Really, Wipf & Stock?

I'd never heard of Preston Kavanagh until today, but apparently, he's solved all the authorship and dating questions related to the composition of the Hebrew Bible. Wipf & Stock has been publishing his 'brilliant" discoveries since 2009 with The Exilic Code: Ciphers, Word Links, and Dating in Exilic and Post-Exilic Biblical Literature, followed by the The Shaphan Group: Fifteen Authors Who Shaped the Hebrew Bible in 2011, and now Huldah: The Prophet Who Wrote Hebrew Scripture (apparently forthcoming per a publicity email I received through the Agade mailing list).

I can't find out anything more about this guy with Google. His author blurb on Wipf & Stock doesn't give me much confidence in his biblical studies training.

Twenty-four years ago, Preston Kavanagh retired from an executive position in a large company in order to seek the identities of those who wrote the Hebrew Bible. The Shaphan Group discusses what he found, as do his two prior books—Secrets of the Jewish Exile (2005) and The Exilic Code (Pickwick Publications, 2009). He and his wife, Lois, live quietly in Maryland.

The email announcement has an updated version of this bio. Apparently he has Ivy League degrees, but it's telling that the level of degree and the subjects studied are left unmentioned.

Preston Kavanagh holds degrees from Princeton and Harvard. He retired twenty-five years ago from an executive position in a large company to seek the identities of those who wrote the Hebrew Bible. Huldah discusses what he has found, as do several prior books, including The Exilic Code (Pickwick Publications, 2009) and The Shaphan Group (Pickwick, 2011). He and his wife, Lois, live quietly in Maryland.

So, let me get this straight, Wipf & Stock, you published these books by a retired businessman who devoted the last 24 years to cracking the Bible's coded data about who wrote it and when? Apparently, whoever acquired this guy's work forgot one of the prime rules of identifying crackpots: they are often untrained individuals who are somehow able to solve major perennial problems of the discipline. Also, hasn't "decoding" the hidden messages in the Hebrew Bible been widely debunked? (And yet, it won't go away.) So either this guy has new revolutionary ideas that deserve our attention or this is a shameless attempt to sell books to an undiscerning, popular audience that loves this stuff even though it's been disproven over and over (a la Michael Drosnin's bestsellers). I've looked at enough of Kavanagh's books on preview at Amazon.com to suspect the latter, but maybe, just maybe somebody can offer a good explanation or more info about Kavanagh to justify his claim to expertise. For now, he look to me to be just another crackpot.

It's a shame because Wipf & Stock otherwise publishes many quality studies by well-known Bible scholars such as Andre LaCocque, Stanley Porter, Richard Horsley, Marvin Meyer, and H.G.M. Williamson. I better not see this guy's stuff on the book tables at SBL. Anybody else have a similar reaction to this publicity email that came over Agade this morning? Here's the full description of the book.

Huldah: The Prophet Who Wrote Hebrew Scripture reveals—for the first time ever—the extraordinary impact of Huldah the prophet on our Bible.

Huldah was both a leader of exilic Jews and a principal author of Hebrew Scripture. She penned the Shema—the ardent, prayerful praise that millions of worshipers repeat twice daily. Moreover, Jesus quoted as his own last words the ones that Huldah had written centuries before—“Into your hand I commit my spirit.” Huldah was an extraordinary writer—arguably she ranks among the best in Hebrew Scripture. As such, she added to God’s Word a feminine aspect that has inspired numberless believers—men and women alike. 

This book’s new techniques reveal that though subjected to extreme verbal abuse, Huldah surmounted her era’s high barriers to women. As elder, queen mother, and war leader during the sixth century BCE, she helped to shape Israel’s history. And what, then, can this book mean to scholars—both women and men? Feminists need a rallying point and a heroine, and Huldah makes a superb one. In years ahead, experts might well place Huldah alongside the very greatest women of antiquity; indeed, they may even conclude that she is among the most influential people in human history.

Reading it again, I want to deconstruct every exaggerated and impossible statement, but I don't think his work is worth any more time or attention. 

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.

