Scripting Jesus

I had a irresistible bookstore coupon good only this weekend, so I trekked to the nearest Borders to see what they had that might be of interest to me. My interests range far and wide in religious studies and theology, but aside from Hebrew Bible and translation studies, my main trajectory of research interest is Judaism and Christianity in Late Antiquity. That covers Second Temple Judaism, New Testament, and rabbinics (for starters). To expand my horizons in Gospels and Jesus research, I decided to get L. Michael White's book Scripting Jesus: The Gospels in Rewrite. The differences between the Gospels have always fascinated me, and this book looks like a great treatment of the issue. If you've read it, let me know what you thought.

From the publisher:

In Scripting Jesus, famed scholar of early Christianity L. Michael White challenges us to read the gospels as they were originally intended—as performed stories of faith rather than factual histories. White demonstrates that each of the four gospel writers had a specific audience in mind and a specific theological agenda to push, and consequently wrote and rewrote their lives of Jesus accordingly—in effect,scripting Jesus to get a particular point across and to achieve the desired audience reaction. 

The gospel stories have shaped the beliefs of almost two and a half billion Christians. But the gospel writers were not reporters—rather, they were dramatists, and the stories they told publicly about Jesus were edited and reedited for the greatest effect. Understanding how these first-century Christians wanted to present Jesus offers us a way to make sense of the sometimes conflicting stories in the gospels. 

One gospel's version of events will be at odds with another. For instance, in Jesus's birth narrative, there is no mention of a stable in Matthew or Luke, but then there are no wise men in Luke and no shepherds in Matthew. Jesus has brothers in some gospel accounts, and sisters in others, and their naming is inconsistent. Depending on which gospel you are reading, the disciples shift from bumbling morons to heroes of faith. Miracles alter or disappear altogether, and whole scenes get moved around. Such changes from one gospel to the next reveal the shaping and reshaping of the basic story in the living world of the first followers of Jesus. 

With his usual engaging style, White helps us read the gospels with fresh eyes, giving us a clearer idea of what the gospel stories meant to people in ancient times, and offering insight for how we can understand Jesus's story today.

Real Fellowship and the Semantics of Koinonia

The next issue of Bible Study Magazine will ship soon and there is a very insightful, well-written article exploring the meaning of koinonia (often glossed "fellowship") in the New Testament. My opinion of the article is in no way biased toward the fact that I wrote it. (No, I'm not that arrogant. It's a joke.)

Here's an excerpt of what I wrote for the magazine (published with permission, of course). If you haven't already, I highly recommend subscribing if you are looking to learn more about the Bible from a Christian perspective in a clear, non-threatening way.

greek word study without greek

Koinonia

If you’ve been part of a church community, you may have noticed how some words acquire “churchy” meanings—like “fellowship.” When is the last time you got together with your colleagues after work for “fellowship”? Never. But in church, we have fellowship luncheons that are held in fellowship halls and we get together for fellowship in our fellowship groups. When we overuse a word, it can lose its meaning. Our overuse of “fellowship” makes an important point in 1 John fall flat.

“That which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. … If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:3, 6–7).

We can determine the meaning of fellowship in this passage by examining it within a New Testament context. To do that, we have to find the Greek root word behind the English term. Using the esv English–Greek Reverse Interlinear, we find that the Greek word underlying “fellowship” is koinōnia (κοινωνία).

To read the rest of the article, check out March–April ’11 issue of Bible Study Magazine.

WHAT!!! I cut you off right before we get to the best part where I actually explain what koinonia means? Now you have to buy the magazine? Sorry about that, but thems the rules.

The Christmas Story - Luke 2:8-20

Here's a video from Christmas a few years ago when my middle daughter was almost 3. Enjoy her energetic recitation of Luke 2:8-20.

Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls

Forthcoming from Oxford University Press - The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls edited by Timothy Lim and John Collins. With a Dec 2010 publishing date, it should come out just in time for a late Christmas present for myself. I've been looking forward to this volume since first hearing about it from one of the contributors a couple of years ago. I'm impressed by the wide variety of perspectives represented by the 30 contributors. Most of the chapters address issues of Dead Sea Scrolls research that have long interested me such as the origins of the movement, the fascination with a solar calendar, and shared exegetical trajectories pointing toward rabbinic and early Christian literature.

The purpose behind the volume is described as follows.

It seeks to probe the main disputed issues in the study of the Scrolls. Lively debate continues over the archaeology and history of the site, the nature and identity of the sect, and its relation to the broader world of Second Temple Judaism and to later Jewish and Christian tradition. It is the Handbook's intention here to reflect on diverse opinions and viewpoints, highlight the points of disagreement, and point to promising directions for future research.

The Full Table of Contents can be found on OUP's website.

Now, where to find $150.00 for one book?

