Michael S. Heiser's Blog, page 34

Naked Bible Podcast Episode 169: Surviving and Thriving in Seminary: Conversation with Danny Zacharias and Ben Forrest

Ever thought about taking a seminary class? Getting a degree in biblical studies? Even if you haven’t and just want good advice on how to do biblical research on your own, you’ll want to listen in on this conversation. This episode of the podcast focuses on the book by Drs. Zacharias and Forrest, How to Survive and Thrive in Seminary. You’ll learn a lot about expert resources (some of them free) and some strategy hints for the serious study of Scripture.

The episode is now live.

Reversing Hermon for Logos Bible Software Now Available

Just to let Logos users know — Reversing Hermon is now available for the platform!

Heavenly Worship in Second Temple Judaism, Early Christianity, and Gnostic Sects: Part 2

By guest blogger Stephen L. Huebscher

 

STEP THREE: LOOKING AT THE THREE GROUPS INDIVIDUALLY
CONCEPTIONS OF HEAVENLY WORSHIP IN SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM

The variety of groups and beliefs at this time was reflected in the variety of sacred texts used. It was common to believe in joint human/angelic worship. “The notion that the community in its prayer life participated in some way in the liturgy of the angels is well attested in first-century Judaism, and will later emerge as an element in Christian liturgical practice,” (Attridge 51). Also within this mix it is becoming more apparent to scholars that it was acceptable for Jews to believe in a “second power” in heaven who was worshiped along with Yahweh.

 

BIBLICAL TEXTS

Isaiah 6. One of the most influential of all texts during this period (roughly 500 BC—AD 300) was the vision and call of Isaiah in Isaiah 6.  The scene presented is that of the heavenly divine council (DC) (see the section on cosmology).  The key phrase, for our purposes, comes in v. 3:  “Holy, holy, holy, is Yahweh of hosts!  His glory shouts out, that which (always) fills the earth” (Wildberger 248). There are a number of significant liturgical implications found in this passage, beginning with God’s sitting, his throne, and his height, all of which imply that he is worthy to be worshiped.  The location is the hecal (“palace,” in v. 1) or bayit (“house,” in v. 4), terms which are used both of God’s heavenly dwelling and for the earthly temple.  The reason for this dual usage is that the earthly temple was conceived of as a model based on the heavenly one. “To try to distinguish between an earthly and a heavenly sanctuary attempts to make a distinction which the ancient person would never have attempted.  God dwells in heaven, but he is also present in the sanctuary…” (Wildberger 263). The actual location is thus somewhat ambiguous.  The heavenly attendants are specifically called “seraphs,” not mal’akim (“messengers”) or cherubim (“cherubs”).  In a DC scene such as this, we should probably understand there to be not just two attendants, but a great number of beings, as in 1 Kings 22 (Wildberger 264). These exalted beings do not receive worship in heaven—they cover their eyes so as not to look directly on God and praise him. His holiness is the focus of their praise.  This holiness “is not a static ‘quality.’  It is seen in action when it destroys all the opposition which human beings set up over against God” (Wildberger 266).

The adoration by the heavenly beings serves as a model for the adoration which the earthly community is to replicate, see Rev. 4:8; in the depiction of the adoration within the heavens there is also a call to the people of God on earth to follow suit.  As in a responsive liturgy, the praise from one seraph (or seraph-choir) is passed on further by the next one (Wildberger 265).

They also declare that the earth is filled with his kabod (“glory, honor, majesty, significance”).  The word kabod “expresses the fact that God’s kabod demands an appropriate response, an acknowledgment” (Westermann 596). Thus, the praise of the seraphs comes in response to the person of God.  God’s kabod is at times the visible representation of his holiness as well as his honor (e.g., Ex 29:43).

Ezekiel.  A second set of influential biblical texts is the call and throne visions of Ezekiel (1—3, 10). Ezekiel’s description of the throne-chariot (merkabah) of God was unparalleled in its time.  The influence of these visions can be seen in Dan 7:9 (the fiery throne and wheels) and 10:5-6 (shared vocabulary); Sirach 49:8; 1 Enoch 14:18; 4QBerakot (4Q286); Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice XI, XII; and Revelation 4:2-8a (see below for specifics). Ezekiel 10 also influenced Jewish understanding of the hypostases of God (see below).

 

EXTRA-BIBLICAL (SECOND TEMPLE) TEXTS

1 Enoch. 1 Enoch is a pivotal text in many ways.  In my understanding, it is a kind of liturgically and cosmologically mixed text, mixing literary motifs and descriptive elements from the biblical stream with cosmological elements from the stream later characterized by Platonism.  (Perhaps this is why, although it is quoted in the NT, it was not widely recognized as canonical.  Just a guess.)  First Enoch was also quite influential on other later Jewish works, such as the Testament of Levi.  It would also form an important transition to the later Hekhalot merkavah texts, which are characterized by the “worship = ascending to see God’s throne-chariot” view and by complex cosmologies complete with multi-tiered heavens and choruses of singing angels.

Historically, this reveals the section to be an important transition from the older Ezekiel tradition of the prophetic call to the much later tradition of Jewish Merkabah mysticism . . . . This active and subjective involvement of the seer in his vision differentiates our text not only from Ezekiel 1—2 but also from other prophetic calls” (Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 259).

According to 1 Enoch, the real temple is in heaven, the heavenly palace where God dwells. 1 Enoch teaches that most angels cannot approach God’s throne.  Four holy ones seem to be the exceptions, and it is to these, who serve as intercessors and take those prayers to God, that prayer is to be made. Some of the angels serve as priests, including Michael, who serves as the eschatological high priest. In 14:23, some kind of worship activity may be suggested by three elements: (1) the adjective “holy, (2) the term “approach” (the throne of God), and the expression “day and night,” (Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 265-66). In 15:3, the phrase “the sanctuary of the eternal station” occurs, and the word “station” can refer in the contemporary literature to a priestly course; thus we have a possible reference to angels acting as heavenly priests (Nickelsburg 271). However, “There are also important differences from the later mystical texts.  We have here no hymn of the angelic attendants [in 14.8-23].” (Nickelsburg 261).

Qumran. Included in the scrolls from Qumran are texts dealing with the covenanteers’ views of heaven and the practice of liturgy there. The two primary groups of texts are the Berakhot and the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. A third group, the Songs of the Sage, also shows some interest in these matters. One of the striking differences from Revelation, however, is the absence of reference to Isaiah 6:1-3 from all three groups of texts.

Berakhot

These texts were used for communal recitation in the liturgy of the sectarian group’s annual covenant renewal ceremony. For our interests, several of the songs that show similarities both to the songs in Revelation and to the later Hekhalot hymns.  These are sometimes called merkavah (“throne”) hymns, though technically the term refers to post-biblical compositions.

Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice

The cosmology is similar to that of the Christian Gnostics. There are both similarities to and differences from the biblical texts.  There is great interest in the throne of God, such as is found in Revelation.  At times there is great noise in heaven from the worship, while at other times there is stillness or silence.  The beings of heaven (angels, cherubim, ophanim [“wheels” in Ezekiel], divinities) obey God and “psalm” him.  In several texts from Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, some of the fixtures of heaven are animate, reminiscent of the throne in Revelation that commands praise to God. The tradition of the sounds of the cherubim recorded in Song 12 was so pervasive that it was even included in the Targum of Ezekiel 1:24.

Most scholars have interpreted the thirteen texts in this group as being read by the human worshiping community to heavenly angels and elohim in joint worship. The humans ascend to heaven to join the worship there.  This is one form of the “worship = ascending to the presence of God” doctrine which is a recurring, though not constant, motif in those sources outside the biblical stream.

Songs of the Sage (4Q510, 4Q511)

These two texts, of which the second is significantly longer, are hymns to God that call on the righteous to praise him.  Frequently the unrighteous are denounced, along with unclean owls and Lilith.  They also deal more with theurgy and magic. Thus, these texts show more of a divergence from the biblical stream of thinking.

Philo. The concept of the heavenly tabernacle/temple was very important and explicit in some of Philo’s writings.  Philo’s view here, as with much of what he writes, reflects Platonic cosmology and philosophy, borrowing as he does at times from Plato’s Timaeus.   For instance, De Specialibus Legibus 1.66 views the universe as a whole as a temple when it says, “We ought to look upon the universal world as the highest and truest temple of God . . . .”  In other texts, he uses allegorical interpretation to draw correspondence between the parts of the tabernacle and the parts of the cosmos.  In still other texts, he relies heavily on a Platonic understanding of the ideal sanctuary being in heaven, and the copy being on earth.

 

IMPORTANT DOCTRINES

There were several important doctrines during the Second Temple period, though whether they preceded the second temple or not depends in part on how one dates the texts.  One doctrine was the belief that the righteous, cultic (e.g., worshiping) human community was also part of God’s sod (Ps 25:14; but even more Ps 111:1; also Prov 3:32). The sod seems to have been the primary ecclesiological model in post-exilic times (Fabry). The accompanying belief was that the worshipers were in some way and some sense divinized (i.e., the human worshipers became divine, just like the heavenly beings on which they were modeled, variously called qodeshim (holy ones), beney ’elohim (sons of God), kokabim (stars), etc.).

Another doctrine that was important during the second temple period was that of a second divine being separate from YHWH and yet equal to him in power and essence, even to the point of forgiving sin and receiving worship.  Daniel 7 is the most obvious text, but there are many other texts.  Again, just when these doctrines appeared and began to develop is not always clear, since many later texts find their exegetical basis in earlier ones.  (The monkey wrench that can be thrown in this assertion is that the earlier texts are often terse, and simply do not give the level of detail that later ones do.)  This second being was called by various titles, such as the Word, Wisdom, Name, and Glory.

“The Word” is used in Genesis 15:1-6. It also is used in Exodus, Philo, and the Targums. The Aramaic memra’ means “the word,” and it is used in the creation account and elsewhere, where the Memra creates the world. The Memra is closely associated with the Name (haššem), and is quite important.  It has been traced back to the second century B.C. in DSS texts by Robert Hayward, Divine Name and Presence: The Memra, 147-49.   The Name is used in Exodus 32, where God’s Name passes by Moses. In Lev 24:11, it occurs in an account of blasphemy. It is also used in 1 Kings 8, where Solomon’s prayer states that if anyone prays to Yahweh’s Name in the Temple, Yahweh in heaven will hear it.  Several of the psalms can also be read this way. Wisdom is found most obviously in Prov 8:22-31, as well as some apocryphal works and DSS. “Glory,” following Ezekiel 10 at the latest, also was significant. “The [Glory] here too is like an independent being, almost a hypostasis of God: the majesty of God represents God himself.  The usage in Ezek 1—3 is linked with that in 8—11 and 43—44 by this hypostatization . . . .  He is the first to depict the [Glory] as an independent being representing God and appearing in brilliant light”(Westermann 602). So in conclusion, by the second temple period at the latest, the Jews had common, orthodox traditions of a second divine being in heaven  who created the world and received worship both from humans and celestial beings.

 

SACRED MEALS

Sacred meals should also be briefly mentioned. Within the Bible, but pre-dating both the First and Second Temples, The sacred meal in Exodus 24 on Mount Sinai would possibly be an example of a blended situation, since God (heaven) came down on the mountain to eat with them. Like I mentioned before, even though this text was not written during the post-exilic Persian period (though mainstream scholars claim it is because it deals with themes related to the priesthood, which they argue was “late”)—this text and others formed the basis for the later texts, and it continued to be influential. Other texts that pick up this topic and develop it in terms of an eschatological meal include Isa. 25:6-7 and Isa. 65:13-17.

Exodus 24: 7-14 (from before the First Temple period)

 7 Then he took the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!”

 8 So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.”

 9 Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel,

 10 and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself.

 11 Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they saw God, and they ate and drank. (ESV)

 

Isaiah 25:6-8.

 6 The LORD of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain; A banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow, And refined, aged wine.

 7 And on this mountain He will swallow up the covering which is over all peoples, Even the veil which is stretched over all nations.

 8 He will swallow up death for all time, And the Lord GOD will wipe tears away from all faces, And He will remove the reproach of His people from all the earth; For the LORD has spoken.

 

Isa. 65:13. Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: “Behold, my servants shall eat, but you shall be hungry; behold, my servants shall drink, but you shall be thirsty; behold, my servants shall rejoice, but you shall be put to shame; (Isa. 65:13 ESV)

 

At Qumran, 1QSa mentions mal’akim being present during a meal, but without further explanation. Because the word mal’akim means “messengers,” some scholars have argued that it merely refers to human messengers from outside the community. Other scholars, however, argue that these are heavenly messengers (e.g., “angels”). Basically, I think it probably was a reference to a heavenly messenger, but since there is no further development of this idea, the text is not very important.

Finally, there is another meal mentioned both in the Bible and at Ugarit, though with very little explanation. The marzeah is not generally regarded as a sacred meal any longer by scholars, since it seems that it was likely associated with private drinking clubs, at least at Ugarit.

 

 

NOTES/BIBLIOGRAPHY

Jean Daniélou, Theology of Jewish Christianity I.

K. Beale, NIGTC, Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999),

Daniel Boyarin, “The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John,” in HTR 94 (2001) 243-84.

J. Krause, Psalms 1-59: A Commentary (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988)

G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001).

David E. Aune, WBC, 3 volumes: Revelation 1—5, Revelation 6—16, and Revelation 17—22.

Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 1—12.

George Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1 (Hermeneia).

James Davila, Liturgical Works.

Claus Westermann, “kbd” TLOT 2.

Robert Hayward, Divine Name and Presence: The Memra.

H. Ringgren, “עמד,” in TDOT 11.182-85.

Grundmann, “‘ίστημι,” TDNT 7.641, 43.

