Michael S. Heiser's Blog, page 64

Genesis 6:1-4 and Historical Christian Thought

Ever wonder how folks like Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin thought about Genesis 6:1-4? This essay I came across today provides a decent overview. I’m thinking some readers will find it interesting.

Technorati Tags: Aquinas, Calvin, Christianity, Genesis 6, Luther, nephilim, sons of God

Touring Israel Via Google Street View

Check out this link from the Biblical Studies and Technology blog.

It’s cool, but also a bit creepy. I still care about not living in a Google bubble.

Technorati Tags: earth, Google, Jerusalem, street, tour, view, virtual

Biblical Theology, Poverty, and Social Justice, Part 7

Time to get back to this series!

Review of Earlier Part 6

It’s been a while since I posted Part 6 of this study/discussion. Hopefully by now many of you have read the two items I linked to in Part 6:

“Poverty and Poor: New Testament” from Anchor Bible Dictionary

“Rich and Poor” from the dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels

In Part 6 I had summarized the findings of Parts 1-5 (our look at OT words and teaching about the poor, poverty, and a “welfare state”). Here were the conclusions we reached for the OT mindset:

(1) The poor can be described as poor because of their own laziness, lack of wisdom, or other self-induced circumstance.

(2) Some passages do involve both private wealthy individuals and wealthy state officials exploiting the poor.

(3) There is no scriptural justification for presuming that wealth is some sort of inherent corrupter of persons that invariably prompts them to oppress the poor or that always peripherally leads to the oppression of the poor.

(4) Biblical thoughts on poverty and economics were linked to the covenant relationship between Yahweh and each Israelite. Each Israelite is responsible for the poor individually. Consequently, a biblical theology of poverty is focused on the individual being compassionate to the poor. There is no sense of handing this responsibility off to an impersonal state. Also consequently, this responsibility should not be usurped by the state for its own manipulation and power, such as creating dependency on itself.

(5) A welfare state should (for the Bible-believer) be viewed as a sign of the failure of the Church, not as a clever and useful creation of the human state so the Church can move on to more “spiritual” pursuits.

(6) The question therefore becomes, What should Christians strive for and support when it comes to alleviating poverty? What is “biblical social justice”? The answer is not the act of blessing the operation and growth of the welfare state as a solution to poverty. Rather, it is the a response of individuals, motivated by compassion and a desire to obey the commands of God to take care of the poor.

(7) If the question is what is a biblical theology of the care for poor, the answer is the individual, or individuals operating as a like-minded group, under the guidance of biblical revelation from a God who hates poverty and injustice. The answer is not the empowerment of a corruptible state. That is the secular God-less answer. We ought not baptize the secular answer to make it appear biblical; that is a deceit.

(8) Lastly, it is quite inconsistent for activists, politicians, or anyone else to proof-text biblical material to prop up any view of social justice or of a welfare state and then simultaneously reject biblical statements (which have the same theopolitical context) on other points of morality and social responsibility. That’s just hermeneutical hypocrisy.

Shifting to the New Testament

So what about the NT Mindset? I had asked you to read through the two items noted above with a goal toward evaluating the content — Was what the writer said consistent with the above conclusions and the OT data on which those conclusions are based?

In what follows, I’ll be pointing to some parts of the readings that I think are a bit misguided. As so often happens in scholarly (and generally religious) discussion about poverty and “social justice,” there is often a propensity to having passages say too much (i.e., overstating the case) and to make what is said sound like a political system or statement.I think you’ll understand what I mean here as we proceed.

First, I think the articles do a godo job surveying the relevant NT Greek terms: ptōchós (“poor, oppressed,” lit. “beggar”; the most common NT term); pénēs (used once in the NT: 2 Cor 8:9); penichrós (“poor”); endeḗs (“needy”); and chreia (“need”). The author summarized the word usage by concluding that the terms “generally designate persons and groups lacking (totally or in some degree) the necessities of life: food, drink, clothing, shelter, health, land/employment, freedom, dignity and honor.” That seems a fair and defensible summary.

I was less satisfied with some of the overstatements and theologizing that extended from the summary. For example:

The author writers that “James is the NT writing that stands closest to the OT prophets in its perspective on poverty and oppression ” and then follows with “James never blames the victims (for sloth, vice, genetic inferiority, etc.); rather he focuses on oppression as the basic cause of poverty.” As we’ve seen in surveying the OT material, that isn’t true. Proverbs, for example, does blame poverty on laziness or sloth. It’s more accurate to say that most of the OT commentary doesn’t say anything about how a person became poor. This is not to exclude the idea that other people (the wealthy, foreign armies) cause poverty and engage in victimization. It’s just to point out an overstatement, and one that can be used for political-speak via the material.

