Archive | Books RSS feed for this section

Canon Revisited by Michael J. Kruger

By on April 24, 2012 in Bible and Theology, Books, NT Canon

When I teach biblical hermeneutics, before we actually get to biblical interpretation I try to put down three boundary stones within which we will seek to determine the interpretive perspective of the biblical authors. The first of these has to do with clear thinking. This is a very basic introduction to logical and rhetorical fallacies. We want to be people who think well (here’s a helpful book). The third stone is inerrancy (on which I submit to you this essay), and the second stone is the subject of this post: the canon of Scripture.

The idea is that we have to think logically and well about the 66 books that have been recognized to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. These are the three boundary stones, the triangular space, within which we pursue the interpretive perspective reflected in what the biblical authors have written. In other words, this is the triangle within which we pursue biblical theology.

Michael J. Kruger has just published a book on the New Testament canon: Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books.

I can tell you right now that this will be a recommended texts for my hermeneutics courses, so if you’ve already had the class and want to do more reading on this topic, you should check this one out. If you haven’t yet had the class (or won’t ever have it!) I’m confident that this book will help you think well through “the question about whether the Christian belief in the canon is intellectually justified” (11).

Congratulations and thanks to Michael Kruger and Crossway on this book!

Comments { 2 }

What Helps Me Most As I Prepare to Preach

By on April 23, 2012 in Bible and Theology, Biblical Theology, Books, Education, Jeremiah, Preaching

This post is a quick response to a question in a comment on my post on Jane Austen and Jeremiah 20:7. The question was what commentaries have helped me most as I’ve worked through Jeremiah.

My answer is along the lines of what I recently said about what seminaries are for, because what has helped me most as I’ve preached through Jeremiah has been reading the text in Hebrew.

I’m not boasting about being able to read Hebrew, here. It took me a long time to learn it. In fact, I had 8 Hebrew related classes as a Th.M. student at DTS, and when I got to SBTS I was served up a nice big slice of humble pie when Peter Gentry and Russell Fuller proved to me that I needed to re-take elementary Hebrew. I was humbled, ashamed, offended, but I knew they were right. They served me well, and I went back through elementary Hebrew as a PhD student. My pride made it difficult to accept, but I wanted to be able to read Hebrew more than I wanted to preserve the appearance of being a big smart PhD student.

God mercifully gave me the opportunity to study. He mercifully gave me patient teachers willing to tell me what I needed to do. He mercifully allowed me to have the time as a PhD student to re-take those courses.

And being able to read the Hebrew text of Jeremiah as I prepare to preach that book is the most useful part of my sermon prep.

I’m not dogging people who can’t read Hebrew. We all have different gifts and different opportunities and different privileges.

I am saying to people starting seminary or Bible college, or people in process at such schools thinking about where best to invest their time: an education is more important than a diploma. Get yourself an education, whether that amounts to a degree or not. Ideally the degree will come along with the education, but if you’re picking between the two, the education is the more important.

That is to say, I think it’s more important for you to learn the biblical languages than for you to get your credential. So I recommend that you take the biblical languages early and often. You can get other advice from other people with other concerns. That’s fine.

God has spoken in his word. His word is better than the commentaries upon it. His word is better than biblical and systematic theologies written about it. His word is the tool that he will use to change lives. If you have the chance, why wouldn’t you give yourself to his word in its original languages?

I think a valid reason for pursuing a PhD is developing what Peter Gentry refers to as “sovereign command of the biblical languages.” Obviously that’s a high goal, but we’re talking about the very word of God and the eternal souls of men, right?

So I’m not saying that I make no recourse to commentaries. When I need help, I make use of what I have available, and in God’s kindness I have access to a few books. Often, though, if I’ve done my work in the Hebrew text, I’m pretty clear on what’s going on and just glance through a few relevant books to make sure I’m not missing some juicy inter-textual connection or bit of background or historical information. Many commentaries are just rearranging one another’s footnotes.

The best thing is to hunker down over the Hebrew text, ask the Lord to give illumination by his Spirit, and then let the prophet speak.

Comments { 14 }

Jane Austen and Jeremiah 20:7

By on April 22, 2012 in Bible and Theology, Biblical Theology, Books, Literature, Sermon Audio

The Lord provided for me on Saturday morning. I was preparing to preach Jeremiah 19–20, and I was really stuck on Jeremiah 20:7, which reads in the ESV, “O LORD, you have deceived me, and I was deceived; you are stronger than I, and you have prevailed . . .”

Some scholars say that Jeremiah is verging on the blasphemous. More liberal interpreters suggest that because this terminology is used elsewhere to describe sexual assault, Jeremiah is saying that the way the LORD has abused him that way. Balderdash! But what exactly is going on here?

That’s what I was wrestling with, when two of my favorite people, my 8 and 6 year old sons, came to me saying, “Dad, can we read?”

We’re reading through the Harry Potter stories, and we’ve recently started book 3, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. It’s Saturday and Sunday’s coming–that is, the sermon is hanging over my head! And I’m puzzling my way through this text with no idea what to make of it. I’m thankful that it’s so hard to say “no” to my sons, because it was in saying, “sure, guys, let’s read,” that the Lord provided for me.

I’ve listened to the (fabulous) audiobooks of the Harry Potter stories, so I know where things are going. Reading back through them aloud to my boys, I’m seeing how J. K. Rowling is setting her little traps for us, prepping us for her delightful surprises. No sooner had I begun to read this account of the escaped Sirius Black than I sensed the Lord giving me insight into what Jeremiah meant when he said the LORD had deceived him.

I didn’t want to give plot spoilers on Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban since my sons would hear the sermon, so I decided to illustrate the same idea with a novel I’ve heard J. K. Rowling loves, Jane Austen’s Emma.

Here’s the intro from the sermon:

In Jane Austen’s Emma, the author subtly misleads her audience. Austen misleads her audience by recounting Emma’s thoughts and impressions, and Emma is usually wrong. It is not as though Austen is unfair to her audience, however, for she supplies a reliable character, someone the audience can trust, in Mr. Knightly. Mr. Knightly regularly tells Emma that she is wrong, but Emma insists that she is right, and Emma is a delightful and sympathetic character through whose eyes the audience sees the story unfolding. So it is only natural for the audience to suspect what Emma suspects.