 

Update on Jaime Maussan’s Fake Alien Mummy Circus

The UFO Watchdog blog recently posted an update on the alleged alien mummy brought to Gaia TV by Jaime Maussan. Jaime of course has a long, glorious history of hoaxing.

You can read the update here in full, but it’s basically about how the World Congress on Mummy Studies (yes, that’s a real scientific organization) has issued a statement calling Jaime’s latest circus act a disinformation fraud. One wonders why Christian researchers focused on Peruvian elongated skulls haven’t tried to work with these professionals. . . . but let’s not digress. Here’s a Google translation of the World Congress on Mummy Studies statement posted at the UFO Watchdog site (original here):

Statement by the scientific community

About the fraud of alien mummies



Adherents to this document, members of the national and international scientific community, experts in the study and preservation of human remains (mummies and skeletons), communicate the following:
1.- for some time now, the alleged discovery of “Alien mummies” in our country has been publicized through an irresponsible organized campaign of disinformation.

2.- the published testimonies and images make it possible to affirm that these findings correspond, without any doubt, to human remains Colombian – the cultural heritage of the nation. Furthermore, the exclusion of the entire related archaeological context is absolutely contrary to the scientific research of this kind of cultural property.

3.- it is up to the authorities to make the corresponding complaints, since this ‘production’ has violated numerous national and international standards which ensure the defence of cultural heritage. We hope that these same authorities will ensure the proper protection and proper investigation of these remains, as well as their place of origin, in order to stop the huaqueo and trafficking of human remains. We also expect exemplary sanctions for those responsible for this predation of the heritage which is of all Peruvians and humanity.

4.- Finally, these illegal and criminal actions in a human body violate human dignity. In particular, the exploitation of pre-Columbian mummies carried out by these people, assaults and offends the Andean Culture, implying that their achievements were due to so-called ‘External Aid’.

The undersigned offer our best offices to work with the authorities to demonstrate our statements in the relevant bodies. We also offer to participate in activities that contribute to defending and highlighting the importance of our cultural heritage, legacy of our ancestors.



Sonia Guillén O ‘ Negglio (Identity Card 04649168), Guido Lombardi Almonacín (Identity Card 06959233), Elsa Tomasto-Cagigao (ID 07258405), María Del Carmen Vega Dulanto (ID 10308912), Melissa Lund Valley (ID 07763061), Patricia Maita (ID 25835019), Martha Palma (ID 10537749), Carlos Herz Sáenz (Identity Card 07913390), Alejandra Valverde Barbosa (Identity Card 48813194), Marcela Urizar Vergara (CI 11347428-9), Claudia Aranda (ID: 20056087 ), Leandro Luna (ID: 23511760).



DECLARATION OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY REGARDING



THE FRAUD OF EXTRATERRESTRIAL MUMMIES



The subscribers of this document, members of the national and international scientific community, experts in the study and conservation of human remains (mummies and skeletons), communicate the following:



1.- In the last few months, the alleged discovery of “extraterrestrial mummies” in our country has been publicized through an irresponsible, organized disinformation campaign.



2.- Testimonies and published images on this case, allow to assert that these findings correspond undoubtedly to pre-Columbian human remains – Cultural Patrimony of the Nation, maliciously manipulated and even mutilated to obtain an ‘ad hoc’ appearance for commercial exploitation. Moreover, the exclusion of the entire related archaeological contexts is absolutely contrary to the scientific investigation of this kind of cultural finds.



3.- It is upon our authorities to make the corresponding accusations, since this ‘production’ has violated numerous national and international norms that watch for the defense of Cultural Heritage. We hope that these same authorities will seek the protection and correct investigation of these remains and their place of origin, in order to stop looting and trafficking of human remains. We also expect exemplary sanctions for those responsible of this depredation of heritage that is of all Peruvians and Humanity as a whole.



4.- Finally, the criminal abuse of corpses for petty ends violates human dignity in a profound way. Thus, exploitation of pre-Columbian mummies carried out by this organization, attacks and particularly offends the Andean Culture, implying that its achievements were due to an alleged ‘alien aid’.



We offer our best offices to collaborate with the authorities to demonstrate our statements in the corresponding instances. We also offer to participate in activities that would defend our patrimony and help educate the public about our ancestors and their legacy.



Sonia Guillén O ‘ Negglio (Identity Card 04649168), Guido Lombardi Almonacín (Identity Card 06959233), Elsa Tomasto-Cagigao (ID 07258405), María Del Carmen Vega Dulanto (ID 10308912), Melissa Lund Valley (ID 07763061), Patricia Maita (ID 25835019), Martha Palma (ID 10537749), Carlos Herz Sáenz (Identity Card 07913390), Alejandra Valverde Barbosa (Identity Card 48813194), Marcela Urizar Vergara (CI 11347428-9), Claudia Aranda (ID: 20056087 ), Leandro Luna (ID: 23511760).

I don’t know what laws there are in Peru against mis-using an ancient corpse. That’s one method of how this specimen could have been faked. It may be a serious crime. I can only hope that all those responsible get caught and wind up in jail.

Heavenly Worship in Second Temple Judaism, Early Christianity, and Gnostic Sects: Part 1

By guest blogger, Stephen L. Huebscher

This series was originally written as an academic paper for presentation at a conference. At the time, we were doing research on the divine council for what ended up in Mike’s book The Unseen Realm. I had told Mike I was interested in worship. He helped me design a topic that was more likely to be included in the program, and this was the result! At the conference, I was assigned a time slot late in the day in a tiny room that was hard to find. Only a handful of people came. Nevertheless, there are some really interesting conclusions here (to me at least) that say, in the simplest terms: worshiping God with other believers in a church is important. There is more to worship than what is here, but there is not less. Someday, I hope to write a book on worship, and this will be part of it, somehow.

Ancient peoples often believed that heavenly (celestial) worship provided a normative or authoritative pattern for earthly worship. They also commonly believed in some kind of divine transformation (e.g., glorification) in the presence of the god or God. The biblical texts tended to belong to one stream (though not exclusively), while the texts with a platonic-like cosmology tended to belong to another stream (again, with exceptions).  Over time the divergence between the two became greater, and shows up most obviously later in the mystical Jewish hekhalot texts (which are not covered here). One of the difficulties of this study is that non-biblical texts, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Gnostic manuscripts, are often highly fragmented and with little context, so most conclusions are tentative, whether explicitly stated or not.

STEP ONE: DEVELOPING A VOCABULARY

Here is a brief overview of some of the key words and concepts relating to worship, some of which are not obviously connected with worship at a first glance. Obvious worship words are the easy ones, words like “sing,” “worship,” “priest,” “sacrifice,” “incense,” and “pray,” especially when several of these are used together in phrases such as “sing the praise of x.”  Subtle worship words are a bit more tricky, like “congregation,” “assembly,” “stand before,” “serve,” “bow,” “remember.”  These words are more dependent on the context for their liturgical meaning.  For this study, I have coined or at least adopted terms to identify kinds of language that I did not otherwise have language for. There are several groups of this. For instance, what I will call exaltation words are not directly about worship, but often give the context where worship is implied. This includes phrases like “exalted above every name,” “exalted in the heavenlies,” etc.  There can be overlap with cosmological words.  Cosmological words are also not directly about worship, but often give the context where worship is implied.  This would include such things as “the highest heaven,” “the heaven of heaven,” “ascending,” etc. Architectural words include things like “temple,” “palace,” “tabernacle,” “house,” and “tent.”  All of these words can be used for the dwelling place of a god/God, and therefore also for the place of worship.

