The future of publishing?

A very clever video on the future of publishing, produced by the folks at Dorling Kindersely. You need to watch the whole thing as there's a twist!

ESV Literary Study Bible

I'm chuffed. As a graduation/leaving gift, my brother was kind enough to play genie and grant me my wish of an ESV Literary Study Bible. You know, kind of like a golden handshake to get rid of the dross. Hey, wait a minute...

I've only personally owned 3 Bibles in my life, all of them NIV, although there are a few other Bibles lying around at home in Malaysia. The first Bible I've ever owned was a gift from my aunt when I was about 10. It was called the Adventure Study Bible or something like that - basically an NIV packaged for children. Do some of you (EYMers) remember it? It only occurred to me when I was 15 and part of the youth group for 3 years that maybe I should be embarrassed at carrying a children's Bible around. My sister then gave me a nice NIV pocket red-letter Bible, which I still have, looking a little worse for wear! When I went up to university, I thought it might be a good idea to invest in a study Bible, if only because I needed a sturdier Bible with bigger font, and so I bought the NIV Study Bible based on the strength of its reputation.

I've only been using the ESV more regularly in the last 2 1/2 years, not least because my church preaches using that translation. It's on the "essentially literal" side of the translation spectrum. If we were to put the NIV in the middle of this continuum, than the ESV is my favourite translation on the literal side, while I quite like the NLT on the more dynamic side. I use it a lot in preparing for Bible studies. This past couple of months, when I was co-leading on Colossians, I pretty much did all my text work in the ESV, although the studies themselves were done using the NIV, and I really enjoyed using the ESV then. Although I guess there's not much difference between the two in that particular book. It can still be a little clunky in places. I remember a phrasing in 1 John - I don't remember what it was - which was quite awkward; I couldn't figure it out until the NIV translation clarified it for me.

I've been depending on Bible Gateway whenever I use the ESV. One of the best things to do in prepping for a Bible study, I find, first modelled to me by the IFES worker at university, was to print out the Bible passage in question sans section headings and then scribble over it. It allows you to think through the text in question for yourself with minimal distraction. I believe it was sometimes more formally called "Encounter the Manuscript" or something along those lines.

Which brings me back to the ESV Literary Study Bible. Much like the manuscript method, ts appeal to me lies in the fact that it is designed to be a "reader's Bible". I like that it's single-column, for a start, which if nothing else, would certainly be refreshing on eyes more used to the traditional 2-column format! It also eliminates section headings. And as the Amazon.co.uk reviewer noted, to his disappointment, it isn't a traditional study Bible (maybe he missed the literary in the title). Rather, its unique focus is on the literary features of the biblical text and how that might aid in our understanding. So the introduction to each biblical book focuses on things like its dominant motifs, literary concepts, and the place of each book in the master story of the Bible. Also, unlike most study Bibles, which tend to have study notes at the bottom of each page which could unwittingly distract you from reading the Bible for yourself (especially if they concentrate on things behind the text such as, for eg., archaelogy), they instead offer a short commentary before each pericope with some suggestions of what to look out for, but this is neither comprehensive nor does it have the totalizing (to borrow postmodern terminology!) feel of some study notes; instead, they simply suggest a way into the text without foreclosing other angles. Another feature I really like. Have a look at the sample page to see what I'm talking about.

So yes, I am quite enthusiastic about it. I did initially wonder if I should wait till the ESV Study Bible comes out later this year, but in the end, I decided what I simply wanted was an ESV to read rather than another study Bible, despite the latter's overwhelming number of notes, maps, articles and whatnot. I am a bit ambivalent about the lack of a cross-referencing system in the ESV Literary Study Bible, which means it's good at keeping you focused on the text at hand, but could potentially be frustrating since other parts of Scripture can sometimes illuminate the portion you're reading, but then, hey, that's what my NIV Study Bible is there for. The other thing I'm a bit disappointed by is the paper quality, which is subpar. I can understand wanting to keep production costs down, but it's of a sufficiently low standard to warrant some comment.

