Lee Harmon's Blog, page 116

Book review: The Scholar's Bible: Mark

by Daryl D. Schmidt
★★★★★
As the first gospel penned about a man who would command the attention of a third of the world … as the book that would form the foundation for the next two gospels written … the influence of Mark's Gospel is undeniable.
With Greek on the left page, a translation dubbed the Scholars Version on the facing page, and the bottom portion of both reserved for verse-by-verse commentary, Schmidt's work glows of authenticity. It's like you're reading the words the day after they were written, as if you are the person they were written for. This is not an in-depth study (at least, not alongside some of the tomes you'll find in university bookstores), and outside the 39-page introduction there's little topical coverage, which leaves primarily the simplicity of the Gospel translation as its selling point. I can't even say the translation is terribly precise; it just rings to me of the proper flavor, as much as today's English can allow.
Recommendation: Just read the translation through in one sitting to savor the Gospel story; then, go back and review the commentary.

Ecclesiastes 12:13, The Duty of Man

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
//As a child, I managed to memorize two verses in Ecclesiastes. Today's verse is one of the two, from the very end of the book. The second one I memorized is at the very beginning of the book:
Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
I knew nothing in between. Which is a very good thing. Have you ever read the book? It's twelve chapters about how meaningless life is, and how every moment should therefore be cherished and enjoyed, for it's all we have. A live dog is better than a dead lion. You only live once. Ecclesiastes is about as secular as the book of Esther.
However many years a man may live, let him enjoy them all. But let him remember the days of darkness, for they will be many. Everything to come is meaningless. Be happy, young man, while you are young, and let your heart give you joy in the days of your youth. Follow the ways of your heart and whatever your eyes see. So then, banish anxiety from your heart and cast off the troubles of your body, for youth and vigor are meaningless.
Oddly, however, a little phrase has been inserted into the middle of this passage to give us pause: "But know that for all these things God will bring you to judgment." Now, where did that come from? It hardly belongs, so I pulled it out. And who added the verse at the end of the book, telling us the purpose of life? Isn't that exactly what Ecclesiastes is not about?
Someone, it appears, has taken a secular book of advice about a life well-lived and tried to add religious meaning where none was intended. I guess that's how Ecclesiastes made it into the Bible.

Book review: The Misunderstood Jew

by Amy-Jill Levine   ★★★★   What started out as a light-hearted look at the Jewish Jesus quickly turned somber. This is a serious look at the pain that anti-Semitic interpretations of the Bible have caused and continue to cause. Levine, a Jew, has an excellent grasp of New Testament studies, so this is more than a rant against Christian prejudice. It's a serious look at the real Jesus, his Jewishness, and Christianity's emergence within first-century Judaism. A provocative quote from the book: "I find Jesus reflects back to me my own tradition, but in a new key. I also have to admit to a bit of pride in thinking about him--he's one of ours."  Over and over, Levine contradicts misunderstandings about Judaism, particularly first-century Judaism, and the stereotypes that have developed as a result of shallow Christian teaching. She does so from both a Jewish and a scholarly perspective. Levine made me think differently about first-century Judaism and how Jesus fit within that context.  Because I've never keenly felt the sting of anti-Semitism, or felt myself anti-Semitic in any way, much of the book was an eye opener. I felt myself often teetering on the edge between thinking Levine oversensitive and thinking her insightful. Example: Paul writes in Galatians 3:28, "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave and free, there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." In this verse, Levine admits, "I hear a desire that my people, the Jews, cease to exist."   While a scholar myself of first-century Christianity, I confess its sometimes hard for me to relate to current day Jewish-Christian tensions. On the other hand, your shrink will tell you that feelings are the ultimate truth; Christians must validate the feelings that their teachings evoke among Jews, and seek to correct the source. Levine's final chapter provides several helpful suggestions to facilitate interfaith understanding.

Luke 24:51, The Ascension

And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and
carried up into heaven.

//What's up with this floating up to heaven bit? Luke is the only Gospel
writer to tell of Jesus ascending. Matthew imagines no such thing,
promising instead that Jesus will remain with his followers always, "even
to the end of the age." In John's Gospel, Jesus appears offering peace and
encouragement after the resurrection; there's nothing there about going
away again. Mark's Gospel originally ended with no Jesus-sighting at all,
though sometime later, an ending was added matching Luke's teaching.

Most Bible scholars agree that Matthew and Luke built upon the Gospel
originally written by Mark. Thus, Luke's Gospel went one direction in its
continuation of the Markan story, Matthew's Gospel went another direction,
and John's Gospels can be considered largely independent of the other
three.

Today, the theology of Jesus ascending to heaven and awaiting the proper
moment to return is ingrained to the very core of Christianity. We all
look forward to the day Jesus comes back. But I want you to imagine for a
moment what direction Christianity would have taken if one of the four
Gospel writers hadn't followed Paul's theology and steered the Christ
story toward the idea of Jesus leaving. Imagine, as Matthew wants us to
understand, Jesus appearing after the resurrection and never again going
away.

