More specifically, in the last post we saw where Moses was described in the Pentateuch as the subject of a 3rd masc singular verbs (“Moses did XYZ”) vs. when the 1st person singular was used, as though Moses himself was writing (“I did XYZ”). The ratio was 7:1, with the 3rd person instances far outnumbering the 1st person. The conclusion was that it is reasonable to suppose that someone other than Moses wrote some of that third person material — i.e., they are not all self-referential. Put more bluntly: Why would Moses use the third person in a self-referential way seven times more often than using the simpler first person to indicate he was the author? I think that’s not only a fair question; it’s a good one.

In this post I want to explore person and number a bit more precisely (stop yawning).

Think of the book of Acts. The book is addressed to someone named Theophilus (Acts 1:1), just as the Gospel of Luke (1:3). There is therefore virtually unanimous agreement that Luke was the author of both. However, Luke was apparently only an eyewitness for the events of the book of Acts. This conclusion derives from the fact that he was Paul’s traveling companion, as indicated by Paul’s notes in Col 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11; and Philemon 24, as well as the author of Acts’ use of “we” when recalling events in Paul’s missionary journeys. It is this first person use that draws my attention at this point.

Under the assumption that Luke wrote Acts, one would expect there to be a number of 1st person usages in Acts 13-28, the space devoted to Paul’s ministry. If we do a search for the 1st person plural (“we: did XYZ) verb forms in Acts …

… we learn that there are roughly 82 instances in Acts 13-28 (110 overall). Here are the results. However, these 1cpl forms do not all read as though Luke is including himself in the group (e.g., the “we” may refer to conversation in another group Luke is writing about, such as Gentiles or Jews). If one looks through the search results, there are close to 50 instances where the writer uses the 1cpl verb form to include himself. (See the underlined instances in yellow highlighting). So, to put things in general terms, we have 50 good indications in sixteen chapters of Acts that are consistent with Luke as author of the book.

One wonders how many of these we might find in the Pentateuch — a much larger corpus.  I decided to look through the books of Exod-Deuteronomy, the books that encompass the lifetime of Moses — and, more specifically, the travels of Israel out of Egypt to Canaan under the leadership of Moses.  Here’s what the search looked like (I just changed the title of the book in the search range for each search):

The results are interesting. The numbers below represent the total number of occurrences of 1cpl verb forms in these four books — but remember, we’ll have to look through all of them to see which ones *specifically* show us the writer (presumably Moses in context) is including himself.

1cpl verb (total) in Exodus: 35
1cpl verb (total) in Leviticus: 3
1cpl verb (total) in Numbers: 64
1cpl verb (total) in Deuteronomy: 59

Here are the results in another PDF.  Once again I have gone through them and used yellow highlighting to mark the ones that clearly have the writer including himself in what is being written. Be advised that I exclude instances that are introduced by the THIRD person, as that reads like someone else is writing ABOUT Moses and then has Moses saying something in the first person. What we’re looking for is the kind of thing we saw in Acts with Luke — that is what we should expect from a known author’s narrative — first person and use of the first person to include himself since he was present. In other words, can we find 1st person self-references that aren’t introduced by the third person? I looked through these quickly, so if you want to make an argument for others, let me know.

Cutting to the chase, it was very difficult to find anything like we saw in Luke. It only happens when you get to Deuteronomy, and those “hits” are made somewhat questionable by Deut 1:1 (see my notes in the file).

So, I propose again — in view of the data, it seems reasonable to think that a lot of the Pentateuch was not composed by Moses. For me though (as you will see in the second PDF), there is evidence that suggests an original body of Mosaic first person narrative that was later woven into the larger book of Deuteronomy. And, as I noted at the very beginning of this series, the phrase “law of Moses” need not work only one way (as Moses being the author). The phrase seems entirely appropriate of the Pentateuch (or Exod-Deut) as meaning that the work is about Moses or intimately associated with him, so I don’t see any scriptural inconsistency in its use (only our own misuse). The fact that we moderns have misunderstood the phrase “law of Moses” does not mean it is an “errant” or illegitimate one. The problem is with our lack of precision, not the phrase.

Technorati Tags: authorship, documentary, JEDP, Mosaic, Moses, Torah

Here are some preliminary observations / thoughts as we (still) are saddling up to the Mosaic authorship of the Torah issue.