I'm looking fwd to using this Bible more, as many have already done to their profit. The Internet Monk gives 10 reasons why he loves it. On a final note, we in the English-speaking world have been hugely blessed by the many translations we have at our disposal, and I rather more resources be allocated to worthy organisations like Wycliffe Bible Translators. The last thing we need is yet another English translation!


† Expand post

Is the Bible the word of God? (Part 3)

Part 1
Part 2

Christ, the apostles, and the Bible
At the end of his post, Tim connects "seeing the Scriptures as how Christ saw it" with "rediscovering the very essence of the Gospel." Tim, I’m really, really glad you affirm that, because that’s exactly where we’ll be going!

Firstly, let’s consider who Jesus is. In the Gospels, we see the authoritative nature of Jesus’ words: he can cure disease, calm storms, resurrect the dead. He is the Son of God, vindicated when God the Father resurrected him (Romans 1:4). These are the basic beliefs of Christians. Clearly, then, Jesus possesses real authority. Yet Jesus clearly saw the Old Testament as authoritative. In Mark 7, for example, in his debate with the Pharisees over the nature of ritual cleanliness, Jesus refers to the OT explicitly as the "word of God" (v.13). He treats OT history as inherently reliable. So in Matthew 19:4-5, again in answer to the Pharisees who seek to trap him, he answers them: "Haven’t you read...that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?’" He also treats the story of Noah as historical (Matthew 24:37-39). Indeed, he rebukes those who do not affirm the Scriptures of their divine authority. So, in answer to the Sadducees trying to trap him on the question of the afterlife, he says, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God" (Matthew 22:29). In fact, in this very passage, Jesus reverence for the Scriptures comes through clearly, as his response to the Sadducees depends on the tense of a particular verb!

"But about the resurrection of the dead – have you not read what God said to you, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living." (Matthew 22:31-32)

Quoting Exodus 3:6, Jesus emphasises that the Scripture reads : "I am the God..." not "I was their God", and therefore, there is an afterlife! I don't think any of us would want to accuse Jesus of simply being pedantic!

Nor did Jesus ever pit his personal authority against that of Scripture. In John 10:35, in reply to charges of blasphemy, he agrees that the "Scripture cannot be broken" in defending his Messianic claims (v.36-39). Now this is pretty important, because Jesus not only never pits the two against each other, but his own Messianic claims are modelled on OT teaching. So, earlier on in his teaching, he says: "I am the good shepherd" (John 10:14). This doesn’t just happen to be a good metaphor; Jesus is recalling Ezekiel 34 (also Isaiah 56:8), where God himself claims to one day rescue his flock. His Jewish hearers should not miss the implications when they hear Jesus say this! It is the OT that helps us make more sense of the acts of Jesus.

Finally, we see ample evidence that the distinction that red-letter Bibles make simply doesn’t hold true, and there is no need to distinguish between what God explicitly said in quotation marks and the rest. This is shown in how the OT and NT often identify both God and Scripture together. Galatians 3:8, for eg., reads: "The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." (emphasis mine) This is a citation of Genesis 12:3, where it is the Lord talking to Abram (12:1). There is also the marriage example I cited earlier (Matthew 19:4, citing Genesis 2:24). One more example. In Acts 4, we find the early Christians praying and quoting Psalm 2:1-2, attributing it to God speaking.

When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. "Sovereign Lord," they said, "you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:
" 'Why do the nations rage
and the peoples plot in vain?
The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the Lord
and against his Anointed One.' (Acts 4:24-26)

What about the NT? Is that inspired? In the Upper Room Discourse (John 14-17), Jesus talks of the Holy Spirit, whom he assures will be with them after he is gone. "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come." (John 16:13). Now we can’t be certain on this text alone, but this might be a hint of things to come, specifically, the writing of what we now know as the NT. In any case, the important thing to remember who Jesus is, and that his promises carry authority, and so we can be certain that the Holy Spirit did, indeed, lead the disciples into "all truth". Interestingly, Paul, in 1 Timothy 5:18, could already cite Luke 10:7 – "The worker deserves his wages" and call it Scripture explicitly, as did Peter regarding Paul’s letters (2 Peter 3:15-16). Paul himself seemed to be aware that what he was writing was invested with divine authority, so for instance, in 1 Corinthians 14, in addressing the controversy surrounding tongues and prophecy, this is how he regards his advice: "If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command." (v.37).