STEP TWO: RECOGNIZING THE BIBLICAL, HEAVENLY PARADIGM

Many of the key texts from the earlier part of the Old Testament continued to be influential. Contrary to what mainstream scholars hold, I believe that much of the Pentateuch is from the time of Moses. Look at the emphasis on the heavenly source for worship that we find in Exodus 25:9,40. (Actually, this idea of a heavenly pattern was fairly common throughout in the ANE.)

 Exodus 25:9, 40. Exactly as I show you concerning the pattern of the tabernacle, and of all its furniture, so you shall make it. (v. 9 ESV) And see that you make them after the pattern for them, which is being shown you on the mountain. (v. 40 ESV)

One of the last books written in the Old Testament was the book of Chronicles, along with others such as Ezra and Nehemiah. In Chronicles, at the end of the Old Testament period in the Persian times, we find that the biblical author repeated this same idea about the importance of the heavenly source and paradigm for Israel’s worship. Notice this text, which refers to the plans for Solomon’s temple:

 1 Chron. 28:19. All of this the LORD made clear to David directly in a document, including the plan for all of the work. (1 Chr. 28:19 CEB)

Later on, early Christian writers (both biblical and post-biblical) also used terminology that points to this kind of understanding, both in Scripture and in the first few centuries following.

 Luke 20:4. The baptism of John—was it from heaven or men? [The implication is that if it was based on a heavenly paradigm, then it should  be recognized as authoritative.]

 Hebrews 9:24. Christ has entered, not copies, but heaven. [The assumption is that earthly temples are copies of the heavenly sanctuary.]

 Ignatius Trall 3.1. Similarly, let everyone respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, just as they should respect the bishop, who is a model of the Father, and the presbyters as God’s council and as the band of the apostles.  Without these no group can be called a church. [This implies that the local church reflects in a physical way the heavenly council paradigm.]

 Ignatius, Magn 6.1. Be eager to do everything in godly harmony, the bishop presiding in the place of God and the presbyters in the place [= Greek topos; variant, Greek typos = “after the model”] of the council of the apostles and the deacons . . . .  [Again, Ignatius is drawing a parallel between the local church as the visible representation of the celestial divine council.]

 Passion Perpetua & Felicitas 4. This was the vision I had.  I saw a ladder of tremendous height made of bronze, reaching all the way to the heavens, but it was so narrow that only one person could climb up at a time. . . .  At the foot of the ladder lay a dragon of enormous size. . . .  I trod on his head and went up.  Then I saw an immense garden, and in it a grey-haired man sat in shepherd’s garb; tall he was, and milking sheep.  And standing around him were many thousands of people clad in white garments.  He raised his head, looked at me, and said: ‘I am glad you have come, my child.’  He called me over to him and gave me, as it were, a mouthful of the milk he was drawing; and I took it into my cupped hands and consumed it.  And all those who stood around said:  ‘Amen!’  At the sound of this word I came to, with the taste of something sweet still in my mouth. [In this important text, Perpetua, who was an early Christian martyr, reports a vision given to her in which God is pictured as an old man and the martyrs in heaven celebrate the Eucharist.  The implication is that these early Christians who recorded and handed this story on believed that they were worshiping the same way that those in heaven were worshiping.]

 Origen, Commentary on John 13.99. For just as the angels (as even the Jews would agree) do not worship the Father in Jerusalem because they worship the Father in a better way than those in Jerusalem, so those who can already be like the angels in their attitude will not worship the Father in Jerusalem but in a better way than those in Jerusalem . . . . [boldface added; Origen claims Jewish support for the idea that heavenly worship is superior to earthly worship, and then adds that Christians who are already like the angels in their attitude will worship God in a superior, i.e., a heavenly, way.  Thus, Origen holds that Christian worship is on par with the heavenly worship, and seems to reflect a belief in a heavenly paradigm.]

 Origen, Commentary on John 13.146. We want to honor God in truth and no longer in types, shadows, and examples, even as the angels do not serve God in examples and the shadow of heavenly realities, but in realities that belong to the spiritual and heavenly order, having a high priest of the order of Melchisedech as leader of the saving worship for those who need both the mystical and secret contemplation. [Origen believes that Christian worship, unlike Gnostic worship, participates currently in a real way in the celestial worship, thus reflecting belief in a heavenly liturgy of which Jewish worship was a shadow.]

 In the coming posts, we’ll look at OT texts, Second Temple non-biblical Jewish texts, NT and early Christian texts, and then drawing some general conclusions.

 

NOTES/BIBLIOGRAPHY

All quotations from the Apostolic Fathers are from the translation of Lightfoot, Harner, Holmes, 2nd edition.

All quotations of Origen’s Commentary on John 13-32 are from Ronald E. Heine, trans., FOTC, Origen: Commentary on the Gospel According to John Books 13—32 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1993).  Thanks to Peter Martens for pointing out this passage to me.

“The Martyrdom of Saints Perpetua and Felicitas,” in Acts of the Christian Martyrs, trans. Herbert Musurillo (London, UK: Oxford University Press, 1972), 111-13.

New Cherubim and Seraphim Video

Here’s the latest video (thanks to Shaun’s work!). It does a good job summarizing how to parse the cherubim and seraphim (and how not to over-read that material).

 

Unseen Realm Kindle Problem

I’m aware (from numerous emails) that there is a problem with the order/delivery of Unseen Realm for Kindle. It has to do with the high number of hyperlinked Scripture references in the Kindle file. The publisher (Lexham Press) tells me that the book is just too biblical for Kindle!

Not Good News: The New NAR “Passion Translation” of the Bible

This just popped into my In box. I apologize for being so behind the curve on this but, as I noted on my “About” page, I don’t follow the NAR (New Apostolic Reformation) nor do I think its distinctive teachings are scriptural. But lots of movements have those sorts of problems . . . but not all movements produce their own translation of the Bible to prop up their teachings. The NAR has moved down that road.

As Holly Pivec writes:

Simmons has taken verses of Scripture that have nothing to do with NAR teachings or practices and reworded them so they appear to support those very teachings and practices , such as  “prophetic singing,” the “transference of an anointing,”  and the issuing of “apostolic decrees.” In other words, despite his claim to unveil the truth of the Bible “unfiltered by religious jargon,” he’s actually exploiting his audience’s ignorance of sound textual criticism to smuggle in a heterodox theology along with a good measure of NAR jargon. . . . But, for now, I want to point out that this translation is potentially one of the most disturbing developments in the NAR movement. Simmons is following in the footsteps of the major cults of Christianity who have released their own translations of the Bible, including the New World Translation used by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Joseph Smith Translation used by some groups of Mormons.

