Biblical literature
Main
four bodies of written works: the Old Testament writings according to
the Hebrew canon; intertestamental works, including the Old Testament
Apocrypha; the New Testament writings; and the New Testament Apocrypha.
The Old Testament is a collection of writings that was first compiled
and preserved as the sacred books of the ancient Hebrew people. As the
Bible of the Hebrews and their Jewish descendants down to the present,
these books have been perhaps the most decisive single factor in the
preservation of the Jews as a cultural entity and Judaism as a religion.
The Old Testament and the New Testament—a body of writings that
chronicle the origin and early dissemination of Christianity—constitute
the Bible of the Christians.
The literature of the Bible, encompassing the Old and New Testaments
and various noncanonical works, has played a special role in the history
and culture of the Western world and has itself become the subject of
intensive critical study. This field of scholarship, including exegesis
(critical interpretation) and hermeneutics (the science of interpretive
principles), has assumed an important place in the theologies of Judaism
and Christianity. The methods and purposes of exegesis and hermeneutics
are treated below. For the cultural and historical contexts in which
this literature developed, see Judaism and Christianity.
Influence and significance » Historical and cultural importance » In
Judaism
After the kingdoms of Israel and Judah had fallen, in 722 bce (before
the Common Era, equivalent to bc) and 587/586 bce, respectively, the
Hebrew people outlived defeat, captivity, and the loss of their national
independence, largely because they possessed writings that preserved
their history and traditions. Many of them did not return to Palestine
after their exile. Those who did return did so to rebuild a temple and
reconstruct a society that was more nearly a religious community than an
independent nation. The religion found expression in the books of the
Old Testament: books of the Law (Torah), history, prophecy, and poetry.
The survival of the Jewish religion and its subsequent incalculable
influence in the history of Western culture are difficult to explain
without acknowledgment of the importance of the biblical writings.
When the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 ce (Common Era,
equivalent to ad), the historical, priestly sacrificial worship centred
in it came to an end and was never resumed. But the religion of the
Jewish people had by then gone with them into many lands, where it
retained its character and vitality because it still drew its nurture
from biblical literature. The Bible was with them in their synagogues,
where it was read, prayed, and taught. It preserved their identity as a
people, inspired their worship, arranged their calendar, permeated their
family lives; it shaped their ideals, sustained them in persecution, and
touched their intellects. Whatever Jewish talent and genius have
contributed to Western civilization is due in no small degree to the
influence of the Bible.
Influence and significance » Historical and cultural importance » In
Christianity
The Hebrew Bible is as basic to Christianity as it is to Judaism.
Without the Old Testament, the New Testament could not have been written
and there could have been no man like Jesus; Christianity could not have
been what it became. This has to do with cultural values, basic human
values, as much as with religious beliefs. The Genesis stories of
prehistoric events and people are a conspicuous example. The Hebrew
myths of creation have superseded the racial mythologies of Latin,
Germanic, Slavonic, and all other Western peoples. This is not because
they contain historically factual information or scientifically adequate
accounts of the universe, the beginning of life, or any other subject of
knowledge, but because they furnish a profoundly theological
interpretation of the universe and human existence, an intellectual
framework of reality large enough to make room for developing
philosophies and sciences.
This biblical structure of ideas is shared by Jews and Christians. It
centres in the one and only God, the Creator of all that exists. All
things have their place in this structure of ideas. All mankind is
viewed as a unity, with no race existing for itself alone. The Covenant
people (i.e., the Hebrews in the Old Testament and Christians in the New
Testament) are chosen not to enjoy special privileges but to serve God’s
will toward all nations. The individual’s sacred rights condemn his
abuse, exploitation, or neglect by the rich and powerful or by society
itself. Widows, orphans, the stranger, the friendless, and the helpless
have a special claim. God’s will and purpose are viewed as just, loving,
and ultimately prevailing. The future is God’s, when his rule will be
fully established.
The Bible went with the Christian Church into every land in Europe,
bearing its witness to God. The church, driven in part by the power of
biblical themes, called men to ethical and social responsibility, to a
life answerable to God, to love for all men, to sonship in the family of
God, and to citizenship in a kingdom yet to be revealed. The Bible thus
points to a way of life never yet perfectly embodied in any society in
history. Weighing every existing kingdom, government, church, party, and
organization, it finds them wanting in that justice, mercy, and love for
which they were intended.
Influence and significance » Major themes and characteristics
The Bible is the literature of faith, not of scientific observation or
historical demonstration. God’s existence as a speculative problem has
no interest for the biblical writers. What is problematical for them is
the human condition and destiny before God.
The great biblical themes are about God, his revealed works of
creation, provision, judgment, deliverance, his covenant, and his
promises. The Bible sees what happens to mankind in the light of God’s
nature, righteousness, faithfulness, mercy, and love. The major themes
about mankind relate to man’s rebellion, his estrangement and
perversion. Man’s redemption, forgiveness, reconciliation, the gifts of
grace, the new life, the coming kingdom, and the final consummation of
man’s hope are all viewed as the gracious works of God.
The Old Testament contains several types of literature: there are
narratives combined with rules and instructions (Torah, or Pentateuch)
and anecdotes of Hebrew persons, prophets, priests, kings, and their
women (Former Prophets). There is an antiracist love story (Ruth), the
story of a woman playing a dangerous game (Esther), and one of a
preacher who succeeded too well (Jonah). There is a collection of
epigrams and prudential wisdom (Proverbs) and a philosophic view of
existence with pessimism and poise (Ecclesiastes). There is poetry of
the first rank, devotional poetry in the Psalms, and erotic poetry in
the Song of Songs. Lamentations is a poetic elegy, mourning over fallen
Jerusalem. Job is dramatic theological dialogue. The books of the great
prophets consist mainly of oral addresses in poetic form.
The New Testament also consists of a variety of literary forms. Acts
is historical narrative, actually a second volume following Luke. A
Gospel is not a history in the ordinary sense but an arrangement of
remembered acts and sayings of Jesus retold to win faith in him. There
is one apocalypse, Revelation (a work describing the intervention of God
in history). But the largest class of New Testament writings is
epistolary, consisting of the letters of Paul and other Apostles.
Originally written to local groups of Christians, the letters were
preserved in the New Testament and were given the status of doctrinal
and ethical treatises.
Influence and significance » Influences » On Western civilization
The Bible brought its view of God, the universe, and mankind into all
the leading Western languages and thus into the intellectual processes
of Western man. The Greek translation of the Old Testament made it
accessible in the Hellenistic period (c. 300 bce–c. 300 ce) and provided
a language for the New Testament and for the Christian liturgy and
theology of the first three centuries. The Bible in Latin shaped the
thought and life of Western people for a thousand years. Bible
translation led to the study and literary development of many languages.
Luther’s translation of the Bible in the 16th century has been called
the beginning of modern German. The Authorized Version (English) of 1611
(King James Version) and the others that preceded it caught the English
language at the blooming of its first maturity. Since the invention of
printing (mid-15th century), the Bible has become more than the
translation of an ancient Oriental literature. It has not seemed a
foreign book, and it has been the most available, familiar, and
dependable source and arbiter of intellectual, moral, and spiritual
ideals in the West.
Millions of modern people who do not think of themselves as religious
live nevertheless with basic presuppositions that underlie the biblical
literature. It would be impossible to calculate the effect of such
presuppositions on the changing ideas and attitudes of Western people
with regard to the nature and purpose of government, social
institutions, and economic theories. Theories and ideals usually rest on
prior moral assumptions—i.e., on basic judgments of value. In theory,
the West has moved from the divine right of kings to the divinely given
rights of every citizen, from slavery through serfdom to the intrinsic
worth of every person, from freedom to own property to freedom for
everyone from the penalties of hopeless poverty. Though there is a wide
difference between the ideal and the actual, biblical literature
continues to pronounce its judgment and assert that what ought to be can
still be.
Influence and significance » Influences » On the modern secular age
The assumption of many people is that the Bible has lost much of its
importance in a secularized world; that is implied whenever the modern
period is called the post-Judeo-Christian era. In most ways the label is
appropriate. The modern period seems to be a time in which unprecedented
numbers of people have discarded traditional beliefs and practices of
both Judaism and Christianity. But the influence of biblical literature
neither began nor ended with doctrinal propositions or codes of
behaviour. Its importance lies not merely in its overtly religious
influence but also, and perhaps more decisively, in its pervasive effect
on the thinking and feeling processes, the attitudes and sense of values
that, whether recognized as biblical or not, still help to make people
what they are.
The deepest influence of biblical literature may be found in the arts
of Western people, their music and, especially, in their best poetry,
drama, and creative fiction. Many of the most moving and illuminating
interpretations of biblical material—stories, themes, and characters—are
made today by novelists, playwrights, and poets who write simply as
human beings, not as adherents of any religion. There are two views of
the human condition that scholars have attributed to biblical influence
and that have become dominant in Western literature.
The first of these is the view that the mystery of existence and
destiny is implicit in every man and woman. In contrast to the canons of
classical tragedy, a person of any rank or station may experience the
extremes of happiness or misery, exaltation or tragedy. An aged Jew of
Rembrandt’s paintings or an illiterate black woman of Faulkner’s novels
can reach the height of human dignity. The arts also put down the mighty
from their seats and exalt those of low degree. Any man may be Everyman,
the symbol of all human possibility.
The second view of the human condition is that the time of
encountering all reality is now, and the place is here, in man’s
workaday activities and contingencies, whatever they may be. To be human
is to know one short life in mortal flesh, in which the past and future
are dimensions of the present. It is now or never that the choice is
made, the offer of the gift of life accepted or declined. Any kingdom
there is must be entered at once or lost forever. It is here in the
actual situation of work and play, of love and need, and not in some
far-off better time and place, that the crisis is reached and passed,
the issue settled, and the record closed.
These views, though here stated in language that has theological
overtones, are not confined to adherents of Judaism or Christianity.
They are characteristically Western views of the human condition. That
they can be put in words reminiscent of the Bible indicates that the
representation of man in Western literature is indeed conditioned by
biblical literature.
H. Grady Davis
Ed.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » The canon
The term canon, from a Hebrew-Greek word meaning a cane or measuring
rod, passed into Christian usage as a norm or a rule of faith. The
Church Fathers of the 4th century ce first employed it in reference to
the definitive, authoritative nature of the body of sacred Scripture.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » The canon » The Hebrew canon
The Hebrew Bible is often known among Jews as TaNaKh, an acronym derived
from the names of its three divisions: Torah (Instruction, or Law, also
called the Pentateuch), Neviʾim (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings).
The Torah contains five books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
and Deuteronomy. The Neviʾim comprise eight books subdivided into the
Former Prophets, containing the four historical works, Joshua, Judges,
Samuel, and Kings, and the Latter Prophets, the oracular discourses of
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve (Minor—i.e., smaller)
Prophets—Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk,
Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The Twelve were all formerly
written on a single scroll and thus reckoned as one book. The Ketuvim
consist of religious poetry and wisdom literature—Psalms, Proverbs, and
Job, a collection known as the “Five Megillot” (“scrolls”; i.e., Song of
Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, which have been
grouped together according to the annual cycle of their public reading
in the synagogue)—and the books of Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah, and
Chronicles.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » The canon » The Hebrew
canon » The number of books
The number of books in the Hebrew canon is thus 24, referring to the sum
of the separate scrolls on which these works were traditionally written
in ancient times. This figure is first cited in II Esdras in a passage
usually dated c. 100 ce and is frequently mentioned in rabbinic
(postbiblical) literature, but no authentic tradition exists to explain
it. Josephus, a 1st century ce Jewish historian, and some of the Church
Fathers, such as Origen (the great 3rd-century Alexandrian theologian),
appear to have had a 22-book canon.
English Bibles list 39 books for the Old Testament because of the
practice of bisecting Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, and of counting
Ezra, Nehemiah, and the 12 Minor Prophets as separate books.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » The canon » The Hebrew
canon » The tripartite canon
The threefold nature of the Hebrew Bible (the Law, the Prophets, and the
Writings) is reflected in the literature of the period of the Second
Temple (6th–1st centuries bce) and soon after it. The earliest reference
is that of the Jewish wisdom writer Ben Sira (flourished 180–175 bce),
who speaks of “the law of the Most High . . . the wisdom of all the
ancients and . . . prophecies.” His grandson (c. 132 bce) in the
prologue to Ben Sira’s work mentions “the law and the prophets and the
others that followed them,” the latter also called “the other books of
our fathers.” The same tripartite division finds expression in II
Maccabees, the writings of Philo, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, and
Josephus, a Hellenistic Jewish historian, as well as in the Gospel
According to Luke. The tripartite canon represents the three historic
stages in the growth of the canon.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » The canon » The Hebrew
canon » The history of canonization
Because no explicit or reliable traditions concerning the criteria of
canonicity, the canonizing authorities, the periods in which they lived,
or the procedure adopted have been preserved, no more than a plausible
reconstruction of the successive stages involved can be provided. First,
it must be observed that sanctity and canonization are not synonymous
terms. The first condition must have existed before the second could
have been formally conferred. Next, the collection and organization of a
number of sacred texts into a canonized corpus (body of writings) is
quite a different problem from that of the growth and formation of the
individual books themselves.
No longer are there compelling reasons to assume that the history of
the canon must have commenced very late in Israel’s history, as was once
accepted. The emergence in Mesopotamia, already in the second half of
the 2nd millennium bce, of a standardized body of literature arranged in
a more or less fixed order and with some kind of official text,
expresses the notion of a canon in its secular sense. Because Babylonian
and Assyrian patterns frequently served as the models for imitation
throughout the Near East, sacred documents in Israel may well have been
carefully stored in temples and palaces, particularly if they were used
in connection with the cult or studied in the priestly or wisdom
schools. The injunction to deposit the two tables of the Decalogue (Ten
Commandments) inside the ark of the covenant and the book of the Torah
beside it and the chance find of a book of the Torah in the Temple in
622 bce tend to confirm the existence of such a practice in Israel.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » The canon » The divisions of
the TaNaKh » The Torah
The history of the canonization of the Torah as a book must be
distinguished from the process by which the heterogeneous components of
the literature as such developed and were accepted as sacred.
The Book of the Chronicles, composed c. 400 bce, frequently refers to
the “Torah of Moses” and exhibits a familiarity with all the five books
of the Pentateuch. The earliest record of the reading of a “Torah book”;
is provided by the narrative describing the reformation instituted by
King Josiah of Judah in 622 bce following the fortuitous discovery of a
“book of the Torah” during the renovation of the Temple. The reading of
the book (probably Deuteronomy), followed by a national covenant
ceremony, is generally interpreted as having constituted a formal act of
canonization.
Between this date and 400 bce the only other ceremony of Torah
reading is that described in Nehemiah as having taken place on the
autumnal New Year festival. The “book of the Torah of Moses” is
mentioned and the emphasis is on its instruction and exposition. The
Samaritans, the descendants of Israelites intermarried with foreigners
in the old northern kingdom that fell in 722 bce, became hostile to the
Judaeans in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (6th–5th centuries bce). They
would not likely have accepted the Torah, which they did, along with the
tradition of its Mosaic origin, if it had only recently been canonized
under the authority of their arch-enemies. The final redaction and
canonization of the Torah book, therefore, most likely took place during
the Babylonian Exile (6th–5th centuries bce).
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » The canon » The divisions
of the TaNaKh » The Neviʾim
The model of the Pentateuch probably encouraged the assemblage and
ordering of the literature of the prophets. The Exile of the Jews to
Bablylonia in 587/586 and the restoration half a century later enhanced
the prestige of the prophets as national figures and aroused interest in
the written records of their teachings. The canonization of the Neviʾim
could not have taken place before the Samaritan schism that occurred
during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, since nothing of the prophetical
literature was known to the Samaritans. On the other hand, the prophetic
canon must have been closed by the time the Greeks had displaced the
Persians as the rulers of Palestine in the late 4th century bce. The
exclusion of Daniel would otherwise be inexplicable, as would also the
omission of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah, even though they supplement
and continue the narrative of the Former Prophets. Furthermore, the
books of the Latter Prophets contain no hint of the downfall of the
Persian Empire and the rise of the Greeks, even though the succession of
great powers in the East plays a major role in their theological
interpretation of history. Their language, too, is entirely free of
Grecisms.
These phenomena accord with the traditions of Josephus and rabbinic
sources limiting the activities of the literary prophets to the Persian
era.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » The canon » The divisions
of the TaNaKh » The Ketuvim
That the formation of the Ketuvim as a corpus was not completed until a
very late date is evidenced by the absence of a fixed name, or indeed
any real name, for the third division of Scripture. Ben Sira refers to
“the other books of our fathers,” “the rest of the books”; Philo speaks
simply of “other writings” and Josephus of “the remaining books.” A
widespread practice of entitling the entire Scriptures “the Torah and
the Prophets” indicates a considerable hiatus between the canonization
of the Prophets and the Ketuvim. Greek words are to be found in the Song
of Songs and in Daniel, which also refers to the disintegration of the
Greek Empire. Ben Sira omits mention of Daniel and Esther. No fragments
of Esther have turned up among the biblical scrolls (e.g., the Dead Sea
Scrolls) from the Judaean Desert. Rabbinic sources betray some
hesitation about Esther and a decided ambivalence about the book of Ben
Sira. A third generation Babylonian amora (rabbinical interpretive
scholar; pl. amoraim) actually cites it as “Ketuvim,” as opposed to
Torah and Prophets, and in the mid-2nd century ce, the need to deny its
canonicity and prohibit its reading was still felt. Differences of
opinion also are recorded among the tannaim (rabbinical scholars of
tradition who compiled the Mishna, or Oral Law) and amoraim (who created
the Talmud, or Gemara) about the canonical status of Proverbs, Song of
Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther.
All this indicates a prolonged state of fluidity in respect of the
canonization of the Ketuvim. A synod at Jabneh (c. 100 ce) seems to have
ruled on the matter, but it took a generation or two before their
decisions came to be unanimously accepted and the Ketuvim regarded as
being definitively closed. The destruction of the Jewish state in 70 ce,
the breakdown of central authority, and the ever widening Diaspora
(collectively, Jews dispersed to foreign lands) all contributed to the
urgent necessity of providing a closed and authoritative corpus of
sacred Scriptures.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » The canon » The divisions
of the TaNaKh » The Samaritan canon
As has been mentioned, the Samaritans accepted the Pentateuch from the
Jews. They know of no other section of the Bible, however, and did not
expand their Pentateuchal canon even by the inclusion of any strictly
Samaritan compositions.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » The canon » The divisions
of the TaNaKh » The Alexandrian canon
The Old Testament as it has come down in Greek translation from the Jews
of Alexandria via the Christian Church differs in many respects from the
Hebrew Scriptures. The books of the second and third divisions have been
redistributed and arranged according to categories of
literature—history, poetry, wisdom, and prophecy. Esther and Daniel
contain supplementary materials, and many noncanonical books, whether of
Hebrew or Greek origin, have been interspersed with the canonical works.
These extracanonical writings comprise I Esdras, the Wisdom of Solomon,
Ecclesiasticus (Ben Sira), Additions to Esther, Judith, Tobit, Baruch,
the Epistle of Jeremiah, and additions to Daniel, as listed in the
manuscript known as Codex Vaticanus (c. 350 ce). The sequence of the
books varies, however, in the manuscripts and in the patristic and
synodic lists of the Eastern and Western churches, some of which include
other books as well, such as I and II Maccabees.
It should be noted that the contents and form of the inferred
original Alexandrian Jewish canon cannot be ascertained with certainty
because all extant Greek Bibles are of Christian origin. The Jews of
Alexandria may themselves have extended the canon they received from
Palestine, or they may have inherited their traditions from Palestinian
circles in which the additional books had already been regarded as
canonical. It is equally possible that the additions to the Hebrew
Scriptures in the Greek Bible are of Christian origin.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » The canon » The divisions
of the TaNaKh » The canon at Qumrān.
In the collection of manuscripts from the Judaean Desert—discovered from
the 1940s on—there are no lists of canonical works and no codices
(manuscript volumes), only individual scrolls. For these reasons nothing
can be known with certainty about the contents and sequence of the canon
of the Qumrān sectarians. Since fragments of all the books of the Hebrew
Bible (except Esther) have been found, it may be assumed that this
reflects the minimum extent of its canon. The situation is complicated
by the presence in Qumrān of extracanonical works—some already known
from the Apocrypha (so-called hidden books not accepted as canonical by
Judaism and the church) and pseudepigrapha (books falsely ascribed to
biblical authors) or from the Cairo Geniza (synagogue storeroom), and
others entirely new. Some or all of these additional works may have been
considered canonical by the members of the sect. It is significant,
however, that so far pesharim (interpretations) have been found only on
books of the traditional Hebrew canon. Still, the great Psalms scroll
departs from the received Hebrew text in both sequence and contents. If
the Psalms scroll were a canonical Psalter and not a liturgy, then
evidence would indeed be forthcoming for the existence of a rival canon
at Qumrān.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » The canon » The Christian
canon
The Christian Church received its Bible from Greek-speaking Jews and
found the majority of its early converts in the Hellenistic world. The
Greek Bible of Alexandria thus became the official Bible of the
Christian community, and the overwhelming number of quotations from the
Hebrew Scriptures in the New Testament are derived from it. Whatever the
origin of the Apocryphal books in the canon of Alexandria, these became
part of the Christian Scriptures, but there seems to have been no
unanimity as to their exact canonical status. The New Testament itself
does not cite the Apocryphal books directly, but occasional traces of a
knowledge of them are to be found. The Apostolic Fathers (late 1st–early
2nd centuries) show extensive familiarity with this literature, but a
list of the Old Testament books by Melito, bishop of Sardis in Asia
Minor (2nd century), does not include the additional writings of the
Greek Bible, and Origen (c. 185–c. 254) explicitly describes the Old
Testament canon as comprising only 22 books.
From the time of Origen on, the Church Fathers who were familiar with
Hebrew differentiated, theoretically at least, the Apocryphal books from
those of the Old Testament, though they used them freely. In the Syrian
East, until the 7th century the Church had only the books of the Hebrew
canon with the addition of Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the
son of Sira (but without Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah). It also
incorporated the Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, and
the additions to Daniel. The 6th-century manuscript of the Peshitta
(Syriac version) known as Codex Ambrosianus also has III and IV
Maccabees, II (sometimes IV) Esdras, and Josephus’ Wars VII.
Early councils of the African Church held at Hippo (393) and Carthage
(397, 419) affirmed the use of the Apocryphal books as Scripture. In the
4th century also, Athanasius, chief theologian of Christian orthodoxy,
differentiated “canonical books” from both “those that are read” by
Christians only and the “Apocryphal books” rejected alike by Jews and
Christians. In the preparation of a standard Latin version, the biblical
scholar Jerome (c. 347–419/420) separated “canonical books” from
“ecclesiastical books” (i.e., the Apocryphal writings), which he
regarded as good for spiritual edification but not authoritative
Scripture. A contrary view of Augustine (354–430), one of the greatest
Western theologians, prevailed, however, and the works remained in the
Latin Vulgate version. The Decretum Gelasianum, a Latin document of
uncertain authorship but recognized as reflecting the views of the Roman
Church at the beginning of the 6th century, includes Tobit, Judith, the
Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, and I and II Maccabees as biblical.
Throughout the Middle Ages, the Apocryphal books were generally
regarded as Holy Scripture in the Roman and Greek churches, although
theoretical doubts were raised from time to time. Thus, in 1333 Nicholas
of Lyra, a French Franciscan theologian, had discussed the differences
between the Latin Vulgate and the “Hebrew truth.” Christian-Jewish
polemics, the increasing attention to Hebrew studies, and, finally, the
Reformation kept the issue of the Christian canon alive. Protestants
denied canonical status to all books not in the Hebrew Bible. The first
modern vernacular Bible to segregate the disputed writings was a Dutch
version by Jacob van Liesveldt (Antwerp, 1526). Luther’s German edition
of 1534 did the same thing and entitled them “Apocrypha” for the first
time, noting that while they were not in equal esteem with sacred
Scriptures they were edifying.
In response to Protestant views, the Roman Catholic church made its
position clear at the Council of Trent (1546) when it dogmatically
affirmed that the entire Latin Vulgate enjoyed equal canonical status.
This doctrine was confirmed by the Vatican Council of 1870. In the Greek
Church, the Synod of Jerusalem (1672) had expressly designated as
canonical several Apocryphal works. In the 19th century, however,
Russian Orthodox theologians agreed to exclude these works from the Holy
Scriptures.
The history of the Old Testament canon in the English Church has
generally reflected a more restrictive viewpoint. Even though the
Wycliffite Bible (14th century) included the Apocrypha, its preface made
it clear that it accepted Jerome’s judgment. The translation made by the
English bishop Miles Coverdale (1535) was the first English version to
segregate these books, but it did place Baruch after Jeremiah. Article
VI of the Thirty-nine Articles of religion of the Church of England
(1562) explicitly denied their value for the establishment of doctrine,
although it admitted that they should be read for their didactic worth.
The first Bible in English to exclude the Apocrypha was the Geneva Bible
of 1599. The King James Version of 1611 placed it between the Old and
New Testaments. In 1615 Archbishop George Abbot forbade the issuance of
Bibles without the Apocrypha, but editions of the King James Version
from 1630 on often omitted it from the bound copies. The Geneva Bible
edition of 1640 was probably the first to be intentionally printed in
England without the Apocrypha, followed in 1642 by the King James
Version. In 1644 the Long Parliament actually forbade the public reading
of these books, and three years later the Westminster Confession of the
Presbyterians decreed them to be no part of the canon. The British and
Foreign Bible Society in 1827 resolved never to print or circulate
copies containing the Apocrypha. Most English Protestant Bibles in the
20th century have omitted the disputed books or have them as a separate
volume, except in library editions, in which they are included with the
Old and New Testaments.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Textual
criticism: manuscript problems
The text of the Hebrew printed Bible consists of consonants, vowel
signs, and cantillation (musical or tonal) marks. The two latter
components are the product of the school of Masoretes (Traditionalists)
that flourished in Tiberias (in Palestine) between the 7th and 9th
centuries ce. The history of the bare consonantal text stretches back
into hoary antiquity and can be only partially traced.
The earliest printed editions of the Hebrew Bible derive from the
last quarter of the 15th century and the first quarter of the 16th
century. The oldest Masoretic codices stem from the end of the 9th
century and the beginning of the 10th. A comparison of the two shows
that no textual developments took place during the intervening 600
years. A single standardized recension enjoyed an absolute monopoly and
was transmitted by the scribes with amazing fidelity. Not one of the
medieval Hebrew manuscripts and none of the thousands of fragments
preserved in the Cairo Geniza (synagogue storeroom) contains departures
of any real significance from the received text.