I think it’s worth quoting Tom Wright at length here:

God accomplishes these things [of putting the world to rights], so the early church believed, through ‘the word’: the story of Israel now told as reaching its climax in Jesus, God’s call to Israel now transmuted into God’s call to his renewed people. And it was this ‘word’ which came, through the work of the early writers, to be expressed in writing in the New Testament as we know it.

…The earliest church was centrally constituted as the people called into existence, and sustained in that existence, by the powerful, effective and (in that sense and many others) ‘authoritative’ word of God, written in the Old Testament, embodied in Jesus, announced in the world, taught to the church. This was the heart of the church’s missions (Israel’s story has been fulfilled; the world must therefore hear of it); of its common life (the first ‘mark of the church’ in Acts 2:42 is ‘the teaching of the apostles’); and of the call to a holiness which will express both the true-Israel and newly human dimensions (‘renewed according to God’s image’) characteristic of the new identity.

At this point, let me interact a little more with some of Mat’s points. I think we can see now that we treat Paul (and the other apostle’s) writings as authoritative because that’s how the apostles themselves and the early church treated them. There is no reason to pit Paul against Jesus, as many critical biblical scholars have done in the past century. Paul saw his words as clearly being in continuity with Jesus. Again, let me just cite one eg. One of the most striking features of Romans 12-15 is the number of times he either directly cites or alludes to the teachings of Jesus. I won’t have space to quote them directly here, but here’s a partial list of comparisons:

Romans 12:14 / Luke 6:28
Romans 12:17 / Matthew 5:39
Romans 12:18 / Mark 9:50
Romans 12:20 / Luke 6:27
Romans 13:8 / John 13:34, Matthew 22:37
Romans 13:11a / Luke 12:56
There’s more, but I’m sure that’s enough to establish my point. (with thanks to The Message of Romans, John Stott. Sorry for lack of linkage, am starting to flag!)

Indirectly touching on this issue, and a good read to boot, is Tim Keller’s The Gospel in All Its Forms.

Mat suggests there are only 3 people who could perfectly channel the word of God, and that God does not override the will of anyone (Btw, I don't understand what you mean about them overcoming the "curse sin within their own body"). This is not consistent with the Bible’s own witness. Paul himself reflects on the marvellous grace of God in his own ministry when he says: "But we have this treasure [i.e the gospel] in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us." (2 Cor. 4:7). In 2 Peter, a letter about dealing with false teachers, Peter makes the observation that "above all, no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origins in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:20-21) The prophets were not making educated guesses (as the false teachers of Peter’s time probably were), they were acting as God’s mouthpiece.

Although Jesus never saw fit to put pen into paper, the early disciples did. Luke makes it clear that he writes as a historian and as a careful investigator.

“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” (Luke 1:1-4)

I want to agree with Mat here that the New Testament is at the very least, historical documents. I think they're more than that, of course, but they're certainly not less. The credibility of the Gospels are strengthened when we consider that they were describing events relying upon very early oral and written sources, and that the apostles had little to gain and everything to lose by proclaiming that Jesus was indeed Saviour and Lord if it was not true.

