Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Biblical Criticism

  • Genesis 4: The Two Lines

    While Genesis 1:1-2:3 (or 4a) comes from the Priestly source and continues with Genesis 5, our first dose of the Yahwist begins with Genesis 2:4 and goes through the end of chapter 4. We have plenty of opportunity to see the difference between the two sources. The Yahwistic story will pick up with the description of a world totally overcome by evil in Genesis 6:5 (6:1-4 are added from another source).

    Thus while we often call Genesis 3 the story of the fall, it would perhaps be more proper to call Genesis 3, 4, and then 6:5-8 the full story of the fall, the descent of the earth from “good” to “totally evil.”

    Genesis 4 thus provides the link between the initial separation from God and the resulting fear that is told in chapter three, and the near total corruption of chapter 6. In chapter four we see that there are two types of people, which are presented as two successions. One group is God-pleasing, and the other is in rebellion.

    1Adam had sex with his wife Eve, and she got pregnant and gave birth to Cain, because she said, “I have produced a man with YHWH’s help.” 2Again she gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Able was a shepherd, but Cain was a farmer.

    This is the simple introduction. Hebrew narrative is sparse, and you have to pay attention. We have two boys and they follow different professions.

    3After a time Cain brought some of the fruit that the ground produced as a gift to YHWH, 4and Abel brought something as well, from the firstborn of his flock and from their fatty portions. And YHWH favored Abel and his gift, 5but he did not look with favor on Cain or on his gift. So Cain became very angry and his face fell.

    There are a couple of hints here, but no definitive statement of why God favored Abel’s offering, but did not favor Cains. Some would claim that Cain needed to bring a blood sacrifice, and his fault was bringing agricultural products. But there has been no command up to this time about what to sacrifice. Another suggestion is that Abel is said to have brought the firstborn, whereas that is not specified about Cain. But considering the normally sparse nature of Hebrew narrative, I’m not sure that is significant. I think the intent of the story is that each brought an offering from the results of their profession.

    God’s displeasure is not specified, but Cain’s response, I think, suggests the reason. Cain’s heart was not in the right place.

    6And YHWH said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7If you do well, you will be lifted up, but if not, there is sin waiting at the door. It desires you, but you must take it under your rule.”

    I see this as an indication that God was not implacably opposed to Cain, but rather that Cain was opposed to God. The rejection of the sacrifice was a symptom, but the disease was the sin waiting at the door. As we see from the continued story, Cain does indeed let that sin rule over him.

    8Cain spoke to Abel his brother, and when they were in the field, Cain rose up and kill his brother Abel.

    There is only a small distance between the sin lying at the door and death, in this case murder. I like the economy of the Hebrew text. Some translations try to supply what Cain said, but the Hebrew is simpler. I could have translated “Cain had words with Abel” but I’m not sure that even that not an addition to the thought. This may simply be an indication that Cain’s action in murdering Abel was premeditated. He set it up.

    9And YHWH said to Cain, “Where is Abel, your brother?”

    But he said, “I don’t know. Am I my brother’s keeper?”

    People are famous for different things. Cain is famous for this response to God’s question. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” In this way Cain seeks to deflect God from the real issue–premeditated murder on Cain’s part.

    10Then YHWH said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is calling to me from the ground!” 11Now you are cursed from the ground because it has opened its mouth to receive the blood of your brother from your hand. 12When you cultivate the ground, it will no longer give you its strength. You will be a fugitive and without purpose in the land.”

    13And Cain told YHWH, “My punishment is more than I can stand! 14Look! You’re making me leave the very surface of the ground, and I will be hidden from your face, and I will be a fugitive and without purpose in the land, and anyone who finds me will kill me.”

    15But YHWH said to him, “So let anyone who kills Cain suffer sevenfold revenge!” And YHWH put a mark on Cain, so that he would not be killed by anyone who found him, 16and Cain left the presence of YHWH, and he lived in the land of Nod to the east of Eden.

    God is not deflected from the issue. Since Cain is a farmer, he is sentenced to harder work for less results. Note the relationship between this curse and the curse put on Adam in chapter 3:17-19. But contrary to later practice, Cain does not pay for killing his brother with his own life.

    What happens is a separation. Questions such as where Cain got a wife, and how there was a land of Nod where he could build a city, and who would live there all miss the point of the story. What we are seeing is the early explanation of why there are two lines of people–those who are obedient to God and those who are in rebellion. The myth is powerful even if the story leaves historical holes.

    The mark of Cain, which is sometimes used in popular speech as a curse is actually a protection. It says that Cain, though a murderer, must not be killed because of the vengeance that God has decreed will follow. For Cain, the mark is a blessing, an amelioration of his punishment.

    17Then Cain had sex with his wife, and she got pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain built a city, and named it after his son.

    18Enoch had a son named Irad, and Irad had a sone many Mehujael, and Mehujael had a son named Methusael, and Methusael had a son named Lamek.

    19Lamech married two wives named Adah and Zillah. 20Adah gave birth to Jabal, who was the progenitor of those who live in tents and keep cattle. 21His brother’s name was Jubal, who is the progenitor of those who play the zither and flute. 22And Zillah also gave birth to a son named Tubal-Cain, who was a smith, working bronze and iron. And Tubal-Cain’s sister was Naamah.

