1. Considering Stalin.
2. News on sex and age.
3. In light of Avatar, consider the “evil corporation” myth, it doesn’t hold up.
4. Bishops and the OCA.
5. An Orthodox priest reads some teen genre chic-lit.
6. The Byzantine grand strategy.
7. Filibuster and a question.
8. Another really big lie and the Admin.
9. Mr Fernandez notes a few conflicts. There was a civil war in Greece too, and Greece is in fact part of Europe.
10. In the context of healthcare a Medicare question.
11. Being Christian in Turkey.

1. Some Christmas verse …
2. and some thoughts on the nativity.
3. One the dearth of excellence in public schools.
4. Maybe he’s talking about spam?
5. Memory eternal, our Bishop died.
6. Post-colonial theology.
7. Why wouldn’t the lie of the year be “hope/change?”
8. Building blocks.
9. Copenhagen and the blame game.
10. CRU repercussions continue … here too.
11. Moral hazard.
12. Drugs, numbers, and slavery … to finance climate change?

1. Regime changes in the East recalled … and the anomaly considered.
2. Inspecting desire.
3. The neo-Keynsians.
4. A rally.
5. Skillz or just weird.
6. Three year ban.
7. Threats.
8. An amateur trains with the team.
9. Somebody was really really stupid, encryption is cheap.
10. An Lenin wasn’t a Marxist.
11. I’m guessing that’s not right, that the (few) supporters of the health care bill aren’t doing it to prevent “another Ronald Reagan.”
12. On Mr Woods.

1. Hmmm.
2. A few favourite things noted.
3. Some remarks at the passing of Oral Roberts.
4. Controversy.
5. A cracking good story … and a dissertation noted and described.
6. Another passing noted.
7. Racial politics.
8. An essay contest for students and academics.
9. A question.
10. Data handling in the military.
11. Of science and virtue.

1. Mr Lieberman … payback?
2. Hmmm, cars still weigh upward of 1.5 to 2 tons and travel at 20-40 mph faster …
3. Stopping power.
4. Of science and belief.
5. Legal and moral are not connected.
6. Theology and Mr Tebow.
7. Dreidel … Texas style.
8. A book recommendation. I bit.
9. Two more books.
10. Google and Russia’s net.
11. Mr Obama and voting blocs.
12. Super-volcano? That could be, uhm, exciting.
13. Somebody should point out to the unfortunate Mr Gore that plants like warmer weather and higher levels of CO2.
14. Heh.

1. Of climate, fools and scoundrels.
2. A patron saint of entrepreneurs for the Orthodox.
3. Noting the passing of an economist.
4. Hmmm.
5. Bang bang tech.
6. Beggars and pretend begging.
7. On the Afghan conflict.
8. The UK financial situation considered, in brief.
9. Can’t imagine why.
10. Culture notes.
11. Not caring about who wins?
12. Giant rats? As pets?
13. Of evil and eternity.

Frank Turk, cf this post, is down on wiggly ecumenism. And in this he is right. But it also seems out that he’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater. For there’s an important, and very difficult, first step toward ecumenism that he is not doing very well, especially regarding the East. Different traditions, as part of their growing apart, develop their own terminology. Even where they use the same words, they don’t often have the same meaning. Thus the first step of any ecumenical discussion is to find a common language for communication. This is one thing that one would hope a platform like Evangel and god-blogging in general can accomplish. Read the rest of this entry

1. Comparing science and church.
2. Payscales.
3. A cookbook recommended.
4. On becoming whole.
5. Considering sexuality … in Pakistan.
6. The highest good as peace … or not.
7. Do you still trust the data?
8. Five minutes at Guadalcanal.
9. Ontology and the presbytery.
10. On healthcare.
11. A fragment of verse.
12. In his own words.

1. Tech-splanations.
2. Forgotten cities.
3. Political motion.
4. A quote … on becoming Orthodox.
5. Of taxpayers and banks.
6. Syncretism … religions insanity?
7. Importing games shows … now from Russia not just the Beeb.
8. What does “other” mean in that context?
9. Sun and earth.
10. Climate and the UK upper house.
11. Hmm, that seems dated, talk should be replaced with something Obamoid platitude like “engagement.”
12. Cranky?
13. Looking for hypocrisy, go no further than Copenhagen?
14. That doesn’t mesh with the history I’ve read.
15. Somewhat critical of Mr Obama as orator.

