… and I have clawed my way back onto the list, at a miserable #43. Ah well, it helps if one actually blogs!
Author: henry
-
1 Chronicles 1-9 in the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary
I previously gave an overview of the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary on 1-2 Chronicles, but I’ve been spending more time with it since, reading the Hebrew text along with the commentary. While I do appreciate the NLT text on which the commentary is based, I’m not reading this for the NLT text, but rather for the commentary.
I just completed chapter 9 which gets me to the start of the narrative portion of the book. In the genealogies especially, it’s hard to properly represent the Hebrew text in English translation. There are many ambiguities, name variants, and textual variants, especially in the versions. In several cases when I went to the NLT after reading the Hebrew I found that the reading I had chosen as I went through was in the NLT margin. That’s not a negative comment on the translation–it’s just very difficult to render this sort of text both clearly and accurately. Clarity is often purchased at the price of accuracy.
My impression of the commentary on this section is very positive. Author Mark Boda focuses on structural issues and the way in which the structure of the genealogies sets the shape for the narrative of the remainder of the book. One can derive timing, sources, and the purpose of the author from the way the genealogies are named. This commentary tends to emphasize a key point about studying the Old Testament: Genealogies aren’t some sort of appendix or footnote, but are rather of great, even central importance to the writers.
Within the limits of space (1 Chronicles 1-9 occupies pages 25-102), and the purpose of the commentary, which is for serious lay students or pastors, and not so much for scholars, the coverage is excellent. Boda includes a discussion of sources wherever they are used. It would be interesting to see more discussion of the implications of the way these sources are used, but what is provided is excellent.
Connections with historical events are covered, including references to place or personal names in other ancient near eastern sources are covered. What is absent is any extended effort to deal with the historicity of either these chapters or their sources. The author presents options but doesn’t really push any particular approach. I think that’s a positive thing. With the number of rough edges involved, such a discussion could easily occupy the whole book.
Overall, the commentary on these first nine chapters presents a structure that sees the post-exilic community built around the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, but with the Levites placed at the center of national religious life. The other tribes are included in such a way as to make a statement that they are part of the restored Israel as well. In some ways you can see Israel reinventing itself post-exile.
I’ll post further notes as I study further.
-
Review – Cornerstone Biblical Commentary 1-2 Chronicles
I previously reviewed the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary on Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy on my book blog and have posted a number of notes about it on this blog. So when I had an opportunity to review the volume in the same series on 1 & 2 Chronicles, I jumped at it. I would say many of the same things I said about that previous volume with regard to this one, so if you want my thoughts on the series in general, read that previous review.
Chronicles as a whole is not a staple of Christian teaching. We use a number of individual passages, especially the various prayers, but as a whole, the method is a bit foreign. From a historical point of view Samuel-Kings is closer to the events it relates as an historical source, while the emphasis on genealogy in Chronicles goes against the grain of our western minds.
In this commentary, author Mark J. Boda has managed to continue the quality commentary that I expect from this series. My personal tendency is to criticize a commentary such as this one for not including enough comment on issues of biblical criticism, the language, and translation issues. But those are not the primary focus here. This commentary is designed to be read by the non-theologian and people who do not read Hebrew.
At the same time it does have considerable information on the structure of the book and on the language. I found the introduction to the genalogies (pp. 25-31) particularly helpful, because it takes on issues such as the purpose of the genealogies and why they are included in the way that they are. I’ve previously written about the importance of genealogies and why they should not be neglected. These pages make many of those points and a number more as well.
In the section on 1 Chronicles 1-9, the commentary section follows a consistent structure that differs from what it follows in the rest of the book. The first portion discusses sources. Chronicles is one of those sections of the Bible where we have source explicitly referenced and easily discernible. The second portion discusses structure and content. While most readers will probably be going more directly for content, the excellent discussion of structure is one of the strong points of this commentary. Finally, there is a section on significance, particularly important because we are dealing with genealogies.
The whole commentary is 449 pages, including the text of the NLT. The remainder of the commentary starting with 1 Chronicles 10 is follows the more standard format of comment on short passages in succession. The discussion is thorough. References to Hebrew are transliterated and explained adequately for someone who does not know the language. (Those who do read Hebrew will, or at least should, want to know more.)
I would like to have an index in a book like this. I realize that people generally read commentaries by going to the section on a passage in which they have an interest. I would like to be able to follow some themes, such as prayer, through the commentary, and an index would be extremely helpful.
The bibliography occupies 13 pages, and will prove useful. I don’t have enough knowledge of the literature in this area to criticize the content, but it looks quite good in general.
I’m delighted to be studying these two books using this commentary. I personally want more comments on the language, but that is something I can get from other commentaries. This one is accessible and useful especially to the pastor or teaching in the church.