    As we have genealogies of the patriarchal line (Genesis 5 & 11), so here we have a genealogy tracing the line of evil back to Cain. The victory of Cain’s line is emphasized in Genesis 6:5ff. For those who believe in a universal flood, it’s interesting how Genesis 4 can specific people of the non-patriarchal lines as the ancestors of those with certain professions, surely something that could not be if their line died out in the flood. I believe this supports my contention elsewhere (The Two Genesis Flood Stories) that the Yahwist source does not tell of a universal flood, and thus there is no perceived contradiction between Genesis 4 and Genesis 6-8.

    23Lamech said to his wives:

    Adah and Zillah, hear my voice,
    Lamech’s wives, pay attention to what I say.
    I have killed a man because he wounded me,
    And a child because he brused me.

    24If Cain will be avenged seven times,
    Lamech will be avenged seventh-seven times!

    The interesting thing here is the way evil multiplies. Lamech, with Cain’s example, continues the pattern of murder, but he expects to get by with it.

    25Adam had sex with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son, and she named him Seth, because she said, “God has given me seed instead of Abel whom Cain killed.”

    26Seth also had a son, and he named him Enos. At that time people began to call on the name YHWH.

    This is the Yahwist’s way of telling us that there is also a patriarchal line, a line dedicated to obedience to God. The priestly source will provide us with more details in chapter 5.

  • Isaiah 24-27: Basics of Criticism

    Now that we’ve looked over the text and found a set of transitions in it, we can start looking at how critical methologies will apply to this material. Will they help us interpret and apply the passage?

    This is a moment to look at some of the reasons I’ve been writing this series. Frequently, Bible students are confronted with the results of critical scholarship, but with very little support, documentation, and reasonsing provided to help them determine whether they should accept a particular critical position or not. On the other hand, they will often see denials of the results of criticism with equally little background provided. One can’t avoid the types of questions that Biblical criticism asks, even though one can have widely varying positions on the answers. Whatever commentary or study Bible you choose, there will be statements about the date of writing, the authorship, and the historical and cultural circumstances of the book.

    What do you do when one set of notes tells you that the gospel of Mark was written around 45 CE, while another says it was written between 70 and 80 CE? In relation to our particular exercise, what do you do when one source tells you that Isaiah was written by a single author in the 7th century BCE, while another says it has at least three authors dating from the 7th century to the 4th century BCE? Again narrowing in on Isaiah 24-27, how do you respond when one source says this is a scattered collection of unrelated sayings that has obviously suffered in editing and transmission, while another tells you that this passage is a coherent whole with a single theme carefully presented?

    You can, as some people do, take the word of the scholar who is most similar to your theological viewpoint, you could throw up your hands and say, “Nobody knows!” or you can dig in and ask a simple question: How do each of these scholars know what they claim to know? That is the purpose of delving into critical methology. How does someone come to any of these conclusions?

    Let’s think briefly about the gospel of Mark. There are two major areas of disagreement that alter the way scholars date Mark. The first is their solution to the synoptic problem. If someone believes that Mark is one of the sources for Matthew and Luke, he will clearly have to date it before Matthew and Luke. The second major issue is found in the relationship of the text to the destruction of Jerusalem. This is not only an issue of whether predictive prophecy is possible, but also whether the text of Mark reflects a situation in which the temple has been destroyed or not. Based on these criteria, you’ll find that more conservative scholars who believe that Mark was written first tend to date Mark very early. More liberal scholars tend to date Mark a bit later, even if they believe Mark was written first. Conservative scholars who believe Matthew wrote first tend to date Mark a bit later, though often still before the destruction of Jerusalem. (This can get tricky depending on how one dates Matthew.) Some scholars who are moderate or liberal believe Matthew was written first, and this results in a very late date for Mark, since in general the same scholars would date Matthew shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem. If you look carefully in each introduction to Mark, you will probably find the reasons even though they may not be clearly set out for you.

    In the case of Isaiah, we don’t have an issue of copying, except in a small number of cases. We have two categories of issues: 1) That some portions of Isaiah are written presuming Assyria to be the main enemy, 2) that some portions are written assuming Babylon to be the main enemy, 3) that Cyrus is specifically named as a deliverer (which even some who like a 7th century date in general find a little hard to accept), and 4) that there are also passages that appear to apply to a time of rebuilding. This is not the time to evaluate all those issues in detail, but you should be aware of them. The deutero- and trito-Isaiah theories are based on an analysis of the text itself, along with a small number of external references. You need to consider the details about the text in order to express a valid and convincing opinion on the topic.