This situation, however, was a relatively late development; there is
much evidence for the existence of a period when more than one Hebrew
text-form of a given book was current. In fact, both the variety of
witnesses and the degree of textual divergence between them increase in
proportion to their antiquity.
No single explanation can satisfactorily account for this phenomenon.
In the case of some biblical literature, there exists the real
possibility, though it cannot be proven, that it must have endured a
long period of oral transmission before its committal to writing. In the
interval, the material might well have undergone abridgement,
amplification, and alteration at the hands of transmitters so that not
only would the original have been transformed, but the process of
transmission would have engendered more than one recension from the very
beginning of its written, literary career.
The problem is complicated further by the great difference in time
between the autograph (original writing) of a biblical work, even when
it assumed written form from its inception, and its oldest extant
exemplars. In some instances, this may amount to well over a thousand
years of scribal activity. Whatever the interval, the possibility of
inadvertent and deliberate change, something that affects all manuscript
copying, was always present.
The evidence that such, indeed, took place is rich and varied. First
there are numerous divergences between the many passages duplicated
within the Hebrew Bible itself—e.g., the parallels between Samuel–Kings
and Chronicles. Then there are the citations of the Old Testament to be
found in the books of the Apocrypha and apocalyptic literature (works
describing the intervention of God in history in cryptic terms), in the
works of Philo and Josephus, in the New Testament, and in rabbinic and
patristic (early Church Fathers) literature. There are also rabbinic
traditions about the text-critical activities of the scribes (soferim)
in Second Temple times. These tell of divergent readings in Temple
scrolls of the Pentateuch, of official “book correctors” in Jerusalem,
of textual emendations on the part of scribes, and of the utilization of
sigla (signs or abbreviations) for marking suspect readings and
disarranged verses. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the pre-Masoretic
versions of the Old Testament made directly from Hebrew originals are
all replete with divergences from current Masoretic Bibles. Finally, the
scrolls from the Judaean Desert, especially those from the caves of
Qumrān, have provided, at least, illustrations of many of the scribal
processes by which deviant texts came into being. The variants and their
respective causes may be classified as follows: aurally conditioned,
visual in origin, exegetical, and deliberate.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions »
Textual criticism: manuscript problems » Problems resulting from aural
conditioning
Aural conditioning would result from a mishearing of similar sounding
consonants when a text is dictated to the copyist. A negative particle
loʾ, for example, could be confused with the prepositional lo, “to him,”
or a guttural ḥet with spirant kaf so that aḥ “brother” might be written
for akh “surely.”
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions »
Textual criticism: manuscript problems » Problems visual in origin
The confusion of graphically similar letters, whether in the
paleo-Hebrew or Aramaic script, is another cause for variations. Thus,
the prepositions bet (“in”) and kaf (“like”) are interchanged in the
Masoretic and Dead Sea Scroll texts of Isaiah.
The order of letters also might be inverted. Such metathesis, as it
is called, appears in Psalms, in which qirbam (“their inward thoughts”)
stands for qibram (“their grave”).
Dittography, or the inadvertent duplication of one or more letters or
words, also occurs, as, for example, in the Dead Sea Scroll text of
Isaiah and in the Masoretic text of Ezekiel.
Haplography, or the accidental omission of a letter or word that
occurs twice in close proximity, can be found, for example, in the Dead
Sea Scroll text of Isaiah.
Homoeoteleuton occurs when two separate phrases or lines have
identical endings and the copyist’s eye slips from one to the other and
omits the intervening words. A comparison of the Masoretic text I
Samuel, chapter 14 verse 41, with the Septuagint and the Vulgate
versions clearly identifies such an aberration.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions »
Textual criticism: manuscript problems » Exegetical problems
This third category does not involve any consonantal alteration but
results solely from the different possibilities inherent in the
consonantal spelling. Thus, the lack of vowel signs may permit the word
DBR to be read as a verb DiBeR (“he spoke,” as in the Masoretic text of
Hosea) or as a noun DeBaR (“the word of,” as in the Septuagint). The
absence of word dividers could lead to different divisions of the
consonants. Thus, BBQRYM in Amos could be understood as either BaBeQaRYM
(“with oxen,” as in the Masoretic text) or as BaBaQaR YaM (“the sea with
an ox”). The incorrect solution by later copyists of abbreviations is
another source of error. That such occurred is proved by a comparison of
the Hebrew text with the Septuagint version in, for example, II Samuel,
chapter 1 verse 12; Ezekiel, chapter 12 verse 23; and Amos, chapter 3
verse 9.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions »
Textual criticism: manuscript problems » Deliberate changes
Apart from mechanical alterations of a text, many variants must have
been consciously introduced by scribes, some by way of glossing—i.e.,
the insertion of a more common word to explain a rare one—and others by
explanatory comments incorporated into the text. Furthermore, a scribe
who had before him two manuscripts of a single work containing variant
readings, and unable to decide between them, might incorporate both
readings into his scroll and thus create a conflate text.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Textual
criticism: scholarly problems
The situation so far described poses two major scholarly problems. The
first involves the history of the Hebrew text, the second deals with
attempts to reconstruct its “original” form.
As to when and how a single text type gained hegemony and then
displaced all others, it is clear that the early and widespread public
reading of the Scriptures in the synagogues of Palestine, Alexandria,
and Babylon was bound to lead to a heightened sensitivity of the idea of
a “correct” text and to give prestige to the particular text form
selected for reading. Also, the natural conservatism of ritual would
tend to perpetuate the form of such a text. The Letter of Aristeas, a
document derived from the middle of the 2nd century bce that describes
the origin of the Septuagint, recognizes the distinction between
carelessly copied scrolls of the Pentateuch and an authoritative Temple
scroll in the hands of the high priest in Jerusalem. The Rabbinic
traditions (see above) about the textual criticism of Temple-based
scribes actually reflect a movement towards the final stabilization of
the text in the Second Temple period. Josephus, writing not long after
70 ce, boasts of the existence of a long-standing fixed text of the
Jewish Scriptures. The loss of national independence and the destruction
of the spiritual centre of Jewry in 70, accompanied by an ever-widening
Diaspora and the Christian schism within Judaism, all made the exclusive
dissemination of a single authoritative text a vitally needed cohesive
force. The text type later known as Masoretic is already well
represented at pre-Christian Qumrān. Scrolls from Wādī al-Murabbaʿat,
Naẖal Ẕeʾelim, and Masada from the 2nd century ce are practically
identical with the received text that by then had gained victory over
all its rivals.
In regard to an attempt to recover the original text of a biblical
passage—especially an unintelligible one—in the light of variants among
different versions and manuscripts and known causes of corruption, it
should be understood that all reconstruction must necessarily be
conjectural and perforce tentative because of the irretrievable loss of
the original edition. But not all textual difficulties need presuppose
underlying mutilation. The Hebrew Bible represents but a small portion
of the literature of ancient Israel and, hence, a limited segment of the
language. A textual problem may be the product of present limited
knowledge of ancient Hebrew, because scholars might be dealing with
dialectic phenomena or foreign loan-words. Comparative Semitic
linguistic studies have yielded hitherto unrecognized features of
grammar, syntax, and lexicography that have often eliminated the need
for emendation. Furthermore, each version, indeed each biblical book
within it, has its own history, and the translation techniques and
stylistic characteristics must be examined and taken into account.
Finally, the number of manuscripts that attest to a certain reading is
of less importance than the weight given to a specific manuscript.
None of this means that a Hebrew manuscript, an ancient version, or a
conjectural emendation cannot yield a reading superior to that in the
received Hebrew text. It does mean, however, that these tools have to be
employed with great caution and proper methodology.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Texts
and manuscripts » Sources of the Septuagint
A Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint
because there allegedly were 70 or 72 translators, six from each of the
12 tribes of Israel, and designated LXX, is a composite of the work of
many translators labouring for well over 100 years. It was made directly
from Hebrew originals that frequently differed considerably from the
present Masoretic text. Apart from other limitations attendant upon the
use of a translation for such purposes, the identification of the parent
text used by the Greek translators is still an unsettled question. The
Pentateuch of the Septuagint manifests a basic coincidence with the
Masoretic text. The Qumrān scrolls have now proven that the Septuagint
book of Samuel–Kings goes back to an old Palestinian text tradition that
must be earlier than the 4th century bce, and from the same source comes
a short Hebrew recension of Jeremiah that probably underlies the Greek.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Texts
and manuscripts » The Samaritan Pentateuch
The importance of the recension known as the Samaritan Pentateuch lies
in the fact that it constitutes an independent Hebrew witness to the
text written in a late and developed form of the paleo-Hebrew script.
Some of the Exodus fragments from Qumrān demonstrate that it has close
affinities with a pre-Christian Palestinian text type and testify to the
faithfulness with which it has been preserved. It contains about 6,000
variants from the Masoretic text, of which nearly a third agree with the
Septuagint. Only a minority, however, are genuine variants, most being
dogmatic, exegetical, grammatical, or merely orthographic in character.
The Samaritan Pentateuch first became known in the West through a
manuscript secured in Damascus in 1616 by Pietro della Valle, an Italian
traveler. It was published in the Paris (1628–45) and London Polyglots
(1654–57), written in several languages in comparative columns. Many
manuscripts of the Samaritan Pentateuch are now available. The Avishaʿ
Scroll, the sacred copy of the Samaritans, has recently been
photographed and critically examined. Only Numbers chapter 35 to
Deuteronomy chapter 34 appears to be very old, the rest stemming from
the 14th century. A new, definitive edition of the Samaritan Pentateuch
is being prepared in Madrid by F. Pérez Castro.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Texts
and manuscripts » The Qumrān texts and other scrolls
Until the discovery of the Judaean Desert scrolls, the only pre-medieval
fragment of the Hebrew Bible known to scholars was the Nash Papyrus (c.
150 bce) from Egypt containing the Decalogue and Deuteronomy. Now,
however, fragments of about 180 different manuscripts of biblical books
are available. Their dates vary between the 3rd century bce and the 2nd
century ce, and all but 10 stem from the caves of Qumrān. All are
written on either leather or papyrus in columns and on one side only.
The most important manuscripts from what is now identified as Cave 1
of Qumrān are a practically complete Isaiah scroll (1QIsaa), dated c.
100–75 bce, and another very fragmentary manuscript (1QIsab) of the same
book. The first contains many variants from the Masoretic text in both
orthography and text; the second is very close to the Masoretic type and
contains few genuine variants. The richest hoard comes from Cave 4 and
includes fragments of five copies of Genesis, eight of Exodus, one of
Leviticus, 14 of Deuteronomy, two of Joshua, three of Samuel, 12 of
Isaiah, four of Jeremiah, eight of the Minor Prophets, one of Proverbs,
and three of Daniel. Cave 11 yielded a Psalter containing the last third
of the book in a form different from that of the Masoretic text, as well
as a manuscript of Leviticus.
The importance of the Qumrān scrolls cannot be exaggerated. Their
great antiquity brings them close to the Old Testament period
itself—from as early as 250–200 bce. For the first time, Hebrew variant
texts are extant and all known major text types are present. Some are
close to the Septuagint, others to the Samaritan. On the other hand,
many of the scrolls are practically identical with the Masoretic text,
which thus takes this recension back in history to pre-Christian times.
Several texts in the paleo-Hebrew script show that this script continued
to be used side by side with the Aramaic script for a long time.
Of quite a different order are scrolls from other areas of the
Judaean Desert. All of these are practically identical with the received
text. This applies to fragments of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, and
Psalms discovered at Masada (the Jewish fortress destroyed by the Romans
in ce 73), as well as to the finds at Wādī al-Murabbaʿat, the latest
date of which is ce 135. Here were found fragments of Genesis, Exodus,
Leviticus, and Isaiah in addition to the substantially preserved Minor
Prophets scroll. Variants from the Masoretic text are negligible. The
same phenomenon characterizes the fragments of Numbers found at Naẖal
H̱ever.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Texts
and manuscripts » Masoretic texts
No biblical manuscripts have survived from the six centuries that
separate the latest of the Judaean Desert scrolls from the earliest of
the Masoretic period. A “Codex Mugah,” frequently referred to as an
authority in the early 10th century, and the “Codex Hilleli,” said to
have been written c. 600 by Rabbi Hillel ben Moses ben Hillel, have both
vanished.
The earliest extant Hebrew Bible codex is the Cairo Prophets written
and punctuated by Moses ben Asher in Tiberias (in Palestine) in 895.
Next in age is the Leningrad Codex of the Latter Prophets dated to 916,
which was not originally the work of Ben Asher, but its Babylonian
pointing—i.e., vowel signs used for pronunciation purposes—was brought
into line with the Tiberian Masoretic system.
The outstanding event in the history of that system was the
production of the model so-called Aleppo Codex, now in Jerusalem.
Written by Solomon ben Buya’a, it was corrected, punctuated, and
furnished with a Masoretic apparatus by Aaron ben Moses ben Asher c.
930. Originally containing the entire Old Testament in about 380 folios,
of which 294 are extant, the Aleppo Codex remains the only known true
representative of Aaron ben Asher’s text and the most important witness
to that particular Masoretic tradition that achieved hegemony throughout
Jewry.
Two other notable manuscripts based on Aaron’s system are the
manuscript designated as BM or. 4445, which contains most of the
Pentateuch and which utilized a Masora (text tradition) c. 950, and the
Leningrad complete Old Testament designated MSB 19a of 1008. Codex
Reuchliana of the Prophets, written in 1105, now in Karlsruhe (Germany),
represents the system of Moses ben David ben Naphtali, which was more
faithful to that of Moses ben Asher.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Texts
and manuscripts » Collations of the Masoretic materials
The earliest extant attempt at collating the differences between the Ben
Asher and Ben Naphtali Masoretic traditions was made by Mishael ben
Uzziel in his KitāĠ Ǧī-Ḥulaf (before 1050). A vast amount of Masoretic
information, drawn chiefly from Spanish manuscripts, is to be found in
the text-critical commentary known as Minhath Shai, by Solomon Jedidiah
Norzi, completed in 1626 and printed in the Mantua Bible of 1742.
Benjamin Kennicott collected the variants of 615 manuscripts and 52
printed editions (2 vol., 1776–80, Oxford). Giovanni Bernado De Rossi
published his additional collections of 731 manuscripts and 300 prints
(4 vol., 1784–88, Parma), and C.D. Ginsburg did the same for 70
manuscripts, largely from the British Museum, and 17 early printed
editions (3 vol. in 4, 1908–26, London).
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Texts
and manuscripts » Printed editions
Until 1488, only separate parts of the Hebrew Bible had been printed,
all with rabbinic commentaries. The earliest was the Psalms (1477),
followed by the Pentateuch (1482), the Prophets (1485/86), and the
Hagiographa (1486/87), all printed in Italy.
The first edition of the entire Hebrew Bible was printed at Soncino
(in Italy) in 1488 with punctuation and accents, but without any
commentary. The second complete Bible was printed in Naples in 1491/93
and the third in Brescia in 1494. All these editions were the work of
Jews. The first Christian production was a magnificent Complutensian
Polyglot (under the direction of Cardinal Francisco Jiménez of Spain) in
six volumes, four of which contained the Hebrew Bible and Greek and
Latin translations together with the Aramaic rendering (Targum) of the
Pentateuch that has been ascribed to Onkelos. Printed at Alcala
(1514–17) and circulated about 1522, this Bible proved to be a turning
point in the study of the Hebrew text in western Europe.
The first rabbinic Bible—i.e., the Hebrew text furnished with full
vowel points and accents, accompanied by the Aramaic Targums and the
major medieval Jewish commentaries—was edited by Felix Pratensis and
published by Daniel Bomberg (Venice, 1516/17). The second edition,
edited by Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah and issued by Bomberg in four
volumes (Venice, 1524/25), became the prototype of future Hebrew Bibles
down to the 20th century. It contained a vast text-critical apparatus of
Masoretic notes never since equalled in any edition. Unfortunately, Ben
Hayyim had made use of late manuscripts and the text and notes are
eclectic.
In London, Christian David Ginsburg, an emigrant Polish Jew and
Christian convert, produced a critical edition of the complete Hebrew
Bible (1894, 1908, 1926) revised according to the Masora and early
prints with variant readings from manuscripts and ancient versions. It
was soon displaced by the Biblica Hebraica (1906, 1912) by Rudolf Kittel
and Paul Kahle, two German biblical scholars. The third edition of this
work, completed by Albrecht Alt and Otto Eissfeldt (Stuttgart, 1937),
finally abandoned Ben Hayyim’s text, substituting that of the Leningrad
Codex (B 19a). It has a dual critical apparatus with textual emendations
separated from the manuscript and versional variants. Since 1957
variants from the so-called Judaean Desert scrolls have been included.
In progress at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in the early 1970s was
the preparation of a new text of the entire Hebrew Bible based on the
Aleppo Codex to include all its own Masoretic notes together with
textual differences found in all pertinent sources. A sample edition of
the Book of Isaiah appeared in 1965.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Early
versions » The Aramaic Targums
In the course of the 5th and 6th centuries bce, Aramaic became the
official language of the Persian Empire. In the succeeding centuries it
was used as the vernacular over a wide area and was increasingly spoken
by the postexilic Jewish communities of Palestine and elsewhere in the
Diaspora. In response to liturgical needs, the institution of a turgeman
(or meturgeman, “translator”), arose in the synagogues. These men
translated the Torah and prophetic lectionaries into Aramaic. The
rendering remained for long solely an oral, impromptu exercise, but
gradually, by dint of repetition, certain verbal forms and phrases
became fixed and eventually committed to writing.
There are several Targums (translations) of the Pentateuch. The
Babylonian Targum is known as “Onkelos,” named after its reputed author.
The Targum is Palestinian in origin, but it was early transferred to
Babylon where it was revised and achieved great authority. At a later
date, probably not before the 9th century ce, it was re-exported to
Palestine to displace other, local, Targums. On the whole, Onkelos is
quite literal, but it shows a tendency to obscure expressions
attributing human form and feelings to God. It also usually faithfully
reflects rabbinic exegesis.
The most famous of the Palestinian Targums is that popularly known as
“Jonathan,” a name derived from a 14th-century scribal mistake that
solved a manuscript abbreviation “TJ” as “Targum Jonathan” instead of
“Targum Jerusalem.” In contrast with two other Targums, which are highly
fragmentary (Jerusalem II and III), Pseudo-Jonathan (or Jerusalem I) is
virtually complete. It is a composite of the Old Palestinian Targum and
an early version of Onkelos with an admixture of material from diverse
periods. It contains much rabbinic material as well as homiletic and
didactic amplifications. There is evidence of great antiquity, but also
much late material, indicating that Pseudo-Jonathan could not have
received its present form before the Islāmic period.
Another extant Aramaic version is the Targum to the Samaritan
Pentateuch. It is less literal than the Jewish Targums and its text was
never officially fixed.
The Targum to the Prophets also originated in Palestine and received
its final editing in Babylonia. It is ascribed to Jonathan ben Uzziel, a
pupil of Hillel, the famous 1st century bce–1st century ce rabbinic
sage, though it is in fact a composite work of varying ages. In its
present form it discloses a dependence on Onkelos, though it is less
literal.
The Aramaic renderings of the Hagiographa are relatively late
productions, none of them antedating the 5th century ce.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Early
versions » The Septuagint (LXX)
The story of the Greek translation of the Pentateuch is told in the
Letter of Aristeas, which purports to be a contemporary document written
by Aristeas, a Greek official at the Egyptian court of Ptolemy II
Philadelphus (285–246 bce). It recounts how the law of the Jews was
translated into Greek by Jewish scholars sent from Jerusalem at the
request of the king.
This narrative, repeated in one form or another by Philo and rabbinic
sources, is full of inaccuracies that prove that the author was an
Alexandrian Jew writing well after the events he described had taken
place. The Septuagint Pentateuch, which is all that is discussed, does,
however, constitute an independent corpus within the Greek Bible, and it
was probably first translated as a unit by a company of scholars in
Alexandria about the middle of the 3rd century bce.
The Septuagint, as the entire Greek Bible came to be called, has a
long and complex history and took well over a century to be completed.
It is for this reason not a unified or consistent translation. The
Septuagint became the instrument whereby the basic teachings of Judaism
were mediated to the pagan world and it became an indispensable factor
in the spread of Christianity.
The adoption of the Septuagint as the Bible of the Christians
naturally engendered suspicion on the part of Jews. In addition, the
emergence of a single authoritative text type after the destruction of
the Temple made the great differences between it and the Septuagint
increasingly intolerable, and the need for a Greek translation based
upon the current Hebrew text in circulation was felt.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Early
versions » The version of Aquila
About 130 ce, Aquila, a convert to Judaism from Pontus in Asia Minor,
translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek under the supervision of Rabbi
Akiba. Executed with slavish literalness, it attempted to reproduce the
most minute detail of the original, even to the extent of coining
derivations from Greek roots to correspond to Hebrew usage. Little of it
has survived, however, except in quotations, fragments of the Hexapla
(see Origen’s Hexapla, below), and palimpsests (parchments erased and
used again) from the Cairo Geniza.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Early
versions » The revision of Theodotion
A second revision of the Greek text was made by Theodotion (of unknown
origins) late in the 2nd century, though it is not entirely clear
whether it was the Septuagint or some other Greek version that underlay
his revision. The new rendering was characterized by a tendency toward
verbal consistency and much transliteration of Hebrew words.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Early
versions » The translation of Symmachus
Still another Greek translation was made toward the end of the same
century by Symmachus, an otherwise unknown scholar, who made use of his
predecessors. His influence was small despite the superior elegance of
his work. Jerome did utilize Symmachus for his Vulgate, but other than
that, his translation is known largely through fragments of the Hexapla.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Early
versions » Origen’s Hexapla
The multiplication of versions doubtless proved to be a source of
increasing confusion in the 3rd century. This situation the Alexandrian
theologian Origen, working at Caesarea between 230 and 240 ce, sought to
remedy. In his Hexapla (“six-fold”) he presented, in parallel vertical
columns, the Hebrew text, the same in Greek letters, and the versions of
Aquila, Symmachus, the Septuagint, and Theodotion, in that order. In the
case of some books, Psalms for instance, three more columns were added.
The Hexapla serves as an important guide to Palestinian pre-Masoretic
pronunciation of the language. The main interest of Origen lay in the
fifth column, the Septuagint, which he edited on the basis of the
Hebrew. He used the obels (− or ÷) and asterisk (*) to mark respectively
words found in the Greek text but not in the Hebrew and vice versa.
The Hexapla was a work of such magnitude that it is unlikely to have
been copied as a whole. Origen himself produced an abbreviated edition,
the Tetrapla, containing only the last four columns. The original
manuscript of the Hexapla is known to have been extant as late as c. 600
ce. Today it survives only in fragments.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Early
versions » Manuscripts and printed editions of the Septuagint
The manuscripts are conveniently classified by papyri uncials (capital
letters) and minuscules (cursive script). The papyri fragments run into
the hundreds, of varying sizes and importance, ranging from the
formative period of the Septuagint through the middle of the 7th
century. Two pre-Christian fragments of Deuteronomy from Egypt are of
outstanding significance. Although not written on papyrus but on
parchment or leather, the fragments from Qumrān of Exodus, Leviticus,
and Numbers, and the leather scroll of the Minor Prophets from Naḥal
H̱ever from the first pre-Christian and post-Christian centuries,
deserve special mention among the earliest extant. The most important
papyri are those of the Chester Beatty collection, which contains parts
of 11 codices preserving fragments of nine Old Testament books. Their
dates vary between the 2nd and 4th centuries. During the next 300 years
papyri texts multiplied rapidly, and remnants of about 200 are known.
The uncials are all codices written on vellum between the 4th and
10th centuries. The most outstanding are Vaticanus, which is an almost
complete 4th-century Old Testament, Sinaiticus, of the same period but
less complete, and the practically complete 5th-century Alexandrinus.
These three originally contained both Testaments. Many others were
partial manuscripts from the beginning. One of the most valuable of
these is the Codex Marchalianus of the Prophets written in the 6th
century.
The minuscule codices begin to appear in the 9th century. From the
11th to the 16th century they are the only ones found, and nearly 1,500
have been recorded.
The first printed Septuagint was that of the Complutensian Polyglot
(1514–17). Since it was not released until 1522, however, the 1518
Aldine Venice edition actually was available first. The standard edition
until modern times was that of Pope Sixtus V, 1587. In the 19th and 20th
centuries several critical editions have been printed.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Early
versions » Coptic versions
The spread of Christianity among the non-Greek speaking peasant
communities of Egypt necessitated the translation of the Scriptures into
the native tongue (Coptic). These versions may be considered to be
wholly Christian in origin and largely based on the Greek Bible. They
also display certain affinities with the Old Latin. Nothing certain is
known about the Coptic translations except that they probably antedate
the earliest known manuscripts from the end of the 3rd and the beginning
of the 4th centuries ce.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Early
versions » The Armenian version
The Armenian version is an expression of a nationalist movement that
brought about a separation from the rest of the Church (mid-5th
century), the discontinuance of Syriac in Greek worship, and the
invention of a national alphabet by St. Mesrob, also called Mashtots (c.