One aspect of this is what happens with another character in the novel, Jane Fairfax. Emma sees some suspicious things about Jane, and she jumps to some mistaken conclusions that fit the evidence she has but are nevertheless wrong. By giving us only Emma’s perspective, Austen shows us things that will enable us to understand everything when she reveals that Jane Fairfax is not in love with and loved by her best friend’s husband but rather she is in love with and loved by Frank Churchill. From her limited perspective, Emma thought there was something between Jane and her best friend’s husband, and the audience thinks so too. Once all is revealed, however, everything falls into place and the audience sees, with Emma, that all along what Emma took to be evidence of something between Jane and her best friend’s husband was actually evidence of the relationship between Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax.

We could say to Jane Austen what Jeremiah says to the Lord in Jeremiah 20:7, “You deceived me and I was deceived; you seized me and you prevailed.”

Austen knows more than we do, and she overpowers us with her subtle misdirections. She herself has not lied to us; rather, she has chosen to present us with Emma’s unreliable interpretations. And Jane Austen has not done this to us with malicious intent but with a loving intent. She has not set out to deceive us so that she can take advantage of us. She has good purposes in mind. She wants to teach us not to jump to uncharitable conclusions, and she gives us that lesson in the form of a charming story that delights us with a wonderful surprise at the end. She is teaching us not to be fools, and she teaches us that lesson in a way that pleases us and affirms us that she loves us.

And then when we came to Jeremiah 20:7 as we worked through Jeremiah 19–20:

I contend that Jeremiah is saying that the Lord has deceived him the same way I described Jane Austen deceiving her audience in Emma in the introduction of this sermon. Jeremiah is not accusing the Lord of wrongdoing.

Perhaps he is saying that he was mislead about how desperate the situation was; perhaps he means to say that though the Lord revealed to him that he would be an adversary to the people, he assumed (wrongly!) that he would be used to lead the people to repentance.

Perhaps he has seen some good fruit, which the Lord gave him to encourage him and keep him going, but which he concluded might mean that the people might actually repent. The reality has turned out, however, to be as the Lord told him at the beginning (Jer 1:17–19). He is the people’s adversary. They are not going to repent.

So I think in saying that the Lord deceived him, Jeremiah is saying that if he had realized that it would be this bad, he never would have agreed to do what the Lord called him to do. When he says that the Lord is stronger than he, that the Lord prevailed upon him, he is acknowledging that the Lord knew things he could not know, that the Lord controlled what information Jeremiah had access to, and that the Lord manipulated the circumstances such that Jeremiah did what the Lord wanted him to do.

I think the NET Bible captures the sense of the verse:

Lord, you coerced me into being a prophet,
and I allowed you to do it.
You overcame my resistance and prevailed over me.
Now I have become a constant laughingstock.
Everyone ridicules me (Jer 20:7, NET).

Not that the Lord has done anything wrong, but that the Lord has done what good authors do for good reasons. Good authors will allow their readers to be deceived so that they can surprise and delight their readers, the way J. K. Rowling does in the first of the Harry Potter books by allowing her audience to think that Snape is trying to kill Harry, when actually it was Quirrell.

Authors like Rowling and Austen are imitating the delightful surprises God builds into the great story for his people.

God will surprise and delight through the plot twists of the story. The Lord uses the authorial deceptions that Jeremiah is alluding to here to lay the groundwork for something better than Jeremiah ever could have imagined: the fulfillment of the exile in the death and resurrection of Jesus. All this judgment that Jeremiah is prophesying will be visited in 586BC, an event that is a type pointing forward to the cross.

God is writing the story of the world so that it culminates in Jesus.

I’m thankful that my sons interrupted my sermon prep, and I’m thankful that the Lord used them to lead me to this understanding of Jeremiah 20:7. I’m thankful, too, for J. K. Rowling and Jane Austen, who imitate the great Artist, the Lord himself.

If you’re interested, here’s the sermon: Jeremiah 19–20, “A Burning in My Bones”

Comments { 3 }

Camus’s Translator on Translation

By on April 18, 2012 in Bible and Theology, Books, Literature, Translation Philosophy

I have posted before on Dostoevsky’s translator, and I was pleased to read the “Translator’s Note” to Albert Camus’s The Stranger. Matthew Ward is the translator, and it seems to me that his comments weigh against “dynamic equivalence” in favor of a more literal rendering. Ward is actually critiquing the earlier more dynamic translation of Stuart Gilbert. Here’s what he says:

Camus acknowledged employing an “American method” in writing The Stranger . . . . There is some irony then in the fact that for forty years the only translation available to American audiences should be Stuart Gilbert’s “Brittanic” rendering. . . . As all translators do, Gilbert gave the novel a consistency and voice all his own. A certain paraphrastic earnestness might be a way of describing his effort to make the text intelligible, to help the English-speaking reader understand what Camus meant. In addition to giving the text a more “American” quality, I have also attempted to venture farther into the letter of Camus’s novel, to capture what he said and how he said it, not what he meant. In theory, the latter should take care of itself.

When Meursault meets old Salamano and his dog in the dark stairwell of their apartment house, Meursault observes, “Il etait avec son chien.” With the reflex of a well-bred Englishman, Gilbert restores the conventional relation between man and beast and gives additional adverbial information: “As usual, he had his dog with him.” But I have taken Meursault at his word: “He was with his dog.”–in the way one is with a spouse or a friend. A sentence as straightforward as this gives us the world through Meursault’s eyes. As he says toward the end of his story, as he sees things, Salamano’s dog was worth just as much as Salamano’s wife. Such peculiarities of perception, such psychological increments of character are Meursault. It is by pursuing what is unconventional in Camus’s writing that one approaches a degree of its still startling originality.

. . . .

. . . an impossible fidelity has been my purpose.

. . . time reveals all translation to be paraphrase.

Sentiments such as these are very close to my own reasons for thinking the Bible should be translated literally.

Related:

Dynamic Equivalence: The Method Is the Problem

What Makes a Translation Accurate?

“Son of Man” or “Human Beings” in the NIV 2011: What Difference Does It Make?