    As we start on Isaiah 24-27, I want to call your attention to a couple of my own experiences in studying other books. I did a full quarter independent study in college on Ezekiel’s call vision (Ezekiel 1). One commentary guts the call vision of repetitions and things that seem not to fit into a coherent description of the vision. As I read this commentary (see the paper for more details), I began to ask myself whether the original report of the call vision would, in fact, have had the characteristics of brevity, organization, and clarity that this commentator supposed it would have? I decided that this was unlikely. A vision, after all, is not an ordinary experience. One might be slightly incoherent in describing the vision. By making the chapter more organized, that commentator was, in fact, losing the feeling of excitement and awe, along with the difficulty of describing a vision of this nature. I encountered the same thing using R. H. Charles’s commentary on Revelation in the ICC series. Charles rearranges the last chapters of Revelation because he thinks they are so horribly disarranged. He even suggests the following:

    . . . John died either as a martyr or by a natural death, when he had completed i.-xx. 3 of his work, and that the materials for its completion, which were for the most part ready in a series of independent documents, were put together by a faithful but unintelligent disciple in the order which he thought right. (Charles, Revelation Vol II, p. 147)

    Again we have to ask whether the order that the modern student thought right is the order that would have appeared right to the original author.

    The assumption behind the interpretation of the passages I cited (Ezekiel 1, Rev. 20:4-22) is simply that a description of an end time vision should be clear, orderly, and in perfect sequence. The problem I have with this assumption is that there don’t seem to be any examples in scripture of such a clean, orderly work that would allow us to conclude that this was the “normal” form for such a vision report. The apocalyptic speeches of Jesus are more orderly, though not much more forthcoming with the data, than these, but it isn’t the report of a vision. A similar assumption has been made about Isaiah 24-27.

    If you did your own outline of these four chapters, showing transition points, take a look at it again. If not, use the one I did earlier in this series, and then read the passage again. What kind of feeling do these chapters give you? Is it necessarily true that in a time of crisis, however resolved, we would feel a clean sequence of events, or would we have a slower transition?

    Each of the “forms” we identified (though I used ad hoc names, rather than those you will find in many commentaries) contributes to the feeling of these chapters. We can use form criticism, identifying a passage as a hymn or a prayer, for example, to help us understand the pieces, but they form a portion of the word picture that the author is painting. They come from different places and situations, but they are combined into one theme.

    In my next entry I’ll look a bit more at the theme and how it is brought together, and we’ll use a little bit of methodology from redaction criticism. While some scholars do try some source criticism on this passage, generally theories that combine some of the elements into sources prior to the final composition generally rely on extremely thin evidence, and I am unconvinced that such sources can be identified. The best picture of authorship, in my view, is that a single author takes elements from worship, devotional life, existing literature, and his own visions and compositions, and combines them into a passage heralding God’s final victory. The elements may look scattered to us, but that is largely because we come with the wrong questions, asking what historical events are in view, what is the sequence of age-ending events pictured, and so forth, when the author is answering the question of what it will be like when YHWH makes his final intervention in human history.

  • Isaiah 24-27 – Starting Form Criticism

    Form Criticism involves identifying smaller units in a composition that might have been transmitted separately, especially orally, prior to being included in the composition you are studying. There are quite a number of sections in our selection (Isaiah 24-27) that can be examined in this way.

    Since I am writing this series to help people examine the results of critical Biblical scholarship critically, let me suggest that you try at least part of this process on your own. I will assume you are working from English Bible versions, though I will comment some from the Hebrew text. Here’s a simple process to use:

    1. Read the entire passage a couple of times to get used to it.
    2. Read the entire passage more slowly, looking for transitions. Transitions might include:
      1. Change from prose to poetry and vice versa
      2. Change of topic, such as from praise to warning
      3. Transitional phrases, such as “thus says the Lord”
      4. Substantial changes in style and vocabulary (these are usually very hard to detect in the short units involved in form criticism)
    3. Check your work reading from another version. It is possible for transitions to be obscured by translation. It is also sometimes quite arbitrary whether passages are rendered as prose or poetry
    4. Examine each section marked off by the transitions you noted, asking:
      1. Is this a passage that could have existed independently? Would it have made sense either without context or in multiple contexts?
      2. How tightly is it integrated into the passage?
      3. What might you call this? Don’t be worried at this point about formal names of Biblical forms. Just come up with something descriptive, such as “hymn/poem of praise,” “oracle of judgment,” “Promise of blessing,” and so forth.
    5. Ask yourself how each of these sections advances the theme of the passage as a whole

    Once you have done these things you are ready to look at commentaries, or just at the discussion below. As you examine these passages as part of the whole, consider that someone, somewhere thought they worked together, otherwise we would not have them edited into a substantial document such as the book of Isaiah, or this large section of it.