"Gabriel's Vision" Watch, er, Don't Watch!

It's been a while since I posted on the inscription known as Gabriel's Vision or the Apocalypse of Gabriel. That's because there really isn't anything new to say that hasn't already been said over and over and over about this inscription and Israel Knohl's tendentious reading of it.

However, that hasn't stopped National Geographic from making a documentary about the inscription, resurrecting the misleading claim that earlier Jewish references to a dying and rising messiah would somehow be damaging to Christianity.

Why does every story have to be told nowadays with an over-sensationalized, entertainment-oriented spin irrespective of facts? National Geographic, CNN, Fox News - what ever happened to the superficial attempt to appear factual and objective?

So, don't bother watching the show when it airs. For a more detailed explanation about why their take on the inscription is wrong, visit April DeConick's blog or note this post by Mike Heiser.

HT: Jim West

The OT Law Today

Many Christians aren't quite sure what to make of the Old Testament, having been taught that the laws of the OT are not applicable to them (based largely on Romans 6:14). Which parts apply and which parts don't?

I find it mildly humorous that some conservative (better: fundamentalist) criticisms of cultural practices find their supposed biblical basis in OT laws that would most certainly be abrogated by Rom 6:14.

Let's take, for example, the fundamentalist aversion to tattoos because, well, tattoos are just unbiblical. There might be plenty of perfectly rational reasons to NOT get a tattoo (will you like it in 30 years, what if you break up, etc.), but "because the Bible says it's wrong" isn't one of them.

The biblical injunction against tattoos is found in Leviticus 19 (one of my personal favorites for devotional reading).

Leviticus 19:28 (ESV):  You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord.

That seems straightforward enough. "You shall not tattoo yourselves." But wait, what's all this "cuts on your body for the dead" stuff about? I have a great idea . . . let's look at the context.

Leviticus 19:26-28 (ESV): "You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it. You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes. [27] You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard. [28] You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord.

Wow . . . reading verses 27-28 together is really paradoxical for fundamentalists. First, don't cut your hair or beard (i.e., look like a hippy - anathema to a fundamentalist who must be clean-shaven with short hair). Second, don't tattoo yourselves. Long hair is good; tattoos are bad. Mind bending, isn't it?

It's funny that some OT laws are invoked to explain cultural preferences, but most are ignored as no longer applicable. For example, when's the last time you checked your garments to avoid a cotton/polyester blend?

Leviticus 19:19 (ESV): "You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.

Work for a bank? Is it ethical to be charging interest, especially to members of your own religious community?

Deut. 23:19 (ESV): "You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest.

The fact that these laws are no longer relevant today (at least for most Christian communities) doesn't mean that they shouldn't be read. They can still teach us something about how to read our Bibles and about what issues were important to the biblical writers.

It's important for our passage on tattoos to notice what the biblical writer was really concerned with. It wasn't tattooing per se. Let's go back to the "cuts for the dead" issue. It seems like the writer of Lev 19:26-28 was concerned with magic and idol worship. I think it's safe to assume that eating flesh with the blood, interpreting omens, telling fortunes, cutting hair, cutting the body for the dead, and tattooing were all practices associated with necromancers, witches, mediums and wizards. In fact, I'd say that Lev 19:29-31 continues with a concern for practices associated with idol worship and magic (based on the explicit return of that topic in Lev 19:31).

Anyone with some experience reading ANE ritual texts care to back me up? Are those ritual or cultic practices described in Lev 19:26-31?

So if you're a tattooed Christian, it's ok. God forgives you.

SBL: Cave of John the Baptist Debunked

The second most interesting presentation (after Pardee's)in the Paleographical Studies in the Ancient Near East section was Joe Zias's thorough debunking of the mania around the Cave of John the Baptist discovery.

I believe that Zias has given a much more plausible interpretation of all the evidence by demonstrating numerous connections between the iconography found in the "cave" and the iconography of Crusader and medieval times connected with St. Lazarus, the patron saint of those suffering from leprosy (found in the Bible in a parable from Luke 17). The correspondences between what is seen in the cave and the examples that Zias found provide convincing proof that once again there's been much ado about nothing in the sensationalized world of biblical archaeology.