Canon
I’m more hesitant to speak on issues of canon as I am not at all well-versed here. But I was interested in the way Rob Bell frames it in the excerpt Tim quotes (which I assume is from Velvet Elvis, which I’ve not read). Tim will have to correct me if I mischaracterise him, but Bell seems to be fairly simplistic here – “oh, the canon didn’t actually exist till 300, by a bunch of guys who voted on it. So, errr, no sola scriptura, folks!” But as I’ve shown from the earlier section, the NT writers already regarded their writings as authoritative and inspired, and key for Christian living. Even the most critical scholars wouldn’t date their writings beyond the early part of the 2nd century. In fact, because of the circulation of Gnostic gospels, the early church was most concerned about which documents were authoritative. (Interestingly, contra the NT documents, the Gnostic Gospels are pretty anti-OT). When the councils finally met, they were merely formalizing what local gatherings of Christians were already affirming. It was the culmination of a period of reflection. Interestingly, as far as I understand it, the Apocrypha was considered profitable reading, much as we consider reading good Christian books today, but it was not considered inspired.

Now, I won’t pretend that answers every possible question, and it’s possible that Bell might disagree with how I’ve just framed the story, but it would be good if he can provide a compelling alternative narrative. It seems to me from that excerpt that he simply glosses over the issue a little too glibly. Btw, there is also a need to distinguish between sola Scriptura and solo Scriptura. The former, which is affirmed by the Reformers, acknowledges the role of tradition, reason and experience in our spiritual reformation, it simply states that they cannot take precedence over Scripture. The latter doesn’t, but too often people think sola Scriptura means solo Scriptura.

Part 4


† Expand post

The wrap: summer edition

Bumper summer edition. Web-surfing made easy.

I suppose there are two major news stories which have dominated headlines in recent days in the UK and Malaysia respectively. The former concerns the recently concluded Global Anglican Futures Conference (GAFCON), which, not surprisingly, has attracted much comment. Unfortunately reading the mainstream media on this is almost next to useless since it's difficult, I think, for journalists to get a handle on the rather complex situation in the Anglican Communion; inevitably, many of them frame the issue in terms of power struggles or homophobia. Btw, I don't claim to have a handle on all things Anglican either, and in some ways, it's stuff like this that convinces me I'll never be one, it's just so distracting! The key thing to remember is that the issue is not primarily about homosexuality but about biblical authority and mission. After all, wasn't the keynote lecture at GAFCON from Professor Lamin Sanneh on the inherent cultural translability of the gospel?(See too, for eg., Dr. Vinay Samuel's letter earlier this year responding to charges of agenda-setting by white European males).

I was also quite disappointed that the normally level-headed Ruth Gledhill, probably the best religious correspondent in the UK, displayed some unusual 'chronological snobbery' in a blog post on J.I Packer. To be fair to her, GAFCON: A closer look is probably more representative of her work. (Am slightly bemused to see St. Helen's described as ultra-conservative, though, although given that I once also thought that way, understandable). Chris Sugden, a key player in the discussions, was given some space in the Guardian to briefly attempt to show what GAFCON is really all about. For an insider viewpoint, along with the full statement released at the end of the conference, you can see Tony Payne's report. There was also a meeting yesterday at All Souls to help communicate what was achieved and you can find interviews online with Henry Orombi, Greg Venables, Peter Jensen and J.I Packer, plus a panel discussion. Tom Wright, who is the most senior evangelical Anglican bishop, has a sympathetic but not uncritical response. All this talk about parallel jurisdictions make my head spin...

Back home in Malaysia of course, it's not pleasant to see Malaysia plunged into a fresh state of uncertainty thanks to the fresh allegations made against the charismatic opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim. It's hard to believe that the government, beleaguered as it is, will score such a massive own-goal, so there must be more than meets the eye here. Malaysian politics is often associated with sandiwara (shadow-play), and that again appears to be the case. Not surprisingly, everyone has a favourite conspiracy theory. I'm one of those very much inclined to give Anwar a second chance but I think he's guilty of some showboating in this particular instance. Malik Imtiaz's stream-of-consciousness post, Trial of Democracy, is worth reading. I've been finding some of the commentaries available at The Malaysian Insider helpful - see Anwar has to straddle credibility gap and These are confusing and uncertain days. I haven't seen any explicitly Christian commentary, although there are brief mentions at The Micah Mandate.