361–439/440). According to tradition, St. Mesrob first translated
Proverbs from the Syriac. Existing manuscripts of the official Armenian
recension, however, are based on the Hexaplaric Septuagint, though they
show some Peshitta (Syriac version) influence. The Armenian Bible is
noted for its beauty and accuracy.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Early
versions » The Georgian version
According to Armenian tradition, the Georgian version was also the work
of Mesrob, but the Psalter, the oldest part of the Georgian Old
Testament, is probably not earlier than the 5th century. Some
manuscripts were based upon Greek versions, others upon the Armenian.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Early
versions » The Ethiopic version
The Ethiopic version poses special problems. The earliest Bible probably
was based on Greek versions, after Ethiopia had been converted to
Christianity during the 4th and 5th centuries. The earliest existing
manuscripts, however, belong to the 13th century. Most manuscripts from
the 14th century on seem to reflect Arabic or Coptic influence, and it
is not certain whether these represent the original translation or later
ones. Many readings agree with the Hebrew against the Septuagint, which
may have been caused by a Hexaplaric influence.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Early
versions » The Gothic version
The Gothic version was produced in the mid-4th century by Ulfilas, a
Christian missionary who also invented the Gothic alphabet. It
constitutes practically all that is left of Gothic literature. The
translation of the Old Testament has entirely disappeared except for
fragments of Ezra and Nehemiah. Though a Greek base is certain, some
scholars deny the attribution of these remnants to Ulfilas.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Early
versions » The Old Latin version
The existence of a Latin translation can be attested in North Africa and
southern Gaul as early as the second half of the 2nd century ce, and in
Rome at the beginning of the following century. Its origins may possibly
be attributed to a Christian adoption of biblical versions made by Jews
in the Roman province of Africa, where the vernacular was exclusively
Latin. Only portions or quotations from it, however, have been
preserved, and from these it can be assumed that the translation was
made not from Hebrew but from Greek. For this reason, the Old Latin
version is especially valuable because it reflects the state of the
Septuagint before Origen’s revision. By the 3rd century, several Latin
versions circulated, and African and European recensions can be
differentiated. Whether they all diverged from an original single
translation or existed from the beginning independently cannot be
determined. The textual confusion and the vulgar and colloquial nature
of the Old Latin recension had become intolerable to the church
authorities by the last decade of the 4th century, and c. 382 Pope
Damasus decided to remedy the situation.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Versions
after the 4th century » The Vulgate
The task of revision fell to Eusebius Hieronymus, generally known as St.
Jerome (died 419/420), whose knowledge of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew made
him the outstanding Christian biblical scholar of his time.
Jerome produced three revisions of the Psalms, all extant. The first
was based on the Septuagint and is known as the Roman Psalter because it
was incorporated into the liturgy at Rome. The second, produced in
Palestine from the Hexaplaric Septuagint, tended to bring the Latin
closer to the Hebrew. Its popularity in Gaul was such that it came to be
known as the Gallican Psalter. This version was later adopted into the
Vulgate. The third revision, actually a fresh translation, was made
directly from the Hebrew, but it never enjoyed wide circulation. In the
course of preparing the latter, Jerome realized the futility of revising
the Old Latin solely on the basis of the Greek and apparently left that
task unfinished. By the end of 405 he had executed his own Latin
translation of the entire Old Testament based on the “Hebrew truth”
(Hebraica veritas).
Because of the canonical status of the Greek version within the
church, Jerome’s version was received at first with much suspicion, for
it seemed to cast doubt on the authenticity of the Septuagint and
exhibited divergences from the Old Latin that sounded discordant to
those familiar with the traditional renderings. Augustine feared a
consequent split between the Greek and Latin churches. The innate
superiority of Jerome’s version, however, assured its ultimate victory,
and by the 8th century it had become the Latin Vulgate (“the common
version”) throughout the churches of Western Christendom, where it
remained the chief Bible until the Reformation.
In the course of centuries of rival coexistence, the Old Latin and
Jerome’s Vulgate tended to react upon each other so that the Vulgate
text became a composite. Other corruptions—noted in over 8,000 surviving
manuscripts—crept in as a result of scribal transmission. Several
medieval attempts were made to purify the Vulgate, but with little
success. In 1546 the reforming Council of Trent accorded this version
“authentic” status, and the need for a corrected text became immediate,
especially because printing (introduced in the mid-15th century) could
ensure, at last, a stabilized text. Because the Sixtine edition of Pope
Sixtus V (1590) did not receive widespread support, Pope Clement VIII
produced a fresh revision in 1592. This Clementine text remained the
official edition of the Roman Church. Since 1907, the Benedictine Order,
on the initiative of Pope Pius X, has been preparing a comprehensive
edition. By 1969 only the Prophets still awaited publication to complete
the Old Testament. A year later, a papal commission under Cardinal
Augustinus Bea of Germany was charged with the task of preparing a new
“revision of the Vulgate,” taking the Benedictine edition as its working
base.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions »
Versions after the 4th century » Syriac versions
The Bible of the Syriac Churches is known as the Peshitta (“simple”
translation). Though neither the reason for the title nor the origins of
the versions are known, the earliest translations most likely served the
needs of the Jewish communities in the region of Adiabene (in
Mesopotamia), which are known to have existed as early as the 1st
century ce. This probably explains the archaic stratum unquestionably
present in the Pentateuch, Prophets, and Psalms of the Peshitta, as well
as the undoubtedly Jewish influences generally, though Jewish-Christians
also may have been involved in the rendering.
The Peshitta displays great variety in its style and in the
translation techniques adopted. The Pentateuch is closest to the
Masoretic text, but elsewhere there is much affinity with the
Septuagint. This latter phenomenon might have resulted from later
Christian revision.
Following the split in the Syriac Church in the 5th century into
Nestorian (East Syrian) and Jacobite (West Syrian) traditions, the
textual history of the Peshitta became bifurcated. Because the Nestorian
Church was relatively isolated, its manuscripts are considered to be
superior.
A revision of the Syriac translation was made in the early 6th
century by Philoxenos, bishop of Mabbug, based on the Lucianic recension
of the Septuagint. Another (the Syro-Hexaplaric version) was made by
Bishop Paul of Tella in 617 from the Hexaplaric text of the Septuagint.
A Palestinian Syriac version, extant in fragments, is known to go back
to at least 700, and a fresh recension was made by Jacob of Edessa (died
708).
There are many manuscripts of the Peshitta, of which the oldest bears
the date 442. Only four complete codices are extant from between the 5th
and 12th centuries. No critical edition yet exists, but one is being
prepared by the Peshitta Commission of the International Organization
for the Study of the Old Testament.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions »
Versions after the 4th century » Arabic versions
There is no reliable evidence of any pre-Islāmic Arabic translation.
Only when large Jewish and Christian communities found themselves under
Muslim rule after the Arab conquests of the 7th century did the need for
an Arabic vernacular Scripture arise. The first and most important was
that of Saʿadia ben Joseph (892–942), made directly from Hebrew and
written in Hebrew script, which became the standard version for all Jews
in Muslim countries. The version also exercised its influence upon
Egyptian Christians and its rendering of the Pentateuch was adapted by
Abū al-Ḥasan to the Samaritan Torah in the 11th–12th centuries. Another
Samaritan Arabic version of the Pentateuch was made by Abū Saʿīd (Abū
al-Barakāt) in the 13th century. Among other translations from the
Hebrew, that of the 10th-century Karaite Yāphith ibn ʿAlī is the most
noteworthy.
In 946 a Spanish Christian of Córdova, Isaac son of Velásquez, made a
version of the Gospels from Latin. Manuscripts of 16th-century Arabic
translations of both testaments exist in Leningrad, and both the Paris
and London polyglots of the 17th century included Arabic versions. In
general, the Arabic manuscripts reveal a bewildering variety of
renderings dependent on Hebrew, Greek, Samaritan, Syriac, Coptic, and
Latin translations. As such they have no value for critical studies.
Several modern Arabic translations by both Protestants and Catholics
were made in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Later
and modern versions: English
Knowledge of the pre-Wycliffite English renditions stems from the many
actual manuscripts that have survived and from secondary literature,
such as booklists, wills, citations by later authors, and references in
polemical works that have preserved the memory of many a translation
effort.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Later
and modern versions: English » Anglo-Saxon versions
For about seven centuries after the conversion of England to
Christianity (beginning in the 3rd century), the common man had no
direct access to the text of the Scriptures. Ignorant of Latin, his
knowledge was derived principally from sermons and metrical prose
paraphrases and summaries. The earliest poetic rendering of any part of
the Bible is credited to Caedmon (flourished 658–680), but only the
opening lines of his poem on the Creation in the Northumbrian dialect
have been preserved.
An actual translation of the Psalter into Anglo-Saxon is ascribed to
Aldhelm, bishop of Sherborne (died 709), but nothing has survived by
which its true character, if it actually existed, might be determined.
Linguistic considerations alone rule out the possibility that the prose
translation of Psalms 1–50 extant in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris
is a 7th-century production. In the next century, Bede (died 735) is
said to have translated parts of the Gospels, and, though he knew Greek
and possibly even some Hebrew, he does not appear to have applied
himself to the Old Testament.
The outstanding name of the 9th century is that of King Alfred the
Great. He appended to his laws a free translation of the Ten
Commandments and an abridgment of the enactments of Exodus 21–23. These
actually constitute the earliest surviving examples of a portion of the
Old Testament in Anglo-Saxon prose.
An important step towards the emergence of a true English translation
was the development of the interlinear gloss, a valuable pedagogic
device for the introduction of youthful members of monastic schools to
the study of the Bible. The Vespasian Psalter is the outstanding
surviving example of the technique from the 9th century. In the next
century the Lindisfarne Gospels, written in Latin c. 700, were glossed
in Anglo-Saxon c. 950.
The last significant figure associated with the vernacular Bible
before the Norman Conquest was the so-called Aelfric the Grammarian (c.
955–1020). Though he claimed to have rendered several books into
English, his work is more a paraphrase and abridgment than a continuous
translation.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Later
and modern versions: English » Anglo-Norman versions
The displacement of the English upper class, with the consequent decline
of the Anglo-Saxon tradition attendant upon the Norman invasion,
arrested for a while the movement toward the production of the English
Bible. Within about 50 years (c. 1120) of the Conquest, Eadwine’s
Psalterium triplex, which contained the Latin version accompanied by
Anglo-Norman and Anglo-Saxon renderings, appeared. The contemporary
Oxford Psalter achieved such influence that it became the basis of all
subsequent Anglo-Norman versions. By 1361 a prose translation of most of
Scripture in this dialect had been executed.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Later
and modern versions: English » The Wycliffite versions
By the middle of the 13th century the English component in the
Anglo-Norman amalgam had begun to assert itself and the close of the
century witnessed a Northumbrian version of the Psalter made directly
from Latin, which, because it survived in several manuscripts, must have
achieved relatively wide circulation. By the next century, English had
gradually superseded French among the upper classes. When the first
complete translation of the Bible into English emerged, it became the
object of violent controversy because it was inspired by the heretical
teachings of John Wycliffe. Intended for the common man, it became the
instrument of opposition to ecclesiastical authority.
The exact degree of Wycliffe’s personal involvement in the Scriptures
that came to bear his name is not clear. Because a note containing the
words “Here ends the translation of Nicholas of Hereford” is found in a
manuscript copy of the original (and incomplete) translation, it may be
presumed that, though there must have been other assistants, Hereford
can be credited with overall responsibility for most of the translation
and that his summons before a synod in London and his subsequent
departure for Rome in 1382 terminated his participation in the work. Who
completed it is uncertain.
The Wycliffite translations encountered increasing ecclesiastical
opposition. In 1408 a synod of clergy summoned to Oxford by Archbishop
Arundel forbade the translation and use of Scripture in the vernacular.
The proscription was rigorously enforced, but remained ineffectual. In
the course of the next century the Wycliffite Bible, the only existing
English version, achieved wide popularity as is evidenced by the nearly
200 manuscripts extant, most of them copied between 1420 and 1450.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » English
translations after the Reformation » The translation of William Tyndale
Because of the influence of printing and a demand for scriptures in the
vernacular, William Tyndale began working on a New Testament translation
directly from the Greek in 1523. The work could not be continued in
England because of political and ecclesiastical pressures, and the
printing of his translation began in Cologne (in Germany) in 1525. Again
under pressure, this time from the city authorities, Tyndale had to flee
to Worms, where two complete editions were published in 1525. Copies
were smuggled into England where they were at once proscribed. Of 18,000
copies printed (1525–28), two complete volumes and a fragment are all
that remain.
When the New Testament was finished Tyndale began work on the Old
Testament. The Pentateuch was issued in Marburg in 1530, each of the
five books being separately published and circulated. Tyndale’s greatest
achievement was the ability to strike a felicitous balance between the
needs of scholarship, simplicity of expression, and literary
gracefulness, all in a uniform dialect. The effect was the creation of
an English style of Bible translation, tinged with Hebraisms, that was
to serve as the model for all future English versions for nearly 400
years.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions »
English translations after the Reformation » The translation of Miles
Coverdale
A change in atmosphere in England found expression in a translation
that, for all its great significance, turned out to be a retrograde step
in the manner of its execution, although it proved to be a vindication
of Tyndale’s work. On October 4, 1535, the first complete English Bible,
the work of Miles Coverdale, came off the press either in Zürich or in
Cologne. The edition was soon exhausted. A second impression appeared in
the same year and a third in 1536. A new edition, “overseen and
corrected,” was published in England by James Nycholson in Southwark in
1537. Another edition of the same year bore the announcement, “set forth
with the king’s most gracious license.” In 1538 a revised edition of
Coverdale’s New Testament printed with the Latin Vulgate in parallel
columns issued in England was so full of errors that Coverdale promptly
arranged for a rival corrected version to appear in Paris.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions »
English translations after the Reformation » The Thomas Matthew version
In the same year that Coverdale’s authorized version appeared, another
English Bible was issued under royal license and with the encouragement
of ecclesiastical and political power. It appeared (Antwerp?) under the
name of Thomas Matthew, but it is certainly the work of John Rogers, a
close friend of Tyndale. Although the version claimed to be “truly and
purely translated into English,” it was in reality a combination of the
labours of Tyndale and Coverdale. Rogers used the former’s Pentateuch
and 1535 revision of the New Testament and the latter’s translation from
Ezra to Malachi and his Apocrypha. Rogers’ own contribution was
primarily editorial.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions »
English translations after the Reformation » The Great Bible
In an injunction of 1538, Henry VIII commanded the clergy to install in
a convenient place in every parish church, “one book of the whole Bible
of the largest volume in English.” The order seems to refer to an
anticipated revision of the Matthew Bible. The first edition was printed
in Paris and appeared in London in April 1539 in 2,500 copies. The huge
page size earned it the sobriquet the Great Bible. It was received with
immediate and wholehearted enthusiasm.
The first printing was exhausted within a short while, and it went
through six subsequent editions between 1540 and 1541. “Editions” is
preferred to “impressions” here since the six successive issues were not
identical.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions »
English translations after the Reformation » The Geneva Bible
The brief efflorescence of the Protestant movement during the short
reign of Edward VI (1547–53) saw the reissue of the Scriptures, but no
fresh attempts at revision. The repressive rule of Edward’s successor,
Mary, a Roman Catholic, put an end to the printing of Bibles in England
for several years. Their public reading was proscribed and their
presence in the churches discontinued.
The persecutions of Protestants caused the focus of English biblical
scholarship to be shifted abroad where it flourished in greater freedom.
A colony of Protestant exiles, led by Coverdale and John Knox (the
Scottish Reformer), and under the influence of John Calvin, published
the New Testament in 1557.
The editors of the Geneva Bible (or “Breeches Bible,” so-named
because of its rendering of the first garments made for Adam and Eve in
chapter three, verse seven of Genesis)—published in 1560—may almost
certainly be identified as William Whittingham, the brother-in-law of
Calvin’s wife, and his assistants Anthony Gilby and Thomas Sampson. The
Geneva Bible was not printed in England until 1576, but it was allowed
to be imported without hindrance. The accession of Elizabeth in 1558 put
an end to the persecutions and the Great Bible was soon reinstated in
the churches. The Geneva Bible, however, gained instantaneous and
lasting popularity over against its rival, the Great Bible. Its
technical innovations contributed not a little to its becoming for a
long time the family Bible of England, which, next to Tyndale, exercised
the greatest influence upon the King James Version.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions »
English translations after the Reformation » The Bishops’ Bible
The failure of the Great Bible to win popular acceptance against the
obvious superiority of its Geneva rival and the objectionable partisan
flavour of the latter’s marginal annotations made a new revision a
necessity. By about 1563–64 Archbishop Matthew Parker of Canterbury had
determined upon its execution and the work was apportioned among many
scholars, most of them bishops, from which the popular name was derived.
The Bishops’ Bible came off the press in 1568 as a handsome folio
volume, the most impressive of all 16th-century English Bibles in
respect of the quality of paper, typography, and illustrations. A
portrait of the Queen adorned the engraved title page, but it contained
no dedication. For some reason Queen Elizabeth never officially
authorized the work, but sanction for its public use came from the
Convocation (church synod or assembly) of 1571 and it thereby became in
effect the second authorized version.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions »
English translations after the Reformation » The Douai–Reims Bible
The Roman Catholics addressed themselves affirmatively to the same
problem faced by the Anglican Church: a Bible in the vernacular. The
initiator of the first such attempt was Cardinal Allen of Reims (in
France), although the burden of the work fell to Gregory Martin,
professor of Hebrew at Douai. The New Testament appeared in 1582, but
the Old Testament, delayed by lack of funds, did not appear until 1609,
when it was finally published at Douai under the editorship of Thomas
Worthington. In the intervening period it had been brought into line
with the new text of the Vulgate authorized by Clement VIII in 1592.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » The King
James and subsequent versions » The King James (Authorized) Version
Because of changing conditions, another official revision of the
Protestant Bible in English was needed. The reign of Queen Elizabeth had
succeeded in imposing a high degree of uniformity upon the church. The
failure of the Bishops’ Bible to supplant its Geneva rival made for a
discordant note in the quest for unity.
A conference of churchmen in 1604 became noteworthy for its request
that the English Bible be revised because existing translations “were
corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the original.” King James I
was quick to appreciate the broader value of the proposal and at once
made the project his own.
By June 30, 1604, King James had approved a list of 54 revisers,
although extant records show that 47 scholars actually participated.
They were organized into six companies, two each working separately at
Westminster, Oxford, and Cambridge on sections of the Bible assigned to
them. It was finally published in 1611.
Not since the Septuagint had a translation of the Bible been
undertaken under royal sponsorship as a cooperative venture on so
grandiose a scale. An elaborate set of rules was contrived to curb
individual proclivities and to ensure its scholarly and nonpartisan
character. In contrast to earlier practice, the new version was to
preserve vulgarly used forms of proper names in keeping with its aim to
make the Scriptures popular and familiar.
The impact of Jewish sources upon the King James Version is one of
its noteworthy features. The wealth of scholarly tools available to the
translators made their final choice of rendering an exercise in
originality and independent judgment. For this reason, the new version
was more faithful to the original languages of the Bible and more
scholarly than any of its predecessors. The impact of the Hebrew upon
the revisers was so pronounced that they seem to have made a conscious
effort to imitate its rhythm and style in the Old Testament. The English
of the New Testament actually turned out to be superior to its Greek
original.
Two editions were actually printed in 1611, later distinguished as
the “He” and “She” Bibles because of the variant reading “he” and “she”
in the final clause of chapter 3, verse 15 of Ruth: “and he went into
the city.” Both printings contained errors. Some errors in subsequent
editions have become famous: The so-called Wicked Bible (1631) derives
from the omission of “not” in chapter 20 verse 14 of Exodus, “Thou shalt
commit adultery,” for which the printers were fined £300; the “Vinegar
Bible” (1717) stems from a misprinting of “vineyard” in the heading of
Luke, chapter 20.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » The
King James and subsequent versions » The English Revised Version
The remarkable and total victory of the King James Version could not
entirely obscure those inherent weaknesses that were independent of its
typographical errors. The manner of its execution had resulted in a
certain unequalness and lack of consistency. The translators’
understanding of the Hebrew tense system was often limited so that their
version contains inaccurate and infelicitous renderings. In particular,
the Greek text of the New Testament, which they used as their base, was
a poor one. The great early Greek codices were not then known or
available, and Hellenistic papyri, which were to shed light on the
common Greek dialect, had not yet been discovered.
A committee established by the Convocation of Canterbury in February
1870 reported favourably three months later on the idea of revising the
King James Version: two companies were formed, one each for the Old and
New Testaments. A novel development was the inclusion of scholars
representative of the major Christian denominations, except the Roman
Catholics (who declined the invitation to participate). Another
innovation was the formation of parallel companies in the United States
to whom the work of the English scholars was submitted and who, in turn,
sent back their reactions. The instructions to the committees made clear
that only a revision and not a new translation was contemplated.
The New Testament was published in England on May 17, 1881, and three
days later in the United States, after 11 years of labour. Over 30,000
changes were made, of which more than 5,000 represent differences in the
Greek text from that used as the basis of the King James Version. Most
of the others were made in the interests of consistency or
modernization.
The publication of the Old Testament in 1885 stirred far less
excitement, partly because it was less well known than the New Testament
and partly because fewer changes were involved. The poetical and
prophetical books, especially Job, Ecclesiastes, and Isaiah, benefitted
greatly.
The revision of the Apocrypha, not originally contemplated, came to
be included only because of copyright arrangements made with the
university presses of Oxford and Cambridge and was first published in
1895.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » The
King James and subsequent versions » The American Standard Version
According to the original agreement, the preferred readings and
renderings of the American revisers, which their British counterparts
had declined to accept, were published in an appendix to the Revised
Version. In 1900 the American edition of the New Testament, which
incorporated the American scholars’ preferences into the body of the
text, was produced. A year later the Old Testament was added, but not
the Apocrypha. The alterations covered a large number of obsolete words
and expressions and replaced Anglicisms by the diction then in vogue in
the United States.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » The
King James and subsequent versions » The Revised Standard Version
The American Standard Version had been an expression of sensitivity to
the needs of the American public. At the same time, several individual
and unofficial translations into modern speech made from 1885 on had
gained popularity, their appeal reinforced by the discovery that the
Greek of the New Testament used the common nonliterary variety of the
language spoken throughout the Roman Empire when Christianity was in its
formative stage. The notion that a nonliterary modern rendering of the
New Testament best expressed the form and spirit of the original was
hard to refute. This, plus a new maturity of classical, Hebraic, and
theological scholarship in the United States, led to a desire to produce
a native American version of the English Bible.
In 1928 the copyright of the American Standard Version was acquired
by the International Council of Religious Education and thereby passed
into the ownership of churches representing 40 major denominations in
the United States and Canada. A two-year study by a special committee
recommended a thorough revision, and in 1937 the council gave its
authorization to the proposal. Not until 1946, however, did the revision
of the New Testament appear in print, and another six years elapsed
before the complete Revised Standard Version (RSV) was published, the
work of 32 scholars, one of them Jewish, drawn from the faculties of 20
universities and theological seminaries. A decision to translate the
Apocrypha was not made until 1952 and the revision appeared in 1957.
Insofar as the RSV was the first to make use of the Dead Sea Scroll of
Isaiah, it was revolutionary.
The Revised Standard Version was essentially not a new translation
into modern speech, but a revision. It did engage in a good deal of
modernization, however. It dispensed with archaic pronouns, retaining
“thou” only for the Deity. But its basic conservatism was displayed in
the retention of forms or expressions in passages that have special
devotional or literary associations even where this practice makes for
inconsistency. The primary aim was to produce a version for use in
private and public worship.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » The
King James and subsequent versions » Jewish versions
Though Jews in English-speaking lands generally utilized the King James
Version and the Revised Version, the English versions have presented
great difficulties. They contain departures from the traditional Hebrew
text; they sometimes embody Christological interpretations; the headings
were often doctrinally objectionable and the renderings in the legal
portions of the Pentateuch frequently diverged from traditional Jewish
exegesis. In addition, where the meaning of the original was obscure,
Jewish readers preferred to use the well-known medieval Jewish
commentators. Finally, the order of the Jewish canon differs from
Christian practice and the liturgical needs of Jews make a version that
does not mark the scriptural readings for Sabbaths and festivals
inconvenient.
Until 1917 all Jewish translations were the efforts of individuals.
Planned in 1892, the project of the Jewish Publication Society of
America was the first translation for which a group representing Jewish
learning among English-speaking Jews assumed joint responsibility.
This version essentially retained the Elizabethan diction. It stuck
unswervingly to the received Hebrew text that it interpreted in
accordance with Jewish tradition and the best scholarship of the day.
For over half a century it remained authoritative, even though it laid
no claim to any official ecclesiastical sanction.
With an increasingly felt need for modernization, a committee of
translators was established composed of three professional biblical and
Semitic scholars and three rabbis. It began its work in 1955 and the
Pentateuch was issued in 1962. The Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations,
Ecclesiastes, Esther, and Jonah, all in a single volume for the
convenience of synagogue use, followed in 1969; and Isaiah and Psalms
appeared in 1973. A second committee had been set up in 1955 to work
separately on the rest of the Hagiographa (Ketuvim).
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » The
King James and subsequent versions » The New English Bible
The idea of a completely new translation into British English was first
broached in 1946. Under a joint committee, representative of the major
Protestant churches of the British Isles, with Roman Catholics appointed
as observers, the New Testament was published in 1961 and a second
edition appeared in 1970. The Old Testament and Apocrypha were also
published in 1970.
The New English Bible proved to be an instant commercial success,
selling at a rate of 33,000 copies a week in 1970. The translation
differed from the English mainstream Bible in that it was not a revision
but a completely fresh version from the original tongues. It abandoned
the tradition of “biblical English” and, except for the retention of
“thou” and “thy” in addressing God, freed itself of all archaisms. It
endeavoured to render the original into the idiom of contemporary
English and to avoid ephemeral modernisms.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » The
King James and subsequent versions » Catholic versions
With the exception of a version by Irish-American archbishop Francis
Patrick Kenrick (1849–60), all translations up to the 20th century were
merely versions of the Douai–Reims Bible. A celebrated translation was
that of Ronald Knox (New Testament, 1945; Old Testament, 1949; complete
edition with Old Testament revised, 1955).
The most significant development in modern Catholic translations was
initiated by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine in 1936. A New
Testament version of the Latin Clementine Vulgate (1941), intended as a
revision, in effect was a new translation into clear and simple English.
The Old Testament revision remained unfinished, the work having been
interrupted by a decision inspired by the Pontifical Biblical Commission
in 1943 to encourage modern vernacular translations from the original
languages instead of from the Latin Vulgate. Accordingly, both the Old
and New Testaments were respectively retranslated into modern English
from the Hebrew and Greek originals. The resultant Confraternity Version
(1952–61) was later issued as the New American Bible (1970). Another
modern version, more colloquial, is the Jerusalem Bible (1966),
translated from the French Catholic Bible de Jérusalem (one-volume
edition, 1961).
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Later
and modern versions: Dutch, French, and German » Dutch versions
Until the Reformation, Dutch Bible translations were largely free
adaptations, paraphrases, or rhymed verse renderings of single books or
parts thereof. A popular religious revival at the end of the 12th
century accelerated the demand for the vernacular Scriptures, and one of
the earliest extant examples is the Liège manuscript (c. 1270)
translation of the Diatessaron (a composite rendering of the four
Gospels) by Tatian, a 2nd century Syrian Christian heretical scholar; it
is believed to derive from a lost Old Latin original. Best known of all
the rhymed versions is the Rijmbijbel of Jacob van Maerlant (1271) based
on Peter Comestar’s Historia scholastica. Despite the poor quality of
Johan Schutken’s translation of the New Testament and Psalms (1384), it
became the most widely used of medieval Dutch versions.
