Uncategorized – Page 4 – David A. Burnett

January 31, 2012January 31, 2012

The Emperor Has No Clothes – 2 Corinthians 4:4 – Pt. 3

The first SBL that I attended was in San Diego (2007). I had just been introduced to N.T. Wright and I was ready to have every theological and methodological assumption challenged. When I arrived in San Diego I overheard a conversation about a debate between N.T. Wright and one of his former student (I now know this was John Barclay) regarding Paul and Empire. I couldn’t wait! I arrived at the massive meeting room more than an hour before the debate was to start. (Actually, I had time to eat my lunch before anyone else even arrived.)

As the debate was approaching I just knew that N.T. Wright was going to trounce Dr. Barclay. Well, that didn’t happen. Wright decided that he wouldn’t even engage in Barclay’s argument and instead chose to give a speech. Barclay, gave a clever and engaging speech as well which thoroughly convinced me that Paul proclaimed Jesus as the Lord of the world and while his words may be interpreted as anti-empire the reality of this polemic was as real as the claim that emperor’s new clothes were really there.

Thankfully, my favorite professor did his second Phd on Paul and polemics so he helped me see (by letting me read his dissertation) that a stark dichotomy was not necessary like Prof. Barclay was insisting on. Flash forward now to this years SBL, I am in a session on intertextuality and Dr. Fredrick Long makes an extremely compelling case for ο θεος του αιωνος τουτου referring to Caesar. I will do my best to reconstruct his argument from my notes and his handout. (As of yet I haven’t receive his paper.)

The basic claim of the paper was that we have missed the imagery that the Apostle Paul has been using in 2Corinthians ― the imagery of the triumphal procession (2:14). He claims that much of what Paul says is imagery from this process (and the mystery cult tied to it). He links 30 motifs overall but I will give you the strongest links:

1) 2:15 “among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing” ― many captives died when they arrived at Rome but many times the enemy became Roman.

2) 3:2 “You yourselves are our letter” ― before a general could get a triumph he would write a letter to the city asking permission.

3) 3:3 “You are a letter of Christ” ― paralleled with (with Deissmann) the Imperial letter that would be sent to cities requesting support and then engraved and posted for all to see.

4) 3:18 “Seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror” ― the devotees of Isis wore mirrors in the procession to show respect to the goddesses following them.

5) 4:1 “since it is by God’s mercy” (καθως ηλεηθημεν) ― starting with Julius, pardoning was an imperial strategy with the enemy.

The parallel that Dr. Long wants to tease out is that Paul is claiming that he, and those with him, are being led around in procession. He is in bad shape (in regards to his suffering) but he is the prize possessions of the victorious κυριος i.e., if he (the persecutor of the κυριος) could be given mercy, then so could they! But, if they do not have a change of heart and welcome him as the representative of the κυριος then they would be counted as enemies. This is why Paul brings up Moses and the wilderness generation. They two were being led around in procession in the wilderness since they had just defeated Egypt and YHWH wanted procession in his land. They did not trust him; Israel had yet to recover from this. This is why later Paul will proclaim, “Make room for us,” the exact proclamation of those leading the procession.

I am not sure what to make of this view. As soon as I become more familiar with the source material I will be able to make a better judgment. As for now, I have a really tough decision to make when I write my paper.

December 27, 2011December 27, 2011

I’m not sure about Christmas but I know a bit about Sunday

This year the blogsphere has been busy discussing, or should I say condemning, other local expressions of the Lord decision to cancel service due to its conflict with χ-mas. My take on the whole matter is simple: A. To go or not to go to (or have) service is a minor issue that falls in the “gray” area of practice. B. Christmas is not important on the Church calendar C. Therefore, local churches may do what they want. (The Lord will let us know on That Day which was the right call!)

As for my family and I, we attended our old church since I was asked to preach. My sermon was short and this was the thrust:

Every time this year there is always a debate about the validity of Christmas as a CHRISTIAN holiday. Is it the celebration of the Jewish god’s victory over the Roman god? Is it a result of syncretism? Is it blah, blah, blah…

I don’t know and don’t care. I enjoy many things about the “holiday season” and I loathe just as many (if not more). So what…

I don’t have anything to say about Christmas today but I do have something to say about Sunday. It is the celebration not of the coming of the King but of the coming of a servant. The celebration of one who was different. So different our we resist the very thought of Jesus rejecting the title of King yet assuming the role of Messiah, the anointed suffering servant.