1. There isn’t a single verse in the OT where the “law” references anything in the book of Genesis. For sure the patriarchal stories are known in Exodus through Deuteronomy, but they are never associated with the “law of Moses.”

2. There is no verse in the OT that (key word) unambiguously uses the phrase “law of Moses” comprehensively — i.e., referring to the five books of the Pentateuch. Same goes for other references to the law in connection with Moses. As you read you’ll note that there are a few that *could* speak of the Pentateuch (or Exodus through Deuteronomy, since there is nothing to link the phrase to Genesis). But it isn’t clear; just a possibility.

3. You’ll notice that several of my notes refer to the issue of the date of Deuteronomy (and, more peripherally, to the date of that book and its chronological relationship to the book of Joshua). This introduces what for me is a key issue:  Was any part (or all) of Deuteronomy post-Mosaic in its origin?  Those who hold JEDP are categorical in this regard — Deuteronomy was composed and edited during the reigns of Hezekiah and (especially) Josiah. That means the story of its discovery by Hilkiah the priest (2 Kings 22; 2 Chron 34) needs to be viewed in some respect as either fiction or “fictional license” on the part of of the writer of 2 Kings. If the book was created in its entirety after the lifetime of Moses, the story is basically fiction. If Deuteronomy was part genuine Mosaic material + part application of the Mosaic material by someone who wasn’t Moses, then “fiction” is too strong and inaccurate. I would argue that (if this is the case), whoever wrote the 2 Kings account probably knew Deuteronomy was late but wanted to make clear that the laws in it were tied to Moses (either as a historical and iconic figure or in terms of actual material written by Moses). The scribe is thus doing due diligence to make sure everyone knows that when the laws of Deuteronomy conflict with the laws of Exodus (e.g., the Passover rules), the later laws are still derivative from and consistent with the spirit of the original exodus laws.¹

4. Note that the “book of the law” that is identified with Deuteronomy does *not* contain Deut 31-34 (see the phrase used in Deut. 31:24–26).

5. The instances where “law” is referred to are, in the majority of instances, identifiable (specific passages or sections; e.g., the decalogue, or the curses in Deut 27-28). That is, the association of some law or laws with Moses is very often (nearly always might be fair) specific, not aimed at identifying whole books as the source of the reference.

I’ll let you mull all this over before we hit the New Testament in the next post. Again, by way of summary explanation, my goal in this post is singular:  to ascertain what can and cannot be said about how the OT itself uses the phrase “law of Moses,” and whether Moses is ever associated with all five books. We’re looking only at OT for now, and this is a first step.

Technorati Tags: Deuteronomy, Hilkiah, law of moses, Pentateuch

Like the example from Exodus that I used in the earlier post, here’s a New Testament passage where there’s a lot more than meets the eye:

1 Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. 2 But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

I’ll isolate the focus to verse 4. The questions should be obvious: (1) Who is the “god of this world”? and (2) What’s up with unbelievers being blinded from the gospel?

Let’s look at some selections (commentary types are described in my earlier post):

Popular Commentaries

Lone example (it’s long, and perhaps painful):

“Any of us who try to serve God in any way often have reasons for being discouraged. The awareness of our human limitation and the awareness of our imperfection gnaw at our self-confidence. Then, too, the indifference of people to whom we try to witness and share the gospel makes us wonder sometimes if it’s really such good news.

“It is easy to feel discouraged when we see the aggressiveness of evil in our world. And the disunity in the church and the lack of love among so many Christians certainly take the edge off of our witness. But when we read the Scriptures and the story of the lives of the early Christians, we discover that it has always been this way. Paul experienced this and yet wrote to his friends that in spite of everything, “we do not lose heart” (v. 1). And in the first six verses of the fourth chapter, he introduces the reasons for his encouragement.

“Paul felt that God had given him a ministry. There is a sense in which when he said, “we have this ministry” (v. 1), he was referring to the calling that had come to him out of God’s new purpose for his life. Before he met Christ his life was not without a purpose. After all, he had been a man obsessed with a mission, but it was a mission full of hatred and violence and destruction. Then when Christ captured his heart He made him a servant and gave him a ministry of love, of reconciliation, and of service. This is the pattern God has for all of us. He gives each of us a specific ministry—something we can do and that He wants done. Each life undirected has the potential to drift into an aimless, self-seeking, purposeless existence. But God comes to each one who trusts Him and gives something that needs to be done, and in the doing of it we find encouragement about ourselves and about life.