The Heresy of Explanation

Can Dostoevsky’s Translator Weigh in on Bible Translation?

Was Gender Usage in the English Language Shaped by the Old Testament in Hebrew?

The Word of God Is Living and Active (unless your translation philosophy emasculates it)

Comments { 1 }

Gerald Bray’s God Is Love

By on April 17, 2012 in Biblical Theology, Books

Crossway continues to bless us with great resources. I have long appreciated Gerald Bray. My favorite book of his (perhaps until I finish the book featured in this post) is his history of biblical hermeneutices: Biblical Interpretation: Past and Present.

My deep respect for Bray made me really happy to be alerted by Andy Naselli to the publication of what may be his magnum opus.

Justin Wainscott has interviewed Bray on his new book here.

Matt Smethurst’s interview on the same is here.

If you don’t already have it, you can get your copy of God Is Love: A Biblical and Systematic Theology here.

 

Comments { 0 }

Review of Moyise, Paul and Scripture

By on April 9, 2012 in Bible and Theology, Books, OT in the NT, OT in the OT

Steve Moyise, Paul and Scripture: Studying the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010. 151 pp. $21.99, paper.

Published in The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 15.4 (2011): 79–81.

The best thing about this book is its interaction with modern scholarship. The best thing about the book’s interaction with modern scholarship is the final chapter on “Modern Approaches to Paul’s Use of Scripture.” In this chapter Steve Moyise summarizes recent attempts to understand Paul’s use of the OT by describing scholars according to three categories: intertextual approaches, narrative approaches, and rhetorical approaches.

The intertextual approach of Richard Hays seeks to pay close attention not only to the texts Paul explicitly quotes but also to the ways other texts are alluded to, evoked, or echoed. Moyise reproduces the criteria Hays has set forth for assessing allusions, and he also discusses the work of Timothy Berkley.

The narrative approach of N. T. Wright holds that Paul taught people to read the OT “in the light of an overall narrative framework” (117). This seeks to put the fragments of Scripture that might be echoed or alluded to into the wider storyline Paul seems to assume. Here Moyise also discusses work done by Ross Wagner, Sylvia Keesmaat, and Francis Watson.

The rhetorical work of Christopher Stanly suggests that Paul’s audience would not have known the OT well enough to make either the intertextual or narrative explanations work, and Stanley seems to hold that Paul is simply trying to “enhance his stature among the Romans and increase their openness to his argument” (122). The work of John Paul Heil is briefly reviewed under this heading as well.

I am convinced that Paul is not simply out to score rhetorical points, and that he is saturated with the Scriptures (Hays), which he does read in light of a typological understanding of the narrative flow of Israel’s history (Wright).

As he discusses modern authors, Moyise is careful to understand what they are saying, and it is clear that he shares their general outlook and thought-world. As he discusses Paul, it is clear that Moyise is not trying to describe Paul’s worldview so that he himself can embrace that worldview and interpret the Bible and life in line with it. The chapters that precede the final one are driven more by the modern scholarly discussion than by a sympathetic attempt to trace the contours of Paul’s symbolic universe.

Moyise appears to think that Paul’s world-view is now defunct, and thus his arguments no longer work. He writes, “the advantage of ‘solution to plight’ for modern readers is that Paul’s arguments might still have value now that the theory of evolution makes it impossible – for most people – to believe in a literal Adam and Eve. If Paul is making deductions about Christ and salvation based on the facticity of the Adam and Eve story, it is hard to see how they can continue to command support” (29). Similarly, Moyise writes, “The early Christians lived in a world that was thought to be governed by gods and spirits” (52).

Moyise not only rejects Paul’s worldview, he rejects Paul’s own understanding of Scripture. Discussing Francis Watson’s views, Moyise writes, “Modern scholars recognize this as a reference to the exile, and written by those who witnessed it. Deuteronomy is not a unified book by Moses but a collection of traditions, some of which date from a much later time. But Paul would have read it as a prophecy that though blessing through obedience to the law is a genuine offer, it will in fact lead to curse” (70).

On a related point, if one were seeking a “rationale for Paul’s use of the Adam–Christ typology,” one might look to the OT itself. That’s not where Moyise looks. He looks to the scholarly guild. Moyise writes, “According to Wright, therefore, the rationale for the Adam–Christ typology is that Jewish tradition had already associated Israel with Adam . . . as far as we know, it was Paul’s innovation to connect Adam with Christ” (21). If Moyise had gone deeper into the OT itself, he would find that the biblical authors themselves viewed Adam as a prototype. Moreover, the authors of the OT present subtle indications that other characters are installments in the pattern of what happened with Adam. We find these indications with Noah, Abraham, Israel, Boaz, David (cf. Ps 8), and Solomon (1 Kgs 4:24, 33). If David is connected to Adam in Psalm 8 (and cf. Gen 1:26–28 with Ps 8ss and 8:6–8), then when Paul makes a connection from Adam to Christ, he is simply taking his cues from interpretive moves already made in the OT.

Moyise never says that the ideas of modern scholars are “strange,” “unusual,” or “arbitrary.” Rather than use these kinds of descriptors, he patiently tries to understand what these authors mean, seeking the inner logic of their claims. He could show Paul the same courtesy. Instead, he writes (italics mine):

  • “It is unclear what led Paul to describe Christ as the ‘last Adam’,” (20),
  • “Paul strangely talks about the effects of Adam’s sin on ‘the many’. . . (24)
  • “God then makes a covenant with Abraham, involving a rather strange ritual of fire passing between the carcasses” (32).
  • On Galatians 3:6–9, “What is surprising about this argument, from a Gentile Christian’s perspective . . .” (35). On the next page he presumes to offer Paul some help: “Would it not be more appropriate to say . . . ? Perhaps, but that does not appear to be Paul’s concern here” (36).
  • “Such an interpretive move could be seen as arbitrary” (37).
  • “Paul uses a quasi-linguistic argument . . . This is a strange argument for two reasons . . . it is fallacious since sperma (‘seed’ or ‘offspring’) is a collective singular, meaning descendants. Not only is it false . . . the context also makes it quite clear that a plurality was intended. . . . How can Paul think this argument is convincing?” (41).