Matthew 1:1 ― The book of Jesus the Messiah’s origin, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

The son of David:

Throughout the Gospel of Matthew Jesus has one thing that he needs to make clear

to the characters in the story and to the implied audience ― they have no idea what a Messiah looks like! The messiah was to come to Jerusalem as a servant of Israel’s father not as a glorious king.

King David, whose name means servant, was great because he had a heart after YHWH i.e., a heart that sought to serve YHWH and not to be served by his people. He was Israel’s true king for reasons incomprehensible to his family or his people. While David was successful most people completely resented his reign ― it wasn’t right!

As to honor, kings are supposed to be esteemed, supplicate to no one. The honor of the country rests in the honor demanded by the king. David rejected this! This was a king who was despised by his wife because he stripped himself of his royal robes and danced before YHWH as he really was, a servant. David was a bastard and he never forgot his adoption by YHWH! Jesse was carefully careless when it came to presenting all of his children to Samuel yet David was purposely purposeful in his role as Jesse’ son.

The king is to require only the best and most qualified. David remembered Mephibosheth, the cripple. Kings were to live and die honorably, never acting beneath their right ― David feigned insanity and lived amongst the disheveled and disenfranchised for years. What. A. Fool. ― Unelectable. Unworthy of support is the only rational conclusion for a thinking person!

As for military, everyone knew who the enemy of YHWH was the Philistines. David had over many of them in his guard with some even being in his Mighty Men. The characteristics that were valued by other rulers of the day were despised in the eyes of David. He did not need good bloodlines, success at business or esteem by the masses but what he valued was something else ― something that doesn’t show up on a resume! When a true general is faced with an opportunity, they take it (in the name of YHWH no less). David repented to Saul for touching the anointed of YHWH even though he had been anointed king and was on the run from Saul the now renegade king. Humility looks good on shepherds but is loathsome on generals!

True kings are to never admit wrong or to lack an answer to a critical question. David openly repented before YHWH’s prophet. We have many psalms attributed to David where he awaits an answer from YHWH. Not only does he wait but he tearfully and desperately awaits a critical answer. David was not a perfect person but he was perfect for his role.

Solomon, David’s true son was nothing like his father. Yes, he was the wisest of the wise. Yes, he expanded the borders (almost to the extent promised to Abraham). Yes, he was the great temple builder. Yet, he was nothing like his father. While initially all of Israel ate from Solomon’s table, eventually their supplication meant forced labor for the homes of his baboons. Let that last sentence sink in. Homes. For. His. Baboons. Solomon knew little of service and knew less as he grew older. David was born ‘in sin,’ a bastard, so he knew nothing but service from his birth. In spite of this, he only learned to be the servant YHWH could use at the end of his days.

David was close to being the Great King but neither Solomon, nor his children, were even close to David.

“There is always next year!” That is the cry of the loser. Israel knew this well.

That is until…one could pray this and then fulfill these words.

“My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want” … Again he went away for the second time and prayed, “My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done.”

“And about three o’clock Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

As for the son of Abraham…

December 9, 2011

Hebrew Beginnings: Kumi Ori

For your listening pleasure, here is a version of Kumi Ori. One of the biggest steps in learning a new language is training the ear. Listen to as much as you can, as often as you can. The lyrics to the song are Isaiah 60:1-2. You can find the lyrics here.
א קוּמִי אוֹרִי, כִּי בָא אוֹרֵךְ; וּכְבוֹד יְהוָה, עָלַיִךְ זָרָח.

1 Arise, shine, for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee.
ב כִּי-הִנֵּה הַחֹשֶׁךְ יְכַסֶּה-אֶרֶץ, וַעֲרָפֶל לְאֻמִּים; וְעָלַיִךְ יִזְרַח יְהוָה, וּכְבוֹדוֹ עָלַיִךְ יֵרָאֶה.