How different would our theology be today? Would it suddenly make more
sense how the risen Jesus could be "seen" only by his disciples? How would
we imagine the resurrected Jesus, if we believed he lives with us today in
the same manner as he appeared to the twelve after his resurrection? And,
most importantly, how different would we act as Christians if we believed
Jesus already inaugurated the final age 2,000 years ago?

Book review: Revelation: The Way it Happened

By Lee Harmon
★★★★
Here's another review of my book on Revelation. It can be found on Goodreads, by reader Logan, at: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9688311-revelation-the-way-it-happened
"This was a very intriguing read. It is a sort of hybrid between a historical novel and an exegetical review of Revelation. It gives us much of the supposed context of the writing of this book in the form of dialogues between various historical and fictional characters interrupted intermittently by 'interludes' that provide us with factual explorations of the historical and psychological context of Revelation. The historical context is unquestionably true and described in thorough detail: the influence of Rome, Greece, Jewish tradition, ancient preJudaic tradition, Jesus, &c. The mental context is also most probably true, and can be assumed through the historical lens: the interpretation of Jewish literature at the time, the meaning of the Messiah to the small sect of believers calling themselves Christians, the pressure of Rome and Judaism on commoners, &c. Both of these lend to the specific story that Harmon has created, a story in which a reactionary group writes a richly historical and allusive but also intensely innovative work of preChristian literature.
"Harmon does not treat Revelation as necessarily 'true' in the Christian sense, and so he provides an objective look at the proper historical roots of this rather odd book. I greatly enjoyed reading it, as well, for I am someone greatly interested in the Bible but largely unread on the subject of the Apocalypse and its proper place in the Judaeo-Christian canon. Both Christian and nonChristian alike would be well advised to simply try this book if they consider the Bible anything worth taking seriously."
http://www.thewayithappened.com/

2 Chronicles 36:9, That Evil Child

Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned
three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in
the sight of the LORD.

//Ever wonder if a child could sin? Apparently so, enough for him to be
labeled evil at age eight. Jehoiachin was a chip off the old block; his
father did evil, and the uncle who replaced him after Nebechednezzer
kidnapped him and carried him off to Babylon did evil in the sight of God.

Other prodigies may have been a bit more responsible. King Josiah, who was
also crowned at age eight, reigned for thirty one years. He did that which
was right in the sight of the Lord.

Were these the youngest kings in the Bible? Nope. Joash was seven years
old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years in Jerusalem.
Joash, like Josiah, did what was right in the eyes of the Lord.

The lesson? If you're gonna be king, and want to last more than a few
months, do what's right.

Note: While most Hebrew translations say Jehoiachin was king at age eight,
one Hebrew manuscript, some Septuagint manuscripts 2 Kings 24:8 say
eighteen.

Book review: Has God Spoken?

by Hank Hanegraff 
★★★★ 
From the introduction: "This book counters such contentions and crafts a cumulative case for the absolute authority of the Bible. It answers the question, 'Has God spoken?' in the affirmative and demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bible is divine rather than merely human in origin. Without such assurance, Christianity would not have any more authority for faith and practice than does Islam, Mormonism, or a host of other misguided movements."
I offer the above quote to set the tone of the book. I had a hard time with this book merely because of Hanegraff's style. Not that his writing isn't good—it's actually quite superb and fun to read—but because he's so downright feisty! He takes on an apologetic role, zealously attacking Bart Ehrman, President Obama, Bill Maher, or Richard Dawkins on every other page. When he's not dissin' scholars, he's dissin' fellow religions.
He says, "It is as unlikely that Jews falsified the Exodus as it is that they fabricated the Holocaust. Archaeology provides a wholly plausible framework for Jewish contentions regarding their enslavement and emancipation. While archaeology has thoroughly discredited the Book of Mormon, internal evidence provides credence to the people, places, and particulars found in the biblical text." Oh, wow. Need I say more? One thing archaeology can say for certain is that there were never two million people tromping around in the desert for forty years.
Nevertheless, the book does hold your attention! I definitely never grew bored. It's a little like listening to a talk show host that drives you totally bonkers, but that you can't shut off.
At times, Hanegraff's apologetic stance left me bewildered. He had no trouble arguing for the historic reliability of the flood story in the Bible, while in the next breath ridiculing earlier versions of the flood myth, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. Does he really not recognize that the Hebrew version of the story is just as fantastic as the others? He then waffles on the subject, suggesting that perhaps Genesis implies a local flood rather than a worldwide one, and thus totally misses the point of the myth: That the ark was necessary to sustain life on the earth, because God was going to destroy everything he had made.
If you can ignore the sermonizing, however, there is a lot of thought provoking conversation in the book. I particularly enjoyed Hanegraff's discussion of typology. Was Isaiah thinking of Jesus as he wrote about a young maiden giving birth to the child Immanuel? No, not according to Hanegraff (and he's surely right), Isaiah was writing about his own time period. Did Hosea have Jesus in mind when he wrote, "Out of Egypt I have called my son?" Of course not, he was writing about Israel, not Jesus. How about Jeremiah's words, quoted by Matthew to highlight the slaughter of the innocents by Herod: "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more." This quote highlights the utter silliness of imagining that Matthew was taking these prophesies as predictive; unquestionably, Matthew rightly understood this passage in Jeremiah to be a warning to the southern kingdom of Judah that they were about to experience what happened to Israel. These are not predictive prophecies, but typological prophecies. In this discussion, Hanegraff brings the Bible's prophecies back to life in a believable and recognizable way. As Hanegraff explains, Matthew saw a historical pattern of events from the past that corresponded to present situations, and he saw them as quintessential fulfillments. The historical patterns reached a climax in the life of Jesus.
Other topics that I enjoyed were the discussion of archaeological finds, of the Abomination of Desolation (Hanegraff's preterist tendencies subtly poke through here and there), and of figurative language in the Bible. Hanegraff writes a great book, he just gets a little too aggressive at times. 

