Michael S. Heiser's Blog, page 75
May 16, 2012
Fragments of the Book of Nehemiah Found in Qumran Cave 4 Material
Everyone knows that no portion of Esther and Nehemiah were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls . . . until now.
May 13, 2012
Naked Bible Podcast Episode 009 Uploaded
This episode discusses another problem passage related to baptism: Acts 22:16.
Technorati Tags: acts 22:16, Baptism, forgiveness, salvation, sins
May 10, 2012
Genesis 1:2 and the Verb HAYAH
Here is a link to a short (13:00 or so) video I made searching for the structure of Genesis 1:2 and its verb, hayah (“to be”) The video was prompted by a comment to an earlier post I made about the “gap theory.” That theory of interpreting Genesis 1:1-3 in part depends on translating the verb hayah as “became” (instead of “was”). The video shows there is only one other passage that pretty closely approximates the structure of Gen 1:2 where the verb hayah is present. The point I make is that there is nothing in that second verse to merit the idea that the verse (or anything surrounding it) describes a “becoming” (as opposed to a mere state of existence).
Again, the gap theory has nothing exegetically to commend it. But it’s real death knell is the clause structure of Genesis 1:1-3 anyway.
The file is large (HD), but runs on Quicktime. Give it time to load.
Technorati Tags: creation, gap theory, Genesis, hayah
May 7, 2012
MEMRA Deadline Approaching
Just a reminder. The deadline for MEMRA registration at a discount ends June 1, roughly three weeks from now. It will be a firm deadline.
May 5, 2012
Naked Bible Podcast Episode 008: Problem Passages and Baptism: 1 Peter 3:14-22
May 4, 2012
Review of Peter Enns’ Book, The Evolution of Adam
This review of Peter Enns’ short but important book, Evolution of Adam, The: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins
, is getting some discussion on the web. I just finished Enns’ book, so I want to share some impressions of this review and what Enns is saying. I’ll eventually post something of greater substance on this. I’ve been following the discussion between Christian geneticists, biblical scholars, and certain science apologetics sites relating to the problem of a historical Adam. I say “problem” because the recent work mapping the human and Neanderthal genome (and comparing both to other primate genomes) has brought the issue of whether there was a historical Adam to the forefront. And this concerns more than Genesis 1-3; Romans 5 and the whole idea of the sinfulness of humankind is tied to Adam.
In a nutshell, when it comes to the Old Testament, Enns’ position is that evolution is a given, and that Adam in Genesis was designed by the biblical writers to typify Israel (see here for a brief overview of his view). He does a good job of briefly demonstrating that (incidentally, a longer academic monograph on this subject just appeared in print: Adam as Israel: Genesis 1-3 as the Introduction to the Torah and Tanakh
). When Enns gets to the New Testament and Paul (if I read him correctly) his position is that Paul was wrong about Adam, but right about Jesus (who is the “second Adam”). To explain, Enns is saying Paul’s view of Adam assumed a single historical individual, which is untenable in the wake of evolutionary science. Paul’s use of that pre-scientific point of ignorance, however, does not mar the correctness of his conclusions about Jesus as being the necessary and exclusive Savior of all.
Readers know that I would agree that the Bible is a pre-scientific document. I would also agree that theological conclusions based (in part) on pre-scientific misunderstandings are not undone (presuming the idea and argument is demonstrable from the text in other ways — ways also used by the biblical authors). So, in principle, I’m not offended by Enns’ take; but I actually don’t agree with the way he expresses things. I would talk about Adam and Paul differently. But that is for another post.
Getting to the review linked above, I’m wasn’t impressed with it, though others have been. It’s foundational criticism of Enns is not coherent, and that fact mars the efficacy of it as a critique. The brief excerpt below illustrates why. The author writes of Enns’ approach:
There is literally no mention (that I could find) in which the meaning of the Scriptures is linked to what the divine Author might have intended.[1] So when Enns speaks of what Genesis means, he always and only refers to “the biblical authors” (xvii) or “the Israelites” (42)—these are the only operative “authors” in the entire analysis. . . . Note who populates the terrain of biblical interpretation here: Genesis (or the “authors of Genesis”), Paul, and us. Does it feel like anything is missing? Or Anyone?
His implication is that God is missing, but that reflects flawed thinking. The reviewer’s God is too small. When scholars like Enns (or myself, or John Walton, whom the review also mentions) insist that Genesis was produced by people, we affirm the (biblically and practically) obvious: God used people to produce the inspired text. When we insist that the product of their hands (and other hands, with respecting to any editing) resulted in what God wanted, God is still very obviously in charge. He doesn’t take days off. We presume God was pleased with the result (and of course knew of the result). When we insist that the biblical material must — to be correctly understood — be interpreted in light of its ancient Near Eastern environment, as opposed to an interpretive context like the Reformation, the early Church, the Enlightenment, or modern fundamentalism and evangelicalism, we affirm God’s own decisions in the matter and process of inspiration. In other words, GOD chose the time, the place, the people, the cultural-religious context, the pre-scientific context, etc., for intervening in human affairs and lives to produce this thing we call the Bible.
To say Enns is divorcing God from the biblical content is to demonstrate ignorance of where Enns and other scholars are really at, intellectually and theologically. Think of it this way: Enns (and myself, along with other scholars) think of inspiration as a process akin to the way virtually all orthodox Christians (and so, surely, the reviewer) think of canonicity. Human fingerprints are all over the canonical process, but God was providentially present and active through the entirety of the process. Inspiration worked the same way. Inspiration of the biblical material came via a process, not a paranormal event. Why is the reviewer unwilling to take as a view of inspiration the precise view he (if he is in the orthodox mainstream) takes of the canon?
At any rate, I recommend Enns’ book since the issue is of great importance, and his work is readable. I’ll return to the topic at some point in the near future.
Technorati Tags: Adam, creation, doctrine, Enns, evolution, Genesis, Paul, theology
May 3, 2012
Esther and the Dead Sea Scrolls
Todd Bolen posted a short, interesting piece today on why the book of Esther is not found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Check it out!
April 30, 2012
Naked Bible Podcast Episode 007 Fixed
Just letting everyone know!
April 29, 2012
Naked Bible Podcast 007 Uploaded
No, it’s not about James Bond. Click through to find out!
Technorati Tags: Baptism, baptizo, immersion, mode, pouring, sprinkling
April 27, 2012
Mike To Appear in Documentary Debunking Cult Archaeology
This will be repetitive for those who follow my other blogs, but I want to give it as much exposure as possible.
I’ll be interviewed later this summer for the documentary film response to the History Channel’s Ancient Aliens series. The documentary is called Ancient Aliens Debunked. If you visit the link you can sign up for email notification when the documentary is released. It will be FREE and viewable online. There is also a trailer for the documentary on that site (it’s cool). The film is being produced by Chris White. Since the documentary will be free, all of the expense incurred by Chris is his own. This has been true of his online and YouTube ministry since its inception. Please visit his site to donate and help support this project!
Technorati Tags: ancient aliens, chris white, debunked, documentary
Michael S. Heiser's Blog
- Michael S. Heiser's profile
- 921 followers