    Now for a look at transitions (I add “user friendly” titles for sections in bold):

    • 24:1 – changes from prose to poetry at the beginning of the passage as a whole
    • 24:3 – verse ends with “for YHWH has spoken this word” creating a section of 24:1-3. Note, however, that the topic continues in verse 4
    • 24:14 – Topic change from destruction to a song of praise, though it ends on a negative note
    • 24:1-13 could be called an oracle of judgment
    • 24:17 – Topic change to judgment again.
    • 24:14-16 could be called short hymn/poem of praise to God, though consider the last half of verse 16 and just how it relates to the rest.
    • 25:1 – Topic change again to a hymn of praise.
    • 24:17-23 could be called either an oracle of judgment, or a prediction of end-time events
    • 25:6 – Topic change, prediction, promise of future blessing
    • 25:1-5 could be called a hymn of praise
    • 25:10b – Topic change, prediction of judgment on Moab
    • 25:6-10a could be called a promise or prediction of blessing
    • 26:1 – Topic change, the song to be sung in Judah
    • 25:10b-12 could be called an oracle of prediction of judgment
    • 27:1 – Topic and form change, punishing of Leviathan, turn to cosmological imagery
    • 26:1-21 could be called a song of lament for the community.
      (Note that treating this whole chapter as a unity is not accepted by many commentators. I will look at some of the differences in my next post as well as explaining why I see it as a unit
    • 27:2 – Form change back to poetry
    • Despite the change in form from prose (v1) to poetry (v2), 27:1 doesn’t appear to be a separate unit, but rather an introduction to verses 2-6
    • 27:7 – Topic change, poetry now describes a situation of judgment
    • 27:1-6 could be called a promise of restoration
    • 27:12 – Change topic and form from judgment expressed as poetry to promise expressed as prose
    • 27:7-11 could be called both a warning and description of judgment
    • 27:12-13 contain a promise of restoration in prose form.

    Now all of this may seem rather complex, but it is the type of work, in very summary form and with selected terminology, that Bible critics do. If you think I am attempting either to support or to oppose the value of such work in this example, you’re missing the point. I am simply attempting to show you the nuts and bolts that go into critical claims, claims that are both asserted and rejected often without consideration of how their proponents arrived at them.

    In my next post I’m going to look at some of the suggested divisions by commentators, and I’m also going to discuss what, if anything, we have accomplished in all this activity. As we proceed through the other critical methods we will continue to ask just what of value each one has contributed to our understanding of this passage.

  • Isaiah 24-27 – Textual Issues

    I’m approaching the textual issues for these four chapters from the point of view of English translations. I want to look for those textual issues that actually have an impact on major English translations. This is a procedure you can follow any time you study a Bible passage, assuming you don’t know Greek or Hebrew and can’t use original language tools. Check the footnotes in a variety of translations, and note readings that are used as the primary text, or that are suggested as alternates. These may results from several sources:

    • LXX/Septuagint
    • Syriac
    • Other versions, Latin, Coptic, Georgian, etc.
    • Other Hebrew manuscripts-there are, indeed, some small variations even in late Hebrew manuscripts.
    • Dead Sea Scrolls
    • Conjecture, normally tagged something like cn or cj (Check the abbreviations in your Bible translation for details)

    This list applies to the Hebrew scriptures. In the Pentateuch, add the Samaritan Pentateuch as a source. In the New Testament, you need a different list.

    I’m going to limit my list this time to the New Living Translation, the New Revised Standard Version, and the Revised English Bible. I’m limiting the number to three just for space. There are a number of other good Bible translations to use in this type of study, including especially the New English Translation and the English Standard Version.

    These versions contain the following numbers of textual footnotes in the four chapters we are considering, including places where the translators indicate that the Hebrew meaning is uncertain:

    • NLT – Has a small number of translation notes; no textual notes. (The absence of textual notes is significant also.)
    • NRSV – Lists seven verses with textual notes
    • REB – Lists eight verses with textual notes

    The value of looking at multiple versions is illustrated here. As you will see in the chart, the REB and NRSV lists only match in one case. We will compare readings in the NLT, where in some cases an issue is resolved by the translators, but they did not feel a footnote was necessary. In normal study, you can survey more translations. I looked at the English Standard Version, Contemporary English Version, and the New English Translation, though I did not include them in the chart.

    Verse REB NRSV NLT
    24:15 the eastern regions, footnote indicates that the Hebrew is uncertain in the east In eastern lands
    All translations reflect one probable reading. There is no textual variant, but there is some uncertainty as to translation
    25:5 deletes “heat in the shadow of a cloud” includes this phrase, but divides the poetic lines differently Includes all, divides as REB
    This passage using some difficult phrasing. REB sees the phrase “heat in the shadow of a cloud” as out of place, NLT translates as is, but NRSV begins a conditional clause at the end of verse 14, carrying it forward into verse 15, thus including the phrase, but nonetheless making greater sense of the passage. Personally I would go with the NRSV translation here; REB is deleting a phrase because it is too uncertain to translate.
    25:11 despite the struggle of their hands with every stroke of his hands and all their evil works
    The NRSV marks the word “struggle” with a footnote indicating the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain. Even though neither the NLT or the REB provide a footnote, it is clear from the difference in their rendering that the meaning is somewhat uncertain. The problem is with the rendering of the Hebrew word ‘arbah, “movements (or nimble movements)” associated with hands. The meaning is clearly metaphorical, and the translations differ in their rendering. This is a good issue to resolve when you get to exegesis.