If I were reading a book about the way that Virgil made use of Homer, I would not need the author to tell me Virgil’s outlook was different than my own. If I want to understand Virgil, what I am looking for in such a book is an explanation of Virgil’s agenda from Virgil’s perspective. If the author repeatedly told me that Virgil’s views were strange, if he told me that modern mythology is superior to Virgil’s, I might suspect that the modern author operates from the bias that his own way of viewing the world is superior to Virgil’s. This does not advance historical understanding. The modern author does not have to believe that Aeneas was descended from a goddess, but he can explain how that concept fit within Virgil’s worldview, what influenced the idea, and what significance it had in Virgil’s world. I want the scholar to show me how these things made sense to Virgil. I can decide for myself whether I think them strange, unusual, or unclear.

In addition to the issue of historical understanding, there are theological issues at stake for Christians thinking about the use Paul made of earlier Scripture. People looking for an explanation of Paul’s use of the OT that probes the primary sources for the deep structure of Paul’s understanding of the Bible and the world, an explanation that does not jump to the conclusion that Paul’s claims are “arbitrary” and “fallacious,” will have to look elsewhere. These matters are not morally and spiritually neutral. Christians believe that everything depends on the Bible being true. What hope do we have if Paul’s arguments do not make sense?

Comments { 1 }

Kingdom through Covenant by Gentry and Wellum

By on April 5, 2012 in Bible and Theology, Biblical Theology, Books

I happened to be in Dr. Gentry’s office yesterday afternoon, and I was delighted to see the page proofs of this forthcoming book. In the course of our conversation, Gentry said something like this: “I’ve been developing these lectures over the course of my 30 years of teaching, and students have urged me to put them in print.”

The blurbs for Gentry and Wellum’s Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical Theological Understanding of the Covenants have been posted on Amazon. Here they are:

“Gentry and Wellum offer a third way, a via media, between covenant theology and dispensationalism, arguing that both of these theological systems are not informed sufficiently by biblical theology. Certainly we cannot understand the scriptures without comprehending ‘the whole counsel of God,’ and here we find incisive exegesis and biblical theology at its best. This book is a must read and will be part of the conversation for many years to come.”
—Thomas R. Schreiner, James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

“Kingdom through Covenant is hermeneutically sensitive, exegetically rigorous, and theologically rich—a first rate biblical theology that addresses both the message and structure of the whole Bible from the ground up. Gentry and Wellum have produced what will become one of the standard texts in the field. For anyone who wishes to tread the path of biblical revelation, this text is a faithful guide.”
—Miles V. Van Pelt, Alan Belcher Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Languages and Director, Summer Institute for Biblical Languages, Reformed Theological Seminary

“Gentry and Wellum have provided a welcome addition to the current number of books on biblical theology. What makes their contribution unique is the marriage of historical exegesis, biblical theology, and systematic theology. Kingdom through Covenant brims with exegetical insights, biblical theological drama, and sound systematic theological conclusions. Particularly important is the viable alternative they offer to the covenantal and dispensational hermeneutical frameworks. I enthusiastically recommend this book!”
—Stephen Dempster, Stuart E. Murray Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Atlantic Baptist University

“The relationship between the covenants of Scripture is rightly considered to be central to the interpretation of the Bible. That there is some degree of continuity is obvious for it is the same God—the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as well as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ—who has revealed himself and his will in the covenants. That there is, however, also significant discontinuity also seems patent since Scripture itself talks about a new covenant and the old one passing away. What has changed and what has not? Utterly vital questions to which this new book by Gentry and Wellum give satisfying and sound answers. Because of the importance of this subject and the exegetical and theological skill of the authors, their answers deserve a wide hearing. Highly recommended!”
—Michael G. Haykin, Professor of Church History and Biblical Spirituality, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; Director, The Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies

“Kingdom through Covenant is directly applicable to a pastor faithfully seeking understanding of God’s Word as it reveals the structure that supports the narrative of God’s message throughout time. The study of the covenants provides a framework for understanding and applying the message of the Bible to life in the new covenant community. I have found this study personally transforming, and enriching in my teaching ministry.”
—Joseph Lumbrix, Pastor, Mount Olivet Baptist Church, Willisburg, Kentucky

Right now you can get this book 51% off at Amazon.

This fall at ETS, Lord willing, there will be a session devoted to discussion of Gentry and Wellum’s Kingdom through Covenant as well as my own God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology. Gentry and Wellum’s book appears in June. Plenty of time between now and November to read both books, and we’d love to see you at that session.

Comments { 9 }

Congratulations to Eckhard Schnabel on his 40 Questions about the End Times

By on April 4, 2012 in Bible and Theology, Biblical Theology, Books, Eschatology

I’m glad to see Eckhard Schnabel’s 40 Questions about The End Times appear, not least because it puts me in good company!

His book appeared in 2011, my book Revelation: The Spirit Speaks to the Churches appeared in 2012. I had turned my manuscript into Crossway before Schnabel’s work appeared, and I didn’t know he held these views.

I’m thrilled to see that, independently of one another, we’ve arrived at similar conclusions on the relationship between the opening of the seals in Revelation 6 and the “signs of the end” in the Olivet Discourse in the Synoptic Gospels (compare his chart on p. 70 of 40 Questions and mine on p. 167 of Revelation).

Schnabel’s interpretation of the “abomination of desolation” would support Peter Gentry’s interpretation of relevant passages in Daniel (see esp. p. 156 in 40 Questions about The End Times).

I’ve paged through Schnabel’s book, reading selectively in sections that interested me, reading chapter titles and subtitles and chapter summaries. Each chapter title asks a question, and the question is typically answered in the subtitles. Here’s my favorite chapter title question and subtitle answer from page 247:

Chapter Title: Why Will Jesus Return?

First Subtitle: Jesus Will Return Because the Bible Says So

Amen!

It’s also good to see this resource providing a fresh take on a question often asked of those who hold the historic pre-mil view.

If I’m reading him correctly, Schnabel thinks that Gog and Magog and the nations who are deceived by Satan at the end of the millennium for the final rebellion in Revelation 20:7–10 are the wicked resurrected in the “second resurrection” (Rev 20:11–15, p. 276, 278).