2 For, behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the peoples; but upon thee the LORD will arise, and His glory shall be seen upon thee.
Keep in mind that a basic meaning of the word זרח is “shone” or “shined.” It can also have to do with the rising of the sun.
‎זרח
‎האיר, נתן אור
‎השמש זורחת בשמים
‎לזרוח / ז.ר.ח. / פעל / זרחתי, זורח, אזרח, יזרח, זרח

zarach
he’ir, natan ‘or
hashemesh zorachat bashamayim
lizro’ach / (shoresh) / pa’al (stem) / zarachti, zore’ach, ezrach, yizrach, zrach!

it shined
lit up, gave light
The sun is shining in the sky.
to shine / (shoresh) / pa’al (stem) / I shined, is shining, I will shine, it will shine, Shine!

‎ערפל is the word for fog. Deep darkness is associated with it here, probably in connection to the ערפל on Sinai.

‎ערפל
‎1. אוויר מלא במים
‎בבוקר היה ערפל כבד, אי אפשר היה לראות שום דבר
‎2. מצב לא ברור
‎העתיד מכוסה בערפל

arafel
avir male bemayim
baboker hayah arafel kaved, ee efshar hayah lir’ot shum davar
matzav lo barur
he’atid mekhuseh ba’arafel

fog
air filled with water
In the morning there was a heavy fog, it was impossible to see anything.
an unclear situation, obscurity
The future is covered with obscurity.

Here’s the song.

December 6, 2011December 6, 2011

Hebrew Beginnings: Habrit Hachadashah

In case you are unaware of it, UBS has for decades been publishing Habrit Hachadashah (The New Covenant) in Hebrew. In 1959, their copy of the scriptures was the first Hebrew bible to be published in HaAretz. Read the story here.

Recently, they have released a dramatized reading of the Hebrew New Testament. I have yet to acquire a copy, but my guess is that it is top notch.

Click here.

The point of this is that if you consider yourself a “New Testament” scholar, or an “Old Testament” scholar, or just someone who enjoys both, either way, this is a great way to study Hebrew while at the same time studying the scriptures you love. A win-win situation if you ask me.

Here’s a free online version of the Hebrew New Testament for your perusing pleasure!

November 28, 2011December 6, 2011

Hebrew Beginnings: Mechon Mamre

Barukh Haba (welcome) to the world of Hebrew language. Ideally, you would have the funding and privilege to move to Israel for five to ten years and live in an environment in which the Israelis only spoke to you in Hebrew. They would be kind enough to work with you and help you with mistakes in your speaking in nothing but a loving manner. Unfortunately, we do not live in such a utopia. You are probably much like me, lacking the funding for such an endeavor. For the time I spent in Israel, I was forced to scrimp and save for several years. Even if the finances were not an issue, once you arrived, you would be thrust into Israeli society. Just to give you a heads up, Israelis are very kind hearted, sensitive people, but if you are not family or a close friend, it is likely that they will come across as course and blunt. Between the mixture of Israeli politics and the straight forwardness of Hebrew, there is little to no patience. Fear not, and do not be dismayed. There still remains hope for you to learn the language of the prophets.

Today’s resource is great for those who find themselves infatuated with the deep, mystifying, kabbalistic concept of FREE. That’s right, F-R-E-E. Mechon Mamre offers the biblical text coupled with the JPS translation. Audio files accompany the text and are available to be streamed or downloaded to your computer for easy listening on the go. When it comes to readings of the entire Hebrew bible, this is the best, and again, it’s free. The only readings that I have found that are of higher quality are Randall Buth’s “500 Friends.” Unfortunately, his only covers select readings, and not the entire bible. More on his products later.

Until next time, have fun listening!
Click here to visit Mechon Mamre!

November 23, 2011December 6, 2011

The Dark Side of the Moon – 2 Corinthians 4:4 – Pt. 2

A few weeks ago, I decided to see how some non-academic Christians would respond to the possibility of YHWH being the referent to Paul’s claim that ο θεος του αιωνος τουτου has blinded the minds of the unbelievers. I presented this possibility in a weekly Bible study that I lead at the church I used to pastor. Long story short, it didn’t go well. Actually, that’s not accurate; it was a disaster. Not only did none of the attendees agree that this was right none of them were even willing to consider it.

