Well, judging by my blog stats for the past 48 hours — as compared with the past few months — I’d get many more views on this post if it concerned the chaos at Cedarville University!
However, my schedule and blood pressure won’t allow me to devote any more time to my shameful alma mater at the moment. I’ve got a presentation at the 2014 Southeast Regional Meeting of ETS tomorrow (see my previous post, and come to my presentation at 5:00pm in room S009!), and even though Beeson Divinity School’s Spring Break is right around the corner, I’ve still got a fair share of reading to get done.
Nevertheless, given the current discussion in my New Testament Theology — two classes on Romans — I thought I might re-post two of my previous works:
- Romans. Revisited. (or “The Argument-Story of Romans”): my final write-up for Dr. Chris Miller’s course on Romans and Galatians at Cedarville University. We were due to have an oral exam on the last day of class, in which we talked-through the logic of the epistle. I wrote this summary the night before the exam, and was given the opportunity to present it to the class. I now present it to you! Feel free to give me some push-back!
- Romans 13:1-7 — A Contextually-Appropriate Reading: a paper I wrote for the same course as mentioned above, in which I defend the following thesis: “Far from being a comprehensive condensation of the apostle’s beliefs regarding any and all governments past and present, [Romans 13:1-7] is a specific and historically-conditioned pastoral address to the Roman believers, discouraging them from political unrest, disobedience, and rebellion in order to protect their testimony and the effectiveness of the Roman church in the gospel mission.”
That’s all for now. Grace and Peace.
Over the break between semesters at Beeson Divinity School, I’m reviewing Bruce Waltke’s The Dance Between God and Humanity: Reading the Bible Today as the People of God and Philip Goodwin’s Translating the English Bible: From Relevance to Deconstruction for Liverpool Hope University’s Theological Book Review.
I’ve just finished the latter, and hope to write my review in the next day or two. However, I’d like to share the following quotes on Deconstructive Literalism and The Perfect Translation, because I find the concepts intriguing as a student of Eugene Nida’s dynamic or functional equivalence (when it comes to both NT Greek and modern Spanish), and a newcomer to relevance theory, which Goodwin uses to provide a way forward in the shadow of the KJV tradition. More on that later. In the meantime:
“What Aichele has noticed is that if the interpreter wants to ‘see’ the source text, he or she would prefer not to have another interpreter standing in the way. The problem with a dynamic equivalence translation, then, is that it does not permit deconstruction of the source text. The translation represents an ideological undertaking which itself can be readily deconstructed, but does not provide access to the source. (207-8).
“Now, of course Ryken and Collins, whilst advocating concordant translation on the one hand, also desire, on the other hand, to maintain the control over meaning to which Aichele refers, by implicitly linking concordance to thematics. In other words, concordance is seen as desirable because it reinforces the theme (‘the message’, again) of the text, to which it is seen as a servant. They leave unexamined the question of what to do when the phenomenon of concordance might be turned against thematics, to undermine it — to deconstruct it. One man’s exegesis is, however, another’s deconstruction. A concordant translation of a text might serve equally to reveal Aichele’s ‘defects and problems’ or Ryken’s ‘full exegetical potential’ — to reinforce its ‘intention’, or to undermine it. I will argue that it does both. (208).
“The perfect translation is the one whose relationship to a source text is such that it permits both the construction of the releveant interpretation of that text, and its deconstruction.” (209).
(Italics: original emphasis; Bold: added emphasis)
Yahweh and others have been too good to me.
Today I received two awards at Cedarville University’s 49th Annual Academic Honors Day Chapel.
The first: The Oxford University Press Award in Preseminary Bible, given to the graduating senior with the highest cumulative GPA in the preseminary major.
The second: The Daniel Award.
“Established in 2001 by David and Jean Heyd, this endowed award was created to honor their parents, Charles and E. LaRue Wilcox and Elmer and Kathy Heyd. The scholarship assists a graduating full-time male senior student who has been accepted by a conservative evangelical seminary. The recipient must have a minimum cumulative GPA of 3.3, demonstrate the spiritual qualifications and godly leadership skills necessary to excel in this ministry, and plan to serve as full-time pastor of a church. […] The Department of Biblical and Ministry Studies faculty select the recipients.”
The first award got me a copy of The Contemporary Parallel New Testament (edited by Kohlenberger, III). The second award? $5,000 toward my seminary education. Barring any significant price hikes, that should cover the remainder of my tuition at Beeson Divinity School for the next 3.5 years!
Despite my standing critiques of Cedarville University, I must admit that my life would look radically different today had I not arrived here four years ago.
As I look forward to the next stage of my life, I’m realizing more and more how much my life each day depends on the grace and generosity of others. I’m extremely thankful for the opportunities – even the painful ones – I’ve been given to live, learn, and grow at Cedarville. I never would have imagined meeting so many wonderful, Christlike, and challenging people in the middle of cornfields in Southwest Ohio.
I’m thankful that God’s Kingdom transcends Cedarville,
but also that I’ve gotten to glimpse the Kingdom here.
Grace and Peace,