Well, this class I’m taking has a mid-term exam. Next week I’m going to post my answers … the answers are due at midnight Saturday. We have to answer 2 of the 3 questions.

Question 1:

Write a short (3-5 pp., single spaced) presentation or sermon on the Genesis lection for the feast of the Birth of the Theotokos. Be sure to consult the text of the service in your attempt to understand the relation of the text of this reading to the celebration. You may also wish to draw from the larger context of the book of Genesis in formulating your answer.

The reading is from Genesis:

Now Jacob went out from Beersheba and went toward Haran. So he came to a certain place and stayed there all night, because the sun had set. And he took one of the stones of that place and put it at his head, and he lay down in that place to sleep. Then he dreamed, and behold, a ladder was set up on the earth, and its top reached to heaven; and there the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. And behold, the Lord stood above it and said: “I am the Lord God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie I will give to you and your descendants. “Also your descendants shall be as the dust of the earth; you shall spread abroad to the west and the east, to the north and the south; and in you and in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed. “Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done what I have spoken to you.” Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, “Surely the Lord is in this place, and I did not know it.” And he was afraid and said, “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven!”

Question 2:

Write a short (3-5 pp., single spaced) presentation or sermon on the Exodus lection for the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross. Be sure to consult the text of the service in your attempt to understand the relation of the text of this reading to the celebration. You may also wish to draw from the larger context of the book of Exodus in formulating your answer.

The reading is from Exodus:

So Moses brought Israel from the Red Sea; then they went out into the Wilderness of Shur. And they went three days in the wilderness and found no water. Now when they came to Marah, they could not drink the waters of Marah, for they were bitter. Therefore the name of it was called Marah. And the people complained against Moses, saying, “What shall we drink?” So he cried out to the Lord, and the Lord showed him a tree. When he cast it into the waters, the waters were made sweet. There He made a statute and an ordinance for them, and there He tested them, and said, “If you diligently heed the voice of the Lord your God and do what is right in His sight, give ear to His commandments and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have brought on the Egyptians. For I am the Lord who heals you. Then they came to Elim, where there were twelve wells of water and seventy palm trees; so they camped there by the waters. And they journeyed from Elim, and all the congregation of the children of Israel came to the Wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after they departed from the land of Egypt.

Question 3:

Write a short (3-5 pp., single spaced) presentation or sermon on the 3 Kingdoms (1 Kings) lection for the feast of the Entry of the Theotokos in the Temple. Be sure to consult the text of the service in your attempt to understand the relation of the text of this reading to the celebration. You may also wish to draw from the larger context of the book of 3 Kingdoms (1 Kings) in formulating your answer.

The reading is from 3 Kings:

And it came to pass when Solomon had finished building the House of the Lord, he assembled all the elders of Israel in Zion, to bring the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord out of the City of David, which is Zion. And the priests took up the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, the Tabernacle of the Testimony, and all the holy vessels that were in the Tabernacle of the Testimony.

And the King and all Israel went before the Ark. And the priests brought the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord to its place, into the Oracle of the Temple, into the Holy of Holies, under the wings of the cherubim. For the cherubim spread out their wings over the place of the Ark so that the cherubim made a covering above the Ark and its holy things above. There was nothing in the Ark except the two tablets of the Covenant which Moses put there at Horeb, when the Lord had made a Covenant.

And when the priests came out from the holy place, a cloud filled the house. And the priests were unable to stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the Lord God Almighty filled the house.

1. Where or where was the werewolf (in Byzantium!)?
2. Speaking of Byzantium … a blogger here talking about Christian influence on charity and welfare apparently doesn’t know about (Eastern) Rome and its history.
3. A talk on the economy and banking.
4. Contra diversity for diversities sake … followup here.
5. Broken windows galore.
6. Esteem and jobs … I wonder how Congressman compares to, say, pimp? … a not unrelated remark here.
7. Slow recovery.
8. Putting ice cores in context.
9. Put some pockets on the back and it would make for better kit than “team Shack”, no?
10. Heh.
11. Consciousness considered.
12. Numbers, polls and healthcare.
13. A fascinating post on history, empire, and migration.
14. Hmm.
15. Looking at porn.