“My Aunt Orphea is a classic example of the way in which being given a ministry keeps our spirits up, keeps us encouraged. This isn’t to say that there isn’t a whole lot in Aunt Orphea’s life that couldn’t get her down. She’s in her seventies, has been a widow for years, has all sorts of problems with her health, and is trying to support herself in a time of high inflation on a small fixed income. There are just a lot of things in her life that could give her ample reasons for complaint. But the truth is that she is a very happy woman, and when we spend time with her, it is easy to see why she has a happy disposition.

“Her little church has made her responsible for the small children’s Bible study time on Sunday morning and she loves it. Each Saturday evening she has preparations to make: a gift to wrap, a song to learn, a game to plan, or a verse to copy. She has to be there early so she can greet the children and see that her room is the way she feels it ought to be. It was obvious that this “ministry” that she has been given is not only blessing all those with whom she works, but it is giving her life meaning as well. She feels needed and wanted and useful. Those Christians who do not have a ministry have missed God’s purpose for their lives.

“The apostle Paul was also encouraged by the gospel that he had been given to share. In verse 2 he has several things to say about the way in which he has shared the gospel. His wording suggests that he is answering some criticism which has been aimed at the gospel he preached. He contrasts himself with the methods of his critics.

“The gospel he preached did not include what he called “craftiness” (v. 2). The word translated “craftiness” here is translated “knavery” in other places and means the “readiness to do anything.” Paul was suggesting that his critics would stop at nothing in their efforts.

“Then Paul’s claim to not “handling the word of God deceit-fully” (v. 2) comes from a word which refers to a doctor adulterating medicines. His critics had accused Paul of adulterating the gospel, probably by not requiring persons to observe Jewish laws in order to become Christians.

“But Paul claimed that he would rest his case with “every man’s conscience in the sight of God” (v. 2). I think that the temptation to tamper with the gospel will always be with us. And every time we try to be clever or add something to it or take something away from it we empty the gospel of its power and our witness and ministry of its effectiveness.

“One rather prevalent temptation is to attempt to make the gospel more intellectually respectable. We are to love God with all our minds and to use our minds as we seek to communicate the gospel, but there has always been something in the very nature of the gospel that seems “foolish,” and people are often tempted to try to remove that stumbling block.

“There is also the temptation to try to make the gospel more acceptable. When this happens, repentance, the cost of discipleship, and the lordship of Christ are played down so it will be easy for people to respond. What Bonhoeffer referred to as “cheap grace” becomes acceptable.

“Still others use the gospel to support worldly values that are actually in conflict with the true Christian life. All the God-wants-you-to-be-rich messages that are heard so much today are nothing but a form of religious materialism. They ignore the extreme poverty of many early Christians and the fact that in many areas of the world today Christians pay a very high price for their faith in terms of material things. The temptation to “craftiness” and “deceitful” use of the gospel is one every Christian needs to continue to resist.

“We read in verse 5 that Paul was also encouraged by the fact that the gospel that he had been given to share centered in a person: “We do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord.” Two words—Jesus Christ—epitomized the message of the early church. The apostles and evangelists didn’t preach a book, a ritual, an institution, or a set of teachings, but a person. To them world evangelization was the sharing of Jesus Christ with the whole world.

“While the Gospels record many of the acts and teachings of Christ’s ministry, they were meant to point a person to the living Christ. Though the apostle Paul did a great deal of writing about the atoning work of Christ, it was not a theory of atonement that he preached, but a person who could forgive sins. It is this aspect of the gospel that makes it possible for all Christians to become witnesses. Evangelism in its most wholesome form is one believer introducing someone else to the person of Jesus Christ.

“Then again, Paul was encouraged by the fact that the gospel did not have to be accepted by everyone to remain valid. I have often shared Christ with people and they have acted absolutely indifferent to what I was talking about.