HT: Agade

Honorable Mentions: Historical or Literary?

Back in 2008, I wrote a post dealing with the issue of whether the New Testament references to Old Testament characters can be taken as evidence for their historicity. My conclusion was that, in general, the NT writers were referring to the characters known from Jewish literature and not trying to claim historicity. I don’t believe they were concerned with those types of questions. It may have been assumed, but it didn’t matter for their theological point whether Jonah or Job really lived. What mattered was the story and the example it provided.

Before I go any further, I need to clarify that I am not questioning the real historical existence of all biblical characters. I am also not reducing the Bible to the level of pure fiction. T.C. recently questioned that ambiguity in my previous post, so I want to be clear. I believe archaeology provides strong circumstantial evidence for the existence of certain biblical people, like David, for example. The best explanation of the Tel Dan inscription is that it refers to a real Davidic dynasty. Certain biblical characters like Abraham, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, David, and Solomon are central to the story of salvation history. I’m not questioning their existence, even though I can’t prove it definitively.

The issue is whether an “honorable mention” by another biblical writer is a reference to a historical person or a literary figure. The default position seems to be to take the reference historically. Earlier I dealt with NT references to OT characters, but what about OT references to other characters?

A few days ago Jeff posted “Was Job a Real Person?” His answer:  “Of course he was!” with appeal to Ezek 14:14 for confirmation.

I realize that Ezekiel is filled with dream-like imagery, but this message from the Lord (and the rest of the section) certainly confirms to me that they were real individuals. Not that I needed any more convincing.

I’m not criticizing Jeff’s conclusion. It is a valid answer to the question, but I don’t think it’s the only reasonable answer. A commenter on his post also drew in James 5:11 to support Job’s existence and commented how he believed Jonah historical as well for similar reasons. But why jump to conclusions? Why assume the biblical writer meant to allude to a historical personage? As a 21st century reader, do you follow the reference because it’s historical or because you know the literary text that it alludes to? That’s easy . . . you know the text. You know the story.

Let’s look closer at the references in Ezekiel 14:14 (repeated in v. 20).

even if these three men, Noah, Daniel[1], and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, declares the Lord GOD.

Commentators often take this as a reference to 3 non-Israelite “saints.”[2] The non-Israelite identity is important for the larger theme of general or universal retribution in Ezekiel 14.  The connection of righteousness or virtue with these three is also key. Gen 6:9 reads “These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.” Job 1:1 says “There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job, and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.” Noah and Job are clearly held up as ideal paragons of virtue. (More to come on "Daniel.") Their righteousness is known not from history but from literature. Does the point of v. 14 require their stories to have actually happened or does it simply require one knows the story - much like a parable teaches a point?

The details given about Job’s status, wealth and family don’t prove the story is not a parable or folk tale. We don’t know where the land of Uz is. Job is identified by his character, not his patronymic (that is, no “son of SO & SO” to give a family identification). The circumstances of his suffering and restoration have all the ring of the classic West Semitic epics like Aqhat or Kirta. The fact that the reference to “Daniel” is almost certainly to a character from a non-biblical West Semitic epic further strengthens the conclusion that Job and Noah are evoked here for their literary significance, not their historical existence. (Was there a historical Noah and a worldwide flood? Still thinking that through, but I knew you’d ask.)

Acknowledging that some OT characters, like Jonah[3]  and Job, might simply be literary figures with no historical existence in no way undermines the accuracy or inerrancy of the biblical text. The issue is with the reader, not the text. The reader is demanding something of the text it never intended to give. Searching for a historical Job is, in my mind, about as likely to turn up solid results as a quest for the historical Prodigal Son (Luke 15).

Comments and discussion are welcome. My thoughts on this issue are continually in process.

---

[1] Daniel in this text presents a special problem that I’ll address in another post.
[2] See Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 1-19, WBC, and Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20, AYB.
[3] Jonah, of course, was known from the historical books - 2 Kgs 14:25. But his literary fame comes from the book of Jonah and his fish story - a story, IMO, borrowing the character of an otherwise little known prophet.

Most Misused Scriptures

Those of us well-versed in the art of biblical exegesis – historical-critical style – have all been struck from time to time by a groan-inducing, double-take inspiring, eye-roll instigating misuse of Scripture, too often from the pulpit, unfortunately.

Here’s my top 3 most misused Scriptures.

1. To support how “biblical” American democracy is.

Galatians 5:1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

2. To quietly contemplate God’s being God.

Psalm 46:10a Be still, and know that I am God.