Recently I noted textual differences between the MT and LXX text in Isaiah. One other difference noted in our reading recently was in 1 Chronicles (translated as Supplements in the LXX) 21. From the ESV (a MT based translation):

Now the angel of the Lord had commanded Gad to say to David that David should go up and raise an altar to the Lord on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. So David went up at Gad’s word, which he had spoken in the name of the Lord. Now Ornan was threshing wheat. He turned and saw the angel, and his four sons who were with him hid themselves. As David came to Ornan, Ornan looked and saw David and went out from the threshing floor and paid homage to David with his face to the ground. And David said to Ornan, “Give me the site of the threshing floor that I may build on it an altar to the Lord—give it to me at its full price—that the plague may be averted from the people.” Lord what is yours, nor offer burnt offerings that cost me nothing.” So David paid Ornan 600 shekels of gold by weight for the site.

From the NETS (a very recent LXX translation), which because of DRM imprinting I cannot excerpt here, but go to this link (pdf) and check out 1 Supplements 21:18-27. In the first Ornan also sees the theophany (angel) that David is witnessing. In the second … he is not.

A second feature found only in the LXX  is the interesting banter/exchange passing between David and Ornan in the purchase of the threshing floor. It seems likely that it was possibly traditional in a certain style of bargaining to offer a price, have the seller insist that he would just give it, and the buyer would then pay full price disregarding the formulaic refusal. However in the LXX this passage is altered. David offers a price (in silver). Ornan refuses. David then insists he will pay in silver (which is according to formula) … and then he pays in gold instead of silver, which contravenes what I perceive as the custom via an extravagant overpayment.

This raises two questions … What do we take as meaning of David’s theophany (David it might be noted had less evident and obvious theophanic experiences than his son Solomon). Is there any change to the story or meaning that you might extract if Ornan and his sons do not witness the angel? Is there a connection to the contravention of custom in the following bargain/purchase exchange?

1. The Anglican primate honored.
2. Divorce statistics.
3. Industry regulation and California … the proposed condom law.
4. Debt and Greece.
5. The White House and anti-Semitism.
6. A curious climate graph.
7. Submit or include.
8. Social justice and co-habitation.
9. A plea regarding Mr Woods.
10. Self-similarity and Nebraska.
11. Reggae and theology.
12. Regarding Mr Gore.
13. An idealogical stance against ideology.

1. Does “a leak” change the perspective over illegal hacking? Conspiracy theories remain intact however.
2. Short answer. No.
3. The murdered priest in Moscow … a friend now beaten.
4. Consequences of desiring to increase political involvement in healthcare … more politics in healthcare.
5. Heh.
6. A question … and a partial answer.
7. I concur with the aesthetic judgement offered.
8. Climate on steriods.
9. Goodness and normative ethics fer gurls.
10. A thanks to Yamamoto for Pearl Harbor from an American.
11. Well, the other thing for which Cicero is remembered …  the convoluted sentences for students to translate.

One of the side effects of the late vocations classes I’m taking (currently on the Old Testament), is that after each session I return with wonderful kernels of ideas from which to expand a (hopefully) interesting essay based on the discussions we have in class. Last week one of the books we read was Isaiah.

Isaiah 7 … and particularly Isaiah 7:14 has been a lighting rod for messianic interpretations.

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin
shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

This verse and the surrounding few verses, Christians have traditionally taken as a sign-point identifying the virginity of the Theotokos. Much modern commentary focuses on defending the use of the word virgin. The Masoretic text (MT), which is the primary source for the Western canon (apparently) uses a term which is more ordinarily translated as young or unmarried girl … not virgin. The LXX text however both originates much earlier, might have used a separate strand of source text than the MT, and unambiguously uses a Greek term which translates as virgin. However, that isn’t the core problem. For even if you either buy the somewhat contorted arguments for translating the MT term “virgin” or just use the LXX itself as your base text there remains a problem (of course if you’re going to use the LXX here, then you’ve a problem explaining why you’ve decided to dropped half a dozen or more books from the canon … additionally one of the oldest complete extant LXX copies the Codex Alexandrinus also contains first and second Clement in the New Testament).

Read the rest of this entry