(Kenneth L. Chafin and Lloyd J. Ogilvie, vol. 30, The Preacher’s Commentary Series, Volume 30: 1, 2 Corinthians [Thomas Nelson, 1985], 221).

Yes, this really is the commentary on 2 Cor 4:1-6. Completely unhelpful. Where is the interpretive beef? It’s hard to know that it’s even the right passage. This is a classic example of talking about the text (loosely speaking) and not giving people the text. At best one could read this after spending some time in the actual passage. But if this is what pastors give their people in the pulpit, they shouldn’t expect them to grow in the knowledge of the Word. They’ll be lucky to find the Word in all that.

Expositional Comemntaries

Example 1

“In addition to their own love of sin, unbelievers reject the gospel because the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving. The unbelieving are the same ones described in verse 3 as those who are perishing; the two terms are synonyms. Despite the claims of some, there can be no such thing as an “unbelieving Christian,” since the unbelieving are the perishing. Ai?n (world) is better translated “age” (as it is in Matt. 12:32; 13:39, 40, 49; 24:3; 28:20; Luke 16:8; 18:30; 20:34; 1 Cor. 1:20; 2:6, 7, 8; 3:18; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:21; Col. 1:26; Titus 2:12; Heb. 6:5, etc.). The god of this world or age is Satan, (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; Eph. 2:2; 2 Tim. 2:26; 1 John 5:19), who controls the ideologies, opinions, hopes, aims, goals, and viewpoints current in the world (cf. 2 Cor. 10:3–5). He is behind the world’s systems of philosophy, psychology, education, sociology, ethics, and economics. But perhaps his greatest influence is in the realm of false religion. Satan, of course, is not a god but a created being. He is called a god because his deluded followers serve him as if he were one. Satan is the archetype of all the false gods in all the false religions he has spawned.

“It is that massive and pervasive influence over society by which Satan deludes the unregenerate so that they might not see the light of the gospel. Except in rare cases, Satan and his demons do not directly indwell individuals. They do not need to. Satan has created a system that panders to the depravity of unbelievers and drives them deeper into darkness. In addition to being dead in their trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), veiled from the truth (2 Cor. 3:15), haters of light and lovers of darkness (John 3:19–20), unbelievers walk “according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience … [living] in the lusts of [the] flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and [are] by nature children of wrath” (Eph. 2:2–3). They are “of [their] father the devil, and [they] want to do the desires of [their] father” (John 8:44). All the evil of the human heart—crime, hatred, bitterness, anger, injustice, immorality, and conflict between nations and individuals—is pandered to by Satan’s agenda. The world system he has created inflames the evil desires of fallen people, causing them to be willfully blind and love their darkness.” (John MacArthur, 2 Corinthians [Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2003], 132)

Example 2

“Who are the unbelievers Paul mentions? Are they those Jews who refuse to accept Christ as the Son of God? Or are they those Corinthians who have heard the gospel but reject it? Because the Greek grammar of this verse is infelicitous, we do well to explain the term unbelievers as a synonym of “those who are perishing” (v. 3). The term, therefore, applies to all those who refuse to know Jesus Christ as Son of God. This term appears again in 6:14, where Paul warns believers not to be yoked with unbelievers. Faith stands in opposition to unbelief, and these two can never exist harmoniously.

“Paul calls Satan the god of this age, not to place the devil on a level with God, but to show that Satan is the ruler of this world. In the first few centuries of the Christian era, Gnosticism promulgated its doctrine that not God but an evil god had created and now controlled this world. Opposing this teaching, many theologians wanted to deprive Satan of the title god and ascribe it only to God. Thus they proposed the translation: “to those unbelievers of this age whose minds God has blinded.” But the Greek word order will not support this version. God does not want the death of anyone but desires that all repent and live (Ezek. 18:23, 32; II Peter 3:9). Satan is the adversary of God and his people. On this earth, he exercises the authority that has been given to him (Luke 4:6).

