Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Bible Books

  • New Biblical Studies Carnival

    Jim West has brought back the Biblical Studies Carnival.  (HT:  TCOJC)

  • Review: Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Hebrews

    My primary training in biblical studies placed an overwhelming emphasis on historical study.  The idea was to get at the original meaning of the text as it would have been understood by those who first heard or read it.  I should note that amongst my professors there was some desire to look at reception, and there was also some desire to look heavily at denominational application (these were Seventh-day Adventist schools), but I rejected both elements quite strongly and stuck to historical study.

    Now I still have no problem with that approach, as long as that is seen as an approach rather than the approach to Bible study.  The Bible is indeed a document written in history.  I would no longer say, as I said at the time, that I approach the Bible like any other piece of ancient near eastern literature.  (At some other time I’ll discuss the problem I see with interpreters who remain in the sacred tradition and seem unable to see the historical meaning at all.)

    But what does a person whose approach has been entirely on the historical side do if he is convinced that there is also an approach to studying scripture that is not purely historical, but sees the Bible not as just another piece (or collection) of ancient near eastern literature, but rather as God’s revelation to the church?  Such a view means that the reception of the text through the history of the church is also critical.

    Where I actually started was with whole books by church fathers and by Christians through the centuries.  There is a benefit to this form of study in that you get a better picture of a particular writer by reading a substantial portion of his or her writing.  But I am still primarily a student of language and history and definitely not a professional theologian.

    Enter the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series.  (I wrote this on completing my read of New Testament Volume X, but I think my comments apply to the whole series.) Here we have a selection of patristic commentary on various passages.  It simple to read and follow and contains the full text of the scripture in question.  The variety and the selection is great, and most of the commentary is brief.

    You shouldn’t expect to use this as a full commentary.  It’s not intended to be.  Neither should you expect it to give you a full introduction to each church father.  It’s providing snippets that relate to particular scriptures.  But you can find the context of the various fathers and their contribution by looking at the brief bios and the summary timeline in the back.

    I’ve found myself providing many quotes from this book as I’ve read.  It has been a far back-burner type project, and in many cases I’ve gone on to find the context of the quotes online, for which the Christian Classics Ethereal Library has proven very useful.  I’ll be bold enough to note also that I find some statements by the fathers to seem somewhat wide of the mark.  I think they were subject, as I am, to a desire to make the scriptures support their own pre-established views.  I would note that they are closer to the time and language of the texts, and thus they provide some help in discovering the historical meaning as well.

    This is really turning out to be more notes on using the church fathers and writers from other periods in Bible study and less a review of this particular commentary.  Let me summarize.  I think the selection is excellent, the volume well-organized, and provided one makes use of the resources provided, one can gain substantial value using any of these volumes in study.

  • On Faith Preceding Works

    Some time ago I wrote an essay titled A Fruitful Faith, in which I maintained that there is a pattern of grace before law that is consistent throughout scripture, both Old Testament and New.  One can also express this idea as call before response, or, as I’ve been thinking today especially, faith before works.

    Frequently faith and works are seen as contradictory, and there is, of course, an approach to works that contradicts faith.  There is also an idea of faith as abstract belief that divorces it from any form of works.  I’m reminded, however, of the reformation formulation “by faith alone, but not by the faith that is alone.”

    I found two quotes in my reading on Hebrews today (Hebrews: Ancient Christian commentary on Scripture, New Testament X).  The first is from Athanasius, Festal Letters, 11.3, and is found on page 178:

    [Paul] deemed it necessary to teach first about Christ and the mystery of the incarnation.  Only then did he point to things in their lives that needed to be corrected.  He wanted them first to know the Lord and then to want to do what he told them.  For if you don’t know the one who leads the people in observing god’s commands, you are not very likely to obey them.

    I like the way this is expressed.  Works done to earn God’s favor or to learn about God are very different from works done because one know and loves God.  The former are futile; the latter rewarding.

    Again, St. John Chrysostom, On the Epistle to the Hebrews, 22.4, on page 179:

    How was it “by faith” that “Enoch was taken up”? Because his pleasing God was the cause of his being taken, and faith the cause of his pleasing God.  For if he had not known that he should receive a reward, how could he have pleased God?  But “without faith it is impossible to please” God. How? If a person belives that there is a God and a retribution, that person will have the reward.  (emphasis mine)

    God’s grace, received by faith, is the cause of doing good, and doing good pleases God.  But clearly none of that comes from us; it all proceeds from God and comes to us because God has called us.

