TP 5

[Some German] ... biblical critics gave the following general definition of the mythus. It is the representation of an event or of an idea in a form which is historical, but, at the same time characterized by the rich pictorial and imaginative mode of thought and expression of the primitive ages.[1]

The quote is from Strauss’ Life ofJesus Critically Examined. Strauss’ approach has several flaws. Firstly, he claims that science has no room for presuppositions. However, judged by his own words, suspicion is his presupposition. Secondly, he applies his principles to all genres of the Bible without discernment. Again, based on his words one should conclude that a poetic text could not therefore be true in any circumstances since it is “pictorial and imaginative.” This can hardly be true (edit. Strauss understands the literary genres; why then does he not take that into consideration?).

Strauss seems to be proud of how far he is able to go in revealing all the myths of the Bible, but the reader is left to wonder how God has survived his open fire? Furthermore, if the Bible is true about God, who is Strauss to say about anything: that is impossible, therefore it cannot be?! Perhaps some of the greatest things in the whole world are so beautiful and so wonderful that they seem like myths - or foolishness to the perishing world, as Paul put it. (edit. Strauss' view about salvation becomes clearer later on in his book - therefore more about that later on!)

---

[1] Strauss, David Friedrich, 1808-1874; Eliot, George, 1819-1880. The life of Jesus critically examined (Kindle Locations 1061-1063). London : Swan Sonnenechevin. 

TP 4

The mailman brought me a new book that was recommended by my supervisor. It is called Writing Your Dissertation in Fifteen Minutes a Day (Amazon UK, US). The author Joan Bolker admits that it she has never heard anyone actually being able to write a thesis using only fifteen minutes a day. That relates to the topic of our yesterday's theme, honesty.

Bolger leans on studies that prove that we learn by writing instead of it being the other way around. Therefore she recommends writing as a learning process. She has a broad understanding of what writing is - it has to do with scribbly notes and research and banging your head on the wall. One does not simply do his research, then sit down and write the thesis. Writing process should improve the research, reveal the weaknesses of it and help to better it.

So far the most valuable piece of information in Bolker's books has to do with motivation. So far I've heard only one person saying that he enjoyed the process. Bolker says,

writing a dissertation can be a pleasure, at least some of the time... Some writers really do enjoy writing their dissertations. This book is meant to help you become one of those writers.

I think I already like this book!

---
Quote is from Joan Bolker, Writing Your Dissertation in Fifteen Minutes a Day (New York: Holt, 1998), xix.

TP 3

I took several items from Ben Witherington home from the uni library the other day. I was going to borrow only "New Testament theology : A Narrative Account" since it's theme is most related with my dissertation. However, there was room for few more in my back back, and the search engine listed so many alluring books (I borrowed also Tom Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God).

Anyway, back to the topic, or into it! Witherington says something that all authors - and readers alike - should come across and keep in mind:

I as the author of this monograph believe a good deal more than I can prove.

Of course one can fool to be honest by writing something like this, but putting cynicism aside for a while this is absolutely crucial for objective writing/science/anything. Anyone claiming to be unbiased is blinded by his own bias(es).

This awareness, or realization, can be paralyzing - how on earth am I to write anything original that is at the same time honest and true? I am confident that we must begin with what we believe, and see if we can honestly prove it. After all, without conviction, who would want to write anything (unless paid hugely)? Moreover, who would ever want to read it?!

---
Quote is from Ben Witherington III, New Testament theology : A Narrative Account (Grand Rapids MI: Baker, and Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster Press, 2001), 17.

TP 2

We had a seminar again today. It is part of the Thursday routine at St Mary's, the divinity department of St Andrews university. The quest speaker was Dr. Lutz Doering from Durham, and he was giving a presentation on "You are a chosen race...": The Addressees as "Israel" in First Peter.

Knowing that the theme of Israel is burning for many, I'm going to dodge that bullet, and reflect on something else. He claimed that in 1Pt 1:5 the word οἰκοδομεῖσθε (oikodomeisthe) should be translated as in indicative instead of imperative. Therefore it would go like this:

you are (being) built up as living stones...

instead of

keep on been built up as living stones...

There are no textual variants supporting the indicative reading. Stylistically it is cleaner, but I'm afraid that we are missing something here. Peter's concern in his epistle is a moral one; how the believers are sojourning amidst all the trials, pain and persecution. The textual connections to the Old testament seem to speak very strongly about sexual purity in particular. In this larger context it would make more sense for Peter to have exhorted the believers to keep on being such material that could be used by God as living stones when he is building his spiritual house. The implication is that ones not pursuing purity are not suitable to be living stones, and would be rejected as weak concrete.

The conversation that followed the presentation, especially Dr. Scott Hafemann's question/comment about the covenantal issue in 1 Peter, and how Israel can be seen as a substructure for the 1 Peter, was inspiring. There are (at least) three connection points: Past - calling/election, Present - holiness, Future - eschatological promises. However, as I said earlier, I'm going to dodge this bullet, I just wanted to test the sight.

TP 1

I had my first German class today. I mean, first in my life! One might wonder how on earth could a theology student have survived without German. Well, I am a living proof that it is possible. In addition to German, I have not studied French or Latin either. Instead, I studied six years the world's most useful language: Swedish (in Finnish Pakkoruotsi). Thank you Finnish schooling system - they say you are the best!

There are nine students in my evening class; one from Brazil, one from Poland, one from Russia, one from Slovakia, and few from the US. It appears that I have more prior knowledge about German than some/most of the other students. All the gratitude goes, not to the Finnish schooling system, but to the 'Korkkari' (engl. Commando) that I read in my youth, and learned the essential vocabulary. Also, because of my theology studies, I could pronounce correctly the word 'Geschichte'.

I am pretty sure that German will not be the last new language that I will be learning. However, in addition to learning German from the scratch, practicing one's Greek and Hebrew, and studying in a foreign language (English) will get hard. But hey, that is why we are here for!

Ps. What a terrible tragedy that the first link in this quasimodo-academic blog points to Wikipedia!!!

Intro Piece

I'm a PhD independent research student at St Andrews, Scotland, and in three years I should have defended successfully my thesis. How much have I written this far? Well, only the thesis proposal... But I heard the other day at the university that it would be a good idea to write every day. This someone also hinted about think pieces that could help in writing. I only needed to find a platform to accommodate the flow of my mind - I bet someday it will be the emptiness of my head that will be on display! However, systematic blogging is something that I know requires bucketfuls of discipline, but that is just the reason why I need to fail publicly, or try not to fail.

I have to reveal that one of the (other) main objectives is to keep on writing in English hoping that there would be some improvement along the way. I do not need an audience; I just need a stage, and that is this blog in the cyberspace. Start your engines! Or, actually, I'll begin tomorrow writing the first official Tommi's Think Piece.

I should warn you, my accidental reader, that my thesis will be about demons and exorcism. In addition, all who know me relatively well know that my mind does not necessarily soar like an eagle - rather it jumps about like a frog, seemingly randomly. It might be hard for others to see the connection between, say, demons and cooking, but I assure you, that in my head it makes perfect sense! (My best friend in high school described once that "Tommi can speak about four different topics simultaneously.") 

Hopefully this quasimodo-academic blog (or any of the readers [if there are any]) will not get filled with ectoplasm!

Ps. If someone accidentally reads this blog, and gets offended by my writings or bad grammar, I have most probably done something right.