A cautious evaluation of the hype over the find and links to more media attention from back in 2004 can be found at Bible Places.

What's the original?

Many students (and not a few scholars) wax wistful and glassy-eyed when they drift into reverential discourse about the "original" version of the Bible that they are studying. For most people involved in biblical studies, that original version is usually a recent edition of the critical text available through the various Bible Societies. However, a Hebrew text whose vocalization was not written down until well into the Common Era and a pastiche of New Testament manuscript readings is not original. Those texts might have some good warrant, and they may have merit as the best thing available, but they are certainly not original, and they did not have influence as cohesive texts until their (recent!) publication.

Most of the historical influence of the Bible has come through various translations of it. Functionally, those translations have been the original for most people, most of the time. Research scholars, perhaps, can retreat into narrow preference for Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. For teachers, however, such a stance is problematic, and not just for people with confessional commitments.

I have faith commitments in place, but I don't teach interpretation of Bible with some subversive agenda of somehow injecting a little "Truth" in my uncommitted students' consciousness. The historical reality is that the interpretation of these translations has often ended up with people getting killed, and I want to promote justifiable and responsible interpretation with the hope of curbing that nasty trajectory. The foundational aspect of any sort of interpretation is simply awareness of the need for it--any time you have a text, you have interpretation.

One of the privileges that I have had as a grad student was the opportunity to interact with undergraduate students as both a Teaching Assistant and also an instructor. The earliest lesson that I learned was that students have a very difficult time analyzing texts in general, and the Bible in particular. That lesson has been thrust before me more often than any other as I have continued teaching. These days, I don't teach critical thinking--I teach defensible interpretation. If you can get students to see the data, their reasoning skills usually engage without any special help.

In my estimation, teachers of Biblical Studies have a responsibility to help students learn to read the Bible better in the only original text that they will ever know--a translation. Such an approach certainly shows respect for history, but it ultimately shows respect for both text and student as well.

The Etymology of God and Allah

Here's another example of how the internet can foster the spread of misinformation. I happened upon a blog post that re-posted in full someone else's rant about why Christians should not use the word "Allah" as a name for God. To stop the spread of misinformation, I won't link to it. I fully agree with them that the current associations of the name as the proper name of the god of Islam make it unacceptable as a generic name for God. But why would English-speaking Christians need to use an Arabic word for God anyway? In today's world, it would simply cause confusion -- making it seem like the two biggest world religions really worship the same god (they don't).

However while the main point of the rant was correct, the post itself included a very glaring error of Hebrew etymology intended to discredit the word as a deity's name. They said that the Arabic word "Allah" was the same as (i.e., cognate to) the word for "oak trees" in the Hebrew Bible. This is completely incorrect. The terms are not related. The Arabic word is cognate to 'Eloah, a rare Hebrew synonym for El or Elohim, both used as generic words for "god." The same is true in English -- we can use "god" generally like "the Greek gods" or specifically as "God" to refer the Judeo-Christian God. One of the Hebrew words for "oak tree" is 'elah which looks similar to the Aramaic cognate of 'Eloah which is 'Elah. The spelling looks the same in my English transliteration, but there are differences in the original script. I suppose that similarity is possibly the source of the mix-up. (Side note on historical grammar: In Arabic and Aramaic, the last vowel in 'allah or 'elah is a historically long /a/. That's how we know for certain that 'elah "oak" in Hebrew is not related because historically long /a/ shifted to /o/ in the Canaanite dialects. This resulted in the /o/ vowel we have in 'eloah and 'elohim in Hebrew.)

At any rate whatever the origin of the word "Allah," it no longer carries a neutral connotation as a general word "god." As such, it would be inappropriate to use it for any deity except the god of the Quran. In the same way, it would be inappropriate to refer to any deity as YHWH except for the God of the Bible. One can read a good theological discussion of the differences between YHWH and Allah here. (that is, it's more articulate than the rant that I'm not linking to.)