(Just like, IMHO, some in the recent blogsphere who have completely overreacted to our current favorite pastor with foot-in-mouth disease’s comments regarding God hating people.)

Apparently, God’s love is so important that to talk of Jesus’ father blinding people so that they won’t see bordered on heresy. It is like everyone gladly acknowledges, in theory, God’s hatred of things (or people) yet we must never speak of it; It’s there but never comes into play — like the dark side of the moon. This hermeneutical insistence among Christians (that I know either personally or through forms of media) has always puzzled me.(I can’t think of a way that deliverance can be accomplished apart form judgment.) But, since I do not share the need to expunge hatred from God I will present the case for YHWH (or Jesus’ Father) as being the referent for this phrase. (Please note: I am not saying YHWH has to be the referent but, he could be the referent.)

Exhibit A for the current case must be the OT witness of God’s character. First, I must assert that the OT (or the NT, or any other non-canonical literature that I am aware of) EVER claims that YHWH loves everyone at all times in such a way that judgement is never an option. Actually, the opposite is clearly true. (For a particularly blunt statement see Prov 1[1].) While one could mention many passages, it seems that Isaiah 6:9, 10 are the most pertinent verses for the matter at hand.

9 And he said, “Go and say to this people:
‘Keep listening, but do not comprehend;
keep looking, but do not understand.’
10 Make the mind of this people dull,
and stop their ears,
and shut their eyes,
so that they may not look with their eyes,
and listen with their ears,
and comprehend with their minds,
and turn and be healed.”

Here, we find YHWH commissioning Isaiah the prophet with a message that appears to have no redemptive value whatsoever. The message, it says in verse 10, is to have the result that those who hear his message (this people) will NOT be repentant and thus be forgiven. On top of that, when Isaiah asks YHWH the duration of this negative purpose he is told that it will be, “until the LORD sends everyone far away,” and if anyone remains, “it will be burned again.” So, we have a very clear text that indicates the God of the Scriptures is very capable of hindering individuals from salvation.

Before moving on, I would like to mention some things about this passage that will aid one coming to a proper interpretation. The book of Isaiah seems to make clear that Isaiah did not always understand this as his purpose. Indeed, he attempted to persuade people to trust God. This language appears to be technical language for judgment or, to put it another way, they were no longer going to be given time to change their ways. God had reaching the point of no return with Israel (especially the leaders) and they were going into Exile for their idolatry.[2] In other words, it does not necessarily indicate that YHWH wanted every single person to be kept from repenting but that the nation’s fate was sealed. It also does not necessarily indicate every single Israelite was idolatrous.

Another text that is worth noting is found in Deuteronomy 29:2 − 4. It says:

Deut. 29:2 Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: You have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all his land, 3 the great trials that your eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders. 4 But to this day the LORD has not given you a mind to understand, or eyes to see, or ears to hear.

In this passage we have a text that has YHWH claim that the Israelites needed YHWH to give them the ability to understand, see and hear (i.e., in a salvific way). This would seem to contradict the clear requirement of Deut’s message: Obey! But, the more likely understanding of this passage is to understand the verse as and editorial aside that is meant to be understood as, “Until this day, that is, until the day of the reader, the LORD…”[3] So, the statement was a retrospective observation about the reality of Israel’s past spiritual condition. This verse along with the previous interpretation, really make sense if one sees Paul alluding to this verse in 2Cor 3:12 − 15, which says,

“… Moses, who put a veil over his face to keep the people of Israel from gazing at the end of the glory that was being set aside. But their minds were hardened. Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, that same veil is still there, since only in Christ is it set aside. Indeed, to this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds;”

If the previous interpretation of the Deut. 29 is what Paul had in mind when he wrote 2Cor then things begin to make sense. Exodus demonstrates that Israel’s Wilderness Generation was hardened, in that they did not trust YWHW, and Deut claims that “to this day [of the reader which is now up to the time of Paul]” Israel still could not trust their God [in a salvific way].

If all of this is true, (I am persuaded of this!) then it would make YHWH as the referent of the phrase in question very possible.