3. To support the use of the mind and reason in Christian circles.

Isaiah 1:18a Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD

So, what’s the problem? Context. The larger context of these verses do not support the traditional popular interpretations. Galatians 5:1 is talking about spiritual freedom or freedom from bondage to sin, not national freedom or democratic freedoms. Psalm 46:10 is probably my favorite of these. The larger context is about God’s power and v. 10 is meant as a call to fearful awe in the face of that power, not quiet contemplation on God. Here’s Psa 46:6-10 for context. “Be still” is probably better translated with the idiomatic “Shut up.”

6      The nations rage, the kingdoms totter; he utters his voice, the earth melts. 
7      The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress.   Selah 
8      Come, behold the works of the LORD, how he has brought desolations on the earth. 
9      He makes wars cease to the end of the earth; he breaks the bow and shatters the spear; he burns the chariots with fire. 
10      “Be still, and know that I am God. I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth!”

For Isaiah 1:18, I’ve heard it applied to support the use of reason in defending the faith, so I really wasn’t surprised to find an apologetics ministry using the phrase as its name or a book on logical thinking titled Come Let Us Reason. The problem is that I’m not convinced the Hebrew root יָכַח really carries the connotation of logic or reason in the usual Western post-Enlightenment sense. The typical Hebrew use is closer to “rebuke” or “correct” or “argue.” It might be close with the sense of “argue”. The verb is fairly rare in the Niphal stem (passive), but I’m pretty sure understanding it as “reason” in a modern philosophical sense is anachronistic.

There are many many other texts taken completely out of context and badly misused by preachers. This is just a small sample of three that consistently have bothered me over the years. For more bad exegesis, there’s plenty to peruse in Scott’s Youtube channel with crazy preachers like Steven Anderson, John Crowder, Paula White, Jack Van Impe, and more.

New Blog on Greek NT Exegesis

One of my former NT professors has started blogging on issues of exegesis in the Greek New Testament. The blog is aptly titled ἐξήγησις. If I continue listening to the NT Pod and follow this blog, perhaps I'll slowly morph into a NT scholar. At any rate, I started reading Matthew in my UBS Reader's Greek New Testament to refresh my Greek, so I'll add this to my refresher course.

Bob Cargill on 'Heresy' and Biblical Criticism

Bob's thought for the day is worth repeating in part:

it is never heretical to point out the inconsistencies of the biblical text to students. ever! if the one’s faith can’t survive a few critical questions, it’s either deeply flawed or it is not worth maintaining. shielding students from textual problems does not help their faith, it only sets them up for a greater fall.

and reading in full. I agree with Bob completely. If we shield students (and believers in general) from the hard questions and interpretive problems that close study of the Bible brings to light, then we're potentially setting them up for a bigger fall and hurting our own credibility if they discover some of those difficulties on their own. I, for one, was very disappointed when I found a few professors had misrepresented critical bible scholarship in an attempt to insulate us from facing those types of questions.

Filtering the Data

I’ve been catching up on episodes of the NT Pod over the past week or so. I have to say that I’ve really enjoyed Mark’s series on the Synoptic Problem, especially the more complete picture provided through the extended episodes. I’ve come to realize that I’m a Hebrew Bible person primarily because it’s the fountainhead for all later biblical interpretation, and what really interests me is the history of interpretation. To that end, I’m trying to be a well-rounded generalist in Second Temple Judaism, New Testament, and classical Judaism.

One thing struck me out of Mark’s discussion of the Synoptic Problem that I think is relevant for many many many issues in biblical studies. He talked about how most NT introductions never really present the student with the problem when they discuss the Synoptic Problem. They start with one of the solutions and filter all the pertinent data through the solution. (By the by, Mark, I’m not a NT expert but you’ve convinced me in your case against Q anyway.)

Filtering the data seems to be a common way for unexamined consensus positions to get passed on intact to the next generation of scholars. We all take away a certain perspective on the biblical data from our teachers. That perspective often works like a filter preventing us from seeing the data in a fresh way. I try to be as aware as possible of my own filters, or rather, I try to be aware of when a particular perspective or presupposition is coloring how I interpret the data. It’s hard to do, but it might be a good exercise for us all to think through how we might be filtering the data when we read the Bible or study any particular problem in biblical studies.

I can think of two perspectives that I’ve gained from my teachers that color how I approach my scholarship. First, in Qumran studies, I first learned about the Dead Sea Scrolls from a non-consensus scholar, so it would probably take nothing short of an angel from heaven revealing to me that Essenes did, in fact, live at Qumran and compose the sectarian scrolls there for me to accept the validity of that consensus. Second, in biblical studies, I learned to keep theological conclusions about the truth claims of the text from overrunning what the text itself actually says. That is, I learned to identify it when I or any other interpreter has come to the text peering through a particular theological lens. The result is that I am not a fan of unexamined consensus positions, and I draw a hard line between apologetics and critical scholarship.

Well, have you thought about it? What are your filters that affect how you read the Bible? Do you think of them as strengths or weaknesses?