I have a bigger problem with the connection of help for the poor to the gospel. This is typical of modern social justice talk. For instance, the author writes that a (apparently) articulating the gospel in terms of doctrine “may fail to recognize that the prophetic denunciation of oppression is an essential part of evangelism, conceived as the proclamation of good news—preferentially—to the poor.” This is followed by “[James'] understanding of justification (cf. “condemnation,” 2:12–13; 3:8–9; 4:11–12; 5:6) dignifies the poor, focusing on the paired examples of Abraham, an immigrant (like James’ recipients), and Rahab, the woman who showed hospitality to Israel’s migrant ancestors.”

It takes little thought to show the miguided nature of this sort of analysis, which unfortunately infects the data in places. The gospel is not preferentially presented to the poor in the NT. It is clearly for all who will believe (John 3:16) and the book of Acts has Paul and others taking the gospel — a theological message about the work of Jesus on the cross — to the rich and powerful as well as the poor (e.g., Cornelius, Festus, Agrippa, synagogue leaders, etc.). God is not more positively predisposed to the poor, as though he has more compassion for them, or that there is less of a spiritual gulf between Him and them. In Acts 16 when the Philippian jailor asks Paul and Silas “What must I do to be saved?” the answer is not “feed the poor” or “alleviate poverty.” It is the clear “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.” Likewise, this is Paul’s clear understanding in many instances in his letters (e.g., Rom 10:9-10). The example of Abraham is an awkwardly edited one — Abraham was an immigrant (let’s set aside the modern connotation of that term) but he was exceedingly wealthy. Rahab is also a poor example, as her faith statement wasn’t “I’m protecting you because you’re members of an oppressed class” but “For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, to Sihon and Og, whom you devoted to destruction. And as soon as we heard it, our hearts melted, and there was no spirit left in any man because of you, for the Lord your God, he is God in the heavens above and on the earth beneath” (Josh 2:10-11).

Overlooked in the connection between bringing the truth of the OT God or of Jesus to the poor is a more obvious rationale (at least to me). The point of the deliberate inclusion and even focus on the poor with respect to the good news is not some sort of notion that the poor are special objects of salvation — but that they are included. Ancient Near Eastern religions were elite-focused. The gods installed the kings and priests; “theology” was dispensed through the elite classes to the masses to manipulative ends. That the poor were explicitly stated to also be in covenant relationship to Yahweh (OT thinking) and genuine targets of God’s love through the cross (NT thinking) would have been startling concepts. The point was not that God loved the poor more, or that the poor were somehow on the road to heaven because they were poor, or that Jesus died more for the poor than the rich — it is that the salvation plan of God is no respecter of persons. The focus on the non-elite audiences of the gospels is also a mode designed to highlight the unbelief of the priestly class — the very people who should have understood, but valued their power and prestige more than truth — to the point of plotting the death of the messiah. This emphasis is a “focus alert” not a definition of what humanity must do to be saved or what the gospel is.

More generally, it ought to be obvious that the NT shows deep concern for the poor, as the OT focus on that concern is transparent. I think the articles do a good job of showing that consistency, despite the sort of thinking noted above. But just as wealth did nothing when it came to salvation, so a poverty status does nothing with respect to salvation. OT and NT salvation are very consistent. There is no human merit. It’s about where one’s faith/loyalty is: the God of Israel and Jesus Christ.

Anyway, to cut the length here, these are my initial thoughts. I’ll return to the articles in the next installment. Hope several of you weigh in.

Technorati Tags: Bible, gospel, New Testament, Old Testament, poor, poverty, social justice

The Talmud, Midrash, and Ramen Noodles

When I was in college and grad school friends and I would often joke about whether books or food were a higher priority. Sure, it was funny, but every once in a while there was something that actually turned the conversation serious. Some of us literally (I speak to my shame) cut corners on money for pizza, burgers, laundry, etc. to buy something for our library. It was Ramen time.

There are few resources I’d say are so valuable that I’d eat Ramen noodles for a few weeks to cover it. One is DDD (Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible). Another just hit pre-pub at Logos. It’s something we’ve talked about internally for years that I never thought I’d see. New Testament scholars have asked us many times to produce it, but it was a daunting task. I’m still a little surprised it’s actually taking shape.

I’m talking about the six-volume Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (“Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and the Midrash”) by Hermann Strack and Paul Billerbeck. You’re probably thinking, “Really, Mike? A six-volume commentary in German?” Yep. Now here’s the kicker: Logos has paid to have it professionally translated into English.