[1] “Because I have called and you refused, have stretched out my hand and no one heeded, and because you have ignored all my counsel and would have none of my reproof, I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when panic strikes you, when panic strikes you like a storm, and your calamity comes like a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you. Then they will call upon me, but I will not answer; they will seek me diligently, but will not find me.”
(Proverbs 1:24–28 NRSV)
[2] For a full discussion of this see, “A Foundational Example of Becoming Like What We Worship.” In We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry, 37-70. Downer’s Grove: IVP Academic, 2008.
[3] For a full explanation see Biddle, Mark. Deuteronomy. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Smyth & Helwys Pub, 2003, 438.

November 22, 2011December 6, 2011

Could it be Satan? – An Exegetical Inquiry into 2 Corinthians 4:4 – Pt. 1

This semester I have been attempting to determine the referent of the phrase ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου in 2 Corinthians 4:4. For me, this text was never in question until I read a blog post by Michael Heiser. Previous to his post I had never actually considered any other referent than Satan as possible for this phrase (BTW, I have learned that is step one in producing really bad exegesis yet, it seems that I unconsciously keep committing this faux pas!). After the article, I realized that I needed to do some work on this passages so I took an independent study on the NT’s use of the OT to hash out my thoughts. During this course, I have come to realize that YHWH, in many but not all ways, would make better sense as the implied referent of the phrase.

Of course, after I had done all my research I attended SBL only to hear a marvelous paper by Frederick Long (from Asbury) that made a compelling argument for another unconsidered referent: Caesar. Not only did his paper thoroughly thrash me for lacking knowledge in the vast aspects of the Greco-Roman world, the session itself challenged the view of intertextuality as solely relying on texts. Dr. Long forcefully demonstrated and argued, in response to an objection, that intertextuality must not only include texts (i.e., written works) but inscriptions, coins, statues, even ceremonial rights etc. He claimed, following a scholar I cannot remember, that this view understands intertextuality as really being intertexturality (look closely), that is, this aspect of exegesis must include the ubiquitous availability of texts, symbols and such that may be echoed in a given cultural context.

In the following posts I will do my best to make the best case available for all three possible referents. Hopefully, by the time I get to the view on Caesar I will have received Dr. Long’s paper so that I can properly summarize his view. Now on to the subject of this post: Could it be Satan?

When surveying the commentaries, monographs and articles one thing becomes immediately clear: Satan is so clearly the referent to the phrase in question that no argument is necessary to substantiate the assertion. (An error that ostensibly is not banished from the works of careful, trained scholars.) This was not always the case though. Amongst the patristic interpreters of this text Hippolytus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrosiaster and Didymus the Blind think that YHWH is the referent to the phrase. The most cogent justifications for identifying Satan as the god of this age/world seems to be:

1) The similarity with other language view: Eph 2:2. εν αις ποτε περιεπατησατε κατα τον αιωνα του κοσμου τουτου, κατα τον αρχοντα της εξουσιας του αερος. Here we find the writer of Ephesians claiming that those who were “dead” used to walk in accordance with the present age that was ruled by the prince of the ruler of the air. So, the logic goes that since the two verses share this language ― the lexeme αιων along with the qualifier οὗτος, and the concept of authority αρχοντα/θεος ― that supposing the link fair. If one wonders how Satan could be called θεος, then the reply would be that this is how he postures himself in this age.[1]
The apocalyptic view which is best represented by C.K. Barrett: “The god of this age is a bold expression for the devil (cf. 1 Cor. 2:8), based on the commonplace apocalyptic presupposition that in the present age the devil has usurped God’s authority, and is accepted as god by his fellow rebels; only when in the age to come God establishes his kingdom will the devil be driven out.[2]”

Finally, while Hafemann does not have his own view per se, he does add a few more pieces of substantiating evidence explaining “how” this description fits into Paul’s understanding of Satan.[3] I believe he has contributed three additions to this theory:

He notices Paul’s exclusive and careful use of νοηματα. Paul states the Corinthian saints are not ignorant of Satan’s “evil schemes” (νοηματα) whereas the unbelievers have their minds (νοηματα) blinded.
There is an explicit (and unique) emphasis on Paul’s ministry attempting to “take every thought captive” to Jesus’ lordship.
The thought that must be taken captive is the desire to reject Paul because of his suffering. If they do this then they we be misled (“thoughts taken away”) just like the serpent deceived Eve.

