game) World of Warcraft (WoW). It boasts nearly 12 million players and has drawn oodles of criticism for sucking in people's time and distracting them from work and school. However, it is also gaining the attention and respect of some intellectual minds such as the Economist and Professor, David Friedman, who wants to teach an Economics course on the WoW economy at a collegiate level.

"WoW has markets and prices, including an auction house with many buyers, many sellers, and a wide range of products for sale. Prices are readily observed—starting prices, buyout prices, relative prices at one time, changes over time. Actual sales prices are a bit harder, but if your students are active players they are probably buying and selling things and could be persuaded to keep track of prices paid and received and make the information available to the rest of the class."

Or perhaps Dr. Alex Golub, an Anthropologist from the University of Hawaii who is writing a book on Guild Behavior in PvE Raiding Guilds.

Either way, both of these men are validating my time spent, and Friedman is just proving what I've known to be the case--if you want to make money, just play the markets.

"An Ambitious Venture" or "A question about filing."

"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step," at least, so I've been told. However, I also know that it is that first step that is the easiest and the steps tend to get considerably harder the farther along.

And so begins the final section of my BA's program and my battle against the temptations of laziness and procrastination, overabundance of sleep and a lack of study. The greatest feat -- and the self-proclaimed apex of my scholastic career thus far -- lies in writing my Honor's Thesis. In my BA program, and inherent in attaining a double major in Liberal Studies and Biblical Studies, the conclusion is an interdisciplinary thesis along with presentation and career portfolio. The process is quite involved and is meant for preparation for further MA's work in the discipline you pursue with your topic. As my current plans for further education currently include -- but are not limited too -- a MA from the University of South Florida in Ancient History, a MA in Religion or Biblical Studies at a school not yet selected (possibilities include Abilene, and a Ph.D in Ancient Near Eastern Studies from Johns Hopkins University.

In my study, I will pursue selected works from ancient secular historiographers such as Livy, Plutarch, Thucydides, and Josephus in order to explain how their works differed from what is commonly understood as "history"--methods, purpose, audience, style, etc. The expectations for historiography were markedly different than the views we hold in our 21st century worldviews, and the differences can be startling. The second part lies in applying the same scalpel to the works of the Chronicler, understanding the author as a historiographer and placing him in such a context, and seeking to understand the supposed oddities in inclusion and omission throughout his otherwise detailed work.

This will certainly touch on the questions which have been rigorously debated for decades, such as why the Omride dynasty receives so little attention though it was a high-point in Israelite power, while other kings receive the bulk of the author's ink though they were all but nameless to the historical record. Thucydides in particular will provide a compelling study, because if one takes Ezra to be the scribe responsible for the selected biblical text then he would be a contemporary. There are, of course, many fascets to this research and I'll keep you updated as I progress.

That said, I made a Wal Mart run to buy numerous supplies: notebooks, notecards, 1" binders, 3" binders, a monthly desk calendar as well as a daily pocketbook calendar. These, along with my trusty Macbook will surely stand me in good stead as the oncoming workload draws up in battle array.

On that note, do any of you have suggestions for filing and organizing hundreds of pages of printed articles and scanned copies? Through previous papers, I've simply stapled and 3-hole punched the articles and placed them in a 1" binder, but though that worked for 30-40 articles of 10-40 pages each, I'm somewhat dubious of it's ability to easily sort potentially 1,000 pages of material. I thought of a filing briefcase, but didn't see one that fit my specifications. Any suggestions would be appreciated.