Where was Jesus Born and When?

In my last post I briefly mentioned the problems with determining when Jesus was born (hint: it wasn't 0 A.D.). In honor of Christmas day, here are some additional resources if you're interested in exploring the issue of where and when Jesus was born. Being an OT guy, I hadn't even realized there was any question about where Jesus was born until this year. Apparently, the choices are Nazareth or Bethlehem and the scholarly consensus of NT studies leans toward Nazareth.

1. NT Pod 19: Was Jesus Born in Bethlehem?

2. NT Pod 20: When Was Jesus Born?

3. BAR Article: Jesus' Nativity-Where Was Jesus Born? (And When?)

4. Contradictory Christmases by James McGrath about the different stories in Matthew and Luke. Quite a discussion developed in the comments thread.

5. Pisteuomen: Jesus' Birth In Context - a 12-part series that looks interesting but I haven't finished reading yet.

For my second Ph.D., maybe I should do New Testament studies. I've realized lately how ill informed I am when it comes to critical issues in New Testament scholarship. My excuse is that I'm a Hebrew Bible/Ancient Judaism specialist anyway.

House of Jesus Himself Discovered in Nazareth . . . sort of . . . well, not really

Just in time for Christmas (coincidence?), the Israel Antiquities Authority has announced the discovery a house in ancient Nazareth dating to the first century CE, the time of Jesus. Here is an excerpt from the IAA press release.

According to Yardenna Alexandre, excavation director on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority, “The discovery is of the utmost importance since it reveals for the very first time a house from the Jewish village of Nazareth and thereby sheds light on the way of life at the time of Jesus. The building that we found is small and modest and it is most likely typical of the dwellings in Nazareth in that period. From the few written sources that there are, we know that in the first century CE Nazareth was a small Jewish village, located inside a valley. Until now a number of tombs from the time of Jesus were found in Nazareth; however, no settlement remains have been discovered that are attributed to this period”.

The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs has this photo:

It is nice to see that, so far, none of the news stories are connecting this story to a specific person or family (as my headline does in an intentionally facetious way). Now if they'd found a tunnel in the city of David, I'm sure they would have quickly speculated a connection to David's conquest of the city.  Oh, wait . . .

HT: Wild Wild West, Todd Bolen

Messianic Hope Renewed

I've started reading through the weekly meditations found in the NLT Holy Bible Mosaic. (Thanks to Sean Harrison at Tyndale House Publishers for passing along a review copy. A complete review will be forthcoming.) One of the page-long quotations struck me for how well it describes the pattern common to many millenarian movements: hope is placed on messianic figure > reality fails expectations > crisis of faith > renewal of hope OR failure of movement. It is interesting to note how short-lived most millenarian movements are. The inevitable crisis usually results in failure of the movement. (I've had a fascination with studying messianic movements ever since I was a teenager in 1993 watching the David Koresh debacle unfold in Waco.)

This quote is from Augustus Neander (Germany; 1789-1850):

The death of Christ annihilated at a stroke the Messianic expectations of the Apostles. Their dejection was complete. But if, of all that they had hoped, nothing was ever realized, this dejection could not have passed away. . . .

   We cannot explain (not bare conceivable possibilities, but) the actual state of the case, viz., the dejection of the Apostles at first, and what they were and did afterward. There must be some intermediate historical fact to explain the transition; something must have occurred to revive, with new power, the almost effaced impression; to bring back the flow of their faith which had so far ebbed away.

   The reappearance, then, of Christ among his disciples is a connecting link in the chain of events which cannot possibly be spared. It acted thus: Their sunken faith in his promises received a new impulse when these promises were repeated by Him, risen from the dead; his reappearance formed the point of contact for a new spiritual communion with him, never to be dissolved, nay, thenceforward to be developed ever more and more.

   According to their own unvarying asseverations, it was the foundation of their immovable faith in his person, and in himself as Messiah and Son of God; as well as of their steadfast hope, in his communion, of a blissful, everlasting life, triumphing over death. Without it they never could have had that inspiring assurance of faith with which they everywhere testified of what they had received and joyfully submitted to tortures and to death.

"Hoping for Hope: Advent, Week 2," p. 22. Holy Bible: Mosaic. Carol Stream, Il: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2009.

Questioning Consensus

Biblical scholarship now operates with a few defining consensuses. Questioning the consensus can be okay. Overturning the consensus is nearly impossible. Sometimes the consensus position is solid and does not need to be overturned. There are several high-profile consensus positions, however, that are less than solid, yet questioning them is highly controversial. The consensus also differs depending on which side of the liberal/conservative spectrum one is on.