In the next post I will attempt to lay out the case for understanding YHWH as the ο θεος του αιωνος τουτου.

[1] Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962, 126-27.
[2] Barrett, C. K. Black’s New Testament Commentary: The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. London: Continuum, 1973, 130. Also cf. Furnish, Victor Paul. Vol. 32A, II Corinthians: Translated With Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. Anchor Yale Bible. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008, 220.
[3] Hafemann, Scott. Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3. Peabody, Mass: Paternoster, 2005.

November 10, 2011November 10, 2011

Monotheism and the Bible: Origins, Issues, and the Status Quaestionis – Hebrew Bible/OT Part 2

Second Interview of two in the “Monotheism and the Hebrew Bible” Series

Interviewee: Dr. Michael S. Heiser

– Academic Editor, Logos Bible Software, Bellingham, WA

– Dissertation entitled “The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature”

– Authors the blog entitled: “The Naked Bible: Biblical Theology, Stripped Bare of Denominational Confessions and Theological Systems”

1. How do we define “monotheism”?

It all depends. Is the question how do “we” (moderns) tend to define monotheism? Or, how we should define monotheism? Or how ancient Israelites defined monotheism? Moderns would define it as a belief in one God, but “belief in one God” is itself vague. That phrase probably means “belief that one God, and only one God, exists.” As Nathan MacDonald points out (in “Deuteronomy and the Meaning of Monotheism”), the term is a modern one (17^th century) and so, therefore, would the definition be modern. I’ll still use the term since I live in the modern age (!) but I don’t care for the modern definition as someone who accepts the Judeo-Christian canon.

The biblical writers used the term elohim to refer to half a dozen figures or entities in the unseen spiritual world (Yahweh, the elohim of Yahweh’s council, “demons” [Deut 32:17], the disembodied human dead [1 Sam 28:13], and angels [at least I’d argue for that on the basis of the plural verb in Gen 35:7 and its referent point]). The fact that they do that should tell us loudly and clearly that that they did not associate the term elohim with a specific set of attributes. We do that reflexively as moderns—we use “g-o-d” thinking of the singular being we know as the God of the Bible. Consequently, we feel uncomfortable with other elohim no matter how clear the biblical text is in that regard. The biblical writer did not think about elohim the way we think of “g-o-d.” They did not presume that elohim spoke of specific attributes that might be shared equally between Yahweh and other entities called elohim. It would have been absurd to the biblical writer to suggest that dear, departed uncle Jehoshaphat and aunt Rivka were on an ontological par with Yahweh and the elohim of His council, or that the members of Yahweh’s council and the elohim of the nations were on par with Yahweh *simply because they were all elohim.” And yet this is precisely what is assumed when people argue about Israelite monotheism.

The most straightforward way to understand the biblical use of elohim is to divorce it from attribute ontology. Elohim is what I like to call a “place of residence” term. It doesn’t tell me what a thing is in terms of attributes; it tells me the proper domain of a thing. All elohim are members of the unseen spiritual world, their place of residence. In that realm there is rank, and hierarchy, and in the case of Yahweh, uniqueness in attribute ontology. Those concepts are conveyed by other words and descriptions, not the word elohim. Yahweh is an elohim, but no other elohim is Yahweh. Yahweh was not one among equals; he was what I like to call “species unique.” That is what the biblical writers believed, so that is how I’d “define” monotheism, even though the term is awkward because of the modern baggage. However, the thought behind the term—that Yahweh is utterly and eternally unique—remains completely intact.

2. In the text of the Hebrew Bible, do you see a progression or development to monotheism? If so, is that progression a development in kind or a development of degree (or both)?