  • Two Notes on the Authorship of Hebrews

    The first is an interview at Euangelion with Andrew Pitts regarding his forthcoming essay on Hebrews (in a collection).  It discusses the authorship and proposes Paul as the author, but in a speech rather than a letter, and Luke as stenographer, which he differentiates from an amanuensis.  I didn’t get a completely clear picture of the difference.  In modern English usage a stenographer would have as little freedom in production as would an amanuensis, or so it seems to me.  But that is just a quibble about word choice.  Pitts is clearly proposing that Luke had more to say about the language than would a simple amanuensis.

    I personally find the idea of having both Luke and Paul involved to be a very interesting proposal, though I would tend more toward Luke as the writer (composer) based on things he had learned from Paul, thus explaining some differences in vocabulary and theology.  Ken Schenk comments with some useful notes, and I think Andrew Pitts dismisses his position as a strawman too quickly.

    All of that, of course, is from someone (me!) who really is unconvinced by any hypothesis.  I refuse to go beyond “the author of Hebrews” because I simply don’t think any proposal gets above the background noise level.

    The second post is from J. K. Gayle, who finds Pitts dismissal of the proposal that Priscilla might be the author a bit too quick.  I would agree that other authorship proposals are dealt with rather briefly and summarily in the interview, but it is, after all, a blog post.  I would hope some more effort was made in the book, which I have not read.  Hopefully I’ll lay hands on it when it is released.

    I previously reviewed Ruth Hoppin’s book Priscilla’s Letter and remained totally unconvinced.  I think the problem is evidence and not the desire of some to dismiss one particular author or another.  There simply isn’t enough written evidence for any of the proposals (Barnabas, Apollos, Priscilla, for example) to make a valid judgment. The primary attraction for Luke, I think, is that we have lots of literature with which to compare the book, and Luke demonstrates some of the skills displayed in the text of Hebrews.

    I would be quite delighted to believe that Priscilla wrote the letter, or to believe that the problem was thoroughly solved, but I don’t see that at this point.

  • Hobbins on Leviticus 25

    John Hobbins is starting a series on Leviticus 25.  It looks interesting.

  • Is Canonical 2 Corinthians a Hypothetical Reconstruction?

    As I’ve noted before, I’m now reading Calvin J. Roetzel, 2 Corinthians, in the Abingdon New Testament Commantaries series.  I want to emphasize here that I accept the use of historical-critical methodology in Bible study.  That does not, however, force me to find all critical theories plausible.  I’m arguing against this specific set of theories, not against historical-critical methodologies generally.

    In arguing against the unity of the book, Roetzel says:

    … Most [scholars who argue for the integrity of the book] side with Kümmel that the canonical version of 2 Corinthians was Paul’s original epistle, and they tend to ignore the hypothetical nature of their own construction even while repudiating the hypotheses of others (Kümmel 1965 [Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 1965], 292).  — p. 25

    This seems to me to be an odd statement.  Though it is not explicit, it appears to aim to place all views on a level playing field, from unity to the five letter hypothesis.  But that doesn’t seem the correct approach.

    If I have a letter with an essentially unified textual history, in this case meaning that the partitioning of the letter is nowhere evident in the textual history as we have it, then we might give at least slight preference to the notion that it is, in fact a letter.  When it fulfills all the forms, that suggestion is strengthened.

    I suppose that the idea that the letter is a unity is, indeed, an hypothesis, but it seems a rather obvious one.  Suggestions of Paul’s changes of mood and/or rhetorical intention are based on observing the text based on this first and most obvious hypothesis.

    On the other hand multiple letter hypotheses are immediately much more complicated.  First one has to assume that someone combined multiple letters into one, cutting out the salutation of at least one and the conclusion of another.  If we assume five letters, then the situation becomes more complicated.

    There are clearly shifts or seams in 2 Corinthians.  The question is why?  The problem for multiple letter hypotheses, I think, is to answer the question not just of why such seams are there (which they answer by proposing multiple letters), but also just why someone should put the document together in this way.