But those weak consensus positions should be questioned and overturned. Why do we love consensus so much? Consensus leads to a speculation being considered a fact which can be safely assumed as the starting point for further speculation. Think of how silly it sounds when you read books from the 1960s on the Deuteronomistic History that assume Noth's amphictyony. This was accepted as historical fact despite the lack of evidence for it. Eventually, it was abandoned.

Here's my list of the top 3 consensus positions that should be tossed out (or at least debated with an open mind to the evidence).

Top 3 Weak Consensus Positions (both secular and theological):

1. Q existed and was a source for Matthew and Luke. (Very questionable but Goodacre's fighting an uphill battle.)

2. Essenes are responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls, and they lived at Qumran. (Admittedly, Golb's association with the alternative colors any chances of questioning this at present. However, all attempts to prove an archaeological or textual connection between Kh. Qumran and the DSS have been less than compelling. It's all speculation.)

3. The 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is the final word on the inerrancy debate. Scripture is always fully in agreement with itself. (Defending a doctrine of Scripture against Scripture itself. If the Bible says this is the Book of Isaiah, then, by Jove, that means Isaiah wrote it.)

I'm sure there are more, but these are the three that immediately came to mind. Any debate on the relative weakness (or strength if you see it that way) of these positions? Any others that I should add to the list?

Subjected to Futility in Hope

After meeting many grad students and young professors at SBL this year, I've been musing a bit about the long-term job prospects for many of us. It's a depressing subject. I was reminded of a couple of posts from Chris Brady on the subject of grad students and maybe not getting a PhD. More depressing.

In honor of the universal experience of grad students in the humanities everywhere, I've paraphrased Romans 8:19-21 (building on an off-the-cuff quip using the biblical anthological style I made at 5:30 am on the way to the airport on Tuesday - yes, it was a bit early for that, Wen!).

For the students wait with eager longing for the conferring of degrees. For the students were subjected to futility, willingly, and through the professors who subjected them, in hope that the students themselves would be set free from their bondage to coursework and obtain the freedom of the glory of the tenure-track.

P.S. If you're interested in Aramaic, early biblical interpretation, issues in Higher Education, and religious studies related comics and you don't follow Chris's blog Targuman, well, shame on you - subscribe right now.

Random Verse for 9/9/09

I had the random thought that I could look up the 9th verse of the 9th chapter of the 9th book of the Hebrew Bible for a good random verse for today, but I found that Scott already beat me to it.

OK. Ninth book, ninth chapter, ninth verse. 1 Samuel 9:9, “Formerly in Israel, anyone who went to inquire of God would say, “Come, let us go to the seer”; for the one who is now called a prophet was formerly called a seer.” Uhmm, God? If you’re trying to tell me something you’re going to have to make it a little more explicit.

Scott tried the NT first but found that Galatians didn't have a ninth chapter. Then he went chronologically and came up with Romans 9:9 and determined the world will end today, so this may be the last installment of the Random Verses series.

If we had a definitive answer on the precise chronological order in which the books of the Hebrew Bible were written, I could try to one up Scott with exactly the 9th verse of the 9th chapter of the 9th book of the Bible ever written. I hope it would say something about how the world is not ending today. Or maybe I just need to go seek out a seer.

Score: Randomness 9, Relevance 3.

Maybe I should sprinkle a little numerology into the random verse selection since this was so effective (provided there are any future installments, of course).

The Tension Between Ideal and Real

The ideology reflected in biblical wisdom literature about retribution or the deed-consequence nexus is far too complex to neatly sweep it all into the tidy dogmatism of mechanical retribution (i.e., health, wealth, and power prove one is righteous, their lack proves one unrighteous). Even suggesting that the sages themselves likely believed in the doctrine of retribution (as I did in a previous post) now seems too simplistic. While Job's friends are unwavering in their commitment to retribution, a close reading of the book of Proverbs reveals that the sages were aware of the inequities of real life and held the conflict between faith and experience in unresolved tension. Ray Van Leeuwen explains:

[These contradictions in Proverbs] have come to express one broad worldview which acknowledges the conflict of dogma and experience, yet maintains both (1992, 26 n. 3; emphasis his).

Job is not a polemic against any so-called conventional wisdom that holds to a strictly mechanical worldview where the wicked are punished and the righteous are blessed. However, it is likely that the idea had currency among some groups, perhaps a common superstition as evidenced by Jesus' disciples in John 9.

John 9:1-3 (ESV): As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. [2] And his disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" [3] Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.

Jesus similarly refutes this simplistic theology of retribution in Luke 13.