That’s an interesting suggestion, but I’m more inclined to say that not all the wicked were slain at the second coming and that there will be those who submit to Jesus in the millennium though they do not belong to him. As soon as they get the chance to join Satan and rebel, they will do so. I don’t think the wicked dead are raised for the final rebellion.

This book asks and answers questions many have about the End, and I commend it for your consideration of these topics. Hearty thanks and congratulations to Prof. Dr. Eckhard Schnabel on 40 Questions about The End Times.

Comments { 1 }

Steinmann’s Intermediate Biblical Hebrew

By on April 2, 2012 in Bible and Theology, Books

The standard Hebrew reference grammars (GKC and JM) are not for the light of heart, so I’m always glad to see new efforts to bridge the gap between the elementary textbooks and the reference grammars.

Enter Andrew Steinmann with his Intermediate Biblical Hebrew. Reading books like this one is like eating your broccoli. Other things may have better texture and be a lot more tasty, but like your vegetables this sort of book will keep your brain healthy, well nourished, and it’ll do a lot of things for you that you don’t realize, wouldn’t expect, and didn’t know you needed.

Congratulations and gratitude to Andrew Steinmann for another important book!

Comments { 1 }

The Scribes Didn’t Just Copy the Text

By on March 23, 2012 in Books, History, Manuscripts

They also left some comments in margins, like these listed by Tommy Wasserman:

“New parchment, bad ink; I say nothing more.

“I am very cold.”

“That’s a hard page and a weary work to read it.”

“Let the reader’s voice honor the writer’s pen.”

“This page has not been written very slowly.”

“The parchment is hairy.”

“The ink is thin.”

“Thank God, it will soon be dark.”

“Oh, my hand.”

“Now I’ve written the whole thing; for Christ’s sake give me a drink.”

“Writing is excessive drudgery. It crooks your back, it dims you sight, it twists your stomach and your sides.”

“St. Patrick of Armagh, deliver me from writing.”

“While I wrote I froze, and what I could not write by the beams of the sun I finished by candlelight.”

“As the harbor is welcome to the sailor, so is the last line to the scribe.”

“This is sad! O little book! A day will come in truth when someone over your page will say, ‘The hand that wrote it is no more’.”

Comments { 8 }

Congrats to Ray Ortlund on Preaching the Word Vol. on Proverbs

By on March 22, 2012 in Bible and Theology, Books, Preaching

Have you ever wondered how Proverbs might be preached?

When I work my way through a book of the Bible, I like to get a robust exegetical commentary along with a more pastoral one and work through them as I prepare to preach.

The exegetical commentary helps me with historical and background details, gives me a check on the way I’m reading the text, and alerts me to intertextual issues I may have missed. I think the best commentary on Proverbs for these purposes is Bruce Waltke’s 2 vol. NICOT set.

The pastoral one is especially useful because it affords an opportunity to see how someone has not only interpreted but illustrated and applied the text. The best commentary for these purposes has just appeared: Raymond C. Ortlund Jr.’s Proverbs, in the Preaching the Word series edited by Kent Hughes.

Ray Ortlund is gospel wise, and I’m thankful that he set his heart and mind to the book of Proverbs. May the Lord bless his word in this book!

Comments { 7 }

Conrad Comments on Smyth and Robertson

By on March 8, 2012 in Bible and Theology, Books

HT to Rod Decker for drawing attention to this comparison of the grammars of Smyth and Robertson from The Biblical Greek Forum:

Robertson’s work is focused fundamentally on the Greek of the New Testament, but each chapter begins with a careful survey of the history of the form and/or usage dealt with, setting forth the best of historical linguistic scholarship at the time of his writing, so that his discussion of NT Koine’s forms and usages is set in a deliberate and careful diachronic perspective. I think it is true that some of what Robertson wrote is “fuzzy” — which is to say, it does not give the quick and dirty answer to a question that the impatient student consulting ATR for a definitive solution to an immediate problem is looking for. ATR hems and haws about questions and sometimes offers a tentative view. I’d say that ATR is best read at leisure and a chapter at a time rather than consulted in quest of the solution to a problem arising in the reading of a particular text. ATR is hard to use as a reference grammar, even if it has nice indexes; it’s certainly easier to use in an electronic edition (especially the nicely-engineered and hyper-texted versions in software packages like Accordance and Logos), but it’s still an awkward work to consult for answers to very specific questions. I’d recommend ATR more for careful reading, chapter by chapter, for an overview of the language of the GNT as it has developed over the course of the history of the language, and I’d take note of the fact that it is dated in its view of some matters (some might consider that a virtue!). Smyth uses the traditional grammatical categories even when he objects to them (I’ve found plenty of evidence in his discussion of voice that supports my argument that we should drop the notion of deponency and understand middle and passive usage in different ways than those that have been taught for ages past).

ATR’s focus is the Koine Greek of the NT; his historical survey of older Greek forms and usage is intended to illuminate the distinct forms and usage of the NT Koine. Smyth’s grammar on the other hand focuses distinctly on Classical Attic Greek, but it adds notes explaining older Homeric forms and usages as well as variants in the dialects and even in Hellenistic Greek. I would not really call Smyth’s work “concise” in the most precise sense of that adjective, but Smyth is not “chatty” in the way that ATR is; Smyth states clearly and precisely what is most useful to understand about forms and usages and sets forth an immense array of information in an extraordinarily well-organized layout. It is rare that one comes across a statement in Smyth that is not lucid and properly nuanced and accompanied by notes regarding apparent exceptions. Moreover, the illustrative texts are well chosen and for each of them a version in excellent English phrasing is offered. Given that Smyth’s focus is on Classical Attic, it continues to be surprising how useful its information is to one researching forms and usage in Biblical Greek. Smyth is especially valuable when supplemented by BDF, a grammar which is almost useless to students of Biblical Greek who aren’t familiar with earlier Greek.