No. I believe the biblical writers believed Yahweh was unique among all elohim. I don’t care if our modern term “monotheism” fits that or not – but as I noted in the last question, it fits the spirit of the term. I’m delivering a paper on why I reject the evolutionary idea *for the biblical writers* at the annual ETS meeting, so people can read that paper. I can’t reproduce it here. The paper will be available after ETS/SBL next week (David will include the link then to the paper). I think the view is at least in part based not on what we have in the Hebrew Bible, but from what people imagine once existed. I don’t like to speculate; I’d rather go with what’s there – the final form of the text. I tend to like to draw conclusions deriving from exegesis of what we’ve received rather than on speculative texts that don’t exist. And when it comes to what we do have, I think the evidence offered for the idea is pretty much read into the text on the basis of certain assumptions.

Aside from the writers, though, I think that among Israelites there was a wide diversity of opinion or belief at all periods about how to talk about God, the gods, and the unseen world. Lots of people who today would appropriate the label “Christian” don’t even agree on this, so how much more the ancient Israelites who didn’t have direct access to most of their Scriptures for most of their history? My view is that there was theological diversity here. The biblical writers were part of that diversity, and what they believed has been given to us in the text as we have it.

4. Is the distinction between “polytheism” and “henotheism” necessary or helpful?

It’s helpful in that henotheism is monarchic polytheism, but that doesn’t say enough, especially about Israelite belief (as it’s reflected in the text). Henotheism operates without forbidding praying or offering sacrifices to many gods; it requires only the recognition of a supreme deity. But a henotheist would not see the top deity as utterly unique in attributes; he was only at the top through an imagined conquest of the pantheon, or perhaps earthly popularity. That is why I don’t think it is an adequate term for what the biblical writers believed. I’d need to see textual evidence that the biblical writers thought Yahweh could be toppled, or that they believed other gods had the same set of attributes before I’d consider them henotheists. Monolatry is better—monolatry is the rejection of worship and sacrifice to any deity other than the supreme deity. The biblical writers were certainly that, but again, that doesn’t say enough. I believe they also believed in Yahweh’s uniqueness. In other words, the biblical writers weren’t just monolatrous; they had certain beliefs about Yahweh that mattered, too (the reason he was the deity that should be worshiped).

5. What major texts are central to your view and why?

Passages that contain elohim. My view is based on the usage of the term as the biblical writers use it. It’s no more complicated than that.

6. What major texts are the most problematic to your view and why?

I can’t think of any, but that’s because I don’t accept the standard meaning of elohim. I can’t figure out why the biblical writers’ own use of elohim has escaped attention. If they use it of more than one being, and the beings of which it is used are described with other terms as greater or lesser in attributes and rank, then elohim cannot be a term that has to do with one set of attributes.

7. What would be the top 3 books you would recommend to students interested in the study of characterizing the kind of theism in the Hebrew bible/OT and ancient Israelite religion?

This is tough, since my view of elohim seems to be an actual contribution (or at least Nicholas Wyatt seemed to suggest that when he heard a paper of mine back at ISBL in Edinburgh). I think MacDonald’s book (noted above – “Deuteronomy and the Meaning of ‘Monotheism’“) is pretty helpful (it was to me anyway). I can’t think of any that subject the consensus view to any serious questioning. I’d have lots of recommendations for the divine council and binitarian monotheism, but that seems outside the question.

November 8, 2011December 6, 2011

Hebrew Beginnings: Animated Hebrew

If you don’t have Adobe Shockwave on your computer, you’ll need to download it in order to check out AnimatedHebrew.com. For beginners, especially those in Seminary Hebrew 1 & 2, this site is a MUST. Charles Grebe has adapted Philip Williams’ Jonah carton to include the written and audio text of Sepher Yonah.

On a positive side, the comic features a slow paced reading available in manual and autoplay, so you can go at your own pace. The text is available in unpointed formats of the Aramaic, Cursive, and Paleo-Hebrew scripts. Below the comic, Grebe has included translations in pointed Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Greek, Latin, Arabic, German, French, KJV, ESV, and NET bible.

On a negative side, not much can be said. The comic helps keep your attention while you read and the reading is at an excellent pace for beginners. After ten minutes, Micheal Johnson from Criswell College was able to read the first two verses. Previously, it took him 30 seconds to a minute to sound out one word. Impressive. Well done Michael! Keep up the good work.

Thanks Charles for the excellent resource and to Dr. Kevin Warstler, Associate Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at Criswell College, for showing it to me. I look forward to Charles Grebe and Philip Williams partnering up for more biblical cartoons with audio.