Luke 13:1-5 (ESV):  There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. [2] And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? [3] No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. [4] Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? [5] No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

Wisdom primarily involves proper behavior, navigating life successfully in relation to God and other people. The wisdom embodied in Proverbs provides instruction on navigating both our relation with God and our relation to one another. Righteous living is the utmost virtue. In a perfect world, it should bring blessings, but it may not. Yet, it should be sought more than riches or power. Reading individual proverbs in isolation from each other can lead to a dogmatic atomistic reading where the retributive sayings alone are incorrectly held to represent the view of the sages in general. The sages were aware that in real life the wicked prospered, the unrighteous ruled, and the righteous poor were oppressed.

Proverbs 11:16 (ESV)  
A gracious woman gets honor, and violent men get riches.

Proverbs 16:8 (ESV) 
Better is a little with righteousness than great revenues with injustice.

Proverbs 16:19 (ESV) 
It is better to be of a lowly spirit with the poor than to divide the spoil with the proud.

Proverbs 28:15-16 (ESV) 
Like a roaring lion or a charging bear is a wicked ruler over a poor people. [16] A ruler who lacks understanding is a cruel oppressor, but he who hates unjust gain will prolong his days.

These examples (and many more could be added to them) reveal that the sages are implicitly aware of the injustices and inequities of life. Even as they teach that one should be righteous because it will lead to blessing, they affirm that one should remain righteous even in the midst of oppression. Ray Van Leeuwen summarizes thus:

In general, the sages clearly believed that wise and righteous behavior did make life better and richer, though virtue did not guarantee those consequences. Conversely, injustice, sloth, and the like generally have bad consequences (Van Leeuwen 1992, 32; emphasis his).

There are other options to explain this tension, but they seem motivated by our drive to resolve logical contradictions. For example, these contradictory sayings or opposing worldviews could reflect dissent and pluralism among the sages. This makes sense in light of the fact that Proverbs is a compilation of sayings, but the book as a whole seems to have undergone a deliberate shaping which suggests this tension was simply maintained unresolved. First teach the rules, then teach the exceptions to the rules (see Van Leeuwen 1992, 32). Proverbs is not an anthology of opinions similar to much rabbinic literature (though I am interested in how "wisdom" shifts in Judaism to equal Torah and wise living becomes equivalent to Torah piety).

The issue is still unresolved. The Bible maintains both an idealism about the value of righteous living and a realism about the injustices of life experience. Perhaps the bottom line is that the workings of God are mysterious and one cannot predict the outcome of life based on a formula.

Proverbs 16:4 (ESV)  
The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.

Suffering could be part of God's plan according to John 9:3.

Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.

There is more that could be said about the issue of righteous suffering and the implications of the doctrine of transgenerational punishment as hinted at here in John's Gospel. But that will have to wait for a future post.

N.B. Much of my thinking reflected here is indebted to Ray Van Leeuwen's excellent article, “Wealth and Poverty: System and Contradiction in Proverbs.” Hebrew Studies 33 (1992):25-36.

Mackie's Musing

My friend and fellow UW Hebrew & Semitic Studies colleague Tim Mackie has started a blog titled "Musing." So far he has 3 posts up dealing with Luke's characterization of Jesus. It would seem that after nearly completing his PhD in Hebrew Bible (are you planning to defend sometime this year still, Tim?), he's moving on to New Testament. I recommend that you head over and see what Tim's musing about.

Elisha as Role Model

Much has been said recently about Elisha and the incident with the bears in 2 Kgs 2:23-25. We have David Ker to thank for that. Others who have weighed in on the issue: Doug Chaplin, Peter Kirk, Matt Page, Tim Bulkeley, James McGrath, and John Hobbins.

It seems that a common assumption for many reading this passage is that Elisha has done something wrong. After all, why else call him a "bad boy"? In the comments to Matt's post, Peter describes Elisha's curse as an abuse of his God-given power. The question has to be asked. If it was an abuse of power, then why did God allow it? Was God constrained to obey Elisha's curse even though the punishment didn't fit the crime or did he respond with a just punishment for their mockery (i.e., unbelief)?

If Elisha is a "bad boy" for this act, then what do we make of the fact that the New Testament seems to consciously model Jesus's role as a miracle worker on the miracles of Elijah and Elisha? There is a consistent pattern in these stories. Many of the miracles from 1 and 2 Kings have parallels in the Gospels. Here are some examples.

Elijah miraculously multiplies a handful of meal and oil into an 3 year food supply for the widow of Zarephath (1 Kgs 17:8-16). Similarly, Elisha multiples oil for a widow to sell to pay her debts (2 Kgs 4:1-7). Elisha also feeds 100 with a few loaves with some left over (2 Kgs 4:42-44). Jesus multiplies 5 loaves and 2 fish into enough to feed a multitude with 12 baskets left over (Matt 14:13-21).