This set is in a league of its own — sort of a holy grail for NT studies. It is a massive collection of material from the Talmud and Midrash material applied to the contents of the New Testament in commentary form. Strack and Billerbeck how these ancient Jewish sources intelligently inform our reading of the New Testament in its Jewish religious context. Though a lot of scholarship has been done on Second-Temple Judaism since Strack and Billerbeck published their work, nothing has come close to replacing it.

Here’s how one scholar, Wayne Grudem, summed it up:

This reference work is unique in the entire world. It is the only work that has ever compiled, verse by verse, such extensive background quotations from Jewish literature around the time of Christ for every passage in the New Testament. But until now, it was only available in German.

With this resource in English, we no longer have to depend on commentators who confidently claim (sometimes incorrectly), “The rabbis at the time of Christ taught this or that,” because now all the relevant quotations from this vast and diverse rabbinic literature can be quickly found here in one place—and in English rather than the original Hebrew.

And in digital, searchable, indexed form, I might add.

For anyone interested in New Testament research, it’s time to start boiling the water. Get it on pre-pub while you can.

 

Technorati Tags: billerbeck, commentary, judaism, midrash, New Testament, strack, Talmud

New Logos Resource Series for Understanding Biblical Criticism

The Logos Bible Software blog announced a pre-pub today for a four-volume book series (with ample visuals and info-graphics) that I’m excited about. Its aim is to educate (in plain language) non-specialists in the methods of biblical criticism scholars use with regularity in commentaries and journal articles. I don’t contribute to the series. Rather, other scholars who work at Logos are behind the effort. It’s called the Lexham Methods Series.

The product homepage describes the series as helping Bible students “Absorb the methods behind commentators’ works—and the history that led to the formation of their methods.” Each volume serves as a ”guidebook for self-study and deeper research, and the foundation for sharing with others through professionally designed slides.” The four areas of biblical criticism covered in the volumes are:

Volume 1: Textual Criticism—Overview, Old Testament Textual Criticism, New Testament Textual Criticism

Volume 2: Traditional Criticism—Source, Form, Tradition, History, Redaction

Volume 3: Linguistic Criticism—Linguistic Analysis, Discourse Analysis

Volume 4: Literary Criticism—Structuralist, Rhetorical, Social-Scientific, Narrative, Canonical

The blog post describes the first of the four volumes – the one on textual criticism, a subject near and dear to many Naked Bible readers. Check it out!

 

Technorati Tags: biblical, book, criticism, form, literary, redaction, rhetorical, source, structuralist, textual, tools, tradition, volume

Patristic Citations of the New Testament Text

The Evangelical Textual Criticism blog recently drew attention to some useful resources and strategies for detecting and researching citations of the Greek NT in the Greek church fathers. Have a look!

Technorati Tags: church fathers, citations, greek, New Testament, patristic, quotations

Brief Nephilim Note

I’ve added an archive page devoted to the nephilim discussion to try and arrange those items. It includes comment material.

My Thoughts on Nephilim: Answering a Criticism

Some readers have drawn my attention to this recent criticism of my understanding of the morphology of the word nephilim. I left some comments on that blog site, but thought it would be worth a post here. I’ll try to be brief (stop laughing).

First, it is true that most scholars see nephilim (spelled npylym [נפילים] or nplym [נפלים]) deriving from the Hebrew root n-p-l (naphal; נפל; “to fall”). And I’ve never denied that. That argument considers the word nephilim to be a noun of the qatîl pattern with the same meaning as the verb lemma. Again, I’ve never denied this is possible. My argument is, as I’ll outline below, that this explanation lacks coherence.

Second, the argument that the writer cannot find any instances of the plural nephilin (ending with “n” – the presumed plural form that would derive from the Aramaic noun naphila, “giant”) in ancient Aramaic texts dating to the biblical period is a red herring. It means no more than my own observation that there are no other instances in the Hebrew Bible for a qatîl pattern word from naphal besides the presumed instance of nephilim. So both of the “where are the corroborative examples?” arguments cancel each other. It’s a meaningless objection. Frankly, this whole approach of “I need to find X outside the Bible for the X I’m looking to be X” is one reason I insist that biblical scholars ought to take a course in logic. Sure, it’s nice to find a second example of something in another source. But that doesn’t logically mean that what you’re looking at can’t be X. Put another way, if you found one pig that could fly you wouldn’t need to find a second one so you could say you knew of a flying pig. Since the corpus of the Hebrew Bible (and really all ancient Hebrew and Aramaic) is so small, it’s a bit odd that we’d think a morphologically possible word formation isn’t possible unless we found an example of that possibility. The morphology either works within the rules of the language’s morphology or it doesn’t. My proposal does (and the post criticizing my view didn’t deny that – it only sought an external example).