Readers can read through her series on this translation here.

The entire NAR New Testament is supposed to be complete this year. Maybe it already is. The project passes itself off as a careful translation from the original languages, but when I read (on its FAQ) that they’re following “Aramaic manuscripts” of the New Testament in places, the radar in my head goes off. The idea is to bias readers to think they’ve discovered something new or not used to this point in producing an English translation. There are NO (as in zero) Aramaic manuscripts of the New Testament that predate the Greek material. Nor would it make sense to have the New Testament written in Aramaic in the first place, save for perhaps one of the gospels. Why? Half of it was written to Gentiles for starters, not Jews whose native language was Aramaic. But I digress — there are no Aramaic manuscripts of the New Testament that compete for primacy. The page must therefore be referring to Aramaic TRANSLATIONS of the New Testament (Syriac, for example, an Aramaic dialect), all of which are much later than the Greek New Testament material.

In addition, here’s the answer to the question of who is doing the translation and what credentials does the translator have:

Dr. Simmons is a former missionary, linguist, minister, and Bible teacher. As a missionary, he and his wife, Candice, pioneered church plants in Central America. As a linguist, Brian co-translated the Paya-Kuna New Testament for the Paya-Kuna people of Panama. He and his wife have birthed numerous ministries, including a dynamic church, Gateway Christian Fellowship, in West Haven, Connecticut. He is also a gifted teacher of the Bible who has authored several books and serves churches worldwide through his teaching ministry.

Brian began his biblical studies with The New Tribes Bible Institute and continued on to earn his doctorate with Wagner Leadership Institute, with a specialization on prayer. His doctoral thesis is now published, Prayer Partners with Jesus, available on Amazon.com.

Pardon me, but a dissertation on prayer has nothing to do with being able to work well in Hebrew and Greek. Neither does being a linguist or missionary. Using the word “linguist” will mesmerize many who inquire. Don’t be fooled. Many missionaries who do this sort of work translate the Bible from English into the new language. My guess is that’s what’s going on here for the most part, with periodic forays into a Hebrew or Greek lexicon (keyed to Strong’s numbers). What you want for translation work is a team, first of all. Pivec’s quotation above about single-translator translations being a hallmark of weird, peripheral movements is on target. Team (committee) translations are the way serious projects are done — and everyone at every stage has extensive knowledge of Hebrew and Greek so they can intelligently review the work of team members.

There are other red flags for me on the FAQ page, but you can read through it if you’re interested.

Catholic Skeptic Candida Moss at it Again

Someone just sent me this short article from the Daily Beast by church historian Candida Moss: “Nero, the Execution of Peter and Paul, and the Biggest Fake News in Early Christian History.” Basically, it’s about how Christians really weren’t persecuted by Nero as part of the great fire of Rome because the term “Christian” wasn’t in use by 64 AD. If you’re thinking the book of Acts’ references to Christians rebut that, Moss just says you can’t trust Acts — it was written after 64 AD (Moss notes scholars disagree but basically just ignores that point; see below). Candida Moss was the scholar who told us that Christians really weren’t persecuted like church tradition has it. Scholars have pointed out that her definition of persecution was too narrow — essentially front-loading the conclusion in the data.

Sigh.

Aside from the fact that plenty of scholars would assign an early date to Acts which would fit just fine with the Nero chronology, this idea is another example of scholarly illogic. (I’ve mentioned before how I once said — in a doctoral seminar — that all scholars should be forced to take at least one course in logic). Moss commits the (I should think obvious) logical error of presuming no one used a term in SPOKEN discourse before a term was WRITTEN. Really? Think about the illogic of that. Did peoples whose languages were never preserved via writing not have a vocabulary? Scholars regularly make this mistake — equating communication and its vocabulary with writing instead of …  well … SPEECH.

The point is that lots of people could have been referring to Christ-followers as Christians before the term was ever put into a piece of literature.

For those curious about the dating of Acts, here are some excerpts from sourced discussions (footnote content is not copied):

Schnabel

As regards the date of composition, most scholars assume that Luke wrote the book of Acts between AD 80–90. This date is predicated on two factors: the dependence of Luke-Acts on the gospel of Mark, and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 which is regarded to be presupposed both by Mark 13 and by Luke 19:43–44; 21:20. To begin with the second argument: since the description of the fate of Jerusalem by Mark (and Luke) contains many Old Testament and Jewish motifs (Daniel; 1-2 Maccabees), and since we should not discount the possibility of genuine prophecy, the date of AD 70 as terminus post quem for the composition of both Mark’s gospel and Luke’s two volume work is not compelling. The first argument raises the issue of the reliability of the two-source hypothesis (Mark wrote his gospel first, and both Matthew and Luke depend on Mark as well as on a source which contained mostly sayings of Jesus), which continues to be disputed; and it begs the question when the gospel of Mark was written—some scholars are prepared to date Mark as early as AD 55. If Luke’s gospel is indeed dependent on Mark’s gospel, and if Luke wrote Acts shortly after having written his gospel, a date of Mark in the late 50s or even in 60/61 would allow for the completion of Acts certainly before AD 70 and possibly before the date at which Luke’s narrative in Acts ends (Paul is a prisoner in Rome from AD 60–62). This leaves the possibility that Luke published Acts before he knew the outcome of Paul’s trial.

The ending of Acts which relates Paul being under house arrest in Rome, preaching the gospel, does not by necessity presuppose that Acts was written before AD 62. If Paul was indeed released from prison, as 2 Tim 4 suggests and 1 Clement 5:5–7 presupposes, Luke may have written Acts soon after Paul’s release in AD 62. Luke’s silence about Paul’s acquittal and about Paul’s renewed missionary activity could be explained by his desire not to alert the apostle’s enemies about the location of his ministry. Or Luke took Paul’s preaching in Rome to be a more suitable climax for his narrative than a reference to Paul’s continuing ministry in the churches of the East.40 A date not long after AD 62 is suggested not only by the lack of reference to Nero’s persecution of Roman Christians between AD 64–67 and Paul’s (and Peter’s) martyrdom, but also by the fact that the Jewish revolt against the Romans in AD 66 and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 are not reflected in Luke’s portrayal of the Jews and of Jewish institutions in Jerusalem and in the diaspora. Irenaeus (Haer. 3.1.1; 3.14.1) and Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 2.22.6) assert that Luke-Acts was written in Rome, which is a good possibility, particularly in view of the historical considerations connected with the date of Acts, but certainty is not possible in this matter.

Eckhard J. Schnabel, Acts (Expanded Digital Edition.; Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012).

