Michael S. Heiser's Blog, page 82

Apostolic Fathers Greek-English Interlinear

Just wanted to give everyone a heads up on another cool new resource from Logos!

This interlinear of the early church fathers (Greek text and English translation in a searchable interlinear) just went on pre-pub ($29.95 for a limited time). You can read all about it at the Logos blog. (Thanks should go to Logos Greek data-slinger Rick Brannan who spearheaded the project and did the alignment).

In case you are unfamiliar with who these fathers are, here is the list of texts in the interlinear:

1 Clement
2 Clement
Epistles of Ignatius
Epistles of Ignatius to the Ephesians
Epistles of Ignatius to the Magnesians
Epistles of Ignatius to the Trallians
Epistles of Ignatius to the Romans
Epistles of Ignatius to the Philadelphians
Epistles of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
Epistles of Ignatius to Polycarp
The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
The Didache
The Epistle of Barnabas
The Shepherd of Hermas
The Martyrdom of Polycarp
The Epistle to Diognetus

[image error] Share on Facebook

Addendum on the Divine Council / Eschatology Conference

I just wanted to make sure all Naked Bible readers knew that the conference I announced here will be streamed online.  There are only 100 slots, though, so space is limited and you need to register soon (only three weeks away).  Details on registration are here.

[image error] Share on Facebook

Divine Council / Biblical Theology Conference (with Some Eschatology Tossed In)

Toward the end of this month I'll be speaking for three days in Lehighton, PA. I rarely speak anywhere except at academic conferences.  This will not be a large on-site event by design, so space is indeed limited (I have spoken for this group before). Here is a link with all the details. Registration is available at that link. Here are the basics:

Seminar Topics to Include:



Unseen world and its structure in Old & New Testaments



Cosmic geography in Old & New Testaments



Role of the unseen world in eschatology



How all this relates to eschatology





Friday October 28, 2011






8:15 – 8:30 AM
Registration


8:30 – 12 Noon
Morning Session


12 Noon – 2:00 PM
Lunch on your own


2:00 PM – 5:00 PM
Afternoon Session






Saturday October 29, 2011






8:30 – 12 Noon
Morning Session


12 Noon – 2:00 PM
Lunch on your own


2:00 PM – 5:00 PM
Afternoon Session






Sunday October 30, 2011






8:30 – 12 Noon
Morning Session


12 Noon – 2:00 PM
Lunch on your own


2:00 PM – 5:00 PM
Afternoon Session

[image error] Share on Facebook

Thoughts on the Bridegroom of Blood

Just wanted to summarize some thoughts on the passage before moving on to my next "all commentaries are not created equal" illustration. I think I can summarize the best thinking on the passage in a comprehensible way now that you have all been exposed to solid commentary material, as well as add a few thoughts of my own into the mix.

Exodus 4:24-26 and the "Bridegroom of Blood"

This passage is regularly spoken of by scholars as one of the more enigmatic texts in the Old Testament. The passage is placed in the context of Moses' return to Egypt, but the rationale for its placement is obscure. The passage in that context reads as follows (ESV):

21 And the Lord said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. 22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the Lord, Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I say to you, "Let my son go that he may serve me." If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son.' "

24 At a lodging place on the way the Lord met him and sought to put him to death. 25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and touched Moses' feet with it and said, "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!" 26 So he let him alone. It was then that she said, "A bridegroom of blood," because of the circumcision.

The apparent incoherence of the placement and the meaning of verses 24-26 extends from the fact that it makes little sense for God to want to kill Moses right after He has called him to return to Egypt as the chosen delivered of Israel. In addition to this theological conundrum, the passage lacks clarity because the referent of certain verbs and pronouns is ambiguous, and certain expressions used in the passage have unclear meanings.