With the Reformation came a renewed interest in the study of the
Scriptures. Luther’s Bible (see German versions, below) was repeatedly
rendered into Dutch, the most important version being that of Jacob van
Liesveldt (1526). It was mainly to counter the popularity of this
edition that Roman Catholics produced their own Dutch Bible, executed by
Nicolaas van Winghe (Leuven, 1548). A revision printed by Jan Moerentorf
(Moretus, 1599) became the standard version until it was superseded by
that of the Peter Canisius Association (1929–39), now in general use. A
fresh translation of the New Testament in modern Dutch appeared in 1961.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Later
and modern versions: Dutch, French, and German » French versions
The deep conflicts that characterized the history of Christianity in
France made it difficult for one authoritative version to emerge.
The first complete Bible was produced in the 13th century at the
University of Paris and toward the end of that century Guyart des
Moulins executed his Bible Historiale. Both works served as the basis of
future redactions of which the Bible printed in Paris (date given
variously as 1487, 1496, 1498) by order of King Charles VIII, is a good
example.
The real history of the French Bible began in Paris, in 1523, with
the publication of the New Testament, almost certainly the work of the
Reformer Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples (Faber Stapulensis). The Old
Testament appeared in Antwerp in 1528 and the two together in 1530 as
the Antwerp Bible. The first true Protestant version came out in
Serrières, near Neuchâtel, five years later, the work of Pierre Robert,
called Olivétan. This version was frequently revised throughout the 16th
century, the most celebrated editions being Calvin’s of 1546 and that of
Robert Estienne (Stephanus) of 1553. The Roman Catholics produced a new
version, the Louvain Bible of 1550, based on both Lefèvre and Olivétan.
Modernizations of Olivétan appeared in succeeding centuries. The most
important French version of the 20th century is the Jerusalem Bible
prepared by professors at the Dominican École Biblique de Jérusalem
(Paris, 1949–54, complete, 1956).
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Later
and modern versions: Dutch, French, and German » German versions
The early Old Testament in Gothic has already been described. The New
Testament remains are far more extensive and are preserved mainly in the
Codex Argenteus (c. 525) and Codex Gissensis. The translation,
essentially based on a Byzantine text, is exceedingly literal and not
homogeneous. It is difficult to determine the degree of contamination
that the original Gospels translation of Ulfilas had undergone by the
time it appeared in these codices.
Nothing is known of the vernacular Scriptures in Germany prior to the
8th century when an idiomatic translation of Matthew from Latin into the
Bavarian dialect was made. From Fulda (in Germany) c. 830 came a more
literal East Franconian German translation of the Gospel story. In the
same period was produced the Heliand (“Saviour”), a versified version of
the Gospels. Such poetic renderings cannot, strictly speaking, be
regarded as translations. There is evidence, however, for the existence
of German Psalters from the 9th century on. By the 13th century, the
different sects and movements that characterized the religious situation
in Germany had stimulated a demand for popular Bible reading. Since all
the early printed Bibles derived from a single family of late
14th-century manuscripts, German translations must have gained wide
popularity. Another impetus towards the use of the German Scriptures in
this period can be traced to mystics of the Upper Rhine. A complete New
Testament, the Augsburg Bible, can be dated to 1350, and another from
Bohemia, Codex Teplensis (c. 1400), has also survived.
The Wenzel Bible, an Old Testament made between 1389 and 1400, is
said to have been ordered by King Wenceslas, and large numbers of
15th-century manuscripts have been preserved.
The first printed Bible (the Mentel Bible) appeared at Strassburg no
later than 1466 and ran through 18 editions before 1522. Despite some
evidence that ecclesiastical authority did not entirely look with favour
upon this vernacular development, the printed Bible appeared in Germany
earlier, and in more editions and in greater quantity than anywhere
else.
A new era opened up with the work of Martin Luther, to whom a
translation from the original languages was a necessary and logical
conclusion of his doctrine of justification by faith—to which the
Scriptures provided the only true key. His New Testament (Wittenberg,
1522) was made from the second edition of Erasmus’ Greek Testament. The
Old Testament followed in successive parts, based on the Brescia Hebrew
Bible (1494). Luther’s knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic was limited, but
his rendering shows much influence of Rashi, the great 11th–12th-century
French rabbinical scholar and commentator, through the use of the notes
of Nicholas of Lyra. The complete Lutheran Bible emerged from the press
in 1534. Luther was constantly revising his work with the assistance of
other scholars, and between 1534 and his death in 1546, 11 editions were
printed, the last posthumously. His Bible truly fulfilled Luther’s
objective of serving the needs of the common man, and it, in turn,
formed the basis of the first translations in those lands to which
Lutheranism spread. It proved to be a landmark in German prose
literature and contributed greatly to the development of the modern
language.
The phenomenal success of Luther’s Bible and the failure of attempts
to repress it led to the creation of German Catholic versions, largely
adaptations of Luther. Hieronymus Emser’s edition simply brought the
latter into line with the Vulgate. Johann Dietenberger issued a revision
of Emser (Mainz, 1534) and used Luther’s Old Testament in conjunction
with an Anabaptist (radical Protestant group) version and the Zürich
(Switzerland) version of 1529. It became the standard Catholic version.
Of the 20th-century translations, the Grünewald Bible, which reached a
seventh edition in 1956, is one of the most noteworthy.
German glosses in Hebrew script attached to Hebrew Bibles in the 12th
and 13th centuries constitute the earliest Jewish attempts to render the
Scriptures into that German dialect current among the Jews of middle
Europe, the dialect that developed into Judeo-German, or Yiddish. The
first translation proper has been partially preserved in a manuscript
from Mantua dated 1421. The earliest printed translation is that of the
Scriptural dictionaries prepared by a baptized Jew, Michael Adam
(Constance, 1543–44; Basel, 1583, 1607). The version of Jacob ben Isaac
Ashkenazi of Janów, known as the Tzʾenah u-Reʾna (Lublin, 1616), became
one of the most popular and widely diffused works of its kind.
The first Jewish translation into pure High German, though in Hebrew
characters (1780–83), made by Moses Mendelssohn, opened a new epoch in
German-Jewish life. The first Jewish rendering of the entire Hebrew
Bible in German characters was made by Gotthold Salomon (Altona, 1837).
An attempt to preserve the quality of the Hebrew style in German garb
was the joint translation of two Jewish religious philosophers, Martin
Buber and Franz Rosenzweig (15 vol., Berlin, 1925–37; revised ed.
Cologne, 4 vol., 1954–62).
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Greek,
Hungarian, Italian, and Portuguese translations » Greek versions
A 13th-century manuscript of Jonah by a Jew is the earliest known
post-Hellenistic Greek biblical work. A rendering of Psalms was
published by a Cretan monk Agapiou in 1563. A version in Hebrew
characters (a large part of the Old Testament) appeared in the
Constantinople Polyglot Pentateuch in 1547.
The first New Testament was done by Maximus of Gallipoli in 1638 (at
Geneva?). The British and Foreign Bible Society published the Old
Testament in 1840 (London) and the New Testament in 1848 (Athens).
Between 1900 and 1924, however, the use of a modern Greek version was
prohibited. The theological faculty of the University of Athens is now
preparing a fresh translation.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions »
Greek, Hungarian, Italian, and Portuguese translations » Hungarian
versions
The spread of Lutheranism in the Reformation period gave rise to several
vernacular versions. János Sylvester (Erdősi) produced the first New
Testament made from the Greek (Sárvár, 1541). The Turkish occupation of
much of Hungary and the measures of the Counter-Reformation arrested
further printing of the vernacular Bible, except in the semi-independent
principality of Transylvania. The first complete Hungarian Bible, issued
at Vizsoly in 1590, became the Protestant Church Bible.
In the 20th century, a new standard edition for Protestants was
published, the New Testament appearing in 1956 and the Old Testament
(Genesis to Job) in 1951 and following. A new modernized Catholic
edition of the New Testament from the Greek appeared in Rome in 1957.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions »
Greek, Hungarian, Italian, and Portuguese translations » Italian
versions
The vernacular Scriptures made a relatively late appearance in Italy.
Existing manuscripts of individual books derive from the 13th century
and mainly consist of the Gospels and the Psalms.
These medieval versions were never made from the original languages.
They were influenced by French and Provençal renderings as well as by
the form of the Latin Vulgate current in the 12th and 13th centuries in
southern France. There is evidence for a Jewish translation made
directly from the Hebrew as early as the 13th century.
The first printed Italian Bible appeared in Venice in 1471,
translated from the Latin Vulgate by Niccolò Malermi. In 1559 Paul IV
proscribed all printing and reading of the vernacular Scriptures except
by permission of the church. This move, reaffirmed by Pius IV in 1564,
effectively stopped further Catholic translation work for the next 200
years.
The first Protestant Bible (Geneva, 1607, revised 1641) was the work
of Giovanni Diodati, a Hebrew and Greek scholar. Frequently reprinted,
it became the standard Protestant version until the 20th century.
Catholic activity was renewed after a modification of the ban by Pope
Benedict XIV in 1757. A complete Bible in translation made directly from
the Hebrew and Greek has been in progress under the sponsorship of the
Pontifical Biblical Institute since the 1920s.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions »
Greek, Hungarian, Italian, and Portuguese translations » Portuguese
versions
The first Portuguese New Testament (Amsterdam), the work of João
Ferreira d’Almeida, did not appear until 1681. The first complete Bible
(2 vol., 1748–53) was printed in Batavia (in Holland). Not until late in
the 18th century did the first locally published vernacular Scriptures
appear in Portugal. A revision of d’Almeida was issued in Rio de Janeiro
(in Brazil), the New Testament in 1910 and the complete Bible in 1914
and 1926; an authorized edition in modernized orthography was published
by the Bible Society of Brazil (New Testament, 1951; Old Testament,
1958). A new translation of the New Testament from Greek by José Falcão
came out in Lisbon (1956–65).
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions »
Scandinavian, Slavic, Spanish, and Swiss translations » Scandinavian
versions
In pre-Reformation times, only partial translations were made, all on
the basis of the Latin Vulgate and all somewhat free. The earliest and
most celebrated is that of Genesis–Kings in the so-called Stjórn
(“Guidance”; i.e., of God) manuscript in the Old Norwegian language,
probably to be dated about 1300. Swedish versions of the Pentateuch and
of Acts have survived from the 14th century and a manuscript of
Joshua–Judges by Nicholaus Ragnvaldi of Vadstena from c. 1500. The
oldest Danish version covering Genesis–Kings derives from 1470.
Within two years of publication, Luther’s New Testament had already
influenced a Danish translation made at the request of the exiled king
Christian II by Christiern Vinter and Hans Mikkelsen (Wittenberg, 1524).
In 1550 Denmark received a complete Bible commissioned by royal command
(the Christian III Bible, Copenhagen). A revision appeared in 1589 (the
Frederick II Bible) and another in 1633 (the Christian IV Bible).
A rendering by Hans Paulsen Resen (1605–07) was distinguished by its
accuracy and learning and was the first made directly from Hebrew and
Greek, but its style was not felicitous and a revision was undertaken by
Hans Svane (1647). Nearly 200 years later (1819), a combination of the
Svaning Old Testament and the Resen–Svane New Testament was published.
In 1931 a royal commission produced a new translation of the Old
Testament with the New Testament following in 1948 and the Apocrypha in
1957.
The separation of Norway from Denmark in 1814 stimulated the revival
of literature in the native language. The Old Testament of 1842–87
(revised, 1891) and New Testament of 1870–1904 were still intelligible
to Danish readers, but the version of E. Blix (New Testament, 1889;
complete Bible, 1921) is in New Norwegian. A revised Bible in this
standardized form of the language, executed by R. Indrebö, was published
by the Norwegian Bible Society in 1938.
The first Icelandic New Testament was the work of Oddur Gottskálksson
(Roskilde, Denmark, 1540), based on the Latin Vulgate and Luther. It was
not until 1584 that the complete Icelandic Scriptures were printed (at
Hólar), mainly executed by Gudbrandur Thorláksson. It was very
successful and became the Church Bible until displaced by the revision
of Thorlákur Skúlason (1627–55), based apparently on Resen’s Danish
translation. In 1827 the Icelandic Bible Society published a new New
Testament and a complete Bible in 1841 (Videyjar; 1859, Reykjavík),
revised and reprinted at Oxford in 1866. A completely new edition
(Reykjavík, 1912) became the official Church Bible.
Soon after Sweden achieved independence from Denmark in the early
16th century, it acquired its own version of the New Testament published
by the royal press (Stockholm, 1526). Luther’s New Testament of 1522
served as its foundation, but the Latin Vulgate and Erasmus’ Greek were
also consulted. The first official complete Bible and the first such in
any Scandinavian country was the Gustav Vasa Bible (Uppsala; 1541),
named for the Swedish king under whose reign it was printed. It utilized
earlier Swedish translations as well as Luther’s. A corrected version
(the Gustavus Adolphus Bible, named for the reigning Swedish king) was
issued in 1618, and another with minor alterations by Eric Benzelius in
1703. The altered Bible was called the Charles XII Bible, because it was
printed during the reign of Charles XII. In 1917 the church diet of the
Lutheran Church published a completely fresh translation directly from
modern critical editions of the Hebrew and Greek originals and it
received the authorization of Gustaf V to become the Swedish Church
Bible.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions »
Scandinavian, Slavic, Spanish, and Swiss translations » Slavic versions
The earliest Old Church Slavonic translations are connected with the
arrival of the brothers Cyril and Methodius in Moravia in 863, and
resulted from the desire to provide vernacular renderings of those parts
of the Bible used liturgically. The oldest manuscripts derive from the
11th and 12th centuries. The earliest complete Bible manuscript, dated
1499, was used for the first printed edition (Ostrog, 1581). This was
revised in Moscow in 1633 and again in 1712. The standard Slavonic
edition is the St. Petersburg revision of 1751, known as the Bible of
Elizabeth.
The printing of parts of the Bulgarian Bible did not begin until the
mid-19th century. A fresh vernacular version of the whole Bible was
published at Sofia in 1925, having been commissioned by the Synod of the
Bulgarian Orthodox Church.
The Serbian and Croatian literary languages are identical; they
differ only in the alphabet they use. To further the dissemination of
Protestantism among the southern Slavs, Count Jan Ungnad set up a press
in 1560 at Urach that issued a translation of the New Testament, in both
Glagolitic (1562–63) and Cyrillic (1563) characters. The efforts of the
Serbian leader Vuk Karadžić to establish the Serbo-Croatian vernacular
on a literary basis resulted in a new translation of the New Testament
(Vienna, 1847) that went through many revisions.
The spread of the Lutheran Reformation to the Slovene-speaking
provinces of Austria stimulated the need for vernacular translations.
The first complete Slovene Bible, translated from the original languages
but with close reference to Luther’s German, was made by Jurij Dalmatin
(Wittenberg, 1584). Not until two centuries later did a Slovene Roman
Catholic version, rendered from the Latin Vulgate, appear (Laibach,
1784–1802).
Between the 9th and 17th centuries the literary and ecclesiastical
language of Russia was Old Slavonic. A vernacular Scriptures was thus
late in developing. An incomplete translation into the Belorussian
dialect was prepared by Franciscus Skorina (Prague, 1517–19) from the
Latin Vulgate and Slavonic and Bohemian versions, but not until 1821 did
the first New Testament appear in Russian, an official version printed
together with the Slavonic. With the more liberal rule of Alexander II,
the Holy Synod sponsored a fresh version of the Gospels in 1860. The Old
Testament was issued at St. Petersburg in 1875. A Jewish rendering was
undertaken by Leon Mandelstamm, who published the Pentateuch in 1862
(2nd ed., 1871) and the Psalter in 1864. Prohibited in Russia, it was
first printed in Berlin. A complete Bible was published in Washington in
1952.
No manuscript in the Czech vernacular translation is known to predate
the 14th century, but at least 50 complete or fragmentary Bibles have
survived from the 15th. The first complete Bible was published in Prague
in 1488 in a text based on earlier, unknown translations connected with
the heretical Hussite movement. The most important production of the
century, however, was that associated principally with Jan Blahoslav.
Based on the original languages, it appeared at Kralice in six volumes
(1579–93). The Kralice Bible is regarded as the finest extant specimen
of classical Czech and became the standard Protestant version.
Closely allied to the Czech language, but not identical with it,
Slovakian became a literary language only in the 18th century. A Roman
Catholic Bible made from the Latin Vulgate by Jiři Palkovic̆ was printed
in the Gothic script (2 vol. Gran, 1829, 1832) and another, associated
with Richard Osvald, appeared at Trnava in 1928. A Protestant New
Testament version of Josef Rohac̆ek was published at Budapest in 1913
and his completed Bible at Prague in 1936. A new Slovakian version by
Stefan Žlatoš and Anton Jan Surjanský was issued at Trnava in 1946.
A manuscript of a late 14th-century Psalter is the earliest extant
example of the Polish vernacular Scriptures, and several books of the
Old Testament have survived from the translation made from the Czech
version for Queen Sofia (Sárospatak Bible, 1455). Otherwise,
post-Reformation Poland supplied the stimulus for biblical scholarship.
The New Testament first appeared in a two-volume rendering from the
Greek by the Lutheran Jan Seklucjan (Königsberg, 1553). The “Brest
Bible” of 1563, sponsored by Prince Radziwiłł, was a Protestant
production made from the original languages. A version of this edition
for the use of Socinians (Unitarians) was prepared by the Hebraist
Szymon Budny (Nieswicz, 1570–82), and another revision, primarily
executed by Daniel Mikołajewski and Jan Turnowski (the “Danzig Bible”)
in 1632, became the official version of all Evangelical churches in
Poland. This edition was burnt by the Catholics and had to be
subsequently printed in Germany. The standard Roman Catholic version
(1593, 1599) was prepared by Jakób Wujek whose work, revised by the
Jesuits, received the approval of the Synod of Piotrkow in 1607. A
revised edition was put out in 1935.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions »
Scandinavian, Slavic, Spanish, and Swiss translations » Spanish versions
The history of the Spanish Scriptures is unusual in that many of the
translations were based, not on the Latin Vulgate, but on the Hebrew, a
phenomenon that is to be attributed to the unusual role played by Jews
in the vernacular movement.
Nothing is known from earlier than the 13th century when James I of
Aragon in 1233 proscribed the possession of the Bible in “romance” (the
Spanish vernacular) and ordered such to be burnt. Several partial Old
Testament translations by Jews as well as a New Testament from a
Visigoth Latin text are known from this century. In 1417 the whole Bible
was translated into Valencian Catalan, but the entire edition was
destroyed by the Inquisition.
Between 1479 and 1504, royal enactments outlawed the vernacular Bible
in Castile, Leon, and Aragon, and the expulsion of the Jews from Spain
in 1492 transferred the centre of Spanish translation activity to other
lands. In 1557, the first printed Index of Forbidden Books of the
Spanish Inquisition prohibited the “Bible in Castilian romance or any
other vulgar tongue,” a ban that was repeated in 1559 and remained in
force until the 18th century. In 1916 the Hispano-Americana New
Testament appeared in Madrid as an attempt to achieve a common
translation for the entire Spanish-speaking world. The first Roman
Catholic vernacular Bible from the original languages was made under the
direction of the Pontifical University of Salamanca (Madrid, 1944, 9th
ed. 1959).
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions »
Scandinavian, Slavic, Spanish, and Swiss translations » Swiss versions
Four parts of Luther’s version were reprinted in the Swyzerdeutsch
dialect in Zürich in 1524–25. The Prophets and Apocrypha appeared in
1529. A year later, the first Swiss Bible was issued with the Prophets
and Apocrypha independently translated. The Swiss Bible underwent
frequent revision between 1660 and 1882. A fresh translation from the
original languages was made between 1907 and 1931.
Old Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions »
Non-European versions
Translations of parts of the Bible are known to have existed in only
seven Asian and four African languages before the 15th century. In the
17th century Dutch merchants began to interest themselves in the
missionary enterprise among non-Europeans. A pioneer was Albert
Cornelius Ruyl, who is credited with having translated Matthew into High
Malay in 1629, with Mark following later. Jan van Hasel translated the
two other Gospels in 1646 and added Psalms and Acts in 1652. Other
traders began translations into Formosan Chinese (1661) and Sinhalese
(1739).
A complete printed Japanese New Testament reputedly existed in Miyako
in 1613, the work of Jesuits. The first known printed New Testament in
Asia appeared in 1715 in the Tamil language done by Bartholomäus
Ziegenbalg, a Lutheran missionary. A complete Bible followed in 1727.
Six years later the first Bible in High Malay came out.
The distinction of having produced the first New Testament in any
language of the Americas belongs to John Eliot, a Puritan missionary,
who made it accessible to the Massachusetts Indians in 1661. Two years
later he brought out the Massachusetts Indian Bible, the first Bible to
be printed on the American continent.
By 1800 the number of non-European versions did not exceed 13 Asian,
four African, three American, and one Oceanian. With the founding of
missionary societies after 1800, however, new translations were viewed
as essential to the evangelical effort. First came renderings in those
languages that already possessed a written literature. A group at
Serāmpore (in India) headed by William Carey, a Baptist missionary,
produced 28 versions in Indian languages. Robert Morrison, the first
Protestant missionary to China, translated the New Testament into
Chinese in 1814 and completed the Bible by 1823. Adoniram Judson, an
American missionary, rendered the Bible into Burmese in 1834.
With European exploration of the African continent often came the
need to invent an alphabet, and in many instances the translated
Scriptures constituted the first piece of written literature. In the
19th century the Bible was translated into Amharic, Malagasy, Tswana,
Xosa, and Ga.
In the Americas, James Evans invented a syllabary for the use of Cree
Indians, in whose language the Bible was available in 1862, the work of
W. Mason, also a Wesleyan missionary. The New Testament appeared in
Ojibwa in 1833, and the whole Bible was translated for the Dakota
Indians in 1879. The Labrador Eskimos had a New Testament in 1826 and a
complete Bible in 1871.
In Oceania, the New Testament was rendered into Tahitian and Javanese
in 1829 and into Hawaiian and Low Malay in 1835. By 1854 the whole Bible
had appeared in all but the last of these languages as well as in
Rarotonga (1851).
In the 20th century the trend toward the development of non-European
Bible translations was characterized by an attempt to produce “union” or
“standard” versions in the common language underlying different
dialects. One such is the Swahili translation (1950) that makes the
Scriptures accessible to most of East Africa. Within the realm of
non-European translation there has also been a movement for the updating
of versions to bring them in line with the spoken language, especially
through the use of native Christian scholars. The first example of this
was the colloquial Japanese version of 1955.
By 1970 some part, if not the entire Bible, had been translated into
more than 100 languages or dialects spoken in India and over 300 in
Africa.
Nahum M. Sarna
Old Testament history
History is a central element of the Old Testament. It is the subject of
narration in the specifically historical books and of celebration,
commemoration, and remonstration in all of the books. History in the Old
Testament is not history in the modern sense; it is the story of events
seen as revealing the divine presence and power. Nevertheless, it is the
account of an actual people in an actual geographical area at certain
specified historical times and in contact with other particular peoples
and empires known from other sources. Hence, far more than with other
great religious scriptures, a knowledge of the historical background is
conducive, if not essential, to an adequate understanding of a major
portion of the Old Testament. Recent archaeological discoveries as well
as comparative historical research and philological studies, collated
with an analysis and interpretation of the Old Testament text (still the
major source of information), have made possible a fuller and more
reliable picture of biblical history than in previous eras. For another
presentation of Old Testament history, see Judaism.
Old Testament history » Early developments » Background and beginnings
The geographical theatre of the Old Testament is the ancient Near East,
particularly the Fertile Crescent region, running from the Tigris and
Euphrates rivers up to Syria and down through Palestine to the Nile
Delta. In this area great civilizations and empires developed and
seminomadic ethnic groups, such as the Hebrews, were involved in the
mixture of peoples and cultures. The exact origin of the Hebrews is not
known with certainty, but the biblical tradition of their origin in a
clan that migrated from Mesopotamia to Canaan (Palestine) early in the
2nd millennium bce has analogues in what is known of the movements of
other groups in that area and period. There are, moreover, obvious
Mesopotamian motifs in biblical cosmogony and primeval history in the
early part of the Bible, and Mesopotamian place-names are the obvious
bases of some of the personal names of the clan’s forebears. Canaanite
influences are evident in the Hebrew alphabet, poetry, and certain
mythological themes. Linguistic and other similarities with neighbouring
Semitic peoples, such as the Amorites and Moabites, are also evident.
Old Testament history » Early developments » Exodus and conquest
According to biblical tradition, the clan migrated to Egypt because of a
famine in the land of Canaan, were later enslaved and oppressed, and
finally escaped from Egypt to the desert east of the Isthmus of Suez
under a remarkable leader, Moses. The account—a proclamation,
celebration, and commemoration of the event—is replete with legendary
elements, but present-day scholars tend to believe that behind the
legends there is a solid core of fact; namely, that Hebrew slaves who
built the fortified cities of Pithom and Rameses somehow fled from
Egypt, probably in the 13th century bce, under a great leader (see also
Moses). A stele (inscribed stone pillar) of the pharaoh Merneptah of
that time in which he claims to have destroyed Israel is the first known
nonbiblical reference to the people by name. Whether the destruction was
in the intervening desert or in Canaan (and whether a true or a false
claim) is not clear. The tradition ascribes to Moses the basic features
of Israel’s faith: a single God, called YHWH, who cannot be represented
iconically, bound in a covenant relationship with his special people
Israel, to whom he has promised possession of (not, as with their
forefathers, mere residence in) the land of Canaan. There is some
dispute among scholars as to when such features as the Mosaic Covenant
actually emerged and as to which of the traditional 12 tribes of Israel
entered Canaan at the end of the period of wandering in the desert.
The biblical account of the conquest of Canaan is again, from the
point of view of historical scholarship, full of legendary elements that
express and commemorate the elation and wonder of the Israelites at
these events. The conquest of Canaan—according to tradition, a united
national undertaking led by Moses’ successor, Joshua—was a rather drawn
out and complicated matter. Archaeological evidence tends to refute some
of the elements of the biblical account, confirm others, and leave some
open. According to the tradition, after an initial unified assault that
broke the main Canaanite resistance, the tribes engaged in individual
mopping-up operations. Scholars believe that Hebrews who had remained
resident in Canaan joined forces with the invading tribes, that the
other Canaanite groups continued to exist, and that many of them later
were assimilated by the Israelites.
