In Justification of the iPad

My wife and I have decided it would be good for us to get a new computer. Therefore, I can do more studying away from home, and have less distractions and she can still remain connected to the world.

I have already made the switch to apple, and it is important to stay with a system once one has started with it. For me and other biblical studies people, this comes out in the Bible study software that one buys. Bibleworks and Accordance are about equal in quality, but once you start with one, it is better to continue investing in that program. Both of them run poorly on emulators. I have already invested quite a bit in Accordance and don't want to switch to another program.

Doing things away from home requires many books that are just not available digitally or easy to get at the library. For instance, all of my Akkadian stuff would need to be taken with me. These books are heavy. Adding a full sized laptop to the bag would give anyone scoliosis. When I first started thinking about this problem, I envisioned a netbook. Dell sells netbooks for about $300 (http://outlet.us.dell.com/ARBOnlineSales/topics/global.aspx/arb/online/en/InventorySearch?c=us&cs=22&l=en&lob=INSP&MODEL_DESC=Inspiron+Mini+10v+-+1011&s=dfh) which can be modified to run Mac OS 10.6 (http://gizmodo.com/5389166/how-to-hackintosh-a-dell-mini-10v-into-the-ultimate-snow-leopard-netbook). This would be able to accomplish most of my computing needs. It would do some multi-tasking, but would not be for watching videos. However, it would make note taking in class very easy. The one disadvantage it has is that reading pdf's on it would be even more of a nightmare than reading them on the laptop screen.

My pdf library is large, and growing. Pdf's are an important component of all of my research not only are jstor and EBSCOhost the first places I look for the most recent articles, but also places like archive.org provide a good selection of important historical approaches. I hate reading on the computer not only because of the backlit screen but also because of the shape of the screen and the posture of one at the computer is unnatural for reading long documents. There is an important post here about the desire for the paperless academic (http://bbibb.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/the-paperless-academic/). The ideal of a paperless academic is even more pronounced a library that is sub-par. Such libraries will go unmentioned by name.

One of the things Brian mentions in his post is the Kindle. The Kindle DX is almost the ideal piece of equipment for reading long pdfs. It has an eInk screen that is almost like reading a real book, and is about the size of a normal printout. The two things that really make the DX unlikely to be a great resource is note taking and price. Kindle will not let you take notes on a pdf. Also I would complain about the slow page turning. The eInk screen is a physical machine and so turning pages on it actually takes a lot of little colored balls to move around. But the biggest factor against the DX is that with the same sized screen as the iPad, and with a lot less functionality, it is the same price. (This post here, mentions some early failed experiments on Kindle and college. But I think this talk tackles the shortcomings more directly).

The netbook is a better notetaker than the iPad will be (even with the silly little keyboard), and the Kindle DX is a better reader than the iPad will be. But the iPad does both and is the same price as a DX. It is also lighter than a new laptop, and considerably cheaper than a new MacBook.

The last point that I would like to bring up is my new work flow. I have been thinking with the more papers that I write the more it dawns on me that I need to change the way I go about writing papers. There are so many great academic programs for Mac that there is no reason to do the entire writing process in Word (or any other word processing program for that matter). For some examples see here http://homepage.mac.com/kvmagruder/hsci/resources/academicApps.html. So I think that my work flow will be something like this:
-research and initial note taking on Papers on the iPad. Then sync with the macbook. If I am taking notes on a document that is not in PDF form I can use evernote which automatically syncs over the net.
-Arrange thoughts and notecards on Scrivner and write the rough draft. (With Papers, I use Bookends for bibliographic management).
-Export to Mellel for formatting and final proofreading.

This way, I use the iPad for what it is best at and Beth can now have access to a computer to check her email and look stuff up on line.

I wrote most of this before we even got the iPad, but as I finish this up I am writing it on the iPad. I think overall this criticism is correct: the iPad is for content consumption, not creation. It is the ultimate commuter toy. In some ways I am a little disappointed with iPad (no Hebrew keyboard, and the external keyboard is pretty heavy for not really needing to be), but in other ways the iPad is better than I could have imagined. PDFs are a dream, and it syncs really well through papers, and evernote (which is what I am using to type this). As things move along I think things will improve even more. I don't think that the iPad is for everyone, but for Beth and I's situation right now I think it was the best option.

For a more detailed look at my work flow, see this post.

Errant Inerrancy

Kenton Sparks. God's Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2008.

Kenton Sparks has set out to demonstrate that the insights of critical Biblical scholarship can be incorporated into a robust evangelical doctrine of Scripture. In the evangelical world, the doctrine of Scripture is once again on the table for discussion. The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy was never intended to be given creedal weight, and the framers envisioned the statement as starting more conversations (note especially the preface). Sparks himself wants to maintain a belief in inerrancy, and he views the idea of infallibility too weak. In his attempt to articulate a doctrine of scripture, he describes many of the problems, addresses the critical solutions, and then deals with historical theology and natural theology to help reformulate a doctrine of scripture, that is both accurate to the biblical evidence and theologically informed.