Two points of uncertainty are especially important. First, who is it that the LORD wanted to put to death? Most readers assume it is Moses since he is mentioned in the preceding verses, but verse 24 does not name him. Since it is Moses' son (Gershom; Exod 2:22) whose foreskin is removed in verse 24, he could very well be the person under threat of death. Second, what does it mean that Zipporah, Moses' wife (Exod 2:21), would touch the foreskin of her son to Moses' "feet"? Two additional factors make this question even more troublesome. The name "Moses" does not appear in the Hebrew text, which literally reads "touched his feet."  A translation that includes "Moses" is therefore interpretive. Consequently, Zipporah could have taken the foreskin and touched either Moses or Gershom. One also has to determine what is meant by "feet" since the word can refer to feet, legs, or genitals according to Old Testament usage (see f. Judg. 3:24; 1 Sam 24:3; 2 Kings 18:27 = Isa. 36:12; 7:20; cf. Deut 28:57; Ezek 16:25; Ruth 3:4, 7). Gaining clarity on all these issues is crucial to a coherent interpretation.

With Whom Was God Angry and Why?

It seems best to conclude that God is angry with Moses, not Gershom, since Moses is the major character in the wider context and Gershom is known only from Exod 2:22 at this point. Scholars have noted that Moses is the center of Yahweh's attention everywhere else, even in the digressions involving Aaron (Exod 4:14, 27-29). But why would God be angry with Moses? The answer must be inferred from two considerations: the fact that the Israelites born in Egypt were not circumcised according to the Abrahamic covenant (Josh 5:2-9; cp. Gen 17) and the circumstances of Moses' birth and childhood (Exod 1-2). We will consider these in order.

Archaeologists and Egyptologists know that circumcision was practiced in Egypt by the Egyptians. However, Egyptian circumcision did not remove the foreskin; rather, the foreskin was split. For this reason, any Israelite born in Egypt who happened to be circumcised in this way had not been circumcised in a manner acceptable to God's covenant. This disdain for Egyptian circumcision may be hinted at in Josh 5:9 ("the reproach of Egypt"). Considering that the pharaoh had sought to kill Hebrew newborn boys (Exod 1:15-21), a Hebrew child undergoing Egyptian circumcision would be very rare—and possibly applicable only to Moses, given the fact that he wound up being the son of Pharaoh's daughter and since the Israelite men who came out of Egypt had not been circumcised at all (Josh 5:2-9). This suggests that "the reproach of Egypt" that was "rolled away" by God in the circumcision ceremony in the days of Joshua probably referred to the fact that Israelite males born in Egypt had never been circumcised. And this in turn means that Moses' own "reproach" had been removed earlier—in this incident in Exod 4:24-26.

Who Was Circumcised and What Did It Mean?

Since the other Israelites males were circumcised prior to the conquest in Josh 5:2-9 at Gilgal, it is reasonable to assume that Moses also had never been circumcised, or was circumcised according to the Egyptian custom. The narrative of Moses' birth and childhood never states his parents had him circumcised, which is quite consistent with the need for the ritual described in Josh 5:2-9. Had the boy been marked by Hebrew circumcision, his life would likely have been in danger in Pharaoh's household. We can only speculate whether Pharaoh's daughter had him circumcised in the Egyptian manner after he entered her household. In any event, he did not bear the covenant sign.

God's anger at Moses in Exod 4, long before the incident in Josh 5, may be due to the fact that Moses had not bothered to obey the ritual as a free man in Midian, away from the circumstances in Egypt. That the Midianites practiced circumcision is apparent from the fact that Zipporah has access to the correct tool and knows how to perform the rite. Having chosen Moses to be His representative to deliver Israel, Moses' laxity in this matter became an issue with God. Hence His anger that Moses had not bothered to be circumcised before leaving on his mission.

This leaves the question of whether Moses or his son Gershom was circumcised. Clarity can be gained in Zipporah's act of touching the foreskin to the "feet." This is not part of the normal ritual of circumcision. It consequently only makes sense if Zipporah has circumcised her son, Gershom, and then symbolically transferred that circumcision to Moses by taking the foreskin and touching Moses' genitals. Under the circumstances—Moses would have been incapacitated and they were already on the way to Egypt—God was satisfied by the ritual act (Exod 4:26). Zipporah had saved Moses' life.