Bock

The date of Acts is tied to discussion of the date of Luke’s Gospel (Bock 1994a: 16–18). As the sequel, Acts would have come after the completion of the Gospel, and so the discussion is tied to the two books as well as to the Gospel of Luke’s relationship to the other Gospels (Fitzmyer 1998: 51–55 has a solid survey of the issues here). Acts could have been written no earlier than AD 62, since there is discussion of Paul’s imprisonment in Rome. Some scholars argue for allusions to Acts in the Pastoral Epistles, such as in 2 Tim. 3:11 or the mention of Luke in 2 Tim. 4:11, but such connections are not certain (Conzelmann 1987: xxvii).

Conzelmann (1987: xxvii–xxxiii) covers potential allusions to Acts in the later writings of the church, as does Bruce (1990: 10–12). Potential allusions include 1 Clem. 2.2 (Acts 2:17); 1 Clem. 5.4, 7 (Acts 1:25); Pol. Phil. 2.3 (Acts 20:35); Pol. Phil. 6.3 (Acts 7:52); Pol. Phil. 12.2 (Acts 2:5; 4:12; 8:21; 20:32); Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 50.12 (Acts 1:8). Such allusions would mean that the work was completed by the turn of the first century.

Two options dominate the discussion of the date of writing. One possibility is sometime in the 60s. The other is the period AD 70–100. Hemer (1989: 367–70) has a good list of adherents for all such options over about the last century, including those who opt for a date as late as AD 135, a decidedly minority third view. The latter date assumes that a noncompanion of Paul wrote this work and that the unified tradition surrounding Luke is completely wrong, as he would not have lived to such a late date.

The major arguments for a date in the 60s are the absence of references to Paul’s death and/or the lack of resolution of his Roman imprisonment (Kistemaker 1990: 22–24, opts for a date before Nero’s persecutions in AD 64). Reasons are as follows: (1) Those who point to the lack of resolution on the imprisonment favor an early 60s date. Those who emphasize no mention of Paul’s death favor a date in the mid- to late 60s. The rationale here is that if a writer had written after AD 70, then how could the outcome of this imprisonment or the eventual death of Paul in about AD 67 not have been noted? The argument is more against a later date than for the earlier date, since it is an argument from silence. (2) The absence of any mention of Nero’s persecution also suggests an earlier date in a time before Rome attacked the new movement. Bruce (1990: 14) responds, however, that the Romans themselves regarded Nero’s behavior as an aberration of Roman standards, so nothing need change in how someone writing after AD 62–64 saw the Romans as a whole. (3) There also is no hint of the war with the Jews in the late 60s. Here too the argument is more against a late date and is grounded on what is not covered. (4) It is also suggested that the positive tone in engaging Judaism comes before there was a major split. (5) Finally, the lack of discussion of Paul’s letters is said to favor an earlier date. The argument for a late date must suppose that the author of Acts ignored these letters, which would have been well known by the later period.

A date in the early 60s relies a great deal on the lack of resolution of Paul’s fate. Hemer (1989: 383) asks rhetorically about the argument for the nonresolution of Paul’s fate, “If Paul’s fate were immaterial, why tantalize the reader with a cryptic and unnecessary focus on it?” If there are reasons to suggest a resolution is not necessary to the author’s account, however, then the rationale for an early 60s date is weakened. And there is such an explanation: whether Paul (or any messenger of the gospel) dies or not in bringing the message is not as relevant as the message being proclaimed, which is exactly where Acts ends. The message reaches Rome as God had promised Paul. In Acts, we have martyrs for the faith such as Stephen and those who are merely persecuted. In each case, the gospel message is shared (Bruce 1990: 13). This is Luke’s key point. It must be admitted that this argument for an early date has some force. The question is whether it is compelling enough in light of other factors that also are at work in determining the date of Acts.

Critics of a date in the 60s, or at least the early 60s, note that abrupt endings occur elsewhere in the canon and do not impact dating. For example, Mark’s Gospel likely does not develop the resurrection appearances—a surprise—and such an omission is the clear choice of its author. So how much can one make of such an argument (Fitzmyer 1998: 52)? It may well be that the death of Paul is alluded to delicately in Acts 20:24–25. But the real reason for objecting to this date is that it requires an early date for Mark’s Gospel, which most place, at the earliest, in the 60s as well (Fitzmyer 1998: 53). A late-60s date or a post-70 date for Acts escapes this objection.

Those favoring a late date tend to base it on the fact that Acts follows Luke’s Gospel and then argue that Luke’s Gospel was written in a post-70 setting. This view depends more on how Luke’s Gospel is dated than on evidence from Acts. The key to this discussion is whether Luke’s treatment of the Olivet Discourse and its focus on the city of Jerusalem more than the temple reflect a post-70 perspective, something that is also debated. In addition, those holding this view appeal to allusions to Israel’s house being desolate or the unique description of Rome’s forces surrounding Jerusalem in Luke 19:41–44. The argument is that these texts with their unique details about how Jerusalem was put under siege require that Jerusalem had already experienced judgment, which means a date after AD 70. Since all these passages that are invoked for the date of Luke’s Gospel appear in prophetic contexts, the possibility of prediction cannot be excluded; this renders their use for dating problematic, especially when it is possible that Jesus saw Israel headed for covenantal judgment because of its rejection of his message, something taught in Jewish sacred texts (Bock 1994a: 17).

Those who favor an AD 80–100 date also refute the idea that the book could be later in origin, such as AD 115–30, because its theology does not reflect the period of the early second century.

A decision here is difficult. In favor of an early date are the use of Paul in Acts and the lack of explicit development of the fall of Jerusalem. For a date after AD 65 but before AD 90 stands the connection of Acts to issues tied to the date of the Gospels and details in Luke. For reasons argued in Bock 1994a: 17, I do not find the post-70 dating of Luke on the basis of eschatological texts convincing, but the relationship of Acts to the dating of the Gospels is an important factor for this topic. The latter would tend to favor a date in the late 60s. Marshall (1980: 46–48) speaks of a “towards AD 70” date. This date is suggested by the lack of explicit reference to AD 70 and by the lack of any effort to draw upon the “legacy” of Paul in contrast to Acts’ focus on Paul’s own ministry activity. Luke might even be writing when he can sense the approach of Jerusalem’s defeat by Rome. Either Acts is written so much after AD 70 that these issues are no longer worth noting, because they are a given, or it is written before it. On balance, the latter is more likely.

Darrell L. Bock, Acts (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 25–27.

Guthrie

 

In a historical book such as Acts, which constitutes the main document on primitive Christianity, the date of production is clearly of considerable importance. As so often in problems of dating New Testament books, the prior decision regarding authorship will naturally affect the presuppositions with which the subject is approached. Moreover, in this case, the decision already reached regarding the date of the third gospel will clearly have an influence on the date of Acts, since this book must be dated subsequent to Luke. Our present approach will be first to treat the subject of date in the light of the traditional position concerning authorship, and then to discuss alternatives. If, of course, the conclusions regarding date demand a period too late to make the traditional authorship possible, it would require a fresh consideration of the latter problem.