Old Testament history » Early developments » The tribal league
The invading tribes who became masters of parts of Canaan, although
effectively autonomous and lacking a central authority, considered
themselves a league of 12 tribes, although the number 12 seems to have
been more canonical or symbolical than historical. Some scholars, on the
analogy of Greek leagues of six or 12 tribes or cities with a common
sanctuary, speak of the Israelite league as an “amphictyony,” the Greek
term for such an association; but others hold that there is no evidence
that the Israelites maintained a common shrine. Certain leaders arose,
called judges, who might rule over several tribes, but this arrangement
was usually of a local or regional character. However, the stories about
such “judges” (who were frequently local champions or heroes, such as
Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson), though encrusted with legend, are now
thought to be substantially historical. The period from about 1200 to
1020 is called, after them, the period of the judges. It was during this
period that Israelite assimilation of Canaanite cultural and religious
ideas and practices began to be an acute problem and that other invaders
and settlers became a threat to the security of Israel. One of the chief
threats was from the Philistines, an Aegean people who settled (c. 12th
century bce) on the coast of what later came to be called, after them,
Palestine. Organized in a league of five cities, or principalities, the
Philistines, who possessed a monopoly of iron implements and weapons,
pushed eastward into the Canaanite hinterland and subjugated Israelite
tribes, such as the Judahites and Danites, that stood in their way, even
capturing the sacred ark from the famous shrine of Shiloh when it was
brought into battle against them. The Philistine threat was probably the
decisive factor in the emergence of a permanent political (but at first
primarily military) union of all Israel under a king—what historians
call the united monarchy (or kingdom).
Old Testament history » Early developments » The united monarchy
The monarchy was initiated during the career of Samuel, a prophet of
great influence and authority who was also recognized as a judge and is
depicted in varying biblical accounts as either favouring or not
favouring the reign of a human king over Israel. In any case, he
anointed Saul, a courageous military leader of the tribe of Benjamin, as
king (c. 1020 bce). Saul won substantial victories over the Ammonites,
Philistines, and Amalekites, leading the tribes in a “holy war,” and for
a time the Philistine advance was stopped; but Saul and his son Jonathan
were killed in a disastrous battle with the Philistines in central
Palestine. His successor, David, a former aide (and also his son-in-law)
who had fallen out of favour with him, at first took over (c. 1010) the
rule of Judah in the south and then of all Israel (c. 1000). Through his
military and administrative abilities and his political acumen, David
established a centralized rule in Israel, cleared the territory of
foreign invaders, and, in the absence of any aggressive foreign empire
in the area, created his own petty empire over neighbouring city-states
and peoples. He established his capital in Jerusalem, which until then
had maintained its independence as a Canaanite city-state wedged between
the territories of Saul’s tribe Benjamin and David’s tribe Judah, and
moved the ark there from the small Israelite town in which it had been
stored by the Philistines, establishing it in a tent shrine. This
felicitous combination of holy ark, political reign, and central city
was to be hailed and proclaimed by future ages. Under David’s successor,
his son Solomon (reigned c. 961–922), Israel became a thriving
commercial power; numerous impressive buildings were erected, including
the magnificent Temple (a concrete symbol of the religiopolitical unity
of Israel); a large harem of foreign princesses was acquired, sealing
relations with other states; the country was divided into 12 districts
for administrative, supply, and taxation purposes. Foreign cults set up
to serve the King’s foreign wives and foreign traders led to charges of
idolatry and apostasy by religious conservatives. In the latter years of
his reign, Solomon’s unpopular policies, such as oppressive forced
labour, led to internal discontent and rebellion, while externally the
vassal nations of Damascus (Aram) and Edom staged successful revolts
against his rule. The central and northern tribes, called Israel in the
restricted sense, were especially galled by the oppressive policies, and
soon after Solomon’s death Israel split off to become a separate
kingdom. The united monarchy thus became the divided monarchy of Israel
(the northern kingdom) and Judah (the southern kingdom).
Old Testament history » From the period of the divided monarchy through
the restoration » The divided monarchy: from Jeroboam I to the Assyrian
conquest
Jeroboam I, the first king of the new state of Israel, made his capital
first at Shechem, then at Tirzah. Recognizing the need for religious
independence from Jerusalem, he set up official sanctuaries at Dan and
Bethel, at the two ends of his realm, installing in them golden calves
(or bulls), for which he is castigated in the anti-northern account in
the First Book of the Kings. Israel engaged in conflicts with Judah and,
sometimes jointly with Judah, against foreign powers. At first there was
great dynastic instability in the northern kingdom, until the accession
of Omri (reigned c. 884–c. 872), one of its greatest kings, who founded
a dynasty that lasted through the reign of his two grandsons (to 842).
Under Omri an impressive building program was initiated at the capital,
Moab was subjugated (an event confirmed in an extrabiblical source, the
Moabite Stone), and amicable relations were established with Judah. The
Phoenician kingdom of Tyre was made an ally through the marriage of his
son Ahab to the Tyrian princess Jezebel. Ahab (reigned c. 874–853
bce)—unless the episode recounted in I Kings, chapter 20, actually took
place four reigns later—fought off an attempt by Damascus, heading a
coalition of kings, to take over Israel. Near the end of his reign, Ahab
joined with Damascus and other neighbouring states to fight off the
incursions of the great Assyrian Empire in their area. Peaceful
relations were cemented with Judah through the marriage of Ahab’s
daughter (or sister) Athaliah to Jehoram, the son of the king of Judah
(not to be confused with Ahab’s son, Jehoram of Israel). But the
establishment of a pagan Baal temple for Jezebel and her attempt to
spread her cult aroused great opposition on the part of the zealous
Yahwists among the common people. There was also resentment at the
despotic Oriental manner of rule that Ahab, incited by Jezebel,
exercised. She and her cult were challenged by Elijah, a prophet whose
fierce and righteous character and acts, as illumined by legend, are
dramatically depicted in the First Book of the Kings. In the reign of
Ahab’s son Jehoram, Elijah’s disciple Elisha inspired the slaughter of
Jezebel and the whole royal family, as well as of all the worshippers of
Baal, thus putting a stop to the Baalist threat. Jehu, Jehoram’s general
who led this massacre, became king and established a dynasty that lasted
almost a century (c. 842–745), the longest in the history of Israel.
Meanwhile, in Judah, the Baal cult introduced by Athaliah, the queen
mother and effective ruler for a time, was suppressed after a revolt,
led by the chief priests, in which Athaliah was killed and her grandson
Joash (Jehoash) was made king. In the ensuing period, down to the final
fall of the northern kingdom, Judah and Israel had varying relations of
conflict and amity and were involved in the alternative expansion and
loss of power in their relations with neighbouring states. Damascus was
the main immediate enemy, which annexed much of Israel’s territory,
exercised suzerainty over the rest, and exacted a heavy tribute from
Judah. Under Jeroboam II (783–741) in Israel and Uzziah (Azariah;
783–742) in Judah, both of whom had long reigns at the same time, the
two kingdoms cooperated to achieve a period of prosperity, tranquillity,
and imperial sway unequalled since Solomon’s reign. The threat of the
rising Assyrian Empire under Tiglath-Pileser III soon reversed this
situation. When a coalition of anti-Assyrian states, including Israel,
marched against Judah to force its participation, the Judahite king Ahaz
(c. 735–720) called on Assyria for protection; the result was the defeat
of Israel, which suffered heavily in captives, money tribute, and lost
provinces, while Judah became a vassal state of Assyria. In about 721,
after an abortive revolt under King Hoshea, the rump state of Israel was
annexed outright by Assyria and became an Assyrian province; its elite
cadre, amounting to nearly 30,000 according to Assyrian figures, was
deported to Mesopotamia and Media, and settlers were imported from other
lands. Thus, the northern kingdom of Israel ceased to exist. Its decline
and fall were a major theme in the prophecies of Amos, Hosea, Isaiah,
and Micah.
Old Testament history » From the period of the divided monarchy through
the restoration » The final period of the kingdom of Judah
Meanwhile, the southern kingdom of Judah was to have another century and
a half of existence before a similar and even grimmer fate befell it.
Hezekiah (reigned c. 715–c. 686), who instituted a religious reform to
return worship to a pure Yahwist form, also displayed political
independence, joining a coalition of Palestinian states against Assyria.
But the coalition was soon defeated, and Judah—with Jerusalem
besieged—bought off the Assyrians, led by Sennacherib, with tribute. In
the reign of Manasseh (c. 686–c. 642) there was a revival of pagan
rites, including astral cults in the very forecourts of the temple of
YHWH, child sacrifice, and temple prostitution; hence, he is usually
portrayed as the most wicked of the kings of Judah. If he had any
tendencies toward independence from Assyrian domination, they apparently
were suppressed by his being taken in chains to Babylon, where he was
molded into proper vassal behaviour, although one edifying and probably
unhistorical biblical account reports his repentance and attempt at
religious reform after his return to Judah. The great religious reform
took place in the reign of his grandson Josiah (640–609) during a period
when the Assyrian Empire was in decline and was precipitated by the
discovery of the Book of the Law during the restoration of the Temple.
It was proclaimed by the king to be the Law of the realm, and the people
pledged obedience to it. In accordance with its admonitions, the pagan
altars and idols in the Temple were removed, rural sanctuaries (“high
places”) all the way into Samaria were destroyed, and the Jerusalem
Temple was made the sole official place of worship. (For an
identification of the law book with the legal portion of Deuteronomy,
see below Old Testament literature: Deuteronomy.) Josiah also made an
attempt at political independence and expansion but was defeated and
killed in a battle with the Egyptians, the new allies of the fading
Assyrian Empire. During the reigns of his sons Jehoiakim (c. 609–598)
and Zedekiah (597–586), Judah’s independence was gradually extinguished
by the might of the new dominant Babylonian Empire under Nebuchadrezzar.
The end came in 586 with the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem and the
destruction of the principal buildings, including the Temple and the
fortifications. The first deportation of Judahites to Babylon, during
the brief reign of Josiah’s grandson Jehoiachin in 597, was followed by
the great deportation of 586, which was to be a theme of lament and
remembrance for millennia to come. (Numerous Jews also migrated to Egypt
during this troubled time.) Exhortations and prophecies on the decline
and fall of Judah are to be found in Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and
Jeremiah (who played a significant role in the events), while the
conditions and meaning of the exile are proclaimed by Ezekiel and
Deutero-Isaiah (chapters 40–55 of Isaiah).
Old Testament history » From the period of the divided monarchy through
the restoration » The Babylonian Exile and the restoration
The Babylonian Exile (586–538) marks an epochal dividing point in Old
Testament history, standing between what were subsequently to be
designated the pre-exilic and post-exilic eras. The Judahite community
in Babylonia was, on the whole, more Yahwist in religion than ever,
following the Mosaic Law, emphasizing and redefining such distinctive
elements as circumcision and the sabbath and stressing personal and
congregational prayer—the beginnings of synagogal worship. It is
possible that they also reached an understanding of historical events
(like that taught by the great pre-exilic and exilic prophets)—as the
chastening acts of a universal God acting in history through
Nebuchadrezzar and other conquerors. To this period is also ascribed the
beginning of the compilation of significant portions of the Old
Testament and of the organizing view behind it. In any event, it was
from this community that the leadership and the cadres for the
resurrection of the Judahite nation and faith were to come when Cyrus
the Great (labelled “the Lord’s anointed” in Deutero-Isaiah) conquered
Babylon and made it possible for them to return (538). A contingent of
about 50,000 persons, including about 4,000 priests and 7,000 slaves,
returned under Sheshbazzar, a prince of Judah.
The first great aim was the rebuilding of the Temple as the centre of
worship and thus also of national existence; this was completed in 515
under the administration of Zerubbabel and became the place of
uninterrupted sacrificial worship for the next 350 years. The next task
was to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, which was undertaken by Nehemiah,
a Babylonian Jew and court butler who was appointed governor of Judah
and arrived in 444. Nehemiah also began religious reforms, emphasizing
tithing, observance of the sabbath, and the prohibition against
intermarriage with “foreign” women. This reform was carried through
systematically and zealously by Ezra, a priest and scribe who came from
Babylon about 400 bce, called the people together, and read them the
“book of the law of Moses” to bring them back to the strict and proper
observance maintained in Babylon: circumcision, sabbath observance,
keeping the feasts, and, to seal it all, avoiding intermarriage. (In
this presentation, modern critical scholarship is being followed,
placing Nehemiah before Ezra instead of the traditional sequence, which
reverses the positions.) Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi are the prophets
of this restoration period. Ezra and Nehemiah are its narrators.
It was in this period that enmity between the Jews, or Judaeans, as
they came to be called, and the Samaritans, a term applied to the
inhabitants of the former northern kingdom (Israel), was exacerbated. It
has been surmised that this goes back to the old political rivalry
between Israel and Judah or even further back to the conflict between
the tribes of Joseph and Judah. Scholars ascribe the exacerbation of
enmity in the restoration period variously to the Samaritans’ being
excluded from participating in the rebuilding of the Temple; to
Nehemiah’s rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem (regarded as a
threatening act by the Samaritan authorities); or to the proscriptions
of intermarriage by Ezra. The animus of the Jews against the Samaritans
is frequently expressed in the biblical books dealing with the
restoration (expressions perhaps engendered by later events), but the
attitude of the Samaritans and a good deal else about them is not
evident. At some time they became a distinct religious community, with a
temple of their own on Mt. Gerizim and a Scripture that was limited
solely to the Pentateuch, excluding the Prophets and Writings.
Old Testament history proper ends with the events described in the
books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The books of Chronicles give all the
preceding history, from Adam to the Babylonian sack of Jerusalem and the
exile. The last two verses of the Second Book of the Chronicles are
repeated in the first two verses of Ezra: God inspires Cyrus to send the
Jews back to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple. The Persian period of
Jewish history ended with the conquest of Alexander the Great in 323 bce
to begin the Hellenistic era, in which some of the biblical (including
apocryphal or deuterocanonical) writings were created (for Hellenistic
Judaism, see Judaism).
Old Testament literature » The Torah (Law, Pentateuch, or Five Books of
Moses) » Composition and authorship
The Torah, or Pentateuch (Five Scrolls), traditionally the most revered
portion of the Hebrew canon, comprises a series of narratives,
interspersed with law codes, providing an account of events from the
beginning of the world to the death of Moses. Modern critical
scholarship tends to hold that there were originally four books
(Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers) resulting from the division
into manageable scrolls—a so-called Tetrateuch—to which later was added
a fifth scroll, or book, Deuteronomy. A theory, once widely held, that
the Book of Joshua was originally integral with the first five books to
form a Hexateuch (Six Scrolls) is now generally regarded as dubious.
The traditional Jewish and Christian view has been that Moses was the
author of the five books, that “of Moses” means “by Moses,” citing in
support passages in the Pentateuch itself that claim Mosaic authorship.
Since these claims, however, are written in the third person, the
question still arises as to the authorship of the passages; e.g., in
Deuteronomy, chapter 31, verse 9: “And Moses wrote this law, and gave it
to the priests . . . and to all the elders of Israel.” The last eight
verses of Deuteronomy (and of the Pentateuch), describing Moses’ death,
were a problem even to the rabbis of the 2nd century ce, who held that
“this law” in the verse quoted refers to the whole Torah preceding it.
There are also other passages that seem to be written from the viewpoint
of a much later period than the events they narrate.
Old Testament literature » The Torah (Law, Pentateuch, or Five Books
of Moses) » Composition and authorship » The documentary hypothesis
Beyond these obvious discrepancies, modern literary analysis and
criticism of the texts has pointed up significant differences in style,
vocabulary, and content, apparently indicating a variety of original
sources for the first four books, as well as an independent origin for
Deuteronomy. According to this view, the Tetrateuch is a redaction
primarily of three documents: the Yahwist, or J (after the German
spelling of Yahweh); the Elohist, or E; and the Priestly code, or P.
They refer, respectively, to passages in which the Hebrew personal name
for God, YHWH (commonly transcribed “Yahweh”), is predominantly used,
those in which the Hebrew generic term for God, Elohim, is predominantly
used, and those (also Elohist) in which the priestly style or interest
is predominant. According to this hypothesis, these documents—along with
Deuteronomy (labelled D)—constituted the original sources of the
Pentateuch. On the basis of internal evidence, it has been inferred that
J and E are the oldest sources (perhaps going as far back as the 10th
century bce), probably in that order, and D and P the more recent ones
(to about the 5th century bce). Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers are
considered compilations of J, E, and P, with Leviticus assigned to P and
Deuteronomy to D.
The Yahwist, or J, is the master of narrative in biblical literature,
who sketches people by means of stories. He takes his materials wherever
he finds them, and if some are crude he does not care, as long as they
make a good story. The book of Genesis, for example, contains the story
of Abraham’s passing off his wife as his sister, so if the king took her
as a concubine he would honour her supposed brother instead of having
her husband killed, a story told by J without any moralistic homily. Not
given to subtle theological speculations, J nearly always refers to the
Deity as YHWH, by his specifically Israelite personal name (usually
rendered “the Lord” in English translations), though he is not hidebound
and also employs the term Elohim (“God”), especially when non-Hebrews
are speaking or being addressed. He presents God as one who acts and
speaks like human persons, a being with whom they have direct
intercourse. The Yahwist, however, has one very definite theological (or
theo-political) preoccupation: to establish Israel’s divinely bestowed
right to the land of Canaan.
More reflective and theological in the apologetic sense is the
Elohist, or E. No fragment of E on the primeval history (presented in
the first 11 chapters of Genesis) has been preserved, and it is probable
that none ever existed but that the Elohist began his account with the
patriarchs (presented in the remainder of Genesis, in which the J and E
strands are combined). The first passage that can be assigned to E with
reasonable certainty is chapter 20 of Genesis, which parallels the two J
variants of the “She is my sister” story noted above. Unlike these, it
tries to mitigate the offensiveness of the subterfuge: though the
patriarch did endanger the honour of his wife to save his life, his
statement was not untrue but merely (deliberately) misleading. The
Elohist is also distinct from the Yahwist in generally avoiding the
presentation of God as being like a human person and treating him
instead as a more remote, less directly accessible being. Significantly,
E avoids using the term YHWH throughout Genesis (with one apparent
exception), and it is only after telling how God revealed his proper
name to Moses, in chapter 3 of Exodus, that he refers to God as YHWH
regularly, though not exclusively. This account (paralleled in the P
strand in chapter 6 of Exodus) is apparently based on a historical
recollection of Moses’ paramount role in establishing the religion of
YHWH among the Israelites (the former Hebrew slaves). Also noteworthy is
E’s choice of the term prophet for Abraham and his characterization of a
prophet as one who is an effective intercessor with God on behalf of
others. This is in line with his speculations on the unique character of
Moses as the great intercessor as compared with other prophets (and also
with Joshua as Moses’ attendant).
It is inferred from certain internal evidence that E was produced in
the northern kingdom (Israel) in the 8th century bce and was later
combined with J. Because it is not always possible or important to
separate J from E, the two together are commonly referred to as JE.
The third major document of the Tetrateuch, the Priestly code, or P,
is very different from the other two. Its narrative is frequently
interrupted by detailed ritual instructions, by bodies of standing laws
of a ritual character, and by dry and exhaustive genealogical lists of
the generations. According to one theory, the main author of P seems to
have worked in the 7th century and to have been the editor who combined
the J and E narratives; for his own part, he is content to add some
brief, drab records—with frequent dates—of births, marriages, and
migrations. The P material is to be found not merely in Leviticus but
throughout the Tetrateuch, including the early chapters of Genesis and
one of the creation accounts and ranging from the primeval history (Adam
to Noah) to the Mosaic era. Like the Elohist, P uses the term Elohim for
God until the self-naming of God to Moses (Exodus, chapter 3, in the P
strand) and shows a non-anthropomorphic transcendent stress.
The Deuteronomist, or D, has a distinctive hortatory style and
vocabulary, calling for Israel’s conformity with YHWH’s covenant laws
and stressing his election of Israel as his special people (for a
detailed consideration of D, see below Deuteronomy: Introductory
discourse). To the Deuteronomist or the Deuteronomic school is also
attributed the authorship of the Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges,
Samuel, and Kings), which scholars call the “Deuteronomic history.”
Old Testament literature » The Torah (Law, Pentateuch, or Five Books
of Moses) » Composition and authorship » Other Pentateuchal theories
This documentary theory of the composition of the Pentateuch has been
challenged by eminent 20th-century scholars who have offered alternative
or additional methods of analysis and interpretation. Form criticism,
for example, has stressed particular literary forms and the historical
setting out of which they arose: the sagas, laws, legends, and other
forms and the particular tribal or cultic context that gives them
meaning. Tradition criticism centres on the pre-literary sources; i.e.,
on the oral traditions and the circles out of which they originated as
accounting for the variety of the materials in the Pentateuch.
Archaeological criticism has tended to substantiate the reliability of
the typical historical details of even the oldest periods and to
discount the theory that the Pentateuchal accounts are merely the
reflection of a much later period. The new methods of criticism have
served to direct attention to the life, experience, and religion out of
which the Pentateuchal writings arose and to take a less static and
literal view of the constituent documentary sources; yet most scholars
still accept the documentary theory, in its basic lines, as the most
adequate and comprehensive ordering of the variegated Pentateuchal
materials. The following presentation rests mainly on an analysis and
interpretation of the literary sources. (See below The critical study of
biblical literature: exegesis and hermeneutics.)
In any case, the five books that have come down in various texts and
versions have been seen as a unit in the religious communities that
preserved them. Their basic content may be divided thus: (1) beginnings
of the world and man—the primeval history; (2) patriarchal
narratives—from Abraham to Joseph; (3) Egyptian slavery and the Exodus;
(4) the revelation and Covenant at Sinai; (5) wanderings and guidance in
the wilderness (divisible into two separate sub-blocks, before and after
Sinai); (6) various legal materials—the Decalogue, Covenant Code, and
passages of cultic and Deuteronomic laws—interspersed in the narrative,
which take up the greater portion of the Pentateuch.
Old Testament literature » The Torah (Law, Pentateuch, or Five Books of
Moses) » Genesis
This book is called Bereshit in the Hebrew original, after its first
word (and the first word of the Bible), meaning “In the beginning.” It
tells of the beginnings of the world and man and of those acclaimed as
ancestors of the Hebrew people—all under the shaping action and purpose
of God. The book falls into two main parts: chapters 1–11, dealing with
the primeval history, and chapters 12–50, dealing with the patriarchal
narratives; the latter section is again divisible into the story of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (chapters 12–36) and the story of Joseph
(chapters 37–50), which may be treated as a unit of its own.
Old Testament literature » The Torah (Law, Pentateuch, or Five Books
of Moses) » Genesis » The primeval history
The Bible begins with the creation of the universe. It tells the story
with images borrowed from Babylonian mythology, transformed to express
its own distinctive view of God and man. Out of primary chaos, darkness,
void, depths, and waters God creates the heaven and the earth and all
that dwell therein—a coherent order of things—by his will and word
alone. He says, “Let there be . . .” and there is. Actually, there are
two creation accounts: the first (1–2:4), ascribed to P, simply gives a
terse day-by-day account including the culminating creation of man, in
the divine “image and likeness,” followed by the primordial sabbath on
the seventh day. The other (2:4–25), ascribed to J, starts with an arid
wasteland and the creation of man (Adam), described specifically as
being formed by God out of dust and made into a living thing by God
blowing the breath of life into him. He and the woman (Eve) created for
him out of his rib are put into a paradisal garden (Eden), especially
created for them to till and to tend and to sustain life. The two are
forbidden only to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil on
pain of death (there is also a tree of life in the middle of the
garden). The cosmic setting and concern of the P account is thus
followed by the human setting and concern of the J account. Creation is
followed by temptation, disobedience, and fall and all that follows from
that for the history of mankind. At the instigation of the serpent, the
shrewdest of the beasts, who holds out the possibility of attaining
godlike knowledge, the woman eats of the fruit of the tree of knowledge
and gives some to her husband to eat also. Their distinction from beasts
and children manifests itself immediately by a sense of modesty about
exposing their bodies, and loincloths become the first products of the
higher knowledge. The primal human couple are punished by God for their
disobedience by being driven out of the idyllic garden into the world of
pain, toil, and death.
The reason given by YHWH to the divine beings is: “Behold, the man
has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put
forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for
ever.” These words apparently point back to the polytheistic mythology
(the existence of divine, magical powers; the gods’ jealousy of mankind;
the tree of eternal life; etc.) from which the Yahwist drew his images
and symbols explaining man’s suffering, frustration, and limitation. In
the biblical framework and rendering (and subsequent interpretation),
the archaic stories and images acquire a different meaning, suitable to
the idea of a transcendent deity and an imperfect mankind.
With the exile from the garden, human history and culture begins. In
the story of Adam’s sons, Cain and Abel, man has already become a
herdsman and farmer, and also a murderer: again probably a reflection of
older mythical material and, again, one that puts an emphasis on human
sin and estrangement from God. In the story of the Flood that follows
there are evident borrowings from the Mesopotamian stories of a flood
sent by the gods to destroy mankind, but in the biblical account it is
emphasized that man’s extreme wickedness is the cause and that Noah is
saved along with his family by God’s deliberate choice because he is a
righteous man. (In the flood story in the Babylonian Gilgamesh epic, by
contrast, there is no apparent moral reason why the gods resolved to
destroy mankind, and the only reason why the hero of the Flood and his
kin are saved is that he is favoured by one of the gods, who tricks the
others, including the chief god.) After the Flood, God blesses Noah and
bestows on man the earth and the things on it for sustenance and makes a
covenant with Noah and all creatures that he will never again unleash a
world-destroying flood. The permanent order of the world is assured, and
God’s blessing and covenant make their first explicit appearance in the
Bible.
In the story of the Tower of Babel, the final story in the primeval
history, a primal unity of mankind in which there is only one language
is shattered when, in their pride, men decide to build a city and a
tower that will reach up to the heavens. YHWH again takes steps to check
dangerous collaboration: He says (to the celestial council), “Come, let
us go down, and there confuse their language, that they may not
understand one another’s speech,” and scatters them over the earth.