    I call attention to the fact that only comparing translations and comparing footnotes would bring this type of issue to the attention of a Bible student who does not read Hebrew.
    26:4 he (using the parallel line with “LORD” to indicate the meaning) LORD GOD LORD GOD
    Another NRSV footnote not reflected in the others. The Hebrew reads “Yah YHWH,” and this is handled differently by the different translations. Since there is no significant change in meaning, the rendering is largely a matter of taste. Many commentators regard the duplication as an error as the use of the abbreviated “YAH” is unusually before the full tetragrammaton “YHWH.”
    26:8 We have had regard to we wait for you we love to obey your laws
    The REB here claims to follow the 1QIs(a) reading, which leaves off the “you” suffix on “we hope (for)” or “we look to.” Literally as far as possible, “Even/also the path of your judgments, YHWH, we look to [you]” which would allow a number of renderings. Is it in the path of judgments that they look to the Lord, or is it the path provided by God’s judgments that they look to? Again, though the scroll and the versions that generally follow it suggest a reading here, exegesis is more likely to provide an answer to how this should be rendered. Note again that only one version provides you with the footnote indicating there is something to study here.
    26:11 zeal for your people zeal for your people eagerness to defend your people
    Hebrew literally reads “zeal of the people” here. Only the REB provides a footnote indicating we are dealing with a variant, though all three versions make the same translation choice. Again, the footnote alerts you to an issue.
    26:16 chastened by the whisper
    (REB also notes that Hebrew reads “they” rather than “we” as other versions translate)    		 poured out a prayer bowed beneath
    Both REB and NRSV call attention to the issue here. This is one to settle in exegesis, though you should be very careful in coming up with a decision if you can’t check the Hebrew.
    26:18 REB note word “like” in the Hebrew delete “like” delete “like”
    All translations render in a similar way, but REB calls your attention to an underlying variant. It is not at all certain how one would translate if the word “like” is included.
    26:19a their bodies (second line), footnote indicates Hebrew “your body” Your dead (collective) their bodies
    The meaning here is identical, but REB again alerts us to the textual issue.
    26:19b those long dead those long dead in the place of the dead
    This is not a textual issue but one of translation. The Hebrew word is “shades.” NLT takes it as the dew falling in the place where the shades live, thus “place of the dead” while the other translations take “shades” as those who have been dead a long time.
    27:6 time to come days to come the time is coming
    Hebrew is literally “those to come” or “the coming ones” which could certainly refer to days. All three versions take this as a reference to time.
    27:8 His quarrel with Jerusalem ends . . . By expulsion He has punished Israel only a little
    Hebrew literally “by expulsion, by exile you contended against them.” I would suggest the variety of renderings makes a footnote a good idea, but only the NRSV provides one in this case.

    *F: – footnote reading; T: – reading incorporated into the text

    This is obviously an incredibly quick tour of the textual issues in the chapters. Many will find these all too minor to take very seriously, but I think they do illustrate the type of information a serious Bible student can find by working with multiple translations and making serious use of the footnotes. Unless you can work with the source material in the original languages, you will have to settle your choice between the renderings of various versions during your exegesis.

    My next entry on Isaiah will deal with various elements of the passage as they can be examined with form criticism. Remember that this will be a kind of dissection approach to the text. Later we’ll look again at the whole to ask what genre the whole composition is.

  • High School Bible Classes Again

    In a previous post, The Best Place to Teach the Bible, I discussed my view that home and church or other private organizations were the best way to teach the Bible. I’ve had a couple of comments to that post that I think deserve some comment, and since I don’t like to make post-length comments here on my own blog, I’m going to comment in another post.

    First, Dave L. comments:

    Henry, I agree with your position concerning keeping the Bible out of schools, but had a question for you on one of your responses above, namely, “just because someone reads Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek [doesn’t mean] they will agree on what the Bible says.

  • Isaiah 24-27 – Overview

    Many of the issues of Biblical criticism are illustrated in these four chapters from the book of Isaiah. The book of Isaiah as a whole is fertile ground for such study, but one has to take a reasonable sized bite for an illustration. What I want to do with these chapters is discuss how various critical tools apply, or do not apply, to the text, and what can be learned from applying those tools. I will focus my attention on tools that are available to those who do not read Hebrew, looking for ways in which they can evaluate various critical claims for themselves using easily available materials.

    To accomplish this I’m going to post on the following. (I may break some of these items into multiple entries or combine them where one element is very short.)

    1. The text, applying textual criticism to get an idea of the state of the text.
    2. Literary criticism, probably combined with elements of genre criticism. Are these four chapters a unit that can be studied independently as a whole? What type of literature are they?
    3. Form criticism, a look at the individual units, if any, in the text.
    4. Source and Redaction criticism, how we got to the state of the text.
    5. Tradition criticism, summarizing 3 & 4.
    6. Genre and canonical criticism, taking us back to #2 and tying this back together.

    If you want to follow the procedures, you can start by reviewing the book of Isaiah as a whole, and then by reading these four chapters several times–at least enough times so that you have a mental picture of the passage as a whole. As you do this, you can look for your own answer to the question of whether this is itself a literary unit as part of the book of Isaiah, whether I have drawn the boundaries of the unit I’m going to study correctly. At the same time, you can prepare for the state of canonical criticism, which will ask how this fits into the overall message of Isaiah as that message fits into the message of canonical scripture.