“Jesus calls Satan the prince of this world, but Paul designates him “god.” The Hebrew plural term elohim is translated in the singular as either “God” or “god.” When the writers of Scripture refer to a god, they usually do so with a qualifying genitive; for instance, “each cried out to his own god” (Jonah 1:5; see also Exod. 20:23; II Kings 19:37). When we translate the Hebrew text of Psalm 8:5 literally, we read, “a little lower than God” (NASB). But the Septuagint renders the verse as “a little lower than the angels.” Paul probably had in mind the Hebrew expression elohim, which he translated “god” and applied to the fallen angel, Satan.
Satan is capable of transforming himself into an angel of light (11:14) to deceive people. Through counterfeit miracles, signs, and wonders, he employs his evil schemes to deceive those who are perishing (II Thess. 2:9). He prowls around like a roaring lion searching for prey to devour (I Peter 5:8). And as the spirit (god) of the age, he has the power to blind the minds of unbelievers. The contrast is striking: preachers drive away the darkness of the world with Christ’s illuminating gospel; Satan strikes the unbelievers with blindness so that their minds are unable to see the light of the gospel. A veil covers their minds, much as the Israelites refused to see Moses’ face radiating God’s glory and as the Jews were unable to understand the message of the Scriptures (3:13–15). Conversely, Christians send forth the light of Christ’s gospel and reflect his glory. Satan has no power over the believers who stand firm in their faith, even though he tries to deceive them—if that were possible (Matt. 24:24; Mark 13:22). Believers not only see the glory of Christ through the illumination of the gospel, but also reflect his glory in their daily lives.” (Simon J. Kistemaker and William Hendriksen, vol. 19, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians [Baker, 1953-2001], 140).

Both of these commentaries presume that the “god of this world” is Satan (“god” is spelled lower case since that is the way it appears in the translation and commentary). Neither commentator even thought to look up the “blinding the eyes” referent in passage — Where might that come from? to what might it allude? Who blinds eyes in (what a novel suggestion) the Old Testament? This omission results in interpretive tunnel vision.

Scholarly Commentaries

To be honest, few scholarly commentators bother to ask themselves the blindness question I raised above. Sometimes you need to go beyond scholarly commentators, to where the real meat is at — academic journals and academic conference papers. The reason these resources are so valuable is that they are designed to devote 10, 15, 20, 25 pages to narrow questions, textual issues, and interpretive points. In other words, a good journal article is focused on very specific issues.

One of the few commentaries on 2 Corinthians that even gives us material to think in regard to the sort of “Scripture comparing Scripture” procedure that I hinted at above is the one by Murray Harris in the New International Greek Text series. Harris gives us a wonderful insight below, but then doesn’t follow his own trail. Apparently (pardon the pun) he was too blinded by the “obvious” conclusion that the god of this world must be Satan.

Harris notes on page 320 that there are some transparent parallels between the vocabulary used in 2 Cor 4:1-6 and 2 Cor 3:7-18. He puts the passages in parallel in Greek, but here’s a literalized English rendering to try to highlight what he directs readers to see:

Here’s the logical question that surfaces once this patterning is noticed: Who are the people whose minds are hardened so they cannot see the glory?

So, while Harris disappoints for not pursuing this question and its implications, his commentary did something for us that expositional commentaries won’t as a habit do — he searched for patterns in similar vocabulary across the Greek New Testament, specifically within Paul’s other letters (recall one of “Heiser’s Laws for Bible Study” – patterns are more important than word studies. The problem is that Harris didn’t take the pattern back into the Septuagint (or the English, since that’ll get you to what I want you to see).

Now for some homework. I’d like you to do two things before clicking on the link below to have your eyes opened (okay, it’s late, so another pun) to at least consider a fascinating alternative:

1. Answer the question about 2 Cor 3 I just posed.
2. Answer the earlier questions about the blinding issue I noted earlier.

Take a shot at those and then click away!

Technorati Tags: Bible, canon, New Testament, scriptures

Last night when I should have been grading some papers I was in the mood to do some work on my next four-week teaching session at church. You’ll know how unusual that was when I tell you it’s going to be on prophecy (stop chuckling). I’m going to do four weeks on “Why are you where you are when it comes to your end times beliefs?”  I’ll be trying to get people to think about their presumptions. (Yes, I will post my power points here). I woke up this morning thinking about the first week, wondering how to communicate some of the skills people really need to move beyond assuming Bible *reading* is Bible *study* (I have learned, kicking and screaming mind you, that this is where most people are at – and it hurts). Bible reading is light years from Bible study, though there is obvious overlap. I sat down and wrote out the list below. No doubt it well get tweaked some time since it’s less than thirty minutes old.

