Chris Brady has turned Zwingli into a cat loving, mythical, rapper… Oh the shame. Oh the horror. Oh the ghastliness. In the words of Simon on American Idol- ‘I don’t mean to be rude, but that was simply awful.’
Now I must go purge the rage by dashing off a rude note to Chris Tilling’s Doctoral Supervisor, letting him know about the Real Chris Tilling as Revealed in San Diego.
Steven Collins’ frequent claims to having found the ‘biblical Sodom and Gomorrah’ have been around now for a good bit. So why is CT picking up on it now? They note
In response to critics of his research, Collins pointed out that very few biblical sites have been confirmed by inscriptional evidence of the kind that Cline calls compelling. Geographical information is equally important, he said. “We probably have more geography embedded in the text for Sodom than we do for just about any other city in the Old Testament.”
One of those Critics is Eric Cline- who is mentioned earlier in the piece. Cline’s research is much more attuned to the facts than Collins’ ideologically driven notions. CT would serve its readers better if they did a feature on Cline’s work and completely ignored the idiosyncratic ideas of Collins.
I don’t really know what to make of Doug’s latest post- since he apparently thinks Bultmann was an ‘apologist’ of some sort- but of course this means Doug has either never read Bultmann or has completely misunderstood him 100,000%. So I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that Doug was dipping in the sacramental wine earlier today and heard a door creak behind him. Being startled, he stood up too swiftly and bashed his head into the corner of the cabinet, causing a massive injury to his brain and damaging the very dendrites which allow one cell to communicate with another.
Pray, then, for Doug as he recovers. Or if that isn’t the cause of his anti-Bultmannian misprision, then pray that he trot down to the local bookseller and actually buy something Bultmann wrote (instead of, obviously, only reading something about Bultmann by one of his many detractors).
We are pleased to (re)announce an online colloquium with Gerd Luedemann and Richard Bauckham for April 14-20, 2008 hosted by the Biblical Studies discussion list. We hope that by announcing it well in advance that this will give participants plenty of time to read Professor Bauckham’s new book (on John) if they haven’t already as well as brushing up on their Luedemann. Our discussion will center on the Historical Jesus (of course).
If you’d like to participate- sign up.
You’ll have to read it for yourself to see what all three have to do with one another. 
For years Norman Golb has been proclaiming his theories regarding the origin of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is not only fair and right, but proper and good. Every academic deserves to say what they think- and think they must.
But there’s a difference between saying what one thinks and grinding one’s teeth against one’s colleagues who find themselves in disagreement. Sadly, however, some of Golb’s adherents (and in some respects sycophants) have taken the debate to a much lower level with constant, unremitting, and unjustified attacks against those who disagree with master Golb.
Most recently their targets have been William Schniedewind and Robert Cargill. In a posting on ANE-2 today one ‘Paul Kessler’ writes
Some of the members of this group may be interested in a developing debate. Here is the link: http://tinyurl.com/2kd6ew Apparently, (1) in 2006, the Righteous Persons Foundation (i.e., Stephen Spielberg) gave $100,000 to Robert Cargill (at the time a graduate student at UCLA) to produce the “Virtual Qumran” film that was shown to around half a million people in San Diego a few months ago; (2) yet a similar film dated 2002 has been available on the University of the Holy Land website for several years (”Copyright 2004″ is marked on the UHL page); but (3) an article on the UCLA website describes “Virtual Qumran” as the “world’s first” film of its type, while Robert and his professor Bill Schniedewind don’t refer to the 2002 film at all on their UCLA “Virtual Qumran” site. This seems to require some clarification from Bill and Bob. Did Spielberg know of the 2002 film when he approved the 2006 grant? Why didn’t Bill and Bob correct the UCLA article or mention the previous film on their site?
Paul Kessler (NY)
The facts are simple- there is no ‘controversy’ except among the Golb-ians who simply wish to keep their master’s voice heard loudly in the public square. Golb’s theories have been widely challenged and debunked and only he and a tiny minority cling to them. Hence, from his follower’s point of view, it is absolutely essential that the attack be joined as frequently as possible in order to keep the boat afloat. The ‘required clarification’ is just another one of the red herring’s produced by this small circle in order to stir up controversy.
Why mention it here then? Because the Wikipedianism of the Golbians needs to be directly addressed (just once) and then they can be allowed to stew in their own juices in the stony silence that will follow. When you hear from or read of some ridiculous nonsense aimed at Cargill et al, take it for what it’s worth- nothing.
Check out their blog here. With thanks to Antonio Lombatti for mentioning it.
Zwingli opposed the use of Swiss troops for mercenary service in foreign wars. He got his own taste of such misdoings in 1515 when he served as Chaplain to the troops and from that time forward was a bitter opponent to mercenary-ism. In 1525 nothing had changed- so he preached a quite moving sermon (which - sadly - fell on deaf ears though it would bear fruit in Switzerland’s eventual move towards political and military neutrality). That sermon, ‘Predigt wider die Pensionen‘ was preached on the 12th of March, 1525.
In Zwingli’s opinion it was improper to spill Swiss blood on foreign fields for money. Life matters more than money, after all. [Though such a lesson is scarcely applied even now].
The ‘Apologetics Study Bible‘. Neither the faith nor God need defending. And the supposition that they do implies they are weaker than their defenders and thus in need of assistance in order to survive. Naturally, nothing could be further from the truth. It’s time for the Church to face the facts: faith is for proclaiming, not defending. If people reject faith that’s their problem- but to paint it up like one of Spitzer’s whores just so it can be palatable and acceptable is not only theologically inappropriate, but offensive. ‘Apologetics’ belongs to the realm of unbelief. Indeed, ‘Apologetics’ is unbelief itself.
Well not for books or scholarships or educational resources but for iPods and iPhones for their freshmen. Ethics Daily reports
Abilene Christian University will be the first university in the nation to provide all incoming freshmen with an Apple iPhone or an iPod touch, according to school officials. “We are not merely providing cutting-edge technology tools to our incoming students,” said Kevin Roberts, the school’s chief information officer, according to the university’s Web site. “We are also providing the Web applications that ensure these tools will become critical to the students’ learning experience.”
What a crock. It’s nothing more than an advertising ploy like the old bank bit of offering a toaster to new customers if they opened a $500 account. An iPod isn’t a tool and neither, frankly, is an iPhone (with apologies to all those techno-geeks who think they can’t live without theirs). They are toys. Gadgets. Goodies. And nothing more. ACU is wasting resources for the sake of novelty. That, dear parents, is what your hard earned money is going for when you pack your kids up and send them off to Abilene. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, doesn’t it, to know your kids will be listening to their new iPod and chatting it up on their new iPhone instead of hitting the books.