    The book of Isaiah contains 66 chapters. Conservative Christians generally believe that it was written by one prophet, Isaiah, who lived in Judah starting late in the reign of Uzziah and possibly continuing his ministry into the reign of Manasseh, Hezekiah’s son and successor. Critical scholarship, however, has generally divided the book into at least two parts, chapter 1-39 as First Isaiah and 40-66 as Second Isaiah. Chapters 36-39, no matter what the scheme, are a historical interlude telling the story of Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah and his eventual defeat. The vast majority divide that further into 40-55 as Second Isaiah and 56-66 as Third Isaiah.

    General readers often get the idea that the critical view of Isaiah is that simple (or quite possibly complain of its complexity) without realizing that the critical view of the book is many times more complicated than that. Form critics will look for a life setting and date of composition for individual prophetic oracles or other literary elements in the text. Source critics may provide a variety of dates for individual sources, and so you can have material from any date in the general period of the Isaiah tradition. To get an idea of the dates and their spread, see Isaiah Timeline. This gives the broad outlines of this scheme of dating.

    Individual portions of the text, may have been spoken, written, or added to the collection at any time, however. Let’s look at an example from outside our narrow range of chapters. In Isaiah 14, we find three separate sections that are clearly defined: 14:1-13, 24-27, and 28-32. The first is against Babylon, and appears to assume a situation with Judah in exile. Some would suggest, however, that the dirge (3-21) could have been written at any time, and then the prose introduction (1-2) and conclusion (22-23), which are the only parts that mention Babylon by name, are added by a redactor in the exile. That redactor could be second Isaiah (the author of chapters 40-55), or even someone after that time. Trying to answer such questions wouldl involve form and redaction criticism. Verses 24-27, however are addressed to Assyria. By the time of the Babylonian exile, Assyria was long gone as the primary foe of Judah, but in the time of First Isaiah, Assyria was the primary enemy. The third oracle is against the Philistines, and it would be much harder to date. My point here is that this chapter is one of the simpler ones in which to discuss dating. If one accepts the composite authorship of Isaiah at all, one will find plenty of complexity and a considerable number of cases in which one admits one doesn’t know.

    Let’s turn our thoughts back to chapters 24-27. If they are a unit, then when was that unit written? First, we will have to ask whether there are elements of this unit that were written separately and then combined, or whether the passage was written as a unified whole. As I noted above, Isaiah 14 is relatively simple to deal with, with specific enemies addressed, and clear beginnings and ends for the three sections of the chapters. But the absence of that sort of clarity in 24-27 has not prevented commentators from presenting a number of divisions. As a Bible student, don’t simply take a scholar’s word for the divisions. Each and every one of these items is controversial; test it all, accept what convinces you. We’ll look at the possible divisions when we discuss form criticism.

    But is there anything that can be said about date? One of the easily available tools I will follow through this study is the Oxford Study Bible (REB). This Bible provides some pretty good notes and introductory articles on many topics. In its note on chapter 24 it says, “The literary style with the tendency thoward apocalyptic (24:21-23) and the theological perspective of final judgment (v. 21) indicate that this collection originated long after Isaiah of Jerusalem (see Introduction)” (page 727). Here’s where you need to put on your own critical glasses and think seriously about the claim made.

    There are some assumptions here:

    1. Apocalyptic developed in a generally linear fashion so that one can place a particular example of it on a continuum.
    2. Apocalyptic started late
    3. This passage is an example of apocalyptic literature
    4. Final judgment is a late element in Hebrew literature

    One critical piece of this puzzle would be the dating of Daniel. I’ve called attention to a number of commentaries in recent blog entries, and one should note that such scholars as Gleason Archer and Joyce Baldwin maintain that Daniel was written in the 6th century BCE, while Ernest Lucas allows such dating. Hartman & Di Lella along with Porteous solidly supported a late dating (2nd century BCE) for Daniel. If one assumes some sort of linear development for apocalyptic, then Daniel is probably somewhere toward the early middle part of that process. It’s not quite up to the book of Revelation, but it’s more apocalyptic than some chapters in Ezekiel and perhaps more similar to Zechariah. Those four centuries of difference in the dating of Daniel could make a substantial difference in how one dates these chapters. In addition, there are those who regard Daniel as a composite itself, with some elements being quite early (5th-4th century BCE) and some later. Some strongly apocalyptic elements (Daniel 7, for example) are considered by these scholars as quite early.

    Whether apocalyptic was a linear development or not is hard to say, partially because we are not so sure just what apocalyptic was, and as is the case here, we aren’t too sure when to date it. If you are interested in testing this element of dating, try reading Ezekiel 37-39 and the book of Zechariah and comparing them to these four chapters. Some elements of apocalyptic generally include symbolic visions, emphasis on eschatology, judgment, and angelic guides or interpreters. If there was a progression, where do you think these chapters would fall? You can hold that thought as we study them and see if you change your mind.

    My next entry will be a survey of the text of these four chapters as we see them in English translations. I will discuss textual issues uses some original language resources, but I will focus on what you can learn from the text and footnotes of a few English Bible versions.