Again, the Yahwist has apparently used ancient mythological motifs to
explain the diversity of mankind; the story may be regarded as simply a
direct borrowing from the older traditions, without any monotheistic
adaptation; in its textual setting, however, it may also be taken as
another instance of the ruin of primal harmony by human willfulness and
pride.
Old Testament literature » The Torah (Law, Pentateuch, or Five Books
of Moses) » Genesis » The patriarchal narratives
The universal primal history of man in the first 11 chapters of Genesis
is followed by an account of the fathers of the Hebrew people; i.e., of
the origins of a particular group. From a literary point of view, this
portion may be divided into the sagas of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and
the story of Joseph. Although these narratives are not historical in the
ordinary sense, they have an evident historical setting and refer to
various particulars that fit in with what is generally known of the time
and area. They apparently rest on the traditions of particular families,
clans, or tribes and were probably passed down orally before they took
written form. Theologically, they are an account of a divine promise and
Covenant and of man’s faith and unfaith in response, with Abraham as the
model man of faith.
The Elohist, as well as J and P, tells the remarkable story of how
God singled out Abraham (Abram) to migrate from Mesopotamia and sojourn
in Canaan, promised him that he would make him the ancestor of great
nations and that his posterity would inherit the land of his
sojournings, and singled out as the heirs to the latter promise first
Isaac, Abraham’s son by his chief wife, Sarah, and then Jacob, the
younger of Isaac’s two sons; how Jacob acquired the additional name of
Israel and how the wives, children, and children’s children who, in
Jacob-Israel’s own lifetime, came to constitute a family of 70 souls,
became the nucleus of the Israelite people; and how it came about that
this ethnic group, prior to becoming, as promised, the masters of the
land of their sojournings, first vacated it to sojourn for a time in
Egypt. Apart from the low-keyed P strand, it is mostly splendid
narrative, including the Elohist’s account of the (aborted) sacrifice of
Isaac by his father in response to God’s command, a terse story packed
with meaning, and the Joseph story about the son of Jacob who is sold
into slavery by his brothers, rises to a high post in the Egyptian
court, and ultimately helps his family to settle in Egypt. The 12 sons
of Jacob-Israel are eponymous ancestors of Israelite tribes (ancestors
after whom the tribes are named); the actions and fortunes of the
eponymous ancestors, including certain blessings and other
pronouncements of Jacob-Israel, account for the future positions and
fortunes of the particular tribes. Though there is less history and more
legend, much of the atmosphere of an older age is preserved, with the
patriarchs represented as seminomadic, essentially peaceful and pastoral
tent dwellers—alien residents—among the settled Canaanites and as
observing customs otherwise only attested in Mesopotamia. Anachronistic
features, however, insinuate themselves from time to time.
The God of the patriarchs is presented as Yahweh—explicitly by the
Yahwist and implicitly by E and P—i.e., as the same God who would later
speak to Moses. God apparently was originally the personal, tutelary
deity of each of the patriarchs, called by a variety of names and later
unified into the one God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There are various
cult legends in this portion of Genesis, etiological accounts of the
origins of various cult sites and practices; though probably of
Canaanite origin, these all indicate the places and customs held holy by
the Israelites and perhaps also by their claimed Hebrew ancestors. There
are direct appearances of God to some of the main figures in the
narratives, intimate personal communication between men and God. God’s
particular blessing upon and Covenant with Abraham is the paradigmatic
high point, to be referred back to continually in later biblical and
post-biblical traditions.
Old Testament literature » The Torah (Law, Pentateuch, or Five Books of
Moses) » Exodus
The title (in the Greek, Latin, and English versions) means “a going
out,” referring to the seminal event of the liberation of Israel from
Egyptian bondage through the wondrous acts and power of God. The book
celebrates and memorializes this great saving event in song and story
and also the awesome revelation and covenant at Mt. Sinai. The contents
of the book may be summarized thus: (1) Israel in Egypt, (2) the Exodus
and wanderings, (3) the Covenant at Sinai, (4) the apostasy of the
people and renewal of the Covenant, and (5) the instructions on building
the Tabernacle and their execution.
Old Testament literature » The Torah (Law, Pentateuch, or Five Books
of Moses) » Exodus » Redemption and revelation
Significant in the early chapters is God’s special concern for the
Hebrew slaves, his reference to them as “my people,” and his revelation
to Moses, the rebel courtier whom he has picked to be their leader, that
he is YHWH, the God of their fathers, an abiding presence that will
rescue them from their misery and bring them into Canaan, the land of
promise. This assurance is repeated at the critical moments that follow
(e.g., “And I will take you for my people, and I will be your God”). In
the series of frustrations, obstacles, and redeeming events that are
narrated, God’s special causal power and presence are represented as
being at work. God hardens the Pharaoh’s heart, sends plagues that
afflict the Egyptians but spare the Hebrews, causes the waters to recede
in the Sea of Reeds (or Papyrus Marsh) to permit passage to the fleeing
Israelites and then to engulf the pursuing Egyptians (“the horse and his
rider he has thrown into the sea”), and gives the people guidance in
their wandering in the wilderness. The cryptic “name” that God gives to
himself in his revelation to Moses (ʿehye ʿǦĨḤḥİ ʿehye), often
translated “I am that I am” or “I will be what I will be,” may also be
rendered “I will cause to be that which I will cause to be.” In either
case, it is a play on, and an implied interpretation of, the name YHWH.
The constancy of God’s directive power and concern is displayed
notably in the period (40 years) of wilderness wandering (on the eastern
and southern borders of Canaan), when Israel is tested and tempered not
only by hardship but also by rebellious despair that looks back
longingly to Egyptian bondage (see also below Numbers). God sends the
people bread from heaven (manna) and quail for their sustenance (J and P
strands) and, through Moses, brings forth hidden sources of water (JE
strand). When the Amalekites (a nomadic desert tribe) attack, Moses,
stationed on a nearby hill, controls the tide of battle by holding high
the rod of God (a symbol of divine power), and when the enemy is routed
he builds an altar called “The Lord is my banner” (E strand). Also
inserted here is the account (E) of the visit of Moses’ father-in-law,
Jethro, a priest of another people (Midianite) who, impressed by YHWH’s
marvellous deliverance of Israel, blesses, extols, and sacrifices to
him—under the name Elohim, but in the context the same God is clearly
meant.
God’s power and presence manifest themselves impressively in the
culminating account of the Covenant at Mt. Sinai (or Horeb). The people,
forewarned by God through Moses, agree beforehand to carry out the terms
of the Covenant that is to be revealed, because God has liberated them
from Egypt and promises to make them his special holy people; they
purify themselves for the ensuing Covenant ceremony, according to God’s
instructions. Yahweh appears in fire and smoke, attended by the blare of
a ram’s horn at the top of the mountain, where he reveals to Moses the
terms of the Covenant, which Moses then passes on to the people below.
Here follow in the text the Ten Commandments and the so-called Covenant
Code (or Book of the Covenant) of lesser, specific ordinances, moral
precepts, and cultic regulations, accompanied by a promise to help the
people conquer their enemies if they will serve no other gods. After
this comes the Covenant ceremony with burnt offerings and the sacrifice
of oxen, with the blood of the animals thrown both on the altar and on
the people to sacramentally seal the Covenant, followed by a sacral meal
of Moses and the elders at the mountaintop, during which they see God.
Many modern scholars hold that this is presented as the initial form of
a Covenant renewal ceremony that was repeated either annually or every
seven years in ancient Israel.
There are certain problems and apparent discrepancies in this account
that are explained by critical scholarship as deriving from the
combination of different sources, mainly J and E, traditions, or
emphases. In the opening portion (chapter 19) the people are gathered at
the foot of the mountain so as to hear and meet God, and Moses himself
brings down to them God’s words. In a later portion (24:12–18, also
32:15–20), after the sacral meal, Moses goes up on the mountain to
receive “the tables of stone, with the law and commandments,” inscribed
by God himself, and returns with two stone tablets written on both sides
by the hand of God—which he breaks in anger at the people’s worship of
the molten calf that has developed in his absence. Later (chapter 34),
at God’s command, Moses cuts two new stone tablets, upon which after
hearing God’s various promises and exhortations, he writes “the words of
the covenant, the ten commandments”; finally, he brings the new tablets
down to the people and tells them what YHWH has commanded. There seem to
be two parallel accounts of the same event, woven together by the
skillful redactor into a continuing story. There also seem to be two
distinct strands in the account of the sealing of the Covenant in the
first 11 verses of chapter 24. According to one, the elders are to
worship from afar, and only Moses is to come near YHWH; in the other
strand, as noted, the elders eat the sacred meal on the mountaintop in
the direct presence of God.
Old Testament literature » The Torah (Law, Pentateuch, or Five Books
of Moses) » Exodus » Legislation
The book of Exodus includes not only the narrative and celebration of
God’s redemptive action in the Exodus and wanderings and his revealing
presence at Mt. Sinai but also a corpus of legislation, both civil and
religious, that is ascribed to God and this revelation event. The
Covenant Code, or Book of the Covenant, presented in chapters 20–23,
immediately following the Decalogue (Ten Commandments), opens with a
short passage on ritual ordinances, followed by social and civil law
applying to specific situations (case law), including the treatment of
slaves, capital crimes, compensation for personal injuries and property
damage, moneylending and interest, precepts on the administration of
justice, and further ritual ordinances. Scholars generally date this
code in the later agricultural period of the settlement in Canaan, but
some hold that it is analogous to more ancient Near Eastern law codes
and may go back to Moses or to his time. In any case, it seems to be a
compilation from various sources, inserted into and breaking the flow of
the narrative.
Old Testament literature » The Torah (Law, Pentateuch, or Five Books
of Moses) » Exodus » Instructions on the Tabernacle
Also interspersed in the story (chapters 25–31) are God’s detailed
instructions to Moses for building and furnishing the Tabernacle, the
clothing and ordination of priests, and other liturgical matters.
According to this segment (evidently P in inspiration), an elaborate
structure is to be set up in the desert, in the centre of the camp,
taken apart, transported, and assembled again, like the simple “Tent of
Meeting” outside the camp, where Moses received oracular revelations
from God. Indeed, the two concepts seem to have fused and the Tabernacle
is also called the Tent of Meeting. Its prime function is to serve as a
sanctuary in which sacrifices and incense are offered on altars and
bread presented on a table; it is also equipped with various other
vessels and furnishings, including a wooden ark, or cabinet, to contain
the two tablets of the Covenant—the famous ark of the Covenant. It is,
moreover, to be the place of God’s occasional dwelling and meeting with
the people. Scholars believe that the elaborate details and materials
described stem from a later, Canaanite, period but that the essential
concept of a tent of meeting goes back to an earlier desert time. An
account of the execution of the instructions for the building of the
Tabernacle is presented in chapters 35–40 (following the apostasy,
tablet breaking, and Covenant-renewal episodes), which duplicates to the
letter the instructions in chapters 25–31. After the Tabernacle is
completed and consecrated, it is occupied by the “glory,” or presence,
of YHWH, symbolized by a cloud resting upon it. It is on this note that
the book of Exodus ends.
Old Testament literature » The Torah (Law, Pentateuch, or Five Books of
Moses) » Leviticus
The cultic and priestly laws presented in Exodus are expanded to take up
virtually the whole of Leviticus, the Latin Vulgate title for the third
of the Five Books of Moses, which may be translated the Book (or Manual)
of Priests. With one exception (chapters 8–10), the narrative portions
are brief connective or introductory devices to give an ostensibly
narrative framework for the detailed lists of precepts that provide the
book’s content. The source of Leviticus, both for the legal and
narrative passages, is definitely identified as P; it is the only book
in the so-called Tetrateuch to which a single source is attributed.
Apparently the book consists of materials from various periods, some of
them going back to the time of Moses, which were put together at a later
date, possibly during or after the Babylonian Exile. Recent scholarship
tends to emphasize the ancient origin of much of the material, as
opposed to the previous tendency to ascribe a late, even post-exilic
date. Despite its content and its dry, repetitive style, many
interpreters caution against taking Leviticus as merely a dull,
spiritless manual of priestly ritual, holding that it is strictly
inseparable from the ethical emphasis and spiritual fervour of the
religion of ancient Israel. It is in Leviticus that the so-called law of
love, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself,” first appears. The
rituals set forth drily here probably presuppose an inward state in
offering to God, as well as humanitarian and compassionate ethics.
The book may be divided thus: chapters 1–7, offerings and sacrifices;
chapters 8–10, inauguration of priestly worship; chapters 11–16,
purification laws; chapters 17–26, holiness code; chapter 27,
commutation of vows and tithes.
Old Testament literature » The Torah (Law, Pentateuch, or Five Books
of Moses) » Leviticus » Offerings, sacrifices, and priestly worship
The first verse attributes these regulations to YHWH, who speaks to
Moses from the Tent of Meeting, beginning with the rules for offerings
by the individual layman. These include burnt, cereal, peace, sin, and
guilt offerings, all described in precise details. The prescription for
priestly offerings is about the same, with some slight differences in
the order of actions, and is presented much more briefly. In chapters
8–10 the narrative that was interrupted at the end of Exodus is resumed,
and the ordination of Aaron and his sons by Moses, before the people
assembled at the door of the Tent of Meeting is described, as are
various animal sacrifices by Aaron and his sons under Moses’ direction
and the subsequent appearance of God’s “glory” to the people. Aaron’s
two older sons are burned to death by fire issuing forth from God
because they have offered “unholy fire.” This story apparently
emphasizes the importance of adherence to the precise cultic details, as
does also the account (at the end of the chapter) of Moses’ anger at
Aaron’s two remaining sons for not eating the sin offering. These
stories were apparently used by the priestly authors to buttress the
authority of the Aaronic priesthood.
Old Testament literature » The Torah (Law, Pentateuch, or Five Books
of Moses) » Leviticus » Purification laws
With chapter 11 begin the regulations on ritual cleanness and
uncleanness, starting with animals and other living things fit and unfit
to eat—the basis of the famous Jewish dietary laws. Then come the
uncleanness and required purification of women after childbirth, skin
diseases, healed lepers, infected houses, and genital discharges.
Chapter 16, which belongs in the narrative flow immediately after
chapter 10, describes the priestly actions on the Day of Atonement, the
culmination of ritual cleansing in Israel. It is a chapter rich in
details on Israelite ritual and bound up with the salient religious
theme of atonement.
Old Testament literature » The Torah (Law, Pentateuch, or Five Books
of Moses) » Leviticus » The Holiness Code
Next (chapters 17–26) comes what has been designated the “Holiness
Code,” or “Law of Holiness,” which scholars regard as a separate,
distinctive unit within the P material (designated H). It calls upon the
people to be holy as God is holy by carrying out his laws, both ritual
and moral, and by avoiding the polluting practices of neighbouring
peoples; and it proceeds to lay down laws, interspersed with
exhortations, to attain this special holiness. Although many scholars
tend to date its compilation in the exilic period, some see evidence
that it was compiled in pre-exilic times; in any case, the consensus is
that the laws themselves come from a much earlier time.
These—a most miscellaneous collection—begin with injunctions on the
proper (kosher) slaughtering of animals for meat; go on to a list of
precepts against outlawed sexual relations (incest, homosexuality) and
an injunction against defiling the (holy) land; proceed to a list of
ethical injunctions, including the law of love and kindness to resident
aliens, all interspersed with agronomic instructions and warnings
against witchcraft; and then, after an injunction against sacrificing
children, return to the listing of illicit sexual relations and the
warning that the land will spew the people out if they do not obey the
divine norms and laws. There follow special requirements for preserving
the special holiness of priests and assuring that only unblemished
animals will be used in sacrifices; instructions on the observance of
the holy days—the sabbath, feasts, and festivals; commands on the proper
making of oil for the holy lamp in the Tent of Meeting and of the sacred
shewbread, to which are appended the penalties for blasphemy and other
crimes; and finally, rules for observance of the sabbatical (seventh)
and jubilee (50th) years, in which the land is to lie fallow, followed
by rules on the redemption of land and the treatment of poor debtors and
Hebrew slaves.
This miscellany, presented in chapters 17–25, is followed by a final
exhortation, in chapter 26, promising the people that if they follow
these laws and precepts all will go well with them but warning that if
they fail to do so all kinds of evil will befall them, including exile
and the desolation of the Promised Land. Yet, if they confess their
iniquity and atone for it, God will not destroy them utterly but will
remember his Covenant with their forebears. Such a passage points to a
later time but not necessarily to the exilic period, as some
commentators have assumed. The chapter concludes: “These are the
statutes and ordinances and laws which the Lord made between him and the
people of Israel on Mt. Sinai by Moses,” connecting these precepts with
the primal revelation in Exodus.
Old Testament literature » The Torah (Law, Pentateuch, or Five Books
of Moses) » Leviticus » Commutation of vows and tithes
In the final chapter of Leviticus (27), the P material is resumed with a
presentation of the rules for the commutation of votive gifts and
tithes. It provides for the release from vows (of offerings of persons,
animals, or lands to God) through specified money payments. Some
commentators understand the vow to offer persons to refer originally to
human sacrifice, others as pledging their liturgical employment in the
sanctuary. Special provisions are made for the poor to relieve them from
the stipulated payments. Only grain and fruit tithes, not animal tithes,
are redeemable. This chapter and the book of Leviticus end, like chapter
26, with the verse, “These are the commandments which the Lord commanded
Moses for the people of Israel on Mount Sinai.”
Old Testament literature » The Torah (Law, Pentateuch, or Five Books of
Moses) » Numbers
In the Hebrew Bible this book is entitled Bemidbar (In the Wilderness)
after one of its opening words, while in English versions it is called
Numbers, a translation of the Greek Septuagint title Arithmoi. Each of
the titles gives an indication of the content of the book: (1) the
narrative of “40 Years” of wanderings in the wilderness, or desert,
between Sinai and Canaan; and (2) the census of the people and other
numerical and statistical matters, preceding and interspersing that
account. It is a composite of various sources (J, E, and predominantly
P) and traditions, which as a whole continue the story of God’s special
care and testing of his people in the events of the archaic period that
formed them. Numbers continues the account of what many modern scholars
call the “salvation history” of Israel, which apprehends and narrates
events (or the image and impact of events) as involving divine action
and direction.
Old Testament literature » The Torah (Law, Pentateuch, or Five Books
of Moses) » Numbers » The conclusion of the Sinai sojourn
The book opens with a command from God to Moses, early in the second
year after the Exodus, to take a census of the arms-bearing men over 20
in each of the clans of Israel. Moses and Aaron, aided by the clan
chiefs, take the count, clan by clan, and reach a total of 603,550
men—according to critical scholars, an unbelievably large total for the
time and conditions. The Levites, to whom is entrusted the care of the
Tabernacle and its equipment, are exempted from this secular census and
are counted in a later census, of males one month and over, along with a
census of firstborn males from other tribes. The Lord had required that
the latter be consecrated to him when he slew all the firstborn of the
Egyptians but spared those of the Israelites; now the bulk of them were
released by the Levites being taken in their stead to minister to the
priests, while for the excess of firstborn over Levites “redemption”
payments were collected. A further census of men 30–50 years old is
taken among the Levite clans, so as to assign them their various duties,
which are here stipulated. Also specified are the positions of the
tribes (separated into four divisions of three tribes each) in the camp
and on the march, with an assignment of specific portions of the
Tabernacle and its equipment to be carried by the Levite clans. YHWH is
to give the signal to break camp by lifting the cloud by day or the fire
by night from above the Tabernacle and then to advance it in the
direction the people are to march. YHWH’s signal is to be followed by a
blast by the priests (Aaron’s sons) on two specially made silver
trumpets.
The above directions are set forth in chapters 1–4 and 9–10 (through
verse 10). There are intervening chapters containing various materials:
expelling leprous or other unclean persons from the camp, the ordeal for
a woman suspected of adultery, regulations for Nazirites (those who take
special ascetic vows), the offerings brought at the dedication of the
Tabernacle, and the purification of the Levites preparatory to taking up
their special sacred functions. The priestly emphasis of the materials
in chapters 1–10 is evident, and it is also clear that there are various
strands of priestly interpretation involved.
Old Testament literature » The Torah (Law, Pentateuch, or Five Books
of Moses) » Numbers » Wanderings in the desert of Paran
This section apparently combines various traditions of how the
Israelites came into Palestine, and J, E (or JE), and P sources have
been discerned in these chapters. The traditional “40 years” in the
wilderness (38 or 39, according to critical calculations) were spent
mostly in the wilderness of Paran, with a short stay in the oasis of
Kadesh, according to P; while, according to J, they spent most of their
time in Kadesh; and chapter 13, verse 26, puts Kadesh in the wilderness
of Paran, thus encapsulating both traditions. The discrepancy may stem
from two separate traditions of how the tribes entered Canaan: from the
south or from the north through Transjordan.
The P narrative begins (chapter 10, verse 11) with the lifting of the
cloud from the Tabernacle and the setting out of the Israelites for the
Promised Land, with their holy Tabernacle and ark, in the order
prescribed in chapter 2. According to the P account (verses 11–28), the
cloud settles down over the wilderness of Paran, the signal to make
camp; whereas in the JE account (verses 29–36) it is the ark of the
Covenant that goes ahead to seek out a stopping place, and where it
stops the Israelites rest, the cloud simply accompanying them overhead
(perhaps to shield them from the blazing desert sun). Chapters 11–12
(JE) deal with the complaints of the people about their hardships and
the rebellion of Miriam and Aaron against their brother Moses. When the
people express their longing for the good food they had in Egypt and
their disgust with the unvarying manna, God sends them a storm of quail,
which remain uneaten because he also sends them a plague. This is a
somewhat different account from that in Exodus, but the point is the
same: the mighty, infinite power of God (chapter 11, verse 23). (Also
inserted here is the story of God visiting his spirit on 70 selected
elders so that they may share Moses’ burdens.) When Miriam and Aaron
question God’s speaking only through Moses, God proclaims his unique
relation with Moses, who alone receives direct revelations from God, not
indirectly through dreams and visions, like the prophets.
Chapters 13–14 tell of the despatch of spies from Paran to
reconnoiter Canaan and of the despair, rebellion, and unsuccessful foray
of the people in response to the spies’ reports. Scholars discern two
separate accounts of the spying incident artfully woven together.
According to the JE account, the spies go only as far as Hebron in the
south and return with a glowing report of a fertile land, which is,
however, they warn, too strongly defended to be taken from that quarter:
only one spy, Caleb, advocates attacking it. In the P account the spies
reconnoiter the whole country and give a pessimistic report of it as a
land that “devours its inhabitants,” who are, moreover, giants compared
to the Israelites. The people cry out in despair at this report and want
to go back to Egypt, while Caleb and Joshua (added by P) plead with them
to trust in God and go forward to take the land. God, disgusted with the
people, condemns them to wander in the wilderness for 40 years and
decrees that only their children, along with Caleb and Joshua, shall
enter into the land of promise. Ruefully, the people now decide to
attack and go forth, against Moses’ warning, to a resounding defeat.
Chapter 15 is a P document or addition, setting forth various ritual
regulations. Chapters 16–18 deal with the comparative rights and duties
of priests and Levites. Chapter 16 is a composite document dealing with
revolts against Moses and Aaron by certain Levites who question their
special authority in a community where all are holy, as also by certain
Reubenites who resent Moses’ leadership. The dispute is settled when 250
revolting Levites attempt to offer incense (a priestly Aaronic function)
and are consumed by fire sent by God, while the leaders of the revolt
are swallowed up in the earth. Yet the stubborn people continue their
complaint against Moses and Aaron, bringing forth the Lord’s anger and a
plague, from which they are saved by Aaron’s (proper and effective)
offering of incense. This latter incident occurs in chapter 17 in the
Hebrew text and Jewish translations but concludes chapter 16 in some
Christian versions. Chapter 17 in both arrangements, with its story of
Aaron’s rod, associates Levitical with Aaronic authority; Aaron’s name
is inscribed on the staff of Levi, which alone among the staffs of the
chiefs of the tribes of Israel blossoms and bears fruit, thus
authenticating Aaron’s, and thereby the Levites’, special claims. The
relative functions and payments (tithes) of priests and Levites are
prescribed in chapter 18. Chapter 19, inserted here, has to do with
purification from uncleanness incurred through touching the dead,
accomplished through washing in water mixed with the ashes of a red
heifer.
Old Testament literature » The Torah (Law, Pentateuch, or Five Books
of Moses) » Numbers » Events in Edom and Moab
Chapter 20, verse 14, resumes the narrative of Israel’s onward march,
starting with their arrival in the wilderness of Zin and stay at Kadesh,
marked by Miriam’s death and God’s exclusion of Moses and Aaron from
entering the Promised Land because of their ascribed lack of confidence
in God when Moses drew forth water from a rock in response to still more
Israelite complaints, but did so in anger and impatience, striking the
rock twice with his rod, instead of telling it to give forth water, as
the Lord had instructed (the incident of the waters of Meribah). Refused
permission by the King of Edom to pass through that land, over the
much-used King’s Highway, they proceed from Kadesh to Mt. Hor, where
Aaron dies and is succeeded by his son Eleazar, and from which they
proceed (chapter 21) to bypass Edom in an attempt to approach Canaan
from the east. Arrived at the border of what was geographically part of
Moab but politically the Amorite kingdom of Sihon, they are refused
passage and proceed to defeat the Amorites and take possession of their
land. This is from the JE strand of the composite narrative; the P
strand does not recognize the existence of settled and politically
organized populations between Kadesh and the plains of Moab.
At this point, in chapters 22–24, apparently a very mixed composite
of various J and E strands, is presented the fascinating story (or
collection of stories) of the non-Israelite seer, or prophet, Balaam,
from the region of the Middle Euphrates. Alarmed at the Israelite host
encamped at his border, the King of Moab commissions the seer Balaam to
put a curse on them, but Balaam refuses, at the order of YHWH, who is
also the God of Balaam. On three occasions at the King’s request Balaam
seeks an oracle from God against Israel, but each time, to the King’s
rage, he is told by the Lord that Israel is graced with the divine
blessing and cannot be cursed. The seer, who is ordered back to his own
country, without payment by the disgruntled King, offers a final,
unsolicited oracle prophesying the destruction of Moab and other nations
by Israel’s might: “I will let you know what this people will do to your
people in the latter days.”