There are three main proposals: first, before A.D. 64, secondly, A.D. 70–85, and thirdly, a second-century date. They will be considered in this order.

a. Arguments for a date before A.D. 64

(i) The absence of reference to important events which happened between A.D. 60 and 70. The fall of Jerusalem is nowhere referred to and, although it is not decisive that Luke must have hinted at it if it had already occurred, there is a strong presumption in favour of this opinion. It would have been difficult for him to avoid some allusion to it, although it must be recognized that the destiny of Jerusalem would not have appeared so tragic to the Christian church as a whole as it would to the Jewish people. At the same time it is not without significance that Luke in his gospel centres more attention on Jerusalem than do his fellow synoptists.2

Another event of importance was the persecution of the church under the Emperor Nero. This precipitated so great a crisis that it is difficult to imagine that the earliest Christian historian could have ignored it so completely if he wrote after the event. Although the geographical area affected was confined to Italy, it is still astonishing that Luke makes no mention of it in ending his story at Rome. The only other possibilities would be to suppose that Acts was written after such an interval that the grim details of the horror had faded from the author’s mind, or else that he was unaware of it. It might just conceivably be argued that the author would have no cause to mention it, in which case it could be discounted as a factor affecting dating, but probability is on the side of a date before it.4

A further event of less widespread importance, but one which might well have interested Luke, was the martyrdom of James, the Lord’s brother. In fact Luke mentions two early martyrs: James, son of Zebedee, and Stephen. Moreover, the description of James’ position as president of the Jerusalem church and the care with which Luke describes his relationships with Paul show that the author regarded him as a key figure in primitive Christian history.

Yet all these three suggestions are arguments from silence and must be used with reserve.

(ii) The absence of reference to the death of Paul. The abrupt ending of Acts has for long been an enigma. The author leaves his readers with a description of Paul, a prisoner at Rome, but enjoying considerable liberty to preach and teach. Yet there is no indication about what happened to Paul after this. The reason for the abrupt ending is subject to various interpretations and these must be carefully examined in considering its effect upon the dating.

1. The author records all he knew. If, at the time of writing, Paul was still in his own hired house awaiting further developments, the abruptness is at once explained. There was nothing else to report.

2. The author did not wish to mention the outcome of the trial. It is suggested that he knew of Paul’s death, but that it was no part of his purpose to close with this. Such a procedure would, in fact, draw too much attention to the man, whereas Luke’s purpose was to describe rather the progress of the gospel. It has even been suggested that to conclude with Paul’s death would hint at a parallel with the conclusion of the gospel with its climax in the passion story and that it was to avoid this that Luke omits all reference to it.3 But this latter motive would not be applicable if the gospel and Acts were conceived as a continuous narrative, and in any case the author regarded the passion of Jesus as the beginning and not the end of the real work of Jesus in the world. It is not sufficient, on the other hand, to propose a theory of the author’s intention without supplying an adequate motive for the intention, and it may be questioned whether this condition has been fulfilled. It seems incredible that an author should devote so much space to relating the details of the trial of Paul and then leave the reader wholly in the dark with regard to its outcome.2

3. The author intended to write a third volume. On the analogy of the connection between the gospel and Acts it has been proposed that Luke had in mind another volume which would have related the subsequent history of Paul and his associates, and this has had the support of some notable scholars. It would, of course, get over the difficulty of the abrupt end of Acts, but such a desirable end is achieved only by the postulation of an entirely hypothetical volume which has left no trace in Christian history. The theory admittedly does not demand that the proposed volume should have left any trace, for it does not demand that Luke actually wrote the third instalment.4 It would suffice that the author intended to write it. But Acts does not give the impression that it was written as part of a continuing series. The gospel has reached Rome and this forms a natural climax to the history of the primitive period. There is something to be said for the objection that it is difficult to imagine what a third volume would have contained in order to have reached the same spiritual stature as the two former volumes. Moreover the great amount of space devoted to Paul’s trials is unintelligible as an introduction to a further narrative of the same kind. In other words, it is easier to assume that Paul’s trial was still in progress than that the author has in this way drawn his second book to a close in anticipating a third volume. While the suggestion cannot be ruled out, it cannot be said to be very convincing.

The silence of Acts regarding the death of Paul may, therefore, be said to raise a presumption in favour of an early date. But one objection to this conclusion needs to be noted. In Acts 20:25 some scholars find clear evidence that the author knew that martyrdom crowned Paul’s Roman imprisonment. But if this passage preserves the genuine tradition of Paul’s address to the Ephesian elders, it is capable of being interpreted as a presentiment on Paul’s part without necessitating the presumption that it must have been fulfilled. After all, Paul’s plans, according to Romans, were to turn westwards towards Spain and he evidently at that time had no intention of revisiting Ephesus.2 The Pasoral Epistles, if dated after the end of Acts, presuppose that he did. Those scholars who claim to fit the Pastoral personalia into the Acts structure would not see these epistles as being in conflict with the Acts 20 reference. Those who dispute an early date for Acts almost invariably regard the Pastorals as non-Pauline and for them the line of argument lacks validity.

(iii) The primitive character of the subject-matter. It is significant that the major interests of the author of Acts are those prevalent in the earliest period of church history, but which were not so relevant in later times. The Jewish-Gentile controversy is dominant and all other evidence apart from Acts suggests that this was a vital issue only in the period before the fall of Jerusalem. Even by the time of Paul’s later letters it had ceased to be a burning issue. Moreover, the question of Gentile inclusion was taken for granted when once the universal character of the Christian church had been established. Again, the preoccupation with food requirements in the report of the decisions of the Jerusalem Council points to an early stage of Christian development. Before the fall of Jerusalem all these factors were of vital significance.

(iv) The primitive nature of the theology. Supporting evidence of a more incidental character, but nevertheless highly significant, is found in the theological language. The whole book gives the impression of primitiveness. Such titles for Jesus as ‘the Christ’, ‘the Servant of God’, ‘the Son of man’, reflect primitive tradition. Equally primitive are the description of Christians as ‘disciples’, the use of λαός for the Jewish nation, and the reference to the first day of the week when Christians met together to break bread. Either the author writes early enough to be in direct, living touch with actual eyewitnesses, or he possesses such remarkable historical skill that he is able to reproduce with clear fidelity the primitive climate of thought. The former alternative is the more credible.

(v) The attitude of the state towards the church. Luke is at pains to demonstrate the impartiality of the imperial officials regarding Christianity. In no case is it the Roman officials who persecute the church. The local government at Ephesus is represented as distinctly helpful towards Paul and his companions, while the cause of persecution against the church is in every case the intrigues of the Jews. This is precisely what might be expected before Nero’s persecution in A.D. 64, but subsequent to that date the imperial officials would be more suspicious of Christianity and less inclined to treat it under the general concession to Judaism as a religio licita. The concluding word in Acts (ἀκωλύτως) is significant in this respect, for it forms a fitting climax to Luke’s design to show the unhindered progress of the gospel.