    I don’t see this addressed anywhere.  What is the purpose of the redactor?  If he wishes to preserve all the letters why not just copy them in succession?  If he has some theological purpose, then the question goes right back to the start–what is the meaning of the text as it stands?  (I would welcome comment from someone who has spent more time studying New Testament than I have.)

    I’m suggesting two things.  First, that the hypothesis that the letter as we have it is a unity should be privileged in discussion to some extent, because it is supported by the best possible evidence–that’s what the letter looks like now.  Second, that a theory that involves redaction must also explain the actions of the redactor.  Simply producing plausible pieces and providing a chronology for them does little without some reason why they would have been combined as they were.

    Let me illustrate from some texts where I feel I’m on more solid ground.  Many people try to solve the chronological differences between Genesis 1 and 2 by attributing them to two sources.  Now I believe they are from two sources.  I think the evidence is fairly solid for that.  But having said that, I have solved nothing regarding the difference in chronology between the two chapters, because I still must think about a redactor who somehow thought that putting them together made sense.  So now I must ask about his motivations and what message he intended to convey bringing them together.

    In the case of Isaiah, we again have a composite book, but here were have a hypothesis for why redactors would want to add to the book.  Very likely there was a school of prophets or scribes who preserved Isaiah’s work and added to it from time to time.  Their motivation is to preserve the prophet’s (or prophets’) words. They are not cutting pieces out and combining them, but rather putting the pieces together, generally as they were.

    I don’t see any similarly plausible hypothesis for 2 Corinthians, which makes me find the arguments for unity much more plausible in view of the lack of solid reasons for someone to sew the book together from two to five pieces as various theories suggest.

  • Commentary: II Corinthians (NTL)

    I have really enjoyed studying 2 Corinthians with this commentary.  Since I’ve used a number of volumes from the New Testament Library before, the easiest evaluation of this commentary I can give is that it meets and in some cases exceeds the expectations I have of volumes in the New Testament Library series. If you have used and liked other volumes in either the OTL or the NTL, you won’t be disappointed.

    There are several things I look for in a commentary, and of course different commentaries serve different purposes. In a scholarly commentary intended for the preacher or teacher I look for solid coverage of critical issues, reasonable accessibility, good theological applications (or at least hooks on which to build them), and comprehensive coverage without going overboard. On all these points this commentary stands up well.

    For my personal use I like good coverage of text-critical issues and language issues. As is usual with NTL or OTL volumes, the language and text issues are a little less prominent, being largely covered in short notes following the translation. Considering the purpose of the commentary, this is actually a feature, since overdoing minor textual issues is simply distracting for someone who need to go out and preach to a congregation that will have limited use for that type of information.

    Two things stood out in reading the commentary. First, Matera covers the literary integrity of the book in some detail, including discussion of the various arguments for believing that more than one letter has been combined to make the single book we call 2 Corinthians. Matera supports the literary integrity of the book as we have it. He does not treat the other side unfairly, however.

    Second, Matera covers rhetorical issues in some detail, which helps the reader see the book as a whole as well as digging into the details. I had never been able to really “feel” 2 Corinthians, even though I’ve studied it and read it many times. It always seemed like a patchwork of topics. That’s OK for a letter, but with Matera’s comments I see more connection and structure and less of a loose collection of topics.

    I find it helpful two compare one commentary to another to give a more precise idea of what it’s like.  In this case I’m starting to read 2 Corinthians by Calvin J. Roetzel in the Abingdon New Testament Commentaries series (Abingdon).

    Of these two, the Abingdon volumes aim at theology students, but are expected to also be useful to pastors and teachers.  NTL volumes aim a bit higher on the scholarly scale.  The Abingdon volumes do not use footnotes, while the NTL uses them quite extensively.  This might give an impression that the text is more dissimilar than it is.  While I haven’t completed my read of the Abingdon volume, I find it about the same reading level, provided one skips the footnotes in NTL, which I don’t.

    The  NTL volume is 314 pages of content, while the Abingdon is only about 138 pages.  That in itself is quite a difference, but the Abingdon pages are about 70% of the length of those in the NTL.  That, of course, means that the larger volume can cover a great deal more data.