This brings me to the heart of the matter — the incoherence of reading “fallen ones” when your eyes hit npylym [נפילים] or nplym [נפלים]. Here’s why I think naphal is an inferior explanation to the one I propose. It has to do with the way the term is handled in the Septuagint (it is translated with gigantes; “giants”) being a coherent translation choice with the linking of giant clans described in the Torah and Joshua with the word nephilim in Num 13:33. I’ll try to unpack it.

My question is simple: Why would a Septuagint (LXX) translator look at nephilim (npylym [נפילים]; nplym [נפלים]) and *not* choose a straightforward Greek translation of “fallen ones” using a Greek lemma that meant “to fall”? Had the translator understood the word to derive from naphal (“to fall”), the translation choice would *not* have been gigantes (“giants”) in Greek. And so, Why would gigantes have popped into the translator’s head instead? How does the LXX translator’s choice make any sense if the derivation of nephilim was so transparently from naphal (“to fall”)? Put another way, how does the translator look at a word that, we are told, so clearly means “fallen ones” and conclude, “I think I’ll use ‘giants’ for that”?

I think the answer to the above is pretty simple: The translator thought gigantes when he saw nephilim because the Aramaic word naphila popped into his head. But that raises the question, “Why would Aramaic naphila pop into his head?” He’s a Hellenistic Jew!

Yes, he was. He lived after the exile.

There are two trajectories I follow at this point:

1. We cannot forget that by the time of the LXX’s creation, Jewish scholars (the guys who did the LXX) had a thorough acquaintance with Aramaic — because they were living in a post-exilic era. Aramaic had taken over as the primary language within the Jewish community. It would be absurd to say that the translators couldn’t have thought in terms of Aramaic. I would add that it would be very odd for the LXX translators not to think nephilim might have come from Aramaic naphila because of the following thought.

2. Not only wold Aramaic be a possible thing to have floating around in one’s head as an LXX translator, but it would be logical to think in such terms *since the Hebrew Bible itself* associates the giant-sized Anakim with the word nephilim in Num 13:33.

Honestly, this doesn’t feel complicated to me. In light of these two realities, is it really implausible to think that the LXX translator could look at nephilim (npylym [נפילים]; nplym [נפלים]) and think, “Hey, the word I’m looking at might be based on a plural of naphila — a word that means giant?” I don’t think that’s at all implausible. Frankly, it brings all the issues together. I’m trying to make sense of the word (a) as applied to the Anakim by some editor in the exile – the Aramaic nursery for Jewish thinkers – and (b) as understood by ancient translators. The discussion extends beyond nuts and bolts morphology to the pursuit of coherence in the ancient material.

So here’s what I need (for starters – I really am trying to be brief) from the opposition:

Give me a coherent explanation as to why an LXX translator would look at npylym [נפילים]; nplym [נפלים] and conclude that “giants” (gigantes) made sense for translation into Greek from a lemma that means “to fall.”

I propose that, while both approaches are possible, my explanation accounts for all the details, but the naphal view does not.

Technorati Tags: Anakim, Aramaic, Genesis, giants, Heiser, LXX, nephilim, Numbers, septuagint

Scholarly Journal for Septuagint Studies Now Available Online

Thanks to Peter Gentry for this note.

Thanks to the hard work of Ben Wright and Jay Treat, volumes 1-33 (1968-2000) of the Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (BIOSCS) are now available in PDF online. The IOSCS printed these first 33 volumes and have obtained permission from the current publisher (Eisenbrauns) to post these volumes online.

Note: Translation ability in Greek and Hebrew is needed to get the most out of this material, but some of the articles may still be quite useful to those who lack that training.

Technorati Tags: Hebrew Bible, journal, LXX, MT, Old Testament, septuagint, textual criticism

Why Sodom and Gomorrah are Not Located at Tall al-Hamman

Todd Bolen at the Bible Places blog begins his post on this  issue this way:

“The proposal that Sodom has been found on the northeastern side of the Dead Sea has been around for a decade or so, but with the publication of an article by Steven Collins this month it will receive the widest hearing to date. I thought it might be helpful for readers of Biblical Archaeology Review to know where to go for another perspective.”

Indeed, and a useful post it is.

Bolen adds:

“[T]he excavator of Tall al-Hammam insists that by identifying the site as Sodom he is supporting the historicity of the Bible. In fact, if his theory is true, we cannot trust the Bible for accurate details about times and places. Tall al-Hammam is certainly a significant site, but Sodom is surely to be found elsewhere.”

Technorati Tags: al-hamman, archaeology, Bible, biblical, gomorrah, Old Testament, sodom