(vi) The relation of Acts to the Pauline epistles. It is universally admitted that the author of Acts shows little or no acquaintance with Paul’s epistles and it may reasonably be claimed as a consequence that Acts must have been published before the collection of the Corpus Paulinism, or at least before this collection had much general circulation. There are differences of opinion as to when the collection was made, but this circumstance favours as early a date as possible for Acts. Those who consider that the collection was actually prompted by the publication of Acts assume a period, subsequent to Paul’s death, during which he was neglected, and this automatically excludes an early date for Acts, but the whole theory is open to challenge.2

b. Arguments for a date between A.D. 70 and 85.

The major reason for preferring this to the earlier date is the author’s use of Mark. It has already been shown that the dating of Luke generally takes as its starting point the date of Mark as A.D. 60–69 and assumes that Luke has adjusted the vague reference in Mark 13 to ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ to the more specific ‘surrounded with armies’ through his knowledge of the details of the siege. In other words, Luke is supposed to have written after A.D. 70. In that case Acts would clearly need to be dated later still. Reasons have already been given why this widely accepted dating of Luke may be challenged, and if the gospel is dated as early as A.D. 60 (see discussion on p. 130 f.) this would suggest an early date for Acts and would be in keeping with the argument already given for a date before A.D. 64. It is a doubtful method of dating early books to use a particular interpretation of the one available datum and then to build a superstructure of other books upon it. It will be clear that if a predictive element in the ministry of Jesus is allowed the whole basis of this generally held dating collapses.

It should nevertheless be noted that not all who accept the traditional authorship of Luke date the book before the fall of Jerusalem. If Luke is the author and it is deemed necessary to date his gospel after A.D. 70, the upper limit for the dating of Acts is restricted only by the probability of Luke’s life-span, which is very difficult to estimate. It would certainly not be impossible for Luke to have written Acts any time up to about A.D. 85 but it could hardly have been much later. A date between A.D. 70 and 85 is, therefore, preferred by the majority of scholars.

E. J. Goodspeed produced a list of additional reasons for a date as late as A.D. 90 for Luke–Acts, which were mainly inferences from the contents. Late features, according to him, can be seen in certain literary characteristics, in the infancy interest, in the resurrection interest, in the doctrine of the Spirit, primitive miracles, cessation of the Jewish controversy, interest in psalmody, church organization, primitive glossolalia, the inferences from 20:25, 38 that Paul is dead, Paul’s heroic stature, the emergence of the sects, lack of acquaintance with Paul’s letters and the historical background of a successful Gentile mission. Quite apart from the questionable character of some of Goodspeed’s inferences (e.g. that Paul is dead from Acts 20:25, 38), it is by no means clear that any of the points he mentions requires a date any later than the early sixties. In any case he accepts Lucan authorship and supposes that the author collected his material long before his book was actually published.

c. Arguments for a second-century date

Earlier critics of the Tübingen school popularized a second-century dating for Acts because their reconstruction of the history demanded it. The reconciliation tendency of the author to patch up the Petrine Pauline clash required a considerable time interval to develop. But the subjective character of this kind of criticism has assured its doom and the dismissal of the historical reconstruction of this school of thought has caused a general disinclination towards a second-century dating. But there are still some arguments which are advanced in support of this dating.

(i) The relation of Acts to Josephus. The fact that both Acts (in the speech of Gamaliel, 5:36) and Josephus refer to a rising under a Jew named Theudas has given rise to the theory that the author of Acts consulted Josephus’ Antiquities while writing his history. If this deduction is correct Acts must be dated after A.D. 94. An alleged contradiction between Josephus and the gospel has already been cited in discussing the dating of Luke (see p. 127 f.), and a similar contradiction is suggested here. Acts places the rising of Theudas before the rising of Judas the Galilean, but the latter happened in the time of Augustus, while Josephus dates the former at a period subsequent to Gamaliel’s speech. There are two possible explanations. Either one of these reports must be wrong, or else the Theudas mentioned by Luke was not the Theudas mentioned by Josephus. Most scholars prefer the former alternative and generally presume that the historian in error must be Luke. But the author of Acts almost certainly did not consult Josephus, for had he done so he would surely not have made so obvious a blunder. Moreover, it is no more self-evident that Acts must be wrong and Josephus correct than vice versa. It is, of course, possible that two rebellions were instigated by men named Theudas, since this was a fairly common name, but such a theory is none too convincing without corroborating evidence.

(ii) The relation of Acts to second-century writers. Some scholars have gone much farther than Josephus and have found affinities between Acts and the second-century Church Fathers. It has been maintained that Justin shared the same theological outlook as Acts although he makes no literary use of the book. But theological affinities are a precarious method of assessing dating, for the theory that Acts and Justin’s works were both produced about the same time is certainly not the only explanation of the relationship, nor is it even the most reasonable, for it raises far more problems than it solves.2 It may be assumed that Acts was linked with the third gospel almost from its inception, in which case it would be inconceivable for Marcion to have been acquainted with Luke and not Acts. But it would have been equally improbable for Marcion to have chosen as his one gospel a book which was clearly not of ancient standing. All the evidence points to an arbitrary rejection of Acts by Marcion on the same grounds as those on which he rejected the remaining gospels.

A second-century dating of Acts which gained such favour among earlier critics is not likely to be reinstituted by any argument based on theological affinities, in view of the strong traditional testimony against such a theory. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine that the strong impression Acts gives of recording factual details, particularly in the latter part dealing with Paul’s activities, is the work of a second-century writer. It is far less credible to regard the book as the product of a writer’s historical imagination than it is to regard it as the record of one who was in close proximity to the events he relates—which would be the case with a first-century dating

Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (4th rev. ed.; The Master Reference Collection; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996), 355–365.

 

Article on Rethinking Biblical Language Instruction by Naked Bible Podcast Guests Just Published

Last November I interviewed Dr. Carl Sanders and Dr. Thomas Hudgins about their controversial paper delivered at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. The paper argues that major shifts in thinking about how biblical languages are taught and what the goals of that instruction should be are long overdue. I was of course in agreement (I’m quoted in the conference paper).

The paper has now been published in an academic journal:

Carl Sanders, “Biblical language instruction by the book: Rethinking the status quaestionis,” Teaching Theology and Religion 20:3 (2017): 216-229

As with most journal articles, it is not publicly accessible online unless you subscribe to the journal, or have access to journal databases via an academic institution. Here’s the abstract:

Grammar-translation pedagogy is the standard for biblical language instruction. Second language acquisition scholars have argued that grammar-translation is ineffective and not empirically justified. Moreover, evidence suggests most seminary graduates do not use biblical languages effectively in ministry. Task-based instruction is an important alternative pedagogy which focuses on the tasks students will be using the language for and designs the curriculum around those tasks. A task-based approach de-emphasizes translation and memorization of forms. Instead, the emphasis from the beginning is on biblical interpretation and exposition. Available software based resources offer new possibilities for task-based teaching, as students can identify forms and vocabulary and have access to a library of resources. A task-based pedagogy using these tools enables students to quickly develop skills in biblical interpretation that are normally reserved for the third or fourth semester of study. Task-based pedagogy offers great promise for effective and efficient biblical language pedagogy.