In 1 Kgs 17:17-24, the widow's son dies and Elijah brings him back to life. Elisha revives the Shunammite's son in 2 Kgs 4:32-37. Jesus brings Jairus's daughter back to life (Matt 9:18-26) and revives a widow's son (Luke 7:11-16). Healing is also an important parallel. Elisha heals Naaman, a leper, in 2 Kgs 5:9-19. Jesus heals a leper in Matt 8:1-4.

Both Elisha and Jesus are depicted as having power over the forces of nature. Elisha splits the Jordan (2 Kgs 2:13-14) as Elijah had done (2 Kgs 2:8). Jesus walks on water (Matt 14:22-33). Elisha makes an ax head float (2 Kgs 6:1-7), purifies drinking water (2 Kgs 2:19-22) and some poisonous stew (2 Kgs 4:38-41). Jesus calms a storm on the sea (Matt 8:23-27).

The parallels run deeper than just miracles. After the incident with Elijah and the prophets of Baal (1 Kgs 18), Elijah flees to the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights (1 Kgs 19:4-8). After his baptism, Jesus goes into the wilderness for 40 days and 40 nights (Matt 4:1-2). The call of Elisha to follow Elijah in 1 Kgs 19:19-21 is described in similar terms to how Jesus calls his disciples (Matt 4:18-22, Luke 9:57-62). Furthermore, the NT associates John the Baptist with Elijah (Matt 11:7-14), so are we meant to understand an implicit association of Jesus with Elisha? That's hard to say since Jesus's ascension in Acts 1:6-11 is very reminiscent of Elijah's ascension in 2 Kgs 2:11-12 - right down to the disciples watching him go and receiving his power (Blenkinsopp 1996, 253 n. 32). The cycle continued as Peter was depicted healing a cripple (Acts 3) and raising the dead (Acts 9).

Finally, we need to understand that not all miracles are good. Sometimes people are healed, sometimes they die. (John's posts emphasized this.) Joseph Blenkinsopp describes these "bad" miracles as "punitive miracles" (1996, 63). Virtually all who are at the receiving end of a punitive miracle have done something bad to deserve it. The difference is in our perspective on how "bad" it was. The Bible's perspective is that bad is bad. Show no partiality in judgment (Lev 19:15). There are examples for all our prophets here. Elijah personally kills the prophets of Baal after the miracle of the fire from heaven to light the altar. We're all familiar with Elisha and the bears, but remember that Elisha also strikes his servant Gehazi with leprosy for his greed after the healing of Naaman (2 Kgs 5:27). Jesus curses the fig tree for not bearing fruit (Matt 21:18-22) - granted it was out of season and the incident seems out of character for Jesus, much like the bears incident. Peter announces death for Sapphira for lying (Acts 5:1-11).

We like to think of biblical law as based on the lex talionis (eye for an eye), but there are many stories where the punishment doesn't fit the crime (for our modern-day sensibilities). The Bible passes a death sentence for many who did no worse than the boys in 2 Kgs 2:23. For example, what about the guy who is found picking up sticks on the Sabbath in Num 15:32-33? The law didn't actually tell him what he could or couldn't do. (It neglects to tell us what exactly qualifies as "work.") They're just starting to figure this "Law" thing out, so give him a free pass on this one, right? Wrong, he's stoned to death. Disobey your parents? That's right - death for you, too (Deut 21:18-21).

The dilemma remains. What to do with the Bible stories that violate our modern-day sense of ethics or our sense of what God must be like? Do we accept them as products of a different, more primitive time? Do we judge them for not conforming to our standard of "Christian" behavior? I certainly don't have the answer, and I'm not recommending anyone model themselves after Elisha and start cursing people who make fun of you. But the NT stories do seem to model Jesus on Elisha. What should we make of that?

Reference: Blenkinsopp, Joseph. 1996. A History of Prophecy in Israel. Revised and Enlarged. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Recommendations: NT Pod and a New Talmud Blog

Updated with exciting new info!

I finally got around to putting Mark Goodacre's new NT Pod podcasts onto my mp3 player, so I could listen during my commute. Desiring as I am to be at least minimally informed of critical issues surrounding New Testament interpretation (in keeping with my overall generalist approach to biblical studies), I found his first three podcasts engaging and informative. They're rather short - around 5-7 minutes long - but they're just long enough to introduce an issue and get one thinking about reading the NT more closely. I highly recommend them for scholars and lay people alike who want an accessible, non-technical educational experience in NT studies

The online home of NT pod is http://podacre.blogspot.com/ and it is also available through iTunes or iTunesU (via Duke University).

You can find Mark's blog online at http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/ if the podcasts whet your appetite for learning even more about New Testament studies.

Now if only there were podcasts giving a similar intro into the wide world of rabbinic literature . . . but until that happens, at least there's a new blog about the Talmud. Being a generalist means you need to know a little bit about all this stuff because occasionally they intersect (see Jesus in the Talmud for example - could've been better but still interesting).