Heiser’s Laws for Bible Study

• There is no substitute for close attention to the biblical text.

• You should be observing the biblical text in the original languages. If you cannot, never trust one translation in a passage. Use several and then learn skills for understanding why they disagree.¹

• Patterns in the text are more important than word studies.

• The New Testament’s use of the Old Testament is the key to understanding how prophecy works.²

• The Bible must be interpreted in context, and that context isn’t your own or that of your theological tradition; it is the context that produced it (ancient Near East / Mediterranean).
  • Put another way, if you’re letting your theological tradition filter the Bible to you, you aren’t doing Bible study or exegesis.

• The Bible is a divine human book; treat it as such.
  • Put another way, God chose people to write the biblical text, and people write using grammar, in styles understood by their peers, and with deliberate intent — and so the Bible did not just drop from heaven. Study it as though some person actually wrote it, not like the result of a paranormal event.

• If it’s weird, it’s important (i.e., it’s there for a reason; it is not random).

• Don’t hire someone to stock the grocery shelves who can’t read the labels.  Or: don’t put your meds in the daily pill tray unless you can read the instructions.
  • Put another way: Systematic theology isn’t helpful (and can be misleading) if its parts are not derived from exegesis of the original text. Biblical theology is done from the ground up, not the top down (and so, see # 2 in this list).

• If, after you’ve done the grunt work of context-driven exegesis, what the biblical text says disturbs you, let it.

• Build a network of exegetical insights you can keep drawing upon; the connections are the result of a supernatural Mind guiding the very human writers. The only way to think that Mind’s thoughts are to find the network, one node at a time.

—————–

Generally, I like this stuff because it’s one of those “more than meets the eye” kinds of things that we need to really think the biblical writers’ thoughts after them — to see the world as they saw it (not as the Reformers saw it or, God forbid, pop evangelicalism sees it). Anyway, it’s fascinating. There are better things on the 153 number, but I really can’t complain – this is a wonderful overview.

In Gen 48:21-22 we read (ESV):

21 Then Israel said to Joseph, “Behold, I am about to die, but God will be with you and will bring you again to the land of your fathers. 22 Moreover, I have given to you rather than to your brothers one mountain slope that I took from the hand of the Amorites with my sword and with my bow.”

Gen 48:21-22 refers back to the massacre at Shechem perpetrated by Simeon and Levi in the wake of the their sister Dinah’s rape (Genesis 34). “Mountain slope” is Hebrew shekem, which is an obvious wordplay on the Hebrew place name (and personal name) shechem. Genesis 33:19 informs us that Jacob purchased a plot of land (cf. the “slope”) from Hamor of Shechem–he did not take it by force. The plot of land was likely intended as a burial site (recall Abraham had purchased a plot of land from the Hittite Ephron for that purpose; Gen 23). Hamor is described as a “Hivite” in Gen 34:2.The text of Genesis 34 is quite clear that Jacob had nothing to do with the massacre and rebuked his sons in harsh terms for what they did. It is also clear they left Shechem and did not occupy it. (Read the chapter if it is not familiar).

That summary alerts us to two basic problems in Gen 48:21-22. One is easily adressed; the other is not. Let’s take the easy one first.

1. Hamor of Shechem, the Hivite — why is he referenced with “Amorite” in Gen 48:22?

Briefly, both “Amorite” and “Hivite” are used in the Old Testament broadly, meaning that Hamor could theoretically have been called either in normal discourse. For example, the term “Amorite” shows mixed ethnicity and geography. In Josh 10:5-6 two of the five “Amorite” kings are placed in Jerusalem and Hebron. Those two places are also associated with the Jebusites and Hittites, respectively (cp. Ezek 16:3, 45). The Amorites are also placed outside Canaan in the Transjordan (Deut 1:44). That scholars take the Amorites as the ancient Amurru makes this distribution comprehensible, since the Amurru kingdom extended from parts of Lebanon into Syria and northern Canaan (the location of Shechem) and the Transjordan. The Old Testament also places the Hivites in these same areas, and so that term has the same ethnic/geographical imprecision (see Gen 36:2–3; Josh 11:3; Judg. 3:3; 2 Sam 24:1–9).