  • Gleason Archer on Daniel

    I’ve just run through another commentary on Daniel, in this case the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 7, section on Daniel, by Gleason Archer. (See my notes on this commentary.)

    You can review my more detailed view in those notes, but I would simply state that this is one of two carefully conservative, scholarly commentaries on Daniel that I have read. Those who would like to preach from the book will find it particular useful. Let me list these major commentaries on Daniel in order, from most conservative to most critical.

    1. Daniel, by Desmond Ford.
      This is no longer in print, but it is available from some libraries, and occasionally used. Desmond Ford was a Seventh-day Adventist scholar and he did quite a good job of summarizing the evidence from a conservative perspective. His key to interpretation is the apotelesmatic principle, suggesting multiple fulfillments for predictions.
    2. Daniel and the Minor Prophets (Expositor’s Bible Commentary), by Gleason Archer.
      This is a solidly evangelical commentary. There is no give on historical or prophetic/predictive issues.
    3. Daniel (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries), by Joyce Baldwin. Conservative but with a lighter touch.
    4. Daniel (Apollos Old Testament Commetnary), by Ernest Lucas
      Allows either a 6th or 2nd century date, while affirming a high view of scripture.
    5. Daniel (Anchor Bible), by Hartman and Di Lella
      Affirms a 2nd century date while also affirming inerrancy.
    6. Daniel (Old Testament Library), by Norman Porteous
      A good example of a fully critical commentary, though it is a bit short for my taste.

    I may spend some time on literary criticism of Daniel after I present a series of entries on Isaiah 24-27 as an example of critical methologies.

  • Ernest Lucas on Daniel

    In an earlier post, Dating the Book of Daniel, I mentioned that I had ordered Ernest Lucas’s volume on Daniel in the Apollos Old Testament Commentary series. I now have received, read, and returned that volume, and I thought I would post a few notes.

    I have to admit that I continue to be puzzled at the number of conservative scholars who either embrace or allow a late (2nd century BCE) dating of the book of Daniel. Lucas covers this issue in some detail throughout the book. He does not make a specific statement on Biblical inerrancy, though I would be surprised to hear that he does not accept it, but he nonetheless believes that one can see certain portions of the book as history presented as prophecy.

    He takes an unusual approach in that he does not argue the dating and authorship of the book in the introduction, but rather presents basic lines of evidence throughout the commentary, and then summarizes them in an epilogue. His view is that a conservative scholar with a high view of inspiration can hold either of the major views on dating, a sixth century or a second century composition. He does argue rather forcefully for the unity of the book, which would exclude various composite theories of authorship, including a late author writing in Hebrew building on either an Aramaic document, or a collection stories written in Aramaic.

    In the prophetic interpretation portions of the commentary, Lucas sees all of the major prophetic sections ending at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. Thus the little horns of chapters 7 & 8 both refer to Antiochus. This interpretation is not unusual in critical commentaries, though it hasn’t been a common conservative view until recently. Even more unusual for a conservative Christian commentary is that he also interprets chapter 9 as ending with Antiochus, rather than using it as a Messianic prophecy. I must be clear here–he does not rule out the application to Jesus that is common in Christian interpretation, but he does believe that interpretation is less probable. The key reason for this is his interpretation of the “word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” (Daniel 9:25) which he believes most probably refers not to any decree, but to one of Jeremiah’s prophecies of the time. The chronology
    does not work for the ministry of Jesus in this case. Of course, it also doesn’t work for Antiochus Epiphanes, but Lucas calls the time frame symbolic rather than precise. I think he’s quite possibly right on the time period not being intended as precise, but again I am not used to seeing that position in an ostensibly conservative commentary.

    In Daniel 10-12, the final section, which the vast majority of the commentators agree refers to the history leading up to, and the reign of Antiochus, Lucas offers the option of viewing most of the material as history written as prophecy, and then tries to avoid the obvious conclusion, assuming that is the case, that 11:40-45 are an inaccurate prophecy. He suggests that this section is a loosely worded way of saying that Antiochus would come to an end. I’m afraid here that I have to say that I would prefer that a commentator either admit that the text is wrong, or that the prophecy must have some other application. If this does apply to the death of Antiochus, it goes well beyond any normal concept of “general.”

    Despite any tension that may result from the author’s view on dating, which is unlikely to satisfy either a liberal or a conservative audience, this is truly a well-written and well-researched commentary. There are two features of this commentary that I especially appreciated.

    Lucas applies some excellent literary-critical methodology to the stories, and to some extent to the prophecies, discussing the plot and characterization. Daniel is particular susceptible to the literary-critical approach, which can produce some substantial insights from the stories. Too often the main questions asked in studying Daniel are whether it is historical, whether the prophecies are really predictive, and what they mean. There is substantial value in the stories if one will take the time to think about them seriously, and Lucas does that.

    Second, Lucas interacts with commetators who range from the very conservative to the very liberal/critical. He doesn’t ignore the various arguments and concerns, nor does he usually dismiss them without discussing the evidence. He does occasionally dismiss some complex theory of authorship quite abruptly, but normally he does so with particularly convoluted and low probability theories.