In sum, ATR is a book to read carefully to learn about the nature of the Biblical Greek language; it’s something a serious student of Biblical Greek should own and should read through, but it is not a handy reference book to consult when you encounter a puzzle in a Biblical Greek text that you’re reading, and if you attempt to consult it, you’ll have the devil of a time finding what ATR has to say about your puzzle. On the other hand, you can go to Smyth and quickly find out where to look in the superbly-organized table of contents and proceed immediately to information that answers your query immediately if not sooner — and if it doesn’t answer it, then the answer may not be found anywhere.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Comments { 1 }

The Logos Original Languages Supplement

By on February 21, 2012 in Bible and Theology, Books

The Bible is the most important book in the world. Nothing else comes close. No other book in the world reveals God. No other book in the world is inspired by the Holy Spirit. No other book in the world is able to make people wise unto salvation. No other book in the world is totally true and trustworthy.

Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ (Rom 10:16). The Apostles of Jesus have all passed from the scene, but the word of Christ is still heard in what they wrote. Faith comes from hearing the Bible. “For since in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God by wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of preaching” (1 Cor 1:21), and though they are dead, the Apostles continue to preach through the Scriptures.

These truths about the Scriptures—that they reveal God and proclaim the salvation that God has wrought in Christ—are the reasons I care about Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, the languages in which the Bible was written, and these reasons are also why I care about the ancient manuscripts that transmit the Scriptures and the scholarly discipline of textual criticism.

The original languages and textual criticism matter to me because the Bible matters to me.

In order to understand the original languages in which the Bible was written, we need to understand the grammatical structures of these languages, and we need to understand how the words of these languages were used. Over the years, scholars have compiled massive and significant grammars and lexicons, reference works that collect and organize how phrases and words were used when the Bible was being written.

When we come to a phrase or grammatical construction we do not understand, or when we come to a word we do not know, we can look the word up in a lexicon and the phrase or construction up in a grammar. More detailed lexicons and grammars will do more than just gloss meanings, citing other texts where these words and phrases are used, sometimes giving snippets from those texts, or in the case of grammars, discussing them.

The two advanced Hebrew Grammars are Gesenius, Kautzsch, Cowley (GKC) and Joüon Muraoka. GKC comes with Logos Scholars Gold. Joüon Muraoka comes with the Original Languages Supplement (hereafter OLS). The OLS also comes with Linguistic Analysis of Biblical Hebrew by Sue Groom (a resource with which I’m not yet familiar).

The two authoritative lexicons for Hebrew are BDB, which also comes with Scholars Gold, and HALOT, which comes with the OLS.

One of the advanced Greek grammars, BDF, comes with the OLS, as does the best intermediate Greek Grammar, Dan Wallace’s Exegetical Syntax.

The most important Greek Lexicon for NT study is BDAG, which comes with the OLS, and the most important Greek Lexicon for all ancient literature, including LXX study, LSJ, also comes with the OLS. Logos also includes Learning the Basics of New Testament Greek, which comes with a workbook.

Let me summarize what this means: in the Logos Original Languages Supplement, you get three of the four most important lexicons for biblical studies: HALOT, BDAG, and LSJ (BDB coming with other packages), and three of the five or so most important grammars for biblical studies: Joüon Muraoka, BDF, and Wallace (GKC coming with other packages, and ATR’s big Greek Grammar only comes with Platinum and Portfolio Logos packages).

I am simply astonished that all these resources are available in electronic format. Whereas in years past you needed a big table for massive volumes such as LSJ, now you need a powerful computer. The possibilities such easy access open up are mind-boggling. Much will be required of us, for to us much indeed has been given.

Logos is to be congratulated and thanked for their service in making such tools available. We are all in their debt. May we be good stewards.

I have two minor complaints about Logos, and I don’t know whether these issues are related. The first is that the program comes with a lot of “resources” that I will never use. I wouldn’t keep hard copies of most of these books if they came into my possession for free. I wish that there were an easier way to delete multiple items from my Logos library all at once. The best thing I found was instructions in a forum somewhere that gave a step by step process for deleting (hiding, removing from my library, whatever it’s called) ten items at once. The steps had to be followed exactly, I’m not sure if I could get back to those instructions (probably easily could by googling them), and it would just take forever to remove all the clutter I would like to get out of Logos. I’m not sure I want to take the time to do it. So I wish there were an easy way to remove a whole bunch of resources all at once. I know there’s a lot of magic behind the curtain, but what if Logos could bring up all my resources in one big list, with an edit button at the top right like I find on my iPhone. I hit edit, select the items I don’t want in my library, and delete them all at once. Is this possible?

My second complaint may or may not be related to the first. That is, I don’t know if it’s the number of items in my Logos library that makes the program sluggish, but it is sluggish. I have saved “Layouts” for OT, NT, and LXX screens. My MacBook Pro is about a year old, and it’s a pretty powerful machine. Just now I went to Logos, clicked the “Layouts” tab, and selected “NT” (I was in “OT”). I was able to count off 20 seconds before the NT layout appeared. Similarly, it’s not uncommon for me to try to scroll through a passage, or hit the button to go to the next chapter, and have to wait for the program to respond. This may seem petty. I agree. It is. What a pity to have to wait 20 seconds to switch from my OT to my NT layout. Cry me a river. But there is no comparison on this point with Accordance or BibleWorks. The word “instantaneous” comes to mind for Accordance, and BibleWorks is the same on Windows machines.

Would Logos be faster if I took the time to delete all that stuff I don’t want? I don’t know. I’m not sure that I want to risk the time and find it doesn’t make things go faster. If I could be assured that it would lighten the program’s load, I might look for a time to do it.

Let me return to what matters: the Bible. There is nothing in the world more important than the Bible. Lexicons and grammars are vital to study of the biblical texts in the original languages. The best, most important, most thorough, most used grammars and lexicons are in the Logos Original Languages Supplement.

As I reflect on what it’s like to have the Logos Original Languages Supplement, I think this must be close to what it was for Harry Potter to hold wand in hand.

Comments { 23 }

Prince Charles, the Book of Common Prayer, and Dynamic Equivalence Translation Philosophy

By on February 17, 2012 in Books, Literature, Translation Philosophy

I think what Prince Charles says about the Book of Common Prayer is relevant to translation philosophy:

Prince Charles, heir apparent to the British throne, is widely disliked by conservatives because of some of his politically incorrect statements. But his introduction to a new book celebrating the 350th anniversary of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is one that cultural conservatives should cheer heartily. He writes:

“Over recent years, we have witnessed a concerted effort to devalue the currency of [the 1662 BCP’s] resonant words. But who was it who decided that for people who aren’t very good at reading, the best things to read are those written by people who aren’t very good at writing? Poetry is surely for everybody, even if it’s only a few phrases. But banality is for nobody. It might be accessible for all, but so is a desert.”