Chapter 25 (combining JE and P strands) provides a lurid interlude in
which the Israelites go whoring after Moabite women and offer sacrifices
and worship to their god, Baal of Peor. Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, is
so incensed at the sight of an Israelite consorting with a Midianite
woman that he kills them both, thus ending a plague that has broken out
and earning God’s special favour: a covenant of perpetual priesthood
with him and his descendants (a forward reference to the Zadokite
priesthood of post-exilic times). This account is connected by the last
two verses with God’s call for Israel to harass and smite the Midianites
(see below). After the plague ends, in the account (P) in chapter 26, a
second census of arms-bearing men and of the Levites is taken, and again
a fantastically large total, 601,730, is given, perhaps referring to a
much later time. It is noted at the end that all of the previous 603,730
had died in the wilderness, as prophesied, except for Caleb and Joshua,
who have been especially picked out by God. This census, coming at the
end of the 40-year period of wilderness wanderings, is for the purpose
of allotting lands to the various tribes and families. Hence the logical
positioning of the passage (P) in the first 11 verses of chapter 27
assuring that a family may inherit through a daughter when there is no
son and through a brother when there are no children and through the
closest relative when there are neither.
At this point (chapter 27, verse 12) comes the impressive and
poignant passage (also P) in which Moses ascends the heights, at God’s
bidding, to look over the Promised Land, which he is not to enter, and
calls on God to appoint a leader to succeed him. At God’s command, Moses
selects Joshua, and before the priest Eleazar and the whole community he
lays his hands on him and commissions him to lead Israel. It is
noteworthy that Joshua is invested only with some of Moses’ authority
and is to learn God’s will through Eleazar and the sacred lot (Urim),
not directly, as did Moses.
Again, the narrative is interrupted by three chapters (P) dealing
with various religious regulations. Chapters 28–29 stipulate the
sacrifices to be made by the whole community daily, on the sabbath, at
the new moon, and on these holidays: the Feast of Unleavened Bread
(Passover), the Feast of Weeks (Shavuot), The Feast of Trumpets, i.e.,
New Year (Rosh Hashana), the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), and the
Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot). The last two verses of chapter 29 specify
that these public offerings are in addition to individual offerings,
such as those specified in chapter 15. Critical scholars hold that these
elaborate regulations stem from a much later (post-exilic) period,
though they may go back to very ancient practices. Some see them as a
liturgical commentary on chapter 23 of Leviticus, which presents the
cycle of feasts and festivals (see above Leviticus). Chapter 30 gives
women special exemption from keeping vows (presumably of offerings or
abstinence) when countermanded by a father or husband; only widows or
divorcees are bound, like men, unconditionally to keep their vows.
Chapter 31, likewise from P, deals with the annihilation of the
Midianites following God’s command at the end of chapter 25. The
Israelites, a thousand from each tribe, go forth to battle led by the
priest Eleazar, who carries the sacred vessels and the trumpets. They
kill every man and seize all the movable property but spare the women
and children. Moses, however, orders every male child and all nonvirgin
women killed. There follow instructions for purification for the stain
caused by killing a person or touching a dead body and for the
distribution of the booty, which includes sheep, cattle, asses, and
32,000 virgins. The rules are that half of the spoils go to the fighting
men, half to the rest of the people; in addition, the Lord’s share is
allotted thus: one five-hundredth of the fighting men’s portion goes to
the priest, and one-fiftieth of the people’s portion goes to the
Levites. Scholars are inclined to treat this chapter as a piece of
fiction intended really to set forth the rules for purification and
dividing the spoils through an invented story. The seer-diviner Balaam
is here (verse 16) blamed for the whoring and apostasy incidents in
chapter 25; but texts providing his connection with these events are
lacking.
Chapter 32, dealing with the settlement east of the Jordan, concludes
the narrative portion of Numbers and thus of the Tetrateuch (a story
that is continued in chapter 34 of Deuteronomy and in the Book of
Joshua). This very composite account (JEP) tells how the tribes of
Reuben and Gad, after an initial angry remonstrance from Moses, are
granted permission to settle in the rich pasturelands east of the Jordan
on the assurance that after they erect sheepfolds and fortified towns
for their flocks and families, they will provide the shock troops
spearheading the advance of the Israelites into Canaan, and will not
return to their homes until their brethren hold the land. Thereupon
Moses allots the various conquered kingdoms and towns east of Jordan to
the Gadites and Reubenites. The various Gadite, Reubenite, and Manassite
towns are listed.
The rest of the book of Numbers (P in its final form) consists of an
itemized summary of the route from Egypt to the plains of Moab outside
Canaan (chapter 33) and various additional materials (chapters 34–36).
Verses 50–56 of chapter 33 present the divine command to dispossess the
people of Canaan, destroy their idols and cultic places, and apportion
the land to each clan by lot. In chapter 34 the Lord specifies the
boundaries of the whole land of Canaan that is to be Israel’s
inheritance and names the tribal leaders who, along with Eleazar and
Joshua, are to oversee the division of the land by lot. In chapter 35,
the Lord orders 48 towns with extensive pasturelands to be set aside for
the Levites; six of these are to be cities of refuge for manslayers
whose guilt of intentional murder has not yet been determined and who
are provided sanctuary from the traditional blood vengeance. Although
these settlements do not constitute an independent tribal territory but
are scattered through the territories of the other tribes, the
contradiction with chapter 18, verse 24, of Leviticus, commanding that
the Levites are to have no share of the land but are to subsist solely
on tithes, is obvious and raises critical questions. Finally, chapter 36
concludes the book of Numbers with a supplement to the law of
inheritance through daughters laid down in chapter 27, enjoining
daughters from marrying outside the tribe, so that the tribe will hold
its portion of the land, which was given from God, in perpetuity. As
before, the general injunction is laid down in a story dealing with a
particular case (the daughter of Zelophehad).
Old Testament literature » The Torah (Law, Pentateuch, or Five Books of
Moses) » Deuteronomy: Introductory discourse » Special nature and
problems
The English title of this work, meaning “second law,” is derived from a
faulty Greek translation of chapter 17, verse 18, referring to “a copy
of this law”: the implication being that the book is a second law or an
expanded version of the original law for the new generation of
Israelites about to enter Canaan. Hebrew texts take the opening words of
the book as title, Ele ha-Devarim (These Are The Words), or simply
Devarim (Words). As noted in Composition and authorship, above, the book
is in a class by itself in the Pentateuch, so much so that modern
scholars tend to consider it apart from the other four books, and some
see it in style, content, and concerns more closely related to the
succeeding books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, constituting a
“Deuteronomic history.” In spite of its homogeneous style and tone—it is
assigned for the most part to a single source, D—the content indicates
to critical scholars very composite traditions, ages, and situations
behind the finished form. This book has elicited a library of
scholarship going back to the early 19th century, not only because of
the complicated critical and historical problems calling for solution
but also because of its spiritual and theological message, which gives
it a special place among Old Testament writings.
In form, the book is ostensibly a discourse by Moses “to all Israel”
in the final month in Moab before they go over the Jordan into Canaan.
Actually it comprises three separate discourses, a set of laws, two
poems, and various other matters, all ascribed to Moses directly—here it
is Moses who sets forth the laws, not God through him. These materials
are centred on the presentation of the rules of life and worship for the
coming stay in the Promised Land, along with exhortations and
explanations pointing to YHWH, the marvellous liberator from Egypt and
guide in the wilderness, as the divine source and reason for the
commands. The traditional view was that, with the possible exception of
the account of Moses’ death, the whole book was written by Moses, based
on the phrase “And Moses wrote this song” in chapter 31, verse 22.
Some early Church Fathers identified the book with “the book of the
law” (II Kings, chapter 22, verse 8), found in the 18th year of King
Josiah’s reign (c. 621 bce), and made the basis of his great religious
reform the following year. Wilhelm M.L. de Wette, a German biblical
scholar, in 1805 established the predominant modern view that
Deuteronomy (or its nucleus, or main portion) was found in Josiah’s time
and was a distinctive book, separate from the Tetrateuch. He also held
that it was composed shortly before its discovery; other, more recent,
scholars would put it as much as a century earlier and connect it with
earlier reforms, while some associate it with the writings and teachings
of the 8th-century-bce prophet Hosea and with the E source. Furthermore,
the references to localities near Shechem as cultic places, taken with
certain passages in Joshua, indicate a northern provenance for the book
and not the southern source connected with a cultic centre at Jerusalem,
as had been previously supposed from the associated material in II
Kings. Some scholars see the form and occasion of Deuteronomy as a
Covenant renewal ceremony in which the whole law is read, as in Joshua,
chapter 8, verses 30–35, and thus view it as a liturgical document, as
well as a lawbook. In any case, the tendency is to see various layers of
materials and lines of transmission, perhaps going back to quite early
preliterary sources, before its final formation in the 8th or 7th
century bce.
The book may be divided as follows: (1) introductory discourse to the
whole book (chapter 1 to chapter 4, verse 43); (2) introductory
discourse to the lawbook (chapter 4, verse 44, through chapter 11); (3)
the lawbook (chapters 12–28); (4) concluding exhortation and traditions
about the last days and death of Moses (chapters 29–34).
Old Testament literature » The Torah (Law, Pentateuch, or Five Books
of Moses) » Deuteronomy: Introductory discourse » First introductory
discourse of Moses
The first introductory discourse, spoken by Moses, traces the journey of
the Israelites from Mt. Horeb to Moab, with some noticeable differences
in detail from the account in Exodus and Numbers and an emphasis on
Moses being banned from entrance into the Promised Land because the Lord
was angry at the Israelites. To this historical retrospect is appended
an exhortation to the people to obey God’s laws and norms, recalling the
imageless God of the revelation and Covenant at Horeb as a warning
against making images and serving man-made gods. The uniqueness and
soleness of the God of the Exodus and Covenant, his power and presence
in his marvellous acts of redemption and revelation, and his gracious
selection of Israel are proclaimed in rhetorical questions; moreover, it
is emphasized that the God of Israel (“YHWH your God”) “is God in heaven
above and on the earth beneath; there is no other.” The injunctions
against idolatry appear to come from later experience and religious
crisis in Canaan. The fact that other nations have their own gods and
objects of worship is recognized elsewhere in Deuteronomy.
Old Testament literature » The Torah (Law, Pentateuch, or Five Books
of Moses) » Deuteronomy: Introductory discourse » Second introductory
discourse
The second discourse, also ascribed to Moses, again refers to the
Covenant at Horeb and sets forth the Ten Commandments, which the people
are admonished to obey rigorously, emphasizing the mediating function of
Moses at Horeb between the awesome divine presence and the awestruck
people. Israel is further admonished to obey the law through
wholehearted love of God, expressed in what became the central
liturgical expression of Israel’s faith, beginning, “Hear, O Israel: The
Lord is our God, the Lord Alone. You must love the Lord your God with
all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” If they
obey God’s laws, avoid other gods, and do what is right and good, they
will possess the land promised by God—him who rescued them from Egypt
and has brought them thus far. They are to avoid marriage and all other
intercourse with the peoples of the land, utterly destroying them and
their idolatrous altars and cultic places, for they are a special, holy
people chosen by God out of all the peoples because of his love, not
because of their greatness or power. This marvellous love will continue
to be exercised, and the people will be blessed with all good
things—prosperity, fertility, health, and success in battle—if they obey
God’s ordinances. They are urged to remember the 40-year period of
wilderness wandering, in which they were tested (disciplined) by God
through hardship and hunger (to find out whether or not they would keep
his commands) and saved by him: man does not live by bread alone but,
rather, by whatever God provides (e.g., manna from heaven). Another time
of testing will come when they live in the rich, fertile land of Canaan
and eat their fill and perhaps forget the Lord and his laws, ascribing
their wealth to their own power and might and even venturing into
idolatrous worship of the gods of the land. If they do so they shall
perish, just as the idolatrous nations of the land shall.
A long list of the apostasies of Israel is presented in chapter 9 to
demonstrate the point that Israel is going in to possess the land of
Canaan not through any virtue of their own but because of God’s promise
to the patriarchs. This is followed in chapter 10 by a moving
declaration of what God requires of Israel—fear (reverence), walking in
his ways, love, wholehearted service, and keeping his commandments—and
an extolling of the wondrous, unique, powerful God who liberated them
from Egypt. Chapter 11 extols the richness of the land of Canaan and
describes how it will bloom for them if they are observant of God’s
commandments and promises that they will hold the territory from the
wilderness to Lebanon and from the Euphrates to the western sea
(Mediterranean). It closes with the choice set before them by Moses of
“a blessing and a curse”—the former if they obey the commandments, the
latter if they do not. This choice is posed to them immediately before
the presentation of the laws and norms beginning in chapter 12.
Old Testament literature » The Torah (Law, Pentateuch, or Five Books of
Moses) » Deuteronomy: the lawbook and the conclusion » The lawbook
The laws are the central core and purport of the book of Deuteronomy.
They are couched in a hortatory, sermonic style that has led to their
being categorized as preached law. Emphatic statements of what must or
must not be done are connected with exhortations to fulfill these
injunctions, pointing to the motivations and spirit in which they should
be carried out. There is a wide variety of laws here—ritual, criminal,
social—but they are all set within this preaching context and aimed at
the service of God. This is no dry legal code but, rather, a book
written in fluent and moving prose. Scholars have seen duplications and
parallels between the laws presented here and those in the Covenant Code
in chapters 21–23 of Exodus; but to this a common source may be
ascribed, and Deuteronomy may be considered a work in its own right and
not a mere expansion of the Covenant Code.
The lawbook comprises chapters 12–26, supplemented by chapters 27–28.
After an initial order to destroy the pagan cultic places and idols, the
lawbook goes to its basic injunction: to set up a single central
sanctuary in Canaan, where all Israel is to make their offerings, as
distinct from the present unregulated practice, “every man doing
whatever is right in his own eyes.” The spot is designated only “the
place which the Lord your God will choose,” which some interpreters,
following King Josiah, have understood to be Jerusalem and which others
understand to be Shechem. (The blessing and curse passage immediately
preceding in chapter 11 specifies Mts. Gerizim and Ebal, on either side
of Shechem, as the places of blessing and curse, respectively; and an
even more elaborate ritual is prescribed for the same locality in
chapter 27.) Instructions are given for the proper killing of animals
for food, previously connected with the sacrificial cult, and the people
are admonished when they settle in Canaan not to inquire about how other
nations serve their gods, possibly to follow their abominable practices.
Inserted at this point is the striking exhortation, “Everything that I
command you you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to it or take
from it.”
Chapter 13 warns the people to beware of the temptations to apostasy
arising from the urging or example of prophet-diviners, kinfolk or
friends, or a whole town; they are to kill the tempters and destroy the
towns. Chapter 14 is devoted mainly to a list of living things that may
or may not be eaten, the “clean” and “unclean,” similar to the list in
Leviticus, chapter 11; and to laws for tithes and first fruits to be
brought annually to the central sanctuary and triennially to the Levites
in the towns, who are specified as having no “portion” of their own (two
years to the centre, the third year to the town Levites). Chapter 15
deals mainly with the releases to be granted every seventh year to
debtors of their debts and Hebrew slaves of their bondage; lenders are
exhorted and commanded not to refuse loans to the poor in the sabbatical
year of release, and God’s redemption of Israel from Egypt is given as
the reason for freeing one’s Hebrew slaves in the sabbatical release.
The first section of chapter 16, verses 1–17, gives the rules for
celebrating the three main festivals of the religious year: Unleavened
Bread, Weeks, and Booths, which are to be observed at the central
sanctuary (hence later called the three pilgrim festivals).
Beginning with verse 18 of chapter 16 there is a discussion of the
appointment and character of judges, and of judicial procedures and
punishments for apostasy, homicide, and other crimes; similarly,
beginning with verse 14 of chapter 17 there are rules on the selection
of a king and for his conduct, and the injunction that he read from “a
copy of this law,” so that he may be edified and chastened. The first
portion of chapter 18 deals with the office and support of priests,
referred to here as “the Levitical priests . . . all the tribe of Levi,”
not distinguishing the Aaronic priests from the lesser Levites. This is
followed—after a passage inveighing against abominable cultic and
divinatory practices of the nations of the land—by a promise that God
will raise up prophets among the people and instructions on how to tell
true from false prophets. Thus the offices of judge, king, priest, and
prophet are considered in chapters 16–18.
Chapter 19 deals again with crime and punishment. It distinguishes
between unintentional manslaughter and murder, setting up cities of
refuge for the manslayer and ordering the murderer to be killed by the
blood avengers. It also lays down the rules for witnesses and the
punishment for perjury. It closes with the famous lex talionis: “Life
for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,”
which in context may spell out what is to happen to the false witness
and even could be interpreted as a moderating, rather than an inhumane,
precept (no more than an eye for an eye, etc.). Chapter 20 gives the
rules for holy war, listing the situations that exempt men from military
service (e.g., a newly married man) and distinguishing the treatment of
non-Canaanite and Canaanite cities; the latter are to be utterly
destroyed, yet it is forbidden to destroy fruit-bearing trees. There are
also rules on holy war in 21:10–14; 23:9–14; 24:5; and 25:17–19.
Chapters 20–25 contain a great variety of laws; the just treatment of
women captives, sexual offenses, exclusions from the religious
community, public hygiene in campgrounds, and many other things.
The last of the laws are set forth in chapter 26, dealing with the
first fruits offering and tithes. At the annual offering (or soon after
entering Canaan), in the central sanctuary, the worshipper is to recite
a piece beginning, “A wandering Aramaean was my father,” affirming his
link with the patriarchs and extolling God’s wondrous deeds on behalf of
Israel. And every third year he is to set aside his tithe “to the
Levite, the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow” and make an
affirmation “before the Lord” that he has complied and avoided any
ritual stain.
The final passage in chapter 26 proclaims that “this day” God has
proclaimed his law, Israel has affirmed its commitment to God and his
law, and God has affirmed his choice of Israel as his special, holy
people, to be set up high above all the nations. This is the hortatory
conclusion to chapters 12–26 and to the “second law,” or Covenant,
contained therein.
The emphasis on the laws given on “this day” is continued in the
supplementary chapters 27–28, which deal with Covenant ratification and
renewal ceremonies, apparently a reference to an original ceremony in
Moab, one in Canaan on the first day in the land, and subsequent,
possibly annual, renewal ceremonies. Blessings and curses are to be
pronounced from Mts. Gerizim and Ebal for respectively fulfilling or
disobeying the Covenant: all good things or all bad things will befall
the people, as they keep or fail to keep the Covenant. Some of the curse
consequences in chapter 28, referring to siege, subjugation, and exile,
are believed by some scholars to reflect late pre-exilic or exilic
situations. The curse consequences fill up the bulk of these chapters
and are recounted in powerful, moving language, ending with a threat to
return the people to Egypt.
Old Testament literature » The Torah (Law, Pentateuch, or Five Books
of Moses) » Deuteronomy: the lawbook and the conclusion » Concluding
exhortation and traditions about the last days of Moses
Chapters 29–31 comprise the third and last address of Moses to the
people of Israel. They are preceded by an introductory verse referring
to “these words” as a covenant made in Moab, in addition to the one made
at Horeb (Sinai). After reminding them of all that God has done for
them, Moses calls on the whole people to enter into the sworn Covenant
made this day that they may be his people and he may be their God,
warning the secret apostate of the calamities that will befall him. Yet
the possibility of a return to God and the land is held out to those who
will suffer exile and persecution as punishment for their apostasy,
again presumably a reflection of the exilic situation (chapter 30 verses
1–10 seems clearly to be an interpolation inspired by the actual
experience of exile). This law, it is emphasized, is no recondite,
remote thing up in the sky but is, rather, very close to men, “in your
mouth and in your heart”; what is revealed is made plain, it is not the
secret things of God. Moses sets before them the classic Deuteronomic
choice: “life and good” over “death and evil.” The people are given that
choice and told the consequences of loving the Lord and keeping the
Covenant or of going the other way.
The final chapters are concerned with the last words and acts of
Moses: directing Joshua to lead Israel after his death, writing down
“this law,” calling for a sabbatical renewal ceremony of it on the Feast
of Booths, ordering that it be put beside the ark of the Covenant, and
uttering two poems. The first, “The Song of Moses” (chapter 32), praises
the faithfulness and power of the Lord, decries the faithlessness and
wickedness of Israel, and predicts the consequent divine punishment; it
adds, however, that in the end the Lord will relent and will vindicate
his people. The second poem, “The Blessing of Moses” (chapter 33),
blesses each of the tribes of Israel, one by one, and the blessings are
associated with God’s love, the law commanded by Moses, and the kingship
of God over his people. There are indications in both poems of a
considerably later date (after Joshua’s time, perhaps in the period of
the Judges); Moses is spoken of in the third person in “The Blessing”
poem.
The narrative of Deuteronomy, and thus of the Pentateuch, ends with
Moses’ ascent to the top of Mt. Pisgah, his being shown the Promised
Land by God, and his death there in the land of Moab, buried by God in
an unknown grave. It is emphasized in the closing words that Moses was a
unique prophet “whom the Lord knew face to face” and through whom the
Lord wrought unique “signs and wonders” and “great and terrible deeds.”
Thus end the Five Books of Moses.
Seymour Cain
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » The canon of the
Prophets
The Hebrew canon of the section of the Old Testament known as the
Nevi’im, or the Prophets, is divided into two sections: the Former
Prophets and the Latter Prophets. The Former Prophets contains four
historical books—Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings; the Latter Prophets
includes four prophetic works—the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
and the Twelve (Minor) Prophets. The Twelve Prophets, formerly written
on a single scroll, include the books of Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah,
Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and
Malachi. Thus, in the Hebrew canon of the Prophets there are, in effect,
eight books.
The Christian canon of the Prophets does not include the Former
Prophets section in its division of the Prophets; instead, it calls the
books in this section Historical Books. In addition to Isaiah, Jeremiah,
and Ezekiel, the Christian canon of the Prophets includes two works from
the division of the Hebrew canon known as the Ketuvim (the Writings):
the Lamentations of Jeremiah and the Book of Daniel. The Twelve (Minor)
Prophets are separated into individual books. The number of works in the
Christian canon, however, varies. The Protestant canon contains all the
books of the Latter Prophets and the two books from the Ketuvim, thus
listing 17 works among the prophetic writings. The Roman Catholic canon
accepts one other book as a canonical prophetic work, namely, Baruch
(including the Letter of Jeremiah); the number of prophetic writings in
the Roman Catholic canon is, therefore, 18. The Greek Orthodox Synod of
Jerusalem in 1672 did not accept Baruch as canonical.
As far as the Former Prophets is concerned, the Protestant canon,
following the Septuagint, separates Samuel and Kings into two sections
each: I and II Samuel, and I and II Kings. The Roman Catholic and
Orthodox churches in the past divided these two works into I, II, III,
and IV Kings, but most Roman Catholic translations now follow the
listing as it is in the Septuagint.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Hebrew prophecy
Hebrew prophecy was rooted in the prophetic activities of various
individuals and groups from the nations and peoples of the ancient Near
East. Though prophecy among ancient Egyptians, Mesopotamians, and
Canaanites—as well as among the peoples of the Aegean
civilization—generally was connected with “foretelling” (or predicting)
the future, the Hebrew view of prophecy centred on “forthtelling” (or
proclaiming), though it included predictive aspects. Thus, in Hebrew
prophecy the phrase “Thus says the Lord” is repeated constantly to
emphasize the “forthtelling” motif. The Hebrew prophets were very
conscious of the absolute holiness (separateness) of God and his purpose
for his chosen people, Israel. Because of this consciousness, they
developed an acute awareness of sin and its effects on man and society
and, from such an awareness, a radical ethical outlook that applied to
both the individual and the community.
The Hebrew term for prophet (naviʾ) is probably related
etymologically to the Akkadian verb nabū, meaning “to call” or “to
name.” The Hebrew prophet may thus be viewed as a “caller,” or
spokesman, for God. Other designations for prophet in the Old Testament
are roʾe, or “seer,” and ḥoze, or “visionary,” the two latter terms
indicating that the predictive element was operative in Hebrew prophecy.
The distinctive element of Hebrew prophecy, however, was the
relationship of the prophet to God, the Lord of the Covenant, and to
Israel, the covenant people. He spoke for the sovereign Lord to remind,
cajole, castigate, reprove, comfort, and give hope to the people of the
covenant, constantly reminding them that they were chosen to witness to
the nations of the love, mercy, and goodness of God.
Some of the Hebrew prophets, from the 11th to the 8th century bce,
belonged to bands or guilds of ecstatic prophets. Such prophets were
spokesmen for God whose uncontrollable actions and words caused them to
be feared and, sometimes, held in contempt. In II Kings, chapter 9,
verse 11, a prophet—who came to Jehu, the 9th-century-bce army commander
who became king of Israel, in order to anoint him—was called a “madman”
(meshuggaʿ). Other Hebrew prophets were more independent, such as Nathan
and Elijah, though they continued to maintain the quality of being
uncontrollable—at least as far as the political authorities were
concerned. Both of these early nonwriting prophets spoke out against the
oppression of the weak by the strong, a theme that came to be expressed
constantly in Judaism. The activities of such early prophets, including
also Micaiah and Elisha in the 9th century bce, are described in the
Former Prophets.
In the 8th century bce, the writing prophets—i.e., the Latter
Prophets—began their activities. Though all the books that bear their
names probably have been edited by schools of a prophet or by
individuals or groups that were influenced by their ideas, the editors
or disciples of the prophets preserved as well as was possible the
words, activities, and idiosyncratic themes of the prophetic
personalities. Some of the Latter Prophets may have been connected with
the priestly class, such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel; most of the
Latter Prophets, however, were independent of priestly connections. All
of the Latter Prophets stood out in contrast to the court prophets who,
in the tradition of court prophets of most ancient Near Eastern peoples,
seldom contradicted what they believed was expected of them by their
sovereigns or the people.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Joshua
The Book of Joshua takes its name from the man who succeeded Moses as
the leader of the Hebrew tribes—Joshua, the son of Nun, a member of the
tribe of Ephraim. In post-biblical times Joshua himself was credited
with being the author of the book, though internal evidence gives no
such indication. According to the views of the German biblical scholar
Martin Noth, which have been accepted by many contemporary biblical
critics, the Book of Joshua was the second of a series of five books
(Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) written by a Judaean
oriented historian after the fall of Jerusalem in 586 bce. This writer
(called the Deuteronomist and designated D) constructed the history of
Israel from the death of Moses to the beginning of the Babylonian Exile
(586–538 bce). The Deuteronomist, according to this view, used sources,
both oral and written, from various periods to produce the history of
Israel in these five books. The Book of Joshua probably contains
elements from the J and E documents, as well as local and tribal
traditions, all of which were modified by additions and editing until
the book assumed its present form. The main theme of the Deuteronomist
historian was that under the guidance of and in obedience to Yahweh,
Israel would persevere and conquer its many enemies.
