Yesterday I put out a post that involved Psalm 8, one of the great passages of the Old Testament.  And I remembered that I posted a reflection on it many years ago, since it had made me think about something, well, rather significant: where we (I) fit into the universe.  OK then!  I've decided to come back to it here, because it still sometimes reflects in my head. Here is the psalm in the (non-inclusive) King James Version, which, as it turns out, is the way I memorized it when oh so much younger than I am now: 1 O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens. 2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger. 3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and [...]

This post explains one of the real faux pas of the NRSV Bible translation, which, I regret to say, was not corrected in the new "updated edition."  It involves an unfortunate attempt to use inclusive language where it is misleading, and in this case, makes almost nonsense of the passage in question. But it's a very tricky issue.  It involves a quotation of an Old Testament Psalm in the New Testament, where the Old Testament passage is understandably rendered inclusively to include both men and women, but where its citation in the New Testament makes no sense when rendered inclusively.  It appears to be a problem that the translators of both the original NRSV and of the updated version didn't notice or, at least in my judgment, take seriously enough. 3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a [...]

Many of us are (still!) considering some end-of-the-year giving as the End Draweth Nigh.   As it turns out, an unusual option and opportunity has just appeared for the blog.  An anonymous donor has pledged a matching $10,000 gift for all funds donated prior to the Happy New Year.  The donor will match donations up to that amount -- which would (if my math skills are still intact) be a very nice end of the year climax of $20k. All of the monies, of course, will go directly to the charities we support (if you don't remember what those are, see this post: What Charities does the Blog Support?  [I'll be updating the numbers in a few days]).  Not a penny will go to overhead -- it all will go to those in need, a frustratingly increasing number, as we all know, given our current international crises and ongoing  problems here at home. Are you interested?  Any amount would be so welcome and so well-used.  Donate simply by going to the blog, scrolling to the bottom [...]

The practice of gift-giving has obviously gotten way out of control for many of us in the Christmas season.  I suppose on the upside, it helps the economy and gets more people employed, so that part’s good.  But the commercialism and greed, not to mention the sense of heavy obligation (all those relatives!), uncertainty (O God, what am I going to get her this year?), and anxiety (I’ve only got three days left!), take a bit of an edge off of what is supposed to be a good thing: giving to the people we love to show we care for them and want them to know it. So for me, at least, the principle of gift-giving this time of year is something to be cherished. It is rooted ultimately in the Christmas story.  But there is one aspect of the story – possibly the most significant aspect – that many people have never considered – one that nevertheless lies at its core.  At heart it is the story of God’s giving his Son and his [...]

Did Nazareth even exist in Jesus’ day? Or was it invented by the same ancient people who invented the man Jesus – a non-existent home for a non-existent person? So claim many of the “mythicists” I began to discuss in my previous post. Here I continue on the theme, as discussed in my book Did Jesus Exist? ****************************** G. A. Wells advances a different argument to much the same end. In his view the key to understanding the non-existence of Nazareth is in the four occasions in which Mark indicates that Jesus was a “Nazarene” (1:24; 10:47; 14:67; 16:6). According to Wells Mark misunderstood what this meant. What it originally meant was that Jesus belonged to a pre-Christian Jewish sect called the “Nazarenes” who were similar to figures from the Old Testament (like strong-man Samson) called Nazirites who took vows to be specially set apart for God (they couldn’t touch corpses, drink wine, or cut their hair). Mark didn’t know this, though, and wrongly assumed that the term Nazarene must have indicated Jesus’ place [...]