HT: Michael Potemra

Comments { 3 }

Review of Richter, The Epic of Eden

By on February 15, 2012 in Biblical Theology, Books

Sandra L. Richter, The Epic of Eden: A Christian Entry into the Old Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2008. 263pp. $24.00. Paper.

Sandra Richter, associate professor of OT at Asbury, is married to Steve Tsoukalas, and according to the back cover of this volume she regularly speaks on the topic of The Epic of Eden: A Christian Entry into the Old Testament. Richter’s likeability comes through in her writing style, which is conversational and non-academic in this book. There is a lot to like about Epic of Eden. The layout is clear and her approach inviting: she begins with an introduction meant to encourage believers to tackle the Old Testament. From there she has nine clean chapters followed by a brief FAQ. There were points reading the book when I found myself stopping to admire not only the content of what Richter said but the way she said it. The major concern I have with the book, however, will be the focus of this review.

Can you imagine a book on the Old Testament beginning with a chapter titled “The Bible as the Story of Redemption” and not saying anything about God redeeming Israel for himself at the exodus from Egypt? This may seem unfathomable, but it’s exactly what Richter does. Right before she discusses what “Israel’s Tribal Culture” was like—a discussion dealing with the entirety of Israel’s history not just pre-exodus patriarchs—she writes that redemption “and the concepts associated with it emerged from the everyday, secular vocabulary of ancient Israel. ‘To redeem’ . . . in its first associations had nothing to do with theology, but everything to do with the laws and social customs of the ancient tribal society of which the Hebrews were a part” (24–25). How does she know this? The laws in the Pentateuch, laws which regulated and resulted in Israel’s social customs, all purport to come after the exodus from Egypt. How can Richter be certain that redemption and all its associations were not dominated by the reality that God had redeemed Israel from Egypt?

Richter states, “the idea of redemption was intrinsically linked to the familial responsibilities of a patriarch to his clan” (40), then she discusses Ruth and Boaz. Here again I wonder why she has not appealed to the exodus from Egypt. She could establish patriarchal truths from the exodus, with God identifying Israel as his firstborn son, and these realities would seem to be the foundational ones that give meaning to the familial relationships Richter does discuss (cf. Eph 3:14–15). Rather than seeing what Yahweh has done as the reality that gives meaning to human relationships, Richter starts with human relationships and moves from there to Yahweh: “So now we have come full circle and are ready to define the word redemption. We are also ready to understand why this word was chosen by the Old Testament writers to describe Yahweh’s relationship with his people” (45). I submit that Richter has it backwards. What Yahweh has done for Israel at the exodus, identifying himself as their father and redeeming them from slavery, gives meaning to Israel’s society, rather than Israel’s society giving meaning to the exodus. Yahweh does not present himself as acting in accord with ancient social and cultural norms. Rather, he calls Israel to act like him because he has set them apart for himself (e.g., Lev 11:44–45; 20:8).

As she does with redemption, so she does with covenant. Richter writes, “we find that the etymological roots of this term are ancient, packed with significance and completely secular in their original associations” (70). Remarkably, on the same page she says that God’s “agreement with Adam and Eve in Eden” was a “covenantal interaction” (cf. also her discussion of “Eden as a Covenant,” 103–104). If the very first covenantal arrangement was between God and the man and woman in the Garden of Eden, how did the word covenant originally have secular associations? Richter makes a similar move with the word hesed: discussing the loyalty required in suzerain/vassal treaties under the heading “Covenant-Making in the Ancient Near East,” Richter declares, “In the Bible, the term for this sort of loyalty is hesed” (74).

These examples prompt a question: does the Bible define the world, or does the world define the Bible? Admittedly this is a false dichotomy, but it gets at the issue. Clearly background knowledge informs our understanding of the Bible, but should what we learn from extra-biblical writings and archeology determine our understanding of the Bible? Might it not be the case that there are unique realities described in the Bible that are better discerned from biblical usage of a term than from ancient Near Eastern parallels and backgrounds? Might it not be the case that the biblical authors mean to explain to their readers what redemption is or what hesed is or what a covenant is by relating what Yahweh has done for his people? Similarly, Richter seems to assume that God intended to teach Israel about himself by means of their prior knowledge of politics: “How would Yahweh make his people understand that they were to worship him alone? By putting the idea of monotheism into terms they would understand: political terms” (86). Did God mean for Israel to learn theology from politics or politics from theology?

I contend that the Biblical authors mean to communicate to us the way God made the world, judged the world, promised to redeem the world, and set about doing just that. As later biblical authors bring out their writings, they are presenting their interpretations of earlier Scripture. The biblical authors are thus modeling an interpretive perspective in their writings. Those who embrace the message of the Bible should seek to learn that interpretive perspective. We want to learn how to interpret both the Bible and the world from the biblical authors. Understanding biblical backgrounds can aid and inform our understanding of what the biblical authors have written, but extra-biblical parallels and archeology are not determinative. Too often Richter starts with background then moves to Bible.

Richter’s discussion of background realities is informative, her attempt to organize the OT and familiarize Christians with it is admirable, and as noted above, at points her prose is thought provoking, even beautiful. The book’s intended audience seems to be those who are unfamiliar with the OT, however, and such readers should be warned of the way that biblical backgrounds and ancient parallels control Richter’s approach to everything from redemption to covenant to the lovingkindness of the Lord.

Comments { 0 }

Review of Merrill’s Everlasting Dominion

By on February 15, 2012 in Biblical Theology, Books

I posted my congratulations to Eugene Merrill, under whom it was my privilege to study at DTS, when his book Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament appeared. Today I realize that I never posted my full review, so here it is. I reiterate my congratulations to and esteem for Dr. Merrill, and I would add to the review below that I think his book has the best title of any OT Theology – “everlasting dominion” (Dan 7:14) – amen and hallelujah!

—-

Eugene H. Merrill, Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2006. xvi + 682 pp. $39.99, Hardcover.