    As for writing style and content, Matera, as I have noted, argues for the literary integrity of 2 Corinthians, while Roetzel goes for a five letter hypothesis.  I found Matera’s discussion of the various hypotheses on how to divide the book quite helpful; Roetzel sounds dismissive of those, like Matera, who argue that the book is a single letter largely for rhetorical reasons.  I realize that Roetzel has less space to work with, but he found the space to go through the various views in some detail.

    The Abingdon volume is printed in the order in which Roetzel has reorganized the text.  That has the advantage of clarity for those who want to understand just what the fragments from which he thinks 2 Corinthians was constructed would have looked like.

    If I might add my own note in response, I find it quite easy to believe a two letter hypothesis, such as 1-9 being one letter with 10-13 added from a second letter.  It’s not hard to imagine a scribe copying two letters into one manuscript and assuming everyone would know there were two letters, though it’s hard to understand in that case why all the elements that one would expect from a letter have been removed from this second one.

    What I find hard to believe is that five different letters were pasted together out of order.  I just don’t understand the motivation and what the redactor, if one should call him that, was trying to accomplish.  Any good redactional theory should be able to explain what the redactor was up to.

    I found Matera’s explanation, even where it tends to stretch things a bit, such as in explaining Paul’s change of mood from chapter 9 to chapter 10, to be very carefully thought out and well worth considering.  I strongly recommend this commentary (5 of 5 stars).

  • A Brief Thought on Partitioning Epistles

    I’ve just completed reading Frank J. Matera’s II Corinthians: A Commentary in the New Testament Library series.  I’m going to post a few notes in review of that commentary, but this is just a brief note, a passing thought, and definitely not a completed theory.

    There are many cases in which critical theories about authorship strike me as rather well-taken.  First and second Isaiah come to mind with a very striking change in style and theme between chapter 35 (36-39 provide an historical interlude) providing at least a substantial basis to consider multiple authorship.  The entire book gives evidence of collection, and so one shouldn’t be too shocked to see evidence of a seam here and there.

    But in other cases such suggestions seem a bit less well taken, and epistles are one case.  Keep in mind that I’ve done much more study of Isaiah than I have of any New Testament epistle, but still it seems to me that the very nature of an epistle should suggest that it is not necessarily going to be a coherent theological presentation as might be expected of a thesis or dissertation.

    But some of the arguments seem to depend on a slightly too sanitary an image of what an epistle should be.  Second Corinthians reads to me like a letter written by a volatile, emotional, and very intense man.  That he goes from a “that’s OK now” view at the end of chapter 7, invites them to participate in a collection, and then switches back to castigating them about certain other faults in chapter 10 seems out of place if Paul wrote a carefully planned, drafted, and edited letter.  On the other hand if Paul was responding to the situation with mixed emotions–you’re getting it!  some of it!  not all of it!  let me tell you what else you need to do!–then the letter actually seems fairly coherent.

    Matera deals with the literary integrity of 2 Corinthians on pp. 24-32 and then again briefly on pp. 214-215.  I think he makes some excellent arguments.  He doesn’t appeal to anything like the idea I’m presenting here.  He relates this to Paul’s rhetorical goals.  I’m afraid I think that the letter might have been structured better rhetorically (from a certain point of view) if drafted by a committee of bishops, but Paul was hardly to be compared to a committee of bishops!

    I recall the recent pastoral letter from the United Methodist bishops on care for God’s creation, titled God’s Renewed Creation: Call to Hope and Action.  I think that letter should be strongly contrasted to 2 Corinthians.  While I disagree with very little in the bishops’ letter, though in some cases I think they are not doing well in terms of priorities, I nonetheless find the letter boring and unchallenging.  I have heard several of those bishops preach and without exception they produce a better sermon on their own.

    What I’m getting at here is that it seems to me that some critics expect Paul to produce something akin to the bishops’ letter.  Paul was not too likely to do such a thing, so instead we have 2 Corinthians.

  • Notes on Leviticus Commentaries

    A few weeks ago I compared two commentaries on Leviticus.  One of these was Samuel E. Balentine’s volume in the Interpretation commentary series.  In that review I noted that I was only half-way through my read of Balentine, but thought I could still make some valid comments.