But they did have an earlier commentary which I thought was helpful: MCA doesn't = Chinese, UMNO doesn't = Malays etc.

I thought this was quite sad: Christian students struggle with Christianity. We all could do better.

Insightful post from Ben Myers: The pornographer's dream; or the problem with contemporary worship. Don't be put off by the title, it isn't quite about what you may think it is.

We can all benefit from John Stackhouse's meditations on envy.

David Fitch has started reading David Wells's The Courage to be Protestant and has some musings along the way, defending a more emerging ethos over against the "young, restless and reformed" approach. The comment thread has good dialogue as well.

Review of Pixar's latest cinematic masterpiece, WALL-E. Btw, I was told not to look at Ebert's review as it apparently has a major spoiler!

Al Mohler on the challenge of attention in the digital age, and related to this, the NY Review of Books also has a very good longer piece: The Library in the Digital Age. Hmmmm, come to think of it, isn't The Wrap guilty of contributing to our shortened attention spans?

Fascinating profile of rookie Joe Alexander, an amazing athlete who was raised in China, recently drafted by the Milwaukee Bucks.

English is English, or is it?

I married a stranger. Feature article on a couple who married barely 4 weeks after they met. Did their relationship survive? (I know, I know, sounds like something that belongs to Hello! Magazine and not this erudite blog, but it was very interesting!)


† Expand post

The Future of Reading

Ebooks and ebook readers haven't really caught on, although they've been touted for the better part of the decade. I'm not too sure how many of my readers know of the Amazon Kindle, which is a portable reading device, but it's certainly whipped up a media frenzy. It's quite an interesting tool, on which you can not only download books, but also subscribe to various newspapers and magazines, as well as access Wikipedia.

Newsweek has a very good feature story. It doesn't just focus on the foibles of the device but explores the wider implications of new technology on reading.

Like virtually all bibliophiles, I've always been a bit of a traditionalist - how can something mechanical replace the smell, the feel of the book? But over this past year my assumptions have been challenged. I was at a forum discussing ebooks earlier this year and I was quite suprised to learn of the existence of E-Ink, which makes the page on the screen look very much like a printed one and more or less eliminates screen glare (one of the major things that put me off). Amazon czar Jeff Bezos certainly thinks that we can get over the physical nature of books : "I've actually asked myself, 'Why do I love these physical objects? Why do I love the smell of glue and ink?' The answer is that I associate that smell with all those worlds I have been transported to. What we love is the words and ideas." In some ways, I think the transition has happened without me/us(?) noticing it - the simple notion of anyone with an internet connection being able to publish a blog, read other blogs and comment is actually quite revolutionary when we think about it.

I'm also quite intrigued as to the relevance of this to Christians; with regards to Bible reading, mission and so on. During early church times, Christian scribes were among the first to adopt the codex, a manuscript whose sheets of papyrus are fastened together in the form of a book rather than a scroll, which made circulating documents easier. The invention of the printing presses, of course, ushered us from an oral culture to a print culture. What was previously transient now acquired a new air of permanence (speech vs writing). Also, the fixed form of the printed book meant that books seemed more "weighty", it had an authority about it that was not present in the medieval manuscript tradition, which was often more of a colloborative effort. I'm sure the lawyers will tell me that they give more leverage to written material than to oral utterances. The rise of print (and literacy) also led to a rise in the notion of privacy; you can read on your own whereas you have to talk with someone.

And yet with the rise of new technologies, we're swinging back to an oral culture, albeit a very different one. Comments on blogs act like annotations. Blog posts are never finished products, well, unless you cut off comments. I was wondering how the ability to be able to search a book electronically might change our reading habits. (Actually, we already do this when we search for something on Bible Gateway, but if that feature was widely available on an ebook reader...) The invention of the hyperlink means that we no longer have to follow something from beginning to end - you might have clicked on the Newsweek link above before returning (or not!) to this post!