Sparks seeks to accomplish his view of Scripture and the critical method around the three pillars of Scripture, tradition, and reason. Each of the three can inform criticism of the others. One image he uses is of an interconnected web of these three loci. For the idea of reason, Sparks develops a natural theology that can help explain the place and role of the interpreter. While there are some aspects to this that I like (for instance, this is how he explains the perspicuity of Scripture), I have some criticisms of his construction of natural theology that will be described below.

One of the most important theological tools that Sparks uses in his reformulation of the doctrine of Scripture is the idea of accommodation. God accommodates to the limitations of human understanding when he is revealing himself. The big comparison for Sparks is Copernican Heliocentrism verses the geocentrism of the Biblical world. God did not reveal in the Bible a full astronomical account of the workings of the solar system but accommodated his revelation to the science of the ages in which he reveled himself. What speaks best about Sparks' use of this teaching is its historical weight. Both Augustine and Calvin saw this as an important theological tool for discussing problematic passages in the Bible. Sparks has hit on something that has been lost to many formulations of the doctrine of Scripture. Accommodation should be an important tool to use when interpreting texts, however, there should be limits and guidelines when employing this. Unfortunately the only guideline Sparks uses is a discussion of the importance of the hermeneutic of love (taken from Augustine's On Christian Doctrine). Although important, accommodation should not be the first tool the interpreter employs.

Despite his excellent recovery of accommodation, Sparks' work suffers from serious shortcomings. In the first part of the book he mentions the scholarly consensus, and also that these are very educated people that have come to these conclusions and should not be challenged by lowly laymen. I have many problems with the rhetoric in parts of Sparks' work, but the idea of the scholarly consensus seems laughable. Sparks himself recognizes that there are many different takes on some critical problems, and in a footnote or two he mentions some of the main detractors. However, the state of critical scholarship that Sparks describes is not the reality I face at Hebrew University. Forty years ago, Scholars were mostly in agreement about the way to divide the sources of the Pentateuch as well as the development of those sources. Since then, the very foundations of this scholarship have collapsed. What has emerged is primarily three schools. First, Continental Europe has reverted back to a view of the fragmentary hypothesis; that there is one primary source that was developed and added to as time passed. This view is dominant in Germany today. Second, there is the state of the American academy. At one time this would have been characterized by the work of W. Albright, J. Bright and then F. M. Cross. J. Van Seeters (Sparks' mentor) also is part of the American academy, but his division of the sources is not at all dominant. Third, there is the Israel school. This school was founded by Y. Kaufmann and developed more by M. Haran and B. Schwartz. This school sees the four sources as mostly independent that are only combined at a later stage. This school also dates Deuteronomy as the latest source and not the Priestly source (which is typical of both the traditional Higher Critical view and the one that is probably dominant in the US). None of this speaks to a consensus. There isn't even agreement anymore as to what a source is, let alone how they developed. Sparks is, at best, misleading when he speaks of a scholarly consensus.

Even though Sparks' mentions several times that critical scholarship is the work of very educated people, his presentation of critical scholarship is unpersuasive. He does not present the data in a way that would convince anyone. I have a predilection to critical scholarship, and know that there is much evidence that would challenge conservative evangelical views of scripture; however, Sparks' discussion of the problems of the Bible was very cursory. He failed to demonstrate the problem he set out to solve. There is a problem. The conservative evangelical view of scholarship is not formulated in a way that accounts for all the evidence and that needs to change. There already is an ongoing conversation about this in the evangelical world. What is needed is a full presentation of the data. This book does not provide much in the way of discussing the original material.

In the last few chapters, Sparks pulls his discussion together to talk about some of the broader implications. Nonetheless, in doing this, Sparks brings in some debated topics that are tangential to the main issue of evangelicals and critical scholarship. He outlines a view of natural theology that espouses inclusivism, as the foundation for his use of background material (pp. 263-277). This articulation of natural theology is unnecessary. He should have outlined a more nuanced hermeneutic that took into consideration the context, then this discussion would have been superfluous to his main point. As it is, it is dispensable for the conclusions he reaches. In the hermeneutic that Sparks does outline he misconstrues the importance of narrative in postmodern thought (pp 187f.). He argues that there are more genres in the Bible than just narrative; this is clearly self-evident and does not take into consideration approaches like Hays in The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11.

The debate about Scripture is explosive. Sparks has entered this debate with a book that is well documented and provides some insight. Yet, the problems with this work are extensive, and it is far from the last word. God's Word in Human Words should be consulted by those who are working through the issues of faith and the critical method, still, it should not be the last stop for anyone. I would recommend this book along with the admonition to challenge the author's presentation, his use of sources, and his conclusions.