6 Comments


  1. That’s a great post! Though I really, really like straightforward readings of biblical texts, I can’t deny that the Bible euphemizes sexual issues consistently (which is actually sort of nice if you’re reading a more traditional version at Christmastime with little kiddies listening).

    Reply

    1. Thanks, Mitchell. The Bible is a ‘dirty’ book in as far as we understand it. Rather, it is a book about real life and about real life things.

      Reply

  2. Excellent post. Glad to see you using the NRSV, for, as we know, the NLT would have tried to sugarcoat the literal meaning of the text, as it so often does. However, perhaps I would be more careful in the usage of the term “oriental.” Oriental, yes, but east to whom, what? Just some food for thought. I prefer Ancient Near Eastern but that is not without its problems as well.

    Reply

    1. No, the NRSV is almost required, and the more so because I use the NETS for all Septuagint work in English. Further, the NLT reads about the same here, and frankly, they don’t ‘sugar’ coat, but thanks for trying.

      Everything is presented as a problem when you are trying to find one.

      Reply

      1. Oh, that’s right. You are one of those people who do not believe that Orientalism is a problem. Keep calm and Carry on.

        Reply

Leave a Reply, Please!