In regard to the phrase "bridegroom of blood," the phrase is obviously associated with the marital relationship ("bridegroom"). Circumcision was a pre-marital ritual, performed on the male infant. As the sign of the covenant, it identified men as Israelite for the sake of their women—it ensured that the married couple were both Israelites and that there was no forbidden intermarriage taking place. We have to assume that Zipporah had learned and embraced the idea that the God of the mountain she knew of by virtue of her proximity to it in Midian (Exod 3:1-2) was the God of the Israelites and the true God. Her marriage to Moses linked her to the Israelite people and their covenantal relationship to Yahweh. Under normal circumstances, her husband would have been a circumcised Israelite man. This ritual of circumcision by proxy made Moses her "bridegroom of blood," and so part of the ritual act of touching the foreskin of Gershom to Moses' genital area "atoned" for that oversight as well.

[image error] Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: blood, bridegroom, circumcision, exodus 4, Moses, zipporah

Digital Dead Sea Scrolls Online

Pretty cool – high resolution images of several of the most important scrolls are now online for free viewing / reading as part of the The Digital Dead Seas Scrolls project.

[image error] Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: dead sea scrolls, digital, online

All Commentaries are Not Created Equal, Part 1

In my experience, most students who venture beyond just reading the Bible have heard of Bible commentaries. But in case someone reading this hasn't heard the term before, I should explain. A Bible commentary is just what it sounds like — a book that provides comments on the Bible. Commentaries are most commonly written one a particular book of the Bible (e.g., Genesis), but they can actually span several books (e.g., a commentary on the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament) or the entire Bible. Commentaries that cover the entire Bible (all 66 books) are usually multi-volume sets that collectively run thousands of pages. However, there are actually one-volume commentaries on the Bible. Covering all 66 books in one volume, though, means you aren't saying much about the Bible's contents. The more detailed the analysis, the more pages and higher word count.

Aside from page count, there are many other differences between commentaries. All commentaries are not created equal. Not even close. I have had hundreds of students that simply don't realize that. They presume that since the commentary exists and has lots of pages, it must be something that really digs into the biblical text. That's a myth. The only thing it means for sure is that whoever wrote it used lots of words and spent a good bit of time on the task. It says nothing about the quality of analysis. To get an idea on how many different commentaries are available, you could peruse the results of this search on the Logos website. Keep in mind these are only the volumes and sets we have in our digital format. We have a lot, but there are many more that exist only in print (at least right now — we're working on that).

In this post I aim to briefly sketch what makes commentaries different and, even better, to illustrate the chasm that exists between them when it comes to depth of analysis.

Commentaries basically break down into three categories (these are generalized categorizations; sometimes the lines blur):

1. Popular commentaries

* focused on the English text

* surface-level observations made on the basis of the English translation

* usually not verse-by-verse; tend to offer summary thoughts on sections

* comments not aimed at deep interpretation, but practical application of the biblical content to one's spiritual life

* comments guide the reader toward an intended interpretation

* offers brief, general interpretations without analysis of other views

* no analysis of original languages or background context

* moderate cross-referencing

* little or no space devoted to introducing the book (date, author, occasion, structure, etc.)

2. Expositional commentaries

* focused on the English text, but will include comments related to the original languages

* original languages will be presented in transliteration

* original language content usually focused on word studies / meanings; little discussion of grammatical or literary issues, though that can be present (often in footnotes, not the running commentary)

* usually verse-by-verse exposition starting with a well-known English translation; can be word-by-word

* makes an attempt to take the reader through interpretive options

* offers non-technical introduction material

* will periodically include discussion of ancient cognate literature (e.g., rabbinic writings, Josephus, a word from another Semitic language) and background material

* periodic discussion of variant manuscript readings

* periodic discussion of literary features (e.g., parallelism, genre)

3. Scholarly commentaries

* the writer includes his or her own translation in the commentary

* verse-by-verse, word-by-word comments

* original language word presented in either transliteration or the actual Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic characters; English translations of phrases in the flow of the commentary usually translated, but not always (some don't bother at all)

* detailed discussion of grammatical and syntactical observations in the text; original languae competence is assumed (1-2 year level)

