Here are ten questions
the likes of which will be on my upcoming Pentateuch midterm.

1. Describe and evaluate the criteria used in the Documentary Hypothesis for distinguishing the alleged Pentateuchal sources.
2. Present an historical survey of the literary criticism of the Pentateuch from Wellhausen to the present.
3. Discuss the interpretation of the chronological data in the Genesis Creation Record (e.g. the various views of the length of the days).
4. Develop a definition of the Berith (covenant) arrangements in which God was one party, including evidence of ancient Near Eastern treaties.
5. Discuss the works principle of kingdom inheritance as operative in the covenant of creation.
6. Discuss the concept of covenantal canon.
7. Describe and evaluate the modern critical view of the formation of the Old Testament canon.
8. Present an interpretation of one of the following passages:
1. Gen 3:8
2. Gen 3:14-15
3. Gen 3:21
4. Gen 1:2
9. Discuss the relationship of Science to Scripture, i.e., General revelation to Special revelation.
10. Discuss imago Dei.

Frankly, this scares the crap out of me. Why? Because of how much time it will take to prepare for this. These questions are only representative of what may be on the test. What usually happens is that I, as test taker, will not actually directly address a specific question, unless I actually know what to say. Rather, I will just kind of give a brain dump of material that more or less is tangent to the question. But the real problem is that these questions won't necessarily be on the test. So, all my prep on these questions only will help tangentially.

Gotta stir up a little
action around here. Who knows the answer to this?
Supply the missing number in this sequence of fractions:
2/5
7/3
5/10
15/9
17/?

Just give me the number. Save your explanation for later so as not to spoil it for all the whizzes amongst my readers.

Another memory from my past:
This one is not quite as deep (if even the last one was). One of the things I always wanted as a kid was a walkie-talkie set. I couldn't imagine a cooler device. The thought of talking to a buddy who was a block away just enthralled me. Now, I could have gone into our dining room and made a phone call (the phone was on the wall by the back bay window) but my buddy would pretty much have to go back home to his phone so I could 'walkie-talkie' him. No fun.

I made the two soup cans connected by the string deal many times. It worked, sort of (but only if the string was held taut. Kind of limited the range). But it was free. But the real McCoy, which I know I found in catalogs, was out of my price range.

Where did this memory come from? I went to the gym today and on the tread-mill next to me was this 25 year old babe who had this super high-tech cell phone. It was definitely a case of 'look, Ma, no hands." I still don't really know what was going on. The phone itself was laying in the tread-mill junk tray. But she had some kind of giant ear-ring on that must have been a phone (a walkie-talkie of my dreams).

I know all this because she was committing the cardinal gym sin - using the cell phone while working out. Not only that, but she was having a fight with her boyfriend on the phone!

Now here is the odd part. I don't have a cell phone. It never occurred to me to get one. I guess it goes along with the modern-day definition of hermit, "someone with out a cell-phone".

Now, where are those soup cans?

They say that your
life passes before your eyes at some point during a trauma where death seems immanent. I have my doubts about that since during my traumatic death engaging moment, nothing of the sort occured. (A later post, perhaps?) If it were true, however, I wonder if the specific scene I have been reflecting on would show up.

I remember how much I liked church on Sunday night. Not the preaching, not the praying, not even the hymn singing. It was the atmosphere, the lights, the quiet, the reverence, even the sleepiness. The seven-fold Amen at the end was the cherry on top of one hour in God's sanctuary. This is all true even though I probably whined about going.

For this blessing I have my parents to thank.

A little quiz for my readers:
True or False - 50% of the population is below average when it comes to having a grasp of statistics.

In God's providence,
I had a brief discussion with a friend on the day before the Pentateuch class began. In this conversation, he told me that his belief was that the Old Testament was fiction. While I stated that I didn't hold that view, I was not really equipped with an apologetic that could effectively counter his position.

Kenneth Kitchen's approach (in his book, The Bible In Its World) is largely to rebut the detractor's insistence that the patriarchal documents are anachronistic and therefore fiction. In order to advance the belief that the patriarchal material is of late origin, historians posit that an author or authors fabricated narratives projecting fiction into the past while relying on cultural material that was extant at the time of the composition by these authors. However, historians relying on positive parallels between patriarchal elements with late Nuzi material in support of this view wind up 'hoist with their own petard' in effect. This is true even without questioning the veracity of the supposed positive parallels, which, as Kitchen points out, have problems. Demonstrating the existence of positive parallels with much earlier material forces critics, using their previously avowed hermeneutic, to side with the Kitchen's many observations, thus crippling their original position.

By identifying personal name similarities used in the patriarch narratives which are also seen in other culture's documents (Mari, Ebla, Egypt, Babylon and others) the claim of anachronisms is weakened. Abraham's conduct within his family unit is consistent with early 2^nd millennium BC social and legal customs among family members. Abraham's involvement in the battle of the kings related to us in Genesis 14 is corroborated by the existence of numerous city-state coalitions for which Kitchen suggests a date between 2000 and 1750 BC. This also, then, helps to undermine the anachronism argument.

To make an á priori assumption that the narratives are fiction without admitting to a presuppositional bias can only be done by ignoring the evidence that is available. The existence of at least three genres of written material in Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, and the Hittite empire provides multiple samplings of work against which the patriarchal narratives may be contrasted. These genres are the autobiographical, the quasi-historical legend (characterized according to Kitchen by a poetic epic style) and what is easily identified as fictional tales marked by a lack of detail and character placement and possessing an obvious entertainment value. The patriarchal narratives in their inherent composition do not resemble those legends which have been uncovered from the Ancient Near East. To such an extent do these narrative possess the aura of real history, that to suggest the existence at any date from1000 BC and earlier of a never before seen genre consisting of “realistic-fiction” merely exposes the depth of one's bias.

The conclusion remains with the orthodox viewpoint which is that the patriarchal narratives were written as historical documents, recording events that actually happened.

You know I don't do
this very often. But here is an interview done by one WSCAL Seminarian (whom I don't know, really) of another Seminarian (whom I do know - an MIT grad who I respect quite a lot). I read it twice and find it helpful for someone trying to make sense out of how the church is supposed to relate to the culture, as inspired by an informed reading of the Bible.

If you are interested (or incensed) and want to read more, either for your own edification or to confirm your suspicion that I am not in Kansas anymore, go to this article, written by a WSCAL fellow. This links a very short write-up that is the first of about 5 articles that go into the topic more deeply than the linked interview above.