Jonah 3:3, How Big Was Nineveh?

So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days' journey.
//Quite a sizable city for antiquity, right? Three days, it took, to walk through Nineveh! Or so we assumed from the Bible, until excavations showed the size of Nineveh to be less than three square miles. Most of us could meander across the city in less than an hour.
But the King James Version of the Bible was translated before excavations showed Nineveh's true size, so it rendered the original Hebrew in the most straightforward fashion.
Now that we know the truth, however, Bible translators struggle to relay this verse. The NRSV continues the original tradition: "Now Nineveh was an exceedingly large city, a three days' walk across." Others rewrite the verse, guessing at what the author meant, such as this NLT rendition: "This time Jonah obeyed the LORD's command and went to Nineveh, a city so large that it took three days to see it all." The NIV version tiptoes even more carefully: The 1978 version claims Nineveh was so large that "it took three days to go all through it," but six years later, the NIV revised its interpretation of the "great city" to emphasize not how large the city was, but how important: "Now Nineveh was a very important city--a visit required three days."
Mostly, the careful wording of each interpretation reflects a willingness or unwillingness to accept exaggeration within the scripture.

Revelation 22:2, Are We in Heaven?

On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month.
//Big deal, eh? If I want fresh fruit in today's world, I take a short walk to the supermarket any time of year.
Revelation promises we'll never thirst again, never hunger again. I can't say I've ever been really thirsty or really hungry in my life.
Revelation says there will be no night in heaven. Electricity has delivered on the promise.
As Lisa Miller says in Heaven: Our Enduring Fascination with the Afterlife, "Real life has delivered on so many of the Scripture's promises of heaven. We have glittering cities, blossoming public parks with gushing fountains, libraries filled with books in every language, and a government predicated on justice and equality for all. We have gyms and Pilates classes that keep our bodies youthful, Botox to ensure that our faces remain unlined."
Our every desire lies before us, and all it takes is a little cash. Far from money being the root of all evil, it appears to be the currency of heaven.
Universalists may be disappointed to learn that not all people attain heaven. Jesus promised many mansions there, and at the height of the housing boom in America, nearly 70% of us lived in homes of our own, homes that would seem extravagant if compared to Bible days. But that leaves 30% still outside the pearly gates. Perhaps hell exists as well? The blessed have money, while the not-so-blessed must be atoning for the sins of a past life.
Yes, it appears heaven has arrived, yet something remains awry. In heaven, says Revelation, there will be no tears. Yet those lives enjoying heaven-like conditions seem just as fraught with tears as those dwelling in hell. Even with all our comforts, it turns out that heaven isn't so heavenly after all.

Book review: What's In A Version?

by Henry Neufeld 

★★★★★
Henry Neufeld operates Energion Publications at http://energion.com. I've read a couple other books that he promotes, but never one he authored himself. If What's In A Version is representative of his work, then I'm hooked!
Different Bible interpretations each carry a different emphasis. The New International Version (NIV) and the New Living Translation (NLT) emphasize that their translators are evangelical. Other translations, such as the Revised English Bible (REB) and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) emphasize the variety on their translation committees, including interfaith participation.
So, given that translations purposefully vary, how is a person supposed to make an informed decision without knowing the source languages (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic)? Henry has a BA and MA in Biblical Languages, and writes for the purpose of making the Bible more accessible to the laity. I found this book to be a practical and friendly guide, describing how translations are made, so we readers are better able to understand the arguments for or against various versions. Numerous examples manage to turn what I thought would be a dry discussion into fascinating reading. A chart at the back of the book is helpful in providing an overview of the differences of various common translations. (After reading Henry's book, I know better than to call these differences "strengths" or "weaknesses," just decisions made for focus, translation preference, and religious emphasis!)
I did find a few formatting and editing errors, which was a minor distraction. 
(click picture to buy on Amazon)