* detailed discussion of extra-biblical literature relevant to interpretation

* detailed analysis of relevant literary features and structures

* concerted effort at informing the reader of all interpretive options that have been published, with assessment of strengths and weaknesses

* discussion of critical issues relating to date, authorship, redaction (editing history of transmission), text-critical variants in other manuscripts

* used by scholars, graduate students, and pastors who have facility with biblical languages (and care to use them for sermon prep)

* SHOULD be used by seminary students who have facility with the biblical languages (at least a year)

I don't want to make it a fourth category, but I ought to mention the church fathers. IVP has been publishing something called the Ancient Christian Commentary series for several years now. It's interesting (though everytime I look at it I get the feeling it's only a curiosity). Sometimes the stuff the church fathers come up with in the way of interpretation is downright bizarre. More often it is just way off the mark as they spend their time allegorizing nearly every passage so that it spells Jesus. Many of them didn't have Greek, and you could count the ones who knew Hebrew on one hand. Augustine is illustrative. He didn't know Hebrew at all and confessed he hated Greek (he was a Latinist). They also had little or no access to ancient Near Eastern comparative material (they couldn't read the languages – Egyptian, Akkadian, Ugaritic, etc., and most of what we know today was buried anyway). Their worldview was Greco-Roman and that of Late Antiquity.

Now for an illustration. This file contains several selections from commentaries in each of these categories on a fascinating passage — and one that gets theologically prickly: Exod 4:24-26:

24 At a lodging place on the way the Lord met him and sought to put him to death. 25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and touched Moses' feet with it and said, "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!" 26 So he let him alone. It was then that she said, "A bridegroom of blood," because of the circumcision.

As you read through the samples at the link above, I think the differences in resources will be dramatically clear. I also think that many of you will be able to get a lot more out of the higher-end commentaries than you might think. One hint: part of the problem with this passage is the ambiguity of just who is not circumcised. Keep a look out for that.

Again, the purpose of this is merely to expose you to the different types of commentaries. For even better treatments of the passage above (and many other subjects), you need to go beyond even scholarly commentaries to where the real exegetical meat is often found: journal articles. For next time.

[image error] Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: Bible, blood, bridegroom, commentaries, exodus 4, Moses, zipporah

Tools for Biblical Research, Part 1: Toward the End of Bible Study as Most Think of It

In addition to my day job at Logos I'm an adjunct distance ed professor of biblical studies at the seminary level. One of the more common questions I get from students is about sources for biblical research papers. Poor sources are the bane of both the student who wants to learn something about the text (as opposed to those who just want the credits) and anyone unfortunate enough to read the work produced through their use (that would be us professors). To give you an idea of the battle, here are some guidelines I have created over the years (based on real life experiences) that I have posted for online students.

1. Sources for the paper must be graduate level. This means that any source that has words like "introduction"; "survey"; "overview"; etc. are not allowed as sources. Additionally, I will not consider any source produced for use by lay people in the church or by undergraduates to be a graduate level source. Part of being in seminary means getting acquainted with academic resources. This isn't Sunday School. By way of example, I do not want to see the following as a source in your paper: sermon anthologies, church bulletins, sermon notes, websites with no author attribution, your pastor, etc. Rule of thumb: if it's sold in a local Christian bookstore, it isn't a graduate level source.

2. Commentaries that do not engage the original languages of the biblical text in some way are not permissible sources. Sources that amount to only commenting on the English translation with no apparent interest in drilling down to the original text (e.g., examining the usage of a Greek or Hebrew word, making some observation of grammar or literary structure) are not allowed. By way of example, I do not want to see the following "commentaries" (loosely defined) in your paper: Matthew Henry, Everyman's Bible Commentary, J. Vernon McGee's notes, Warren Wiersbe's commentaries, etc. Rule of thumb: if it's sold in a local Christian bookstore, it isn't an academic commentary and won't be acceptable. These sources are homiletical and devotional in nature; they are not exegetical. If you're lucky, they might help you think about some item in your English translation. They won't penetrate that translation to produce nuggets from the text in its original language.

