Theology for the Masses

Here is an interesting article about gendered language and its use to describe God at Ancient Hebrew Poetry. The blogger asks this question in relationship to a work entitled “On Beyond Gender: Representation of God in the Torah and in Three Recent Renditions into English” by David E. S. Stein, “Is the biblical God a persona beyond gender?” While the blogger and Stein would both answer “no,” the two would differ on the nuance of their answer. The post is an attempt to critique Stein’s nuance and lay out the blogger’s own nuances. I really enjoyed reading it and was enlightened by it. I’ll post the concluding paragraph to the whole post but do take the time to read the whole post.

Is the biblical God a persona beyond gender? No, but gender insofar as it is ascribed to God by the biblical authors cannot be taken to imply that God is an inherently male or female deity. The biblical authors thought of their God in all of the following categories: gender-specific, personal, and a-personal. Specific truths are conveyed in each case. We do well, should we choose to situate ourselves in the slipstream created by biblical tradition, to emulate in our own God language the range and variety of categories and social constructs through which God is described in the Bible.

Ancient Hebrew Poetry: Is the biblical God a persona beyond gender?

I thought this post series would be interesting considering Tom’s earlier post on Genesis 1:26-27. While the post did not address the issue of Egalitarianism vs Complementarianism, the issue of the date of the text is very interesting considering previous conversations here at MassTheo. The balshanut blog has been summarizing some interesting articles on linguistic studies and how they impact dating the OT, specifically דמות found in Genesis 1:26-27 speaking of humanity being made in “God’s image/likeness.” The blogger has really put into practice what he has been posting on for sometime recently and I really appreicate that. It helps me see how it works. The post series takes the reader on a journey to see if the Hebrew term דמות is an Aramaic loanword or an Aramaism (the Aramaic word being צלם). The point of this is to see if the presence of this Aramaic rooted word points to a late date or to an early date. The conclusion that is reached is that the evidence leans to a pre-exillic date but not in a conclusive and definitive manner. There just isn’t enough evidence to really come down hard either way and when the periscope was written. I just found these posts interesting and hope you do too. Here they are.

In his דמות and צלם, Part 1.

In his דמות and צלם, Part 2.

In his דמות and צלם, Part 3.

This comes from my favorite blogger, April DeConick of The Forbidden Gospels Blog

The question of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus is a fine example of this as we have discussed on this blog and others in the past. As a historian, this is not a historical event because dead bodies don’t rise. It is a faith event. Even the second century Valentinians seem to have understood this. What did the Valentinian teacher tell Rheginus about this? He said quite bluntly, “For, my child, ‘the dead shall rise!’ belongs to the domain of faith, not of argument.”

I don’t want to give it all away here, so go there: What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? My perspective