-
Common Ground on Genesis
On the Spectrum blog there’s quite a lot of discussion of the age of the earth and a search for common ground. The problem with the phrase “common ground” is that it can mean many different things. Two recent articles on the age of the earth had quotes that caught my attention. As far as I can tell (my specialty is Biblical languages, not any of the various sciences involved), the discussion of the various dating methods is quite good.
This material comes from members of the Seventh-day Adventist church, my former denomination, and one that is pretty firm on the young age of the universe and a literal seven day creation week. Watching this discussion unfold amongst SDAs is something I find fascinating.
The first article, Genesis Literalism and the Temple of Doom – I, after summarizing some of the methods, concludes:
Even if the message is not one we want to hear, recognizing the validity of these tools of science should be the basis for common ground.
Sounds good thus far. Then we continue with the second article, creatively titled Genesis Literalism and the Temple of Doom – II, and after some more dating methods are summarized we have another conclusion:
The obvious question, then, is, “how should the Church respond to this evidence?” As suggested previously, perhaps the best way to deal with this evidence, given a predisposition in favor of YEC, is simply to say nothing about age. Taking this approach would act as a hedge against further compelling scientific confirmation of a very old age. To proceed in this way would preserve the Church’s credibility, and would seem to be the only approach to common ground.
This one doesn’t strike me right at all. Essentially keeping silent about age when you’ve just admitted that the scientific evidence is entirely against young age seems very odd, and doesn’t seem any basis for common ground at all. Common ground between what groups or positions? In essence, by its silence, the church would say “We were wrong, but we don’t want to admit it, so now we’re going quiet.” Or so it seems to me …
I see two options for someone convinced that the earth is old, yet who espouses some form of biblically based Christianity: 1) Take a new look at the biblical evidence or role in the discussion or 2) Admit science is against you, but uphold what you believe the Bible teaches. The first approach is mine, looking both at how we understand certain passages of scripture and also looking at the role God intended scripture to play in scientific discussions. I’ve written on that before. Dr. Kurt Wise and Dr. Todd Wood are examples of folks who take the second approach.
I don’t think silence is going to work long term. I hope I will see in future installments that I have misunderstood the intent of the writer. I will certainly continue to read the series.
-
Profitable Scriptures
It’s been about six weeks since my last post, and unfortunately that’s actually a fairly short gap for the way I’ve kept this blog up. But the two Old Testament passages this week (Jeremiah 31:27-34 and Psalm 19 or Psalm 119:94-107) as well as the epistle caught my attention.
In the modern church we read these scriptures frequently and think about the Bible as we have it. In fact, we often use the phrase “word of God” as a synonym for “Bible.” Now I don’t want to detract from the nature and value of the Bible as God’s word, but that is not all of God’s word. More importantly, when these passages were written, there wasn’t a Bible, and much of what we have in our Bibles was not even written yet (depending, of course, on the dating of 2 Timothy).
Even if one dates 2 Timothy quite late, it would doubtless be dated before most of the New Testament was regarded as scripture, and thus it would refer to the Old Testament scriptures as know at the time. Psalm 19 and 119, of course, were written substantially earlier yet, and may have been referring primarily to the Torah, or the first five books of the Bible.
So why do I think this is important? Do I think what these passages say of scripture is not applicable to the Bible as we have it? Actually I definitely do think these passages should apply to the Bible as we have it. But they should also apply to the Bible as it was at those earlier times.
You see, too often we think we can skip some of those very Old Testament passages that are praised by these writers. “Profitable” or “more to be desired than gold.” Yet when I ask Christians if they have read the entire Bible, they’ll often ask if it counts even if they haven’t read Leviticus, or Numbers, or a variety of other passages.
Besides the value of the passages in their own context, I don’t think you can really understand the book of Hebrews without really understanding the tabernacle service as it’s described in Exodus – Numbers. You will misunderstand much of the New Testament if you don’t ground your study in the Old. And again, that’s ignoring the value of the passages in themselves.
Let’s look for the value, the “profit” in all of scripture!
-
From the Top of a Sidebar
Why a Missionary?
Because God says so…This is from Michelle’s blog, And She Went Out …. It’s a good quote. Michelle is the host for this week’s Christian Carnival.
-
Dan Dick on Make-No-Wave Church
… at Make-No-Wave United Methodist Church. For what it’s worth, I think the young pastor was absolutely right to push. May his tribe increase! (HT: John Meunier)
-
Biblioblogger Carnival and Rankings
The carnival is up at You Can’t Mean That, and the Biblioblogger rankings, from which I have fallen in disgrace due to lack of blogging (I would guess-no blogging=no traffic!) are up at Free Old Testament Audio.