So the answer to this question is that Hamor could be called either since either works.

2. “With Sword and Bow”?

The greater problem is how to reconcile the statement of Gen 48:22, that Jacob had taken the slope (Shechem) with his “sword and bow,” when Genesis 34 has him opposing what happened there—and buying a piece of land there (Gen 33:19), something he would not have had to do if he had conquered it prior to the treachery in chapter 34. Compounding the quandary is the fact that when Joshua enters the Promised Land he does not have to conquer Shechem; he simply holds a covenant renewal ceremony there. Indeed, the only conquest of Shechem at any point in Israel’s history occurs centuries later under Abimelech in Judges 9.

There are three possible answers to the problem:

a. Gen 48:22 contains an error (or Gen 34 lies to the reader).

b. Gen 48:22 preserves a lost tradition that is true, but the final editor(s) of Genesis were careless (or indifferent), in that they didn’t bother to reconcile the passages. This would be a case of scribal carelessness that is *not* an error.  Their work just lacks clarity. (But would some call that an error?) This answer suggests there is a way to reconcile them but it is unknown.

c. Gen 48:22 preserves a lost tradition that is not actually related to Genesis 33:19 and Genesis 34. If this is the case, the editors were also careless (or indifferent), since they don’t inform the reader there is no relationship, avoiding the confusion. This answer suggests they don’t need reconciliation, but are best explained separately–but there is no data to tell us how to do that.

So, is there an error?

I think the best response to this (and “response” does not mean “solution”) is “I don’t know.” I don’t see any of the three options as compelling or more or less reasonable than any of the others. In other words, I see no reason to pick one and reject the others. So I don’t know if there is an error here or not.

Hence the problem.

Technorati Tags: errancy, Genesis 4:8, hamor, inerrancy, inspiration, jacob, shechem

“Scholars have long resisted using the term “forgery” to characterize Biblical writings made under false authorship, on the grounds that such concepts as forgery, plagiarism and intellectual property are modern legal constructs and don’t apply to the ancients. But UNC-Chapel Hill religion professor Bart Ehrman – a nemesis of conservative Evangelical Christianity who repudiated his faith in his 20s – makes the forgery accusation without reservation in a new book of that name.”

I have to hand it to Ehrman. I’m serious. What conservative biblical scholar puts half the effort into bringing New Testament scholarship to the public? As many readers will know, I’m a believer that scholarship is supposed to serve the public interest. But the reality is that few scholars want to flick any academic crumbs at the masses. Ehrman deserves admiration for that much. He makes a real effort to communicate important content to the non-specialist audience. While many evangelical scholars have bought into the notion — promoted by evangelicalism — that the average church-goer can’t abide serious content, Bart’s out there doing his darnedest to get unchurched people interested in the New Testament. And he succeeds. Too bad what he tells them is so often laced with non-sequiturs and either-or fallacies.

What Bart’s focusing on this time is the academic dispute over the authorship of certain books in the New Testament. This is related to the issue of “pseudonymity” – the ancient literary practice of composing a letter or other work in the name of a well-known figure (or substituting that person’s name for the title and hence authorial origin). The book of 1 Enoch is a good example (no, Enoch didn’t write it). In this new work, Ehrman distills the arguments against the traditional authorship attribution of certain New Testament books and then presents his readers with his usual either-or fallacy: only a knuckle-dragging fundamentalist wouldn’t take my side, the side of real scholars; that is the only choice.

Another Bart-Sequitur is born. And needs to be slapped on its butt.

Actually, Ehrman’s new book is good news and bad news. The good news is that none of what he’s going to say hasn’t been said before. Doubts as to the authorship of certain New Testament books is nothing new. New Testament scholars of all persuasions have been writing about pseudonymity and authorship problems for a very long time. The bad news is that most lay people within the “Bible believing” church will never have heard of any of this before. It will be totally new to them, for example, that there are “disputed Pauline epistles,” or that a majority of New Testament scholars don’t believe 1-2 Peter were written by Peter. Bart knows that. Sure, you can accuse him at this point of just wanting to make more money, but I doubt that’s what’s driving him. It’s at least partly about his belief that he’s disabusing people of false beliefs. But I also think he’s doing it as someone who’s been wounded by the faith. It’s working out some rage. Hey, if I believed what he thinks most evangelicals believe about God and evil (and they just might), I’d be angry with God, too. But I digress.