So, go - educate yourself. Read a page of Talmud every day and subscribe to the NT Pod!

UPDATE: I was just informed by my source on all things early Judaism that Michael Satlow has a series of podcasts on the History of Judaism. Looks like there are 12 so far, so I'll have to make more room on my mp3 player. Now if only there were podcasts covering everything I need to know for prelims . . . (though technically history of Judaism is part of that "everything").

Behold, a Virgin shall be with Child . . .

...and so Matthew 1:23 invokes Isaiah 7:14 as foretelling the Virgin Birth - Jesus as the Son of God conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Isa. 7:14 (ESV)
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.
Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his
name Immanuel.

The interesting thing - if you read Hebrew - is that Isa. 7:14 does not use the common word specifically denoting a "virgin." Some say that this ambiguity shows that Isaiah didn't really have a miracle in mind. He wasn't thinking that a real virgin would conceive because he used a word that simply means "young woman." In fact, there was quite a fuss back when the RSV came out and translated Isa. 7:14 with "young woman" instead of "virgin." The translation itself was undermining the Virgin Birth!!! Or so the argument went. One of the revisions the ESV made to the RSV text was to translate with "virgin" again.

The problem is that the words for "young woman" and "virgin" in Hebrew and Greek overlap quite a bit in their semantic fields. The Hebrew word for "young woman" in Isa. 7:14 is 'almah. The more typical word that appears to mean "virgin" more specifically is betulah. The Septuagint (LXX) translated Isa. 7:14 using the word parthenos "virgin" - the more usual equivalent for betulah. So, the connotation of virginity in Isa. 7:14 entered the text more explicitly with the LXX, which was used in turn for the quotation in Matt. 1:23.

In an attempt to understand the semantic fields of 'almah and betulah more fully, I examined every occurrence of each in the Hebrew Bible and noted its rendering in the LXX. The first occurs only 7 times; the second occurs 50 times.

The LXX renders 'almah in two different ways - 4x with neanis "young woman", 1x with neotes "youth", and 2x with parthenos "virgin." On the other hand, betulah is rendered by parthenos 43 out of 50 times. Of the remaining seven, several are left out in translation and some use yet another word such as korasion "girl."

The usage of these two Hebrew words doesn't provide enough information to draw a line between them and say betulah implies virginity and 'almah is ambiguous. Both words are used to refer to unmarried young women who are either betrothed or eligible to be betrothed. The fact that they are eligible for marriage implies they are assumed to be virgins. We can't say betulah inherently implies virginity because the Hebrew writers felt compelled to make that explicit at times, following betulah with a phrase clarifying "who has not known a man" (see Gen. 24:16 and Judges 21:12 for examples).

The ESV, which seems to want 'almah to be "virgin" consistently in its translation, often uses "young woman" or "maiden" to render betulah. This usage highlights a similar overlapping semantic range in English. If you look up "maiden" and "virgin" in an English dictionary, you find that the primary meaning of "virgin" is a "person who has never had sexual intercourse", but the secondary meaning is "an unmarried girl or woman." Likewise, the word "maiden" refers to a "girl or unmarried woman" in its primary meaning, but "virgin" is a secondary meaning.

The problem is that most of the uses of 'almah and betulah don't provide enough context to determine whether a distinction was intended between "young woman" and sexual "virgin." My sense is that 'almah implies virginity because of the positive overtones of eligibility for marriage versus the shame and censure (for a woman) of extramarital sex. I finally found a pair of references indicating that 'almah and betulah are more or less synonymous. We think betulah is more specifically "virgin" simply because it occurs more frequently than 'almah.

Genesis 24 tells the story of how Abraham's servant found a wife for Isaac - Rebekah. Immediately after the servant had prayed that God would show him the right woman, he sees Rebekah coming out for water.

Gen 24:16 (ESV)
The young woman (na'arah) was very attractive in appearance, a maiden (betulah) whom no man had known. She went down to the spring and filled her jar and came up.

After the servant meets Rebekah and gets invited into her home, he retells the story of their meeting to her father and brother.

Gen 24:43 (ESV)
Behold, I am standing by the spring of water. Let the virgin ('almah) who comes out to draw water, to whom I shall say, "Please give me a little water from your jar to drink"

I think it's telling that this story presents the same event twice and uses both betulah and 'almah to refer to Rebekah. Both terms referred to an unmarried virgin woman.

In Isa. 7:14, the LXX is simply drawing out a logical connotation of the meaning of 'almah. From the perspective of Matthew, that explicit detail was precisely the right interpretation.

Update: Ben Witherington also posted on the Virgin Birth on Dec. 12 and addressed some of the same issues of terminology that I've raised. I skimmed his post back then but hadn't looked at it again before finishing my post. If you're interested in more on this issue, go there.