Published in Westminster Theological Journal 69.2 (2007), 411–12.

Asserting in his preface, written on his seventy-first birthday, that “biblical theology is ‘an old man’s game,’” Eugene Merrill gives us the fruit of his life-long study of the Old Testament in Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament. The long-time DTS professor is well known to students for his widely used Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel and for his conservative commentary on Deuteronomy in the NAC series.

Recent books on Old Testament theology have generally been arranged either chronologically—moving through the history reflected in the Old Testament (Goldingay’s vol. 1), or canonically—moving book by book through the Hebrew order of the books (Dempster, Dumbrell, House), or thematically—organizing the material by major themes (Brueggemann, Goldingay’s vol. 2). Merrill’s Old Testament theology combines these three approaches. He proposes “to pay serious attention to” the Hebrew canon “while attempting to adhere to the diachronic movement of the tradition,” structuring his work around (1) God, (2) mankind, and (3) the kingdom (29–31). Organizing a book on Old Testament theology is a challenge. If the treatment does not move clearly from one book of the Old Testament to the next, or if the author does not articulate a thesis at the outset, clearly state how that thesis will be argued, and then relate everything back to that central idea (N. T. Wright is a master of this), a large book quickly begins to feel like an assemblage of loosely related topical studies.

Everlasting Dominion presents twenty chapters in five parts. The introduction sets forth the history of biblical theology, the need for this book, Merrill’s presuppositions, and his method for proceeding. Part One (chs. 2–5) synthesizes God’s character, his revelation, his works, and his purposes. Part Two (chs. 6–9) traces mankind from creation through the fall to redemption and the creation of the nation. Parts Three (chs. 10–14) and Four (chs. 15–17) deal with the Kingdom of God. Part Three focuses mainly on the historical narratives of the OT, and Part Four treats “The Prophets and the Kingdom.” Part Five (chs. 18–19) then discusses the Psalms and the Wisdom Literature, and the final chapter summarizes Merrill’s findings. Parts One and Two are thus thematic, dealing with God and Man, then Parts Three through Five move chronologically through the Old Testament.

Merrill insists on an inductive approach. This is a strength if one is seeking to avoid the charge of dogmatism, and here Merrill succeeds. The inductive approach leads him “to engage the task with blinders on . . . so that the finished product can be judged to be biblical and not dogmatic” (21). This strength, however, has its attendant weaknesses. Chief of these is the assumption that blinders are more useful for seeing what is in the text than the field of vision blocked by the blinders. Everyone comes to the texts with peripheral vision. Better to use peripheral vision to advantage than counteract it with blinders. Blinders seem to have been standard fare for Merrill’s generation, but rising generations of evangelical scholars seem to be unashamedly rejecting them, deciding that the full picture sans blinders allows a clearer view of, among other things, texts in canonical context. There are deep waters here whose depths I have not space to plumb: some evangelical academics seem to have conceded the notion that “doubt is a virtue; credulity a vice” (see Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text?, 22–25), and it seems to this reviewer that the eyes work better without such blinders.

Another problem with an overly inductive emphasis is that it appears to have led Merrill to reserve his presentation of what he sees as the center of Old Testament theology until the end of his book. He states that he believes there is a center of Old Testament theology in the introduction (27), hints at it at least once in the body (129), then postpones his exposition of it until the theological exposition that concludes the volume (646–48). But if an idea is truly central, then presenting it throughout would have an organizational force on the material, helping readers understand what the texts say. The Bible’s stories and songs would fit together if they could be seen in relation to what is truly central, seen as they relate to everything else in orbit around the center.

Nothing that has been said should be taken to mean that there are not flashes of insight and forceful statements to be found in this book. For instance, Merrill writes, “The controlling thesis of the present work is that God, who has existed from eternity past, interrupted the endless eons by a mighty work of creation in which he brought about an arena over which he might display his glory and power as the sovereign Lord” (277). Amen! But perhaps this could have been the first sentence of the volume, or could have come somewhere in the first twenty pages. A similarly strong statement concludes Part One by heralding God’s purposes, which are opposed by Satan but accomplished by the messianic scion of David (161–62). But again, this strong sally could have been sent in the opening lines rather than the closing, then fought for throughout the section. Perhaps a desire for a thesis statement at the beginning followed by an argument for that thesis is merely personal preference, but it is what this reviewer prefers.

Merrill is not impressed by recent reassessments of the influence of Genesis 3:15 on the rest of the Old Testament. According to him, there are “no allusions to it in later Old Testament literature” (246). Nor does he seem interested in the connections (pointed out by Wenham, Beale, and others) between Eden, the Tabernacle, and the Temple. And the issue of Typology finds no place in his discussion. Those who think that the Old Testament is thoroughly messianic, that Typology is central to the understanding of its messianism, and that the connections between Eden and the Tabernacle/Temple provide interpretive keys to God’s purpose initiated in the Garden, carried forward through Israel and the new covenant Temple (the church), and consummated in the fulfillment of the Garden/Temple in the new Jerusalem, will probably not be stimulated by Merrill’s discussions. But it could be that this complex of ideas, so appealing to the present reviewer, is the sound and fury of youth, rightly ignored by those whose hoary head is a crown of glory and wisdom (Prov 16:31).

Comments { 7 }

A Book Trailer for Revelation (Almost)

By on February 9, 2012 in Art, Bible and Theology, Biblical Theology, Books

A trailer for my book, Revelation: The Spirit Speaks to the Churches didn’t come together, but this video for RevelationApp basically does the job:

Comments { 1 }

The Millennium and Revelation

By on January 31, 2012 in Books, Current Events

I was grateful when Matt Smethurst approached me for an interview on Revelation: The Spirit Speaks to the Churches for The Gospel Coalition site. Since previous interviews on Denny Burk’s blog, the Crossway Books blog, and Kevin Boling’s radio program had not focused on the millennium, we steered this interview in that direction.

Since this interview focuses on that issue, it could give the impression that I’m fixated on the topic.

I am historic premil, and I’m glad to defend that position, but I promise it’s not all I want to talk about. Imagine a smiley faced emoticon here.

Thanks to Matt Smethurst and The Gospel Coalition for the opportunity to do this interview!

Comments { 2 }
Older posts Newer posts