Regardless of what’s driving him, the theologically conservative assemblage of biblical scholars owes it to the average person in the pew to bring to light the full discussion on this issue. That is, rather than let Bart frame the issue and highlight the data points that will propel some unwarranted conclusions, people ought to be shown other ways the issue can be framed and approached that don’t result in forgery charges.

The Pastoral Epistles (1-2 Timothy, Titus) are among the disputed Paulines. The effort to deny Pauline authorship of these epistles began with the work of P. N. Harrison. Many scholars hostile to Pauline authorship still reference his work as having proven the case against Paul. (To understand the basics of Harrison’s work, click here – and note how Harrison’s statistical analyses have now been shown to be unreliable). My friend and Logos colleague Rick Brannan writes a blog devoted to the Pastoral Epistles, and so he’s been down this track before. Rick informed me that Harrison’s work denying Pauline authorship had been thoroughly addressed by Donal Guthrie in a 44-page monograph. It’s available online in PDF here.

Rick added that the Bulletin of Biblical Research had a roundtable discussion in an issue of the journal back in the 1990s. Some of those are online as PDF as well (here, here, and here).

More recently, Ben Witheringon has a well-reasoned section on pseudeonymity, wherein he defends the traditional authorship attribution of the disputed New Testament books. You can find that defense in Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Volume 1: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1-2 Timothy and 1-3 John (Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians Set). Thanks goes to Rick Brannan for that reference as well.

Far more brief are Witherington’s comments on his blog (emphasis mine):

“Bart and I furthermore disagree on the issue of pseudonymity in the canon. It is one thing to say there are anonymous documents in the NT, which there are. Hebrews would be a good example. It is another thing to say that there are pseudonymous documents in the NT, forgeries. I and many other critical scholars think this is not so, but Bart is right that many scholars think otherwise. My point is simply this— there is a healthy debate about that issue amongst scholars. It is not a “well assured result of the historical critical method” on analyzing the NT.”

Other disputed Paulines include Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, and (if you think Paul wrote it in the first place) Hebrews. (The links for each of those books — except Hebrews, which lacks any author attribution in its text — leads to a lengthy PDF file discussing the issues and defending Pauline authorship).

To round things out, here’s some reading for 1 Peter and 2 Peter, whose authorship is disputed among scholars.

Technorati Tags: 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 2 Thessalonians, Bart Ehrman, Colossians, disputed Paulines, Ephesians, Pastoral Epistles, pseudepigraphy, pseudonymity

Whether we realize it or not, the Bible employs fiction. My favorite example is dialogue in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Between them we get two, and sometimes three, versions of the same story, with dialogue included. The dialogue is typically very similar, but always different in some way, whether by word choice (vocabulary) or things like tense and case for verbs and nouns.  Let me illustrate why this matters.  Let’s say we have a story where Jesus is speaking to Peter in each gospel. The dialogue in all three synoptics is as follows (for one verse):

Matthew: Jesus said to Peter, “Let us go to the temple and preach the gospel.”

Mark: Jesus said to Peter, “Come, let us go to the holy place and preach the gospel.”

Luke: Jesus said to Peter, “Let us go and preach the good news.”

In *real time* (had the statement been recorded), Jesus only said one set of words.  We have to conclude that either one of the gospels got the words exactly right, or none did, or they all got some of the words right. But there was no tape recording. All three writers made up the dialogue to re-capture the event, and they all did so faithfully. We cannot say the Holy Spirit flawless gave each writer the words, since that would have the Spirit “flawlessly” recalling Jesus saying three different (though ultimately synonymous) things. Why would the Spirit do something like that when He would actually know what was actually said?  To be cute? Capricious? Playful? Makes no sense. But deferring to human memory and creativity makes complete sense here. They could all be contrived, yet faithful to the event.

Long’s material goes much deeper than this. The issues involved are more complex.

Technorati Tags: fiction, historiography, history, Israel

New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide

Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism

Technorati Tags: Bart Ehrman, Dan Wallace, greek, manuscripts, New Testament, scribes, textual criticism