One of the hardest lessons I've had to learn as a professor and in my role at Logos is that most Christians think Bible reading is Bible study. It isn't. This is followed by the corollary that what most people do beyond Bible reading isn't going to get them very far into the text, either. That is, what most people think of as Bible study isn't real biblical research. That's why seminary students occasionally get annoyed when I won't accept the kinds of sources noted above. They actually believe they're "digging into the word" when they read Chuck Swindoll. It's part of my job to convince them otherwise. In fairness, I remember reading Swindoll's character study on Joshua when I was a teenager and really liking it. But after one or two of those things, I realized I was just reading ABOUT the Bible. I wasn't really penetrating its content. I wasn't discovering anything that only required a close reading of my translation. That was a step in the right direction, but soon failed to satisfy.  My next step in high school was taking commentaries to study hall (that's something I recall telling my wife about only after we were married). Looking back on that, it's easy to see that those tools still barely scratched the surface (and that it was a truly nerdy thing to do). I wanted more.

If you claim to be serious about studying the biblical text or are responsible for teaching biblical content to others, you should be using grown-up tools. As indispensable as biblical language study is, even if you don't know Hebrew or Greek there are many scholarly books and commentaries whose content is accessible. Lest I be misunderstood, it's not a sin to use devotional and homiletical tools for personal Bible study if that's where you're at. I started out that way. Everyone does. But you should know that's what you're using — and not be misled into thinking that the content of those tools is really digging into the text and giving you a clear, coherent understanding of what the text means. That criticism is not designed to say that non-academic tools will lead you astray into bad exegesis and theology (at least not every time — simplistic would be more on target than heretical). Rather, it's to say that you shouldn't consider those tools to be more than they were intended to be by their authors. Resources aimed at lay people (and even some for pastors) are simply not designed for any real depth. The problem is that many people think they are because they don't know better.

So, I hope to help a bit. I'll be writing a series of posts that will hopefully illustrate the difference and show you what you're missing with lay-level material. Stay tuned.

[image error] Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: bible study, commentaries, exegesis, greek, hebrew, interpretation, resources, scholarly, tools

Some Links of Interest

Just wanted to pass on a couple of items that have been brought to my attention recently.

First, there is this post for those of you who have mobile devices:

25 Incredible iPad Apps Every Theology Student Should Have

Some nice stuff on there, but if you want my advice, you should all have Logos 4 (with the mobile app of course) and a collection that provides you with the reverse interlinear. Yes, I work at Logos, but that means I can tell you with authority that you haven't seen anything yet, grasshopper.

Second, I came across a nice site that has some good articles on biblical theology topics:

Beginning with Moses

I recommend one in particular that I have had people read dozens of times:

The Divine Warrior: The New Testament Use of an Old Testament Motif

I always direct people who are struggling with the violence of the Old Testament to this — to disabuse them of the notion that the New Testament casts Jesus as Tiny Tim (okay, that reference will date me). The divine warrior motifs and images used of the God of the Old Testament are applied to Jesus in the New Testament. The Bible does not present us with two different portraits. (Aside from this article I'd recommend a serious study of grace in the Old Testament). God defends his people and decides when it's time to judge evil. So will Jesus.

[image error] Share on Facebook

German Bible Society Greek and Hebrew Texts Online for Free

The German Bible Society (highly reputed in academia) have released their texts on their website for free use: the Greek NT (NA27), Hebrew Bible (BHS), and LXX.

Thanks to Mark Goodacre for this alert.

[image error] Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: BHS, German Bible Society, Greek New Testament, Hebrew Bible, LXX, NA27, septuagint

Rapture or Not? Splitting vs. Joining Slide Video

Finally got around to making a short (35 min) video of my slides that I used in Week 2 of my prophecy series at church. The topic is noted in the title to the post.  Since the audio of that session did not record, the video for it was not uploaded.  This is a "summary substitute" that I hope makes clear what I was trying to do in that session. Here it is (80 MB, so may take a minute to load for you).

[image error] Share on Facebook

Technorati Tags: end times, hermeneutics, prophecy, rapture, second coming