WWW.ANIMATEDHEBREW.COM

November 1, 2011December 6, 2011

Hebrew Beginnings: Dialects, Pronunciations, and Intonations

In this, and future blog posts, I invite you to come along with me as we enter the world of the Hebrew language. Over the course of these blogs I hope to introduce you to useful resources for learning the language and some it would behoove you to stay away from. Additionally, I hope to write to you and illuminate your eyes to points of intrigue within the Hebrew bible that you would only be able to see if you were familiar with the language. Along the way, it is highly probable that we will rabbit trail into the domains of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the rabbis, as well as Sesame Street and Curious George.

Wait, wait. Relax. I know you’re thinking, “But Eric, my Hebrew’s not good enough to read Curious George. Can’t you just stick to the biblical material so that I can cross reference with my bible software and appear to be scholarly and knowledgeable of the languages?” Frankly, I cannot. To miss out on the profundity of Sesame Street and its correlation to the biblical text would be to do you a great disfavor.

Yet that will need to wait for a future date. Today, we are starting with dialect, pronunciation, and one of the greatest resources for learning Hebrew since the advent of the ulpan. That being none other than the “Youtube(s).”

First, let’s check out dialect options. In the world of Hebrew speakers there are three primary dialects; Ashkenaz, Sephardi/Mizrachi, and Temani. From these three come various subcategories involving mild idiosyncrasies in pronunciation. In the realm of the Ashkenazim (Jews whose descendancy is from Northern Europe), the greatest differences will be noticed. This is primarily due to the impact of Yiddish. As a result, the accent is moved back towards the beginning of the word, both the kametz and kametz chatuf are pronounced with an “o” or “oy” sound, and the tav without a mappik is said like a samekh. Therefore the word “Shabbat” is many times pronounced as “Shobbos” or “Shabbas.” This dialect can be found most prominently on the streets of Crown Heights or Me’ah She’arim. While this dialect is not the best choice for finding your way around the streets of Tel Aviv, as a result of its modified accent and “S” sounding Tav, it does have the benefit of making it easier to intersperse Hebrew words into your English speech. Which comes in handy if you are teaching Torah in English, yet need to mention key Hebrew terms in the text. To hear a sample check out this lesson on Ha’azinu.

The second dialect is the Sephardi/Mizrachi. Most Israelis speak in one of the subcategories of this dialect. As a result, this is the dialect I prefer for everyday conversation in Hebrew and for reading Modern Hebrew literature. It is also the easiest for people to start with when trying to learn to read the bible. When listening to people speaking in Sephardi Hebrew, you will notice that the accent is towards the end of the word. The multitude of vowel sounds that you learned in your seminary courses are reduced to five sounds; aw, ey, ee, o, and oo. In regards to the BeGaD KePhaT letters, the Beit, Kaf, and Peh retain their distinguishing characteristics of hard and soft sounds depending on whether or not there is a mappik. The Gimmel, Dalet, and Tav only have a hard sound, whether or not there is a mappik. To hear a sample, check out this reading from 1 Samuel 15.

The third dialect is the Temani. This is my favorite dialect of the three, probably because of its exotic nature, and is what I use for reading Torah and praying from the Siddur. The Temani (Yemenite) Jews are a very unique group. As a result of their geographical region, for much of the time since the destruction of Solomon’s Temple, they have been cut off from the rest of the Jewish world. Their tradition is that they descend from the tribe of Dan and did not return at all during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. As a result, their Hebrew lines up most closely to what scholars think the Hebrew of biblical times sounded like. First, every vowel has a different sound. Additionally, the BeGaD KePhaT letters all retain a hard and soft sound. Therefore you will hear differences between a Gimmel and Jimmel, Daleth and Dhaleth, and Taw and Thaw. The Vav, unlike in Ashkenazi and Sephardi, is pronounced with a “W” sound. Hince a Waw instead of a Vav. Much like some subcategories of Sephardi, Alef and Ayin are distinguished in their sounds as well as Chet and Khaf. To hear a sample check out this version of “Yigdal.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojDBcThgWII&feature=BFa&list=PLB241E33CCC1DAC82&lf=mh_lolz