The Weekly Roundup, ladies and gents!
- Bernard Lamborelle posted a response to @MiraScriptura’s “Bernard Lamborelle vs. Mirror Reading” entitled “Facing cognitive dissonance.” The humility exhibited in Lamborelle’s piece is exemplary and it is refreshing to see two people with opposing views respond to one another’s work without resorting to name-calling or strawmen. I would love to see these two in a discussion on Google Hangouts or in a podcast. It would be very fruitful.
- I’m still getting caught up on @StudyofChrist’s fantastic series covering the two genealogies of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Just recently I watched parts 1 and 2 of “Why Luke has 77 generations in his genealogy.” I especially enjoyed part 2 since he went into the textual variants in the Lukan genealogy and how that influenced the way ancient interpreters understood its import (i.e. Iraneus’ 72 generation schema). Really great stuff from one of my favorite YouTubers.
- The husband and wife Assyriology duo of Digital Hammurabi have some pretty great videos over at their YouTube channel. Recently Josh has started a series covering biblical Hebrew that is pretty darn good! You can check out the first in that series, covering the Hebrew alphabet, here.
- Over at Hendrickson Publishers Blog there is an interview with the editors of the forthcoming Septuaginta: A Reader’s Edition. I spend a considerable amount of time in my Greek New Testament but very little in the LXX. And since I love “Reader’s Editions” of the ancient texts, I am hoping to add this to my library for future reading and reference. Having some knowledge and appreciation of the LXX helps us understand how the NT writers interpreted the Old Testament and why so often it looks different from the Hebrew text we find in BHS.
- Last week DM Spence posted a rebuttal to SJ Thomason’s piece claiming that the Trinity could be found in the Old Testament via the items found in the Tabernacle. (I offered my own response to Thomason here.) Spence eviscerates Thomason, revealing her faulty reasoning and poor exegetical skills. Another sign that the would-be apologist needs to do some fundamental reading before she puts her fingers to the keyboard.
Featured image: Wikimedia Commons.