    I strongly recommend this commentary to any student of Daniel. Whether your view is conservative or liberal you will find material that challenges your view, and will help you to think through the material more thoroughly. Lucas provides his supporting methodology throughout. In particular, I would recommend this commentary to those interested in pursuing genre and or literary criticism in the book of Daniel.

  • Literary Criticism

    To conclude the content part of my series on Biblical criticism, I want to discuss literary criticism. Much of the practice of literary criticism is similar to genre and to a lesser extent canonical criticism.

    Essentially, literary criticism involves forgetting about the historical and theological aspects and simply reading the Bible as literature. One can even read portions as different types of literature. For those who are primarily concerned with extracting propositional truth from the Bible, this may not seem like a very useful activity, but as with any literary study, it can be a very powerful and useful experience for the student.

    This process does not require you to decide that the Bible is untrue, or that it does not contain theological or historical information. It merely means that you look at it in a different way. In many cases this will help you see more clearly the historical message, even though this is the goal.

    Consider Samuel and Kings, for example. These four books tell the story of Israel from the end of the time of the judges through the Babylonian exile, a time period of around 500 years. One approach, and indeed the most common approach, is to study the text and its sources in order to find the maximum amount of historical information possible. Alternatively we ask the question of what theological lessons the author is trying to portray through these events? But the literary critic would ask questions about the overall plot and various subplots, and look at the characterization of the various kings. Why does the author emphasize the kings that he does? What is the literary purpose of the Elijah and Elisha story cycles? Who are the characters and what can we discover about them?

    In the Psalms, this approach can be especially effective. Here again the actual genre of the text is more important. In Samuel-Kings we disregard the actual genre, a sort of historiography, and look at it in terms appropriate to a work of fiction. In Psalms, we are looking at poetry, and can study each Psalm as poetry while looking for the genre (more in the sense in which that term is used in form criticism). Here the questions are form and structure and the simple art of the poetry. (See my paper on Psalm 104.)

    Literary criticism is a large topic, and would require much more than a blog entry, so I’m going to err on the side of brevity–a very uncommon error for me!–and stop with these few very general remarks.

    I will be following this with a series of posts applying critical methods to Isaiah 24-27. I think this is a very interesting passage to use as a test case, and I expect to post several entries on it. Because these are demonstration passages for the critical methodologies I have been discussing here, I will post these on this blog rather than my new Participatory Bible Study Blog, where I’m currently discussing the New Testament book of Hebrews.

  • Another Note on Deuteronomy 32:43

    In my previous post on this passage I stated that I was ignoring one textual issue that was really quite minor, but on thinking about it, it seems to me that it will illustrate one of the points that makes textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible different.

    We have relatively few Hebrew manuscripts, and most of those are quite late. The Dead Sea Scrolls provide us with fragmentary evidence that is much earlier and in Hebrew, but much of the evidence available is found in translations, Greek, Syriac, and Latin primarily, just because of languages that are most commonly known, but also Coptic, Georgian, Armenian, and so forth.

    Hebrew was written with only consonants in early times. Indications of the vowels came in two stages, first with vowel letters, and then with a system of pointings (actually more than one, but one became overwhelmingly dominant), dots, lines, and marks that indicated the vowels. Since these vowels were added long after the texts were originally written, based on an oral tradition of pronunciation, most scholars of the Hebrew Bible regard the consonantal text as more established than the pointing.

    In Deuteronomy 32:43 we have a case in which a textual variant involves only the pointing. There are two possible readings involved, and again I’m going to summarize the translations that use each option based solely on the Hebrew text they can be presumed to translate.

    • with him – CEV, ESV, REB, NLT, NRSV
      This is an alternate reading of the Hebrew consonantal text.
    • his people – JPS, HCSB, TEV
      This is the reading of the MT as pointed.
    • with his people – MSG, NASB, NCV, NKJV, NIV
      This reading is supported by some Hebrew mss, and would presumably result from haplography (writing something once when it occurs more than once), because in Hebrew with people-his, would have the same two letter combination twice at the start. Against this reading is the fact that it is both not the dominant reading in the evidence, it might have been created by dittography, and it tends to make the reading more comprehensible. In other words, nobody would want to correct this reading to any of the alternatives, but someone might well want to correct one of the alternatives to this one. Note that 4QDt32 does not have the additional two letters assumed by this reading.

    Just to illustrate, let me display the Hebrew text.

    Hebrew consonantal text for with him or his people, no vowel pointing This displays the Hebrew consonants that can be read either “with him” or “his people” depending on the vowels.

    Hebrew consonantal text for _with him_ with vowel pointing This displays the Hebrew consonants with vowel pointing for “with him.”

    Hebrew consonantal text for _his people_ with vowel pointing This displays the Hebrew consonants with vowel pointing for “his people.”

    The only difference is the straight line under the first (rightmost) consonant. The pronunciation changes from something similar to an English ‘i’ as in ‘bit’ to something like an English ‘a’ as in ‘bat’.

    I think a good case can be made for either of the first two options. I think the case for the third option “with his people” is much weaker.