I should say that the Kindle has had an underwhelming response so far. It's far too expensive, and still has too many kinks by the looks of it. But I wonder. Would people be taking ebook readers for granted in 20 years time?

Christian publishing and print culture

Al Hsu has a very informative post on whether Christian publishing is a business, a ministry, or both. This is especially relevant to me since, as some of you know, I am writing a thesis on Christian publishing and cultural accomodation in the UK, exploring in particular the roles and spaces Christian publishers carve out for themselves. I think Al's post summarises succintly all the main issues and tensions inherent in Christian publishing.

Actually, my thesis isn't all that impressive, contrary to what some may think! This is partly due to factors such as lack of time and accessibility to sources, as well as the fact that this is the first time I'm engaging in proper research, so I'm still learning to come to terms with methodological issues. And in the end, I don't do that much primary research, so I'm not making some wonderful original contribution. Although having said that, it was pointed out to me that the collation of secondary research is itself a contribution to research! I'll take that...

It's been interesting work, nonetheless, although the constraints of time meant that I've been doing lots and lots of scanning instead of being able to read in-depth! Due to some of the stuff I'm reading, I've taken a more historical perspective than I expected when I first started doing my literature review. I've been particularly interested in just how the seemingly simple notion that a person could learn to read the Bible for himself unleashed a huge chain of socio-political ramifications, and I'll love to read more on that in the future. (I see Alister McGrath's new book arrives at precisely the right time!) Anyway, I thought some of you might be interested in some of the things I've been looking at.

Evangelicals have always had a love affair of sorts with mass media, and this can be traced back to the invention of printing. Since words are now translated from mere sounds to symbols upon a page, there was a fixity about them that made geographical boundaries irrelevant, as people of the faith could now rally around a common set of documents. The Puritans, for example, emphasised the instruction of reading since this was a basic skill needed for knowledge of the Scriptures. At the same time, ironically, this undermines the community since these instruments of literacy could be used for individualistic ends. In other words, you didn't need to depend on an authority figure to tell you what to believe in. What is particularly interesting is that some have found the seeds or impulses for today's consumer culture here. Nathan Hatch, who is a historian of American Christianity, talks about how religious communication became the property of the "sovereign audience". Vincent Miller, commenting on the structure of consumerism today, writes: " [People] encounter religion in a commodified form, where doctrines, symbols, values, and practices are torn from their traditional, communal contexts. In such a setting it is quite easy to construct hybrid religiosities abstracted from particular communities."

The thing about publishing, therefore, is that it gives you access to both wisdom and nonsense. It helps delineate certain boundaries which help build a stronger sense of identity while simultaneously allowing for the possibility of the undermining of that community. There is also a tension between a desire to be countercultural whilst wishing to engage it at the same time. One of the interesting things that a publisher I interviewed said to me was that the conditions of postmodernity meant that it was possible at least to get the Christian point of view out into the marketplace of ideas, although another publisher was more circumspect about this; he felt that the "scandal of particularity" of Christianity meant that access to the general market is still hard to come by, although it is possible. As Al Hsu pointed out, the ability to find alternative avenues of distribution and the "long tail" theory means that it is perhaps now more viable to get more special-interest books out there than previously.

It's likely that finding something topical gives a Christian publisher some access to general distribution lines: witness both the God Delusion and the Dawkins Delusion. (Although interestingly, as a Christian response, the lesser-known Dawkins Letters has actually outsold the Dawkins Delusion!) I also find it quite amusing that the same publisher, via different imprints, is able to publish both Christopher Hitchens and Joyce Meyer.

I suppose this discussion is interesting too since it relates to questions in the field of hermeneutics, which is where a lot of the action is this days in Christian scholarship, eg. the role of interpretation in the church and by the church etc. etc.

I do think Christian publishers play a valuable role in the church worldwide, and it looks like there needs to be more thinking done into their role in today's climate, which would require someone with interdisciplinary prowess. That certainly rules me out!


† Expand post