    I have now finished my read, and I still stand by what I wrote earlier.  This is a very strong theological commentary with a very useful emphasis on liturgy.  While I have learned more nuts and bolts elsewhere, I got some of the best ideas on how one might teach and apply Leviticus by reading Balentine.  This is, of course, the intention of the interpretation series, so it’s nice to know that they do it well in this case.

    I have read through several commentaries on Leviticus over the last few years, and they vary greatly in purpose and approach.  I thought I’d include some very brief comparison notes.

    My all-time favorite commentary on Leviticus is Jacob Milgrom’s three volume commentary in the Anchor Bible series (my review).  While it’s my favorite, it has a number of drawbacks for the average preacher or for a lay person.  It makes extensive use of both Biblical languages and other ancient near eastern materials, and one may be quite confused if one doesn’t already have some understanding.  The material is translated, however, which alleviates the problem a bit.

    The sheer volume of material, which is very attractive, also makes it a bit difficult to use for any sort of quick reference.  You really have to dig in to get the benefit.  When I studied, for example, I would read the chapter first in Hebrew, then go through the commentary text, after which I would read the Hebrew text again checking my notes.  This is not a sign of great diligence on my part; Milgrom does enough work with word definitions to make one feel that one didn’t really get it on first read!  Nonetheless, the experience is very rewarding.

    The commentary to which I compared the Interpretation volume earlier is David W. Baker’s portion of the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.  I’m now about half-way through Numbers in this volume, and the quality remains quite even despite different authors.  It may seem a bit unfair to compare one book out of a volume that covers three books to a single volume commentary, but I think the Cornerstone volume comes out rather well considering its purpose.

    I think Christians may not pay enough attention to Baruch Levine’s commentary on Leviticus in the JPS Commentary on the Torah series. Actually, I am really referring to this entire series, which provides substantial information on how the text is read in Judaism (admittedly not from an Orthodox perspective), but does so clearly and simply.  I enjoyed the entire set.

    If you can still lay hold of it, which you probably can in a decent university library, there’s always Martin Noth’s commentary in the Old Testament Library series.  It may, however, be one to avoid.  Doubtless Noth was a great scholar, and I enjoyed his commentary thoroughly, but if you’re looking for material to preach or teach from to a lay audience, it’s not going to be nearly as much help.  Noth is quite thoroughly occupied with critical issues and much less so with theology and application.

    On my immediate future reading list is Gordon J. Wenham’s Leviticus (New International Commentary on the Old Testament). I’ll have to wait for it to arrive via inter-library loan. I’ll post on it after I’ve had a chance to read it.

  • Opinions, Interpretations, and What the Word of God Says

    There’s one use of the phrase “just your interpretation” that implies that no interpretation is better than any other.  This is often used by people who have no idea how a particular text should be interpreted, but nonetheless feel like rejecting your interpretation in particular.  Either they think all interpretations are equal–a common idea these days–or they are just tool lazy or uninterested to bother to check.  (I wrote about this some time ago on my Threads blog.

    But today I’m writing about the opposite use — the idea that you can get past opinions and interpretations to something that is just “what God’s word says.”  For example, this morning a reader named Bryon commented on a post on tithing, and began thus:

    In regards to tithing, the question is not what is someone’s opinion or interpretation of Malachi 3:10. The question is what does the Word of God say about Malachi 3:10 and other scriptures concerning the tithe? …

    (I’ll provide him a link in my reply to his comment, so he can respond here..)

    Now it happens that I agree with most of the interpretations and opinions contained in his post, but they are his opinions of how to interpret those passages and apply them.  My agreement is my opinion as well.  There’s nothing wrong with interpreting or with having opinions.

    Some people think that claiming something is just God’s word is a matter of humility.  If you attribute it to God then you’re not claiming authority for your own opinion.  I happen to disagree.  It is my opinion that not taking credit for your own interpretations and opinions is really rather arrogant.  They are still your opinions; now you’re just letting people think that somehow God is speaking directly through your words.

    For example, Malachi 3:10 does not tell us whether tithing applies to Christians or not.  Clearly it is addressed to the Jewish people after the exile, but there are other commands that are addressed to specific groups of people that many, many Christians believe apply to everyone everywhere.  Determining the person(s) to whom a command applies is a matter of interpretation.

    Now my opinion is that Bryon is right and this command applied to Israel at the time and stewardship is different for Christians.  But that remains my opinion of how the text should be interpreted.