This theme is especially and dramatically presented in Joshua. Under
the guidance of Yahweh, the people of Israel entered and conquered
Canaan in fulfillment of the promise of God to Abraham and his
descendants in Genesis, chapter 12. Joshua is interpreted as a second
Moses—e.g., he sent out spies, led the people in crossing the Jordan
River on dry land as Moses had crossed the Sea of Reeds, and ordered the
males to be circumcised with flint knives as Zipporah, Moses’ wife, had
earlier circumcised the son of Moses (and probably Moses himself). He
was obedient to the will of Yahweh, and because of this obedience he was
able to lead the Israelite tribes in their battles against the
Canaanites. As long as they were faithful to their covenant promise, the
land would be theirs as a trust.
The book may be divided into three parts: the story of the conquest
of Canaan (chapters 1–12); the division of the land among the tribes of
Israel (chapters 13–22); and Joshua’s farewell address, the renewal of
the Covenant, and Joshua’s death (chapters 23–24).
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Joshua » The
conquest of Canaan
As told by the Deuteronomist, the conquest of Canaan by Joshua and the
Israelite tribes was swift and decisive. No conquest of central Canaan
(in the region of Shechem), however, is mentioned in the book; and some
scholars interpret this to mean that the central hill country was
already occupied either by ancestors of the later Israelite tribes prior
to the time of Moses or by portions of Hebrew tribes that had not gone
to Egypt. Because these people made peace with the tribes under Joshua,
a conquest of the area apparently was not necessary. Archaeological
evidence supports portions of Joshua in describing some of the cities
(e.g., Iachish, Debir, and Hazor) as destroyed or conquered in the late
13th century bce, the approximate time of the circumstances documented
in Joshua. Some of the cities so reported, however, apparently were
devastated at some time prior to or later than the 13th century.
Jericho, for example, was razed at the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c.
1550 bce) and most likely had not been rebuilt as a strongly fortified
town by the time of Joshua, though the site may well have been inhabited
during this period. The city of Ai was destroyed about 600 years before;
but it may have been a garrison site for the city of Bethel, which was
destroyed later by the “house of Joseph.” Though many of the cities of
Canaan were conquered by the Israelites under Joshua, historical and
archaeological evidence indicates that the process of conquering the
land was lengthy and not completed until David conquered the Jebusite
stronghold of Jerusalem in the early 10th century bce. At any rate, the
13th century was an ideal time for a conquest of the area because of the
international turmoil involving the great powers of the time: Egypt and
Babylonia. A political vacuum existed in the area, permitting small
powers to strengthen or to expand their holdings.
The introductory section of Joshua (chapters 1 and 2), in dealing
with the Deuteronomist’s view of the ideal man of faith—one who is full
of courage and faithful to the law that was given to Moses—relates the
story of spies sent to Jericho, where they were sheltered by Rahab, a
harlot, whose house was spared by the Israelites when they later
destroyed the city. In the Gospel According to Matthew, in the New
Testament, Rahab is listed as the grandmother of Jesse, the father of
David (the architect of the Israelite empire), which may be the reason
why this story was included in Joshua. Also in the New Testament, in the
Letter to the Hebrews, Rahab is depicted as an example of a person of
faith. After the return of the spies, who reported that the people of
Canaan were “fainthearted” in the face of the Israelite threat, Joshua
launched the invasion of Canaan; the Israelite tribes crossed the Jordan
River and encamped at Gilgal, where the males were circumcised after a
pile of stones had been erected to commemorate the crossing of the
river. They then attacked Jericho and, after the priests marched around
it for seven days, utterly destroyed it in a ḥerem; i.e., a holy war in
which everything is devoted to destruction. Prior to the Israelites’
further conquests it was discovered that Achan, a member of the tribe of
Judah, had broken the ḥerem by not devoting everything taken from
Jericho to Yahweh. Because he had thus sinned in keeping some of the
booty, Achan, his family, and all of his household goods were destroyed
and a mound of stones was heaped upon them. The Israelite tribes next
conquered Ai, made agreements with the people of the region of Gibeon,
and then campaigned against cities to the south, capturing several of
them, such as Lachish and Debir, but not Jerusalem or the cities of
Philistia on the seacoast. Joshua moved north, first conquering the city
of Hazor—a city of political importance—and then defeating a large
number (31) of the kings of Canaan, though the conquests of their cities
did not necessarily follow.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Joshua »
Division of the land and renewal of the Covenant
The division of the land among the tribes is recounted in chapters
13–22. Two sources were apparently used by the Deuteronomist in dealing
with the division of the land: a boundary list from the pre-monarchical
period (i.e., before the late 11th century bce) and a list of cities
occupied by several tribes from the 10th to the 7th century bce. The
tribes who occupied territories were: Reuben, Gad, Manasseh, Caleb,
Judah, the Joseph tribes (Ephraim and Manasseh), Benjamin, Simeon,
Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, and Dan. Certain cities (e.g.,
Hebron, Shechem, and Ramoth) were designated Levitical cities. Though
the Levites probably did not control the cities politically, as the
priestly class they were of cultic significance—and therefore feared and
respected—in cities that were the sites of sanctuaries.
As Moses had before him, Joshua gave a farewell address (chapter 23)
to his people, admonishing them to be loyal to the Lord of the Covenant;
and in the closing chapter (24), the Israelites reaffirmed their loyalty
to Yahweh at Shechem: first having heard the story of God’s salvatory
deeds in the past, they were asked to swear allegiance to Yahweh and to
repudiate all other gods, after which they participated in the Covenant
renewal ceremony. After the people were dismissed, Joshua died and was
buried in the hill country of Ephraim; the embalmed body of Joseph that
had been carried with the Hebrews when they left Egypt more than a
generation earlier was buried on purchased land; and Eleazar, the
priestly successor to Aaron (Moses’ brother), was buried at Gibeah.
Besides the obvious emphases on the conquest of Canaan and the
division of the land, the Deuteronomist gave special attention to the
ceremony of Covenant reaffirmation. By means of a regularly repeated
Covenant renewal the Israelites were able to eschew Canaanite religious
beliefs and practices that had been absorbed or added to the religion of
the Lord of the Covenant, especially the fertility motifs that were
quite attractive to the Hebrew tribes as they settled down to pursue
agriculture, after more than a generation of the nomadic way of life.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Judges:
background and purpose
The Book of Judges, the third of the series of five books that reflect
the theological viewpoint of the Deuteronomic historian, covers the
history of the Israelite tribes from the death of Joshua to the rise of
the monarchy, a period comprising nearly 200 years (c. 1200–c. 1020
bce). Though the internal chronology of Judges points to a period of
about 400 years, the editor may have arbitrarily used the formula of 40
years for a generation of rule by a judge; and he may have compiled the
list in the form of a series of successive leaders who actually may have
led only a particular tribe or a group of tribes during the same
generation as another judge. In other words, the reign of two or more
judges may well have overlapped.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Judges:
background and purpose » The Deuteronomic “theology of history”
The Deuteronomic “theology of history” shows through very clearly in
Judges: unless the people of the Covenant remain faithful and obedient
to Yahweh, they will suffer the due consequences of disobedience,
whether it be an overtly willful act or an unthinking negligence in
keeping the Covenant promise. The Deuteronomist worked out a formula for
his theology of history that was based in a very dramatic way on the
historical events of the period: (1) obedience to Yahweh brings peace
and well-being; (2) a period of well-being often involves a slackening
of resolve to keep the commandments of Yahweh or outright disobedience;
(3) disobedience leads to a weakness of the faith that had bound the
community together and thus leaves the community open to repression and
attacks from external enemies; and (4) external repression forces the
community to reassess its position and ask the cause of the calamities,
thus leading to repentance and eventual strength to resist all enemies.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Judges:
background and purpose » Canaanite culture and religion
The Israelite tribes during the period of the guidance and leadership of
Moses and Joshua mainly had to contend with nomadic tribes; in their
contacts with such groups, they absorbed some of the attitudes and
motifs of the nomadic way of life, such as independence, a love of
freedom to move about, and fear of or disdain for the way of life of
settled, agricultural, and urban peoples.
The Canaanites, with whom the Israelites came into contact during the
conquest by Joshua and the period of the Judges, were a sophisticated
agricultural and urban people. The name Canaan means “Land of Purple” (a
purple dye was extracted from a murex shellfish found near the shores of
Palestine). The Canaanites, a people who absorbed and assimilated the
features of many cultures of the ancient Near East for at least 500
years before the Israelites entered their area of control, were the
people who, as far as is known, invented the form of writing that became
the alphabet, which, through the Greeks and Romans, was passed on to
many cultures influenced by their successors—namely, the nations and
peoples of Western civilization.
The religion of the Canaanites was an agricultural religion, with
pronounced fertility motifs. Their main gods were called the Baalim
(Lords), and their consorts the Baalot (Ladies), or Asherah (singular),
usually known by the personal plural name Ashtoret. The god of the city
of Shechem, which city the Israelites had absorbed peacefully under
Joshua, was called Baal-berith (Lord of the Covenant) or El-berith (God
of the Covenant). Shechem became the first cultic centre of the
religious tribal confederacy (called an amphictyony by the Greeks) of
the Israelites during the period of the judges. When Shechem was
excavated in the early 1960s, the temple of Baal-berith was partially
reconstructed; the sacred pillar (generally a phallic symbol or, often,
a representation of the ashera, the female fertility symbol) was placed
in its original position before the entrance of the temple.
The Baalim and the Baalot, gods and goddesses of the Earth, were
believed to be the revitalizers of the forces of nature upon which
agriculture depended. The revitalization process involved a sacred
marriage (hieros gamos), replete with sexual symbolic and actual
activities between men, representing the Baalim, and the sacred temple
prostitutes (qedeshot), representing the Baalot. Cultic ceremonies
involving sexual acts between male members of the agricultural
communities and sacred prostitutes dedicated to the Baalim were focussed
on the Canaanite concept of sympathetic magic. As the Baalim (through
the actions of selected men) both symbolically and actually impregnated
the sacred prostitutes in order to reproduce in kind, so also, it was
believed, the Baalim (as gods of the weather and the Earth) would send
the rains (often identified with semen) to the Earth so that it might
yield abundant harvests of grains and fruits. Canaanite myths
incorporating such fertility myths are represented in the mythological
texts of the ancient city of Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra) in northern
Syria; though the high god El and his consort are important as the first
pair of the pantheon, Baal and his sexually passionate sister-consort
are significant in the creation of the world and the renewal of nature.
The religion of the Canaanite agriculturalists proved to be a strong
attraction to the less sophisticated and nomadic-oriented Israelite
tribes. Many Israelites succumbed to the allurements of the
fertility-laden rituals and practices of the Canaanite religion, partly
because it was new and different from the Yahwistic religion and,
possibly, because of a tendency of a rigorous faith and ethic to weaken
under the influence of sexual attractions. As the Canaanites and the
Israelites began to live in closer contact with each other, the faith of
Israel tended to absorb some of the concepts and practices of the
Canaanite religion. Some Israelites began to name their children after
the Baalim; even one of the judges, Gideon, was also known by the name
Jerubbaal (“Let Baal Contend”).
As the syncretistic tendencies became further entrenched in the
Israelite faith, the people began to lose the concept of their
exclusiveness and their mission to be a witness to the nations, thus
becoming weakened in resolve internally and liable to the oppression of
other peoples.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Judges:
importance and role » The role of the judges
Under these conditions, the successors to Joshua—the judges—arose. The
Hebrew term shofet, which is translated into English as “judge,” is
closer in meaning to “ruler,” a kind of military leader or deliverer
from potential or actual defeat. In a passage from the so-called Ras
Shamra tablets (discovered in 1929), the concept of the judge as a ruler
is well illustrated:
Our king is Triumphant Baal,
Our judge, above whom there is no one!
The magistrates of the Phoenician-Canaanite city of Carthage, which
competed with Rome for supremacy of the Mediterranean world in the 3rd
century bce, were called suffetes, thus pointing toward the political
authority of the judges.
The office of judgeship in the tribal confederacy of the Israelites,
which was centred at a covenant shrine, was not hereditary. The judges
arose as Yahweh saw fit, in order to lead an erring and repentant people
to a restoration of a right relationship with him and to victory over
their enemies. The quality that enabled a person selected by Yahweh to
be a judge was charisma, a spiritual power that enabled the judge to
influence, lead, and control the people caught between the allurements
of the sophisticated Canaanite culture and the memory of the nomadic way
of life with its rugged freedom and disdain for “civilization.” Though
many such leaders are mentioned, the Book of Judges focusses attention
upon only a few that are singled out as especially significant: Deborah
and Barak, Gideon, Abimelech, Jephthah, and Samson. In spite of the
Israelites’ repeated apostasy, such leaders, under the guidance and
spiritual powers granted to them by Yahweh, were able to lead their
tribes in successfully defeating or driving back their opponents.
The Book of Judges may be divided into four parts: (1) the conquests
of several tribes (chapter 1), (2) a general background for the
subsequent events according to the interpretation of the Deuteronomic
historian—“And the people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of
the Lord and served the Baals”—(chapter 2 through chapter 3, verse 6),
(3) the exploits of the judges of Israel (chapter 3, verse 7, through
chapter 16), and (4) an appendix (chapters 17 through 21).
Judges, chapter 1, shows that the conquest of Canaan, in
contradistinction to the view presented in Joshua, was incomplete,
inconclusive, and lengthy. Though conquests of some of the tribes
(Judah, Simeon, Caleb, and the “house of Joseph”) are noted, the main
emphasis is on the cities and areas that the tribes had not
conquered—e.g., “And Ephraim did not drive out the Canaanites who dwelt
in Gezer, but the Canaanites dwelt in Gezer among them” (chapter 1,
verse 29).
The second section gives the Deuteronomic interpretation of the
consequences of such a policy:
they forsook the Lord, the God of their fathers, who had brought them
out of the land of Egypt; they went after other gods, from among the
gods of the peoples who were round about them; and they provoked the
Lord to anger. They forsook the Lord, and served the Baals and the
Ashtaroth. (chapter 2, verses 12–13)
In chapter 3 an explanation is given as to why the Canaanites had not
been annihilated and were allowed to remain with the Israelites: they
enabled the Israelites to be tested in the techniques of warfare; the
Philistines, for example, had a monopoly on the smelting of iron in the
area—and the iron used in their weapons was far superior to the bronze
used by the Israelites for their swords, shields, and armaments—until
the secret had been wrested from them by the first king of Israel, Saul,
in the latter part of the 11th century bce. The Canaanites also served
to test the faith of the Israelites in the one, true God, Yahweh.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Judges:
importance and role » The role of certain lesser judges
The third section relates the exploits of the various judges. Othniel, a
member of the tribe of Caleb, delivered the erring Israelites from eight
years of oppression by Cushan-rishathaim, king of Mesopotamia. The king,
however, was most likely an area ruler, rather than a king of the
Mesopotamian Empire. Another judge, Ehud, a left-handed Benjamite,
delivered Israel from the oppression of the Moabites. Ehud, a fat man
who had hidden a sword under his garments on his right side so that when
a search of his person was made it would be overlooked, brought tribute
to Eglon, the Moabite king. Upon Ehud’s claiming to have a secret
message for the king, Eglon dismissed the other people carrying tribute.
Ehud then said to the King, “I have a message from God to you,”
assassinated him, locked the doors to the chamber, and escaped. Rallying
the Israelites around him, Ehud led an attack upon the Moabites that was
decisive in favour of the Israelites. Shamgar, the third judge, is
merely noted as a deliverer who killed 600 Philistines.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Judges:
importance and role » The roles of Deborah, Gideon, and Jephthah
The first notably important judge of the tribal confederacy was Deborah,
who was primarily a seer, poet, and interpreter of dreams but still a
person endowed with the kind of charisma that identified her as a judge
sent from Yahweh. The story of the victory of the Israelites under the
charismatic leadership of Deborah and the military leadership of Barak,
her commander, is related in prose (chapter 4) and repeated in poetry
(chapter 5, which is known as the “Song of Deborah”). The Canaanites,
under the leadership of Jabin, king of a reestablished Hazor, and his
general Sisera, had oppressed an apostate Israel. Deborah sent word to
all the tribes to unite against the Canaanites, but only about half the
tribes responded. The Canaanites had asserted control over the Valley of
Jezreel, which was an important commercial thoroughfare and was
commanded by the city of Megiddo. In this valley dominated by the hill
of Megiddo (Armageddon)—a site of many later crucial military battles
and which later became the symbolic name for the final battle between
the forces of good and the forces of evil in apocalyptic literature—the
Israelites met the Canaanites near the river Kishon in open battle. A
cloudburst occurred, causing the river to flood, thus limiting the
manoeuvrability of the Canaanite chariots. The Canaanite general Sisera,
seeing defeat for his forces, fled, seeking refuge in the tent of a
Kenite woman, Jael. A supporter of the cause of Israel, Jael gave Sisera
a drink of milk (fermented?) and he fell asleep “from weariness.” Jael
pounded a tent peg through his temple, thus ending decisively the threat
of the Canaanites of Hazor. The victory song of Deborah in chapter 5 is
one of the oldest literary sections of the Old Testament. It is a hymn
that incorporates the literary forms of a confession of faith, a praise
of Yahweh’s theophany (manifestation), an epic, a curse, a blessing, and
a hymn of victory.
Another important judge, perhaps the most important other than
Samuel, was Gideon, whose exploits are related in chapters 6–8. The
oppressors of Israel during the time of Gideon were the camel-borne
raiders from Midian, roving bands that pillaged the farms and
unfortified villages for seven years. A prophet appeared among the
Israelites and denounced them for their apostasy, after which, according
to the account, an angel of Yahweh visited and then commissioned Gideon,
a member of the tribe of Manasseh, to lead the Israelites against the
enemies from the Transjordan. After sacrificing to Yahweh, building an
altar to the Lord (which he named Yahweh Shalom, or “Yahweh is peace”),
and destroying an altar of Baal and an ashera (most likely a wooden pole
symbolizing the goddess) beside it, he sent out messengers to gather
together the tribes in order to meet an armed force of the Midianites
and Amalekites that had crossed the Jordan River and were encamped in
the Valley of Jezreel. He went to a threshing floor (a common place to
seek divinatory advice) and sought a sign from Yahweh—dew on a fleece of
wool placed overnight on the threshing floor, with the rest of the area
remaining dry. After receiving the positive divinatory sign, Gideon
assembled a large force, reduced it to 300 men, and infiltrated the
outposts of the Midianite camp with his servant—overhearing a Midianite
telling another of his dream about a barley cake rolling into the camp
of the Midianites and striking a tent so that it fell down and was
flattened (which Gideon interpreted as a sign of victory for the forces
under him). He encircled the camp of the Midianites about midnight. On
signal, the men broke jars, shouted, waved torches, blew rams’ horns,
and attacked the encampment. The Midianites, in the confusion, were
routed and harassed in their flight. In their pursuit of the fleeing
Midianites, Gideon and his forces were refused aid by the cities of
Succoth and Penuel, which was a violation of the tribal confederacy
agreements. The Midianites, however, were again the objects of a
surprise attack and their two kings (Zebah and Zalmunna) were captured
and later executed by Gideon because they had killed his brother. The
leaders of Succoth were punished and the men of Penuel were killed in
retaliation for their refusal to aid the forces of Gideon.
After the victory, the people, recognizing their need for centralized
leadership of the confederacy, petitioned to Gideon that he establish a
hereditary monarchy, with himself as the first king. Gideon refused,
however, on the basis that “the Lord will rule over you.”
After Gideon died, the people returned to worshipping the gods of the
Canaanites, especially Baal-berith. Abimelech, one of the 70 sons of the
wives and concubines of Gideon, went to Shechem to solicit support for
his attempt to establish a monarchy. After receiving financial support
from those who controlled the treasury of the shrine of Baal-berith, he
hired a band of assassins—who killed all of his brothers except Jotham,
the youngest of Gideon’s sons. Abimelech was declared king by the
Shechemites. The surviving Jotham told a parable about trees that sought
a king—after all the larger trees refused the kingship, the bramblebush,
which was highly inflammable, accepted the offer. The point of the
parable was that as the bramblebush is highly inflammable, so also would
the reign of Abimelech be the source of fires of rebellion and
revolution. Revolution did occur, and after being wounded at Thebez by a
millstone dropped by a woman from a tower, Abimelech asked his armour
bearer to kill him. The attempt of Abimelech and the Shechemites to
establish a monarchy thus proved to be abortive and premature.
After a brief account of the rule of two judges, Tola of the tribe of
Issachar and Jair from Gilead, the Deuteronomist describes the apostasy
of the Israelites and the consequent oppression of the tribes by the
Philistines from the seacoast and the Ammonites from the Transjordan.
The Israelites looked for a leader and found Jephthah, the son of a
harlot, who had been rejected by the sons of his father and who had
gathered about him a band who made their living by raiding others.
Jephthah made several attempts to negotiate with the Ammonites and
Moabites; when the Ammonites did not cooperate, Jephthah moved against
them. Seized by the Spirit of the Lord—i.e., ecstatically inspired—he
began his campaign with a vow to sacrifice the first person he saw upon
his return home as a burnt offering to Yahweh. He was victorious over
the Ammonites, but the first person he saw on return home was his only
child, a daughter. Upon learning of her destined fate, she requested a
two-month period to be with her friends to bewail her virginity and
approaching death. The story is reminiscent of the fertility myths of
the ancient Near East. After she was sacrificed, Jephthah subdued a
contingent of the Ephraimites in the Transjordan to bring peace to the
area. A password was used to separate the Ephraimites from the men under
Jephthah: “shibboleth.” Because the Ephraimites could not pronounce the
word correctly, in that their dialect was different from the others,
they were thus identified and killed.
In chapter 12, three judges are given cursory treatment: Izban of
Bethlehem, Elon the Zebulunite, and Abdon the Ephraimite.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Judges:
importance and role » The role of Samson
The exploits of the great Israelite strongman judge, Samson (a member of
the tribe of Dan), are related in chapters 13–16. Dedicated from birth
by his mother to Yahweh, Samson became a member of the Nazirites, an
anti-Canaanite reform movement. As a Nazirite, he was required never to
cut his hair, drink wine, or eat ritually unclean food. He married a
Philistine woman whom he then left when she helped her fellow
Philistines avoid payment to Samson in a riddle contest by giving them
the answer. Returning later to find her given to another man, he burned
the grainfields of the Philistines. They sought revenge by killing
Samson’s wife and her father. The exploits of Samson against the
Philistines from then on are numerous. After he met the temptress
Delilah, who wrested from him the secret of his great strength (i.e.,
his long uncut hair because of his vow), Samson was captured by the
Philistines after his hair had been cut short. After imprisonment,
blinding, and humiliation, Samson finally avenged his loss of
self-respect by pulling down the main pillars of the temple of the
Philistine god Dagon, after which the temple was destroyed, along with
numerous Philistines. Though Samson was more a folk hero than a judge,
he was probably included in the list of judges because his ventures
against the Philistines slowed their movements inland against the
Israelite towns and villages. The Philistines were a group of “sea
peoples” united in a confederacy of five city-states: Gaza, Ashkelon,
Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron. To the area they gave their name, which has
endured to the 20th century: Palestine.
The final section of the Book of Judges is an appendix divided into
two parts: (1) the story of Micah, the repentant Ephraimite, a Levite
priest who deserted him to be priest of the tribe of Dan, and the
establishment of a shrine at the conquered city of Laish (renamed Dan)
with the cult object taken from the house of Micah and (2) the story of
the Benjamites who were defeated in a holy war after they had killed a
concubine of a Levite. The book ends with a critique of the period: “In
those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in
his own eyes” (chapter 21, verse 25).
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Samuel: Israel
under Samuel and Saul
The book of Samuel covers the period from Samuel, the last of the
judges, through the reigns of the first two kings of Israel, Saul and
David (except for David’s death). The division of Samuel and its
succeeding book, Kings (Melakhim), into four separate books first
appeared in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament
from the 3rd to 2nd centuries bce.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Samuel:
Israel under Samuel and Saul » Theological and political biases
Containing two primary sources, the book of Samuel is the result of the
editorial skill of the Deuteronomic historians of the post-exilic
period. The early source, which is pro-monarchical and may have been
written by a single author, is found in I Samuel, chapter 9, verse 1,
through chapter 10, verse 16, as well as chapter 11 and most of II
Samuel. The chapters just noted were probably written by a chronicler
during the reign of Solomon; possible authors of these chapters were
Abiathar, a priest of the line of Eli (who was Samuel’s predecessor at
the shrine of Shiloh), or Ahimaaz, a son of Zadok (who originally may
have been a priest of the Jebusite city of Jerusalem that David made his
capital). The chapters in I Samuel are sometimes called the “Saul”
source because it is in them that Saul’s charismatic leadership is
legitimized in the form of kingship. The chapters of II Samuel, also
displaying a pro-monarchical bias—as far as content is concerned—are the
“book of David.” In the early source, Samuel, a seer, prophetic figure,
and priest of the shrine at Shiloh, is viewed mainly as the religious
leader who anointed Saul to be king. The later source, which displays a
somewhat anti-monarchical bias and shows the marks of disillusionment on
the part of the Deuteronomic historians of the post-exilic period, is
found in I Samuel, chapter 7, verse 3, to chapter 8, verse 22, chapter
10, verses 17–27, and chapter 12. Sometimes called the Samuel source,
the later source interprets the role of Samuel differently; he is viewed
as the last and most important judge of the whole nation, whose
influence extended to the shrines at Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah. The two
sources illustrate the two opposing tendencies that lasted for centuries
after the conquest of Canaan.
During the period of Samuel, Saul, and David (the 11th–10th century
bce), the Israelites were still threatened by various local enemies. The
great nations—Egypt, Assyria, and the Hittite Empire—were either
involved in domestic crises or concerned with areas other than Palestine
in their expansionist policies. Of the various peoples pressing to break
up the Israelite confederacy, the Philistines (the “sea peoples”) of the
Mediterranean coast proved to be the most dangerous. Expanding eastward
with their iron-weapon equipped armies, the Philistines threatened the
commercial routes running north and south through Israelite territory.
If they captured and controlled such areas as the Valley of Jezreel,
they would eventually strangle the economic life of the Israelite
confederacy.
To meet this threat, the tribal confederacy had four options open to
it. First, the tribes could continue as before, loosely held together by
charismatic leaders who served only as temporary leaders. Second, they
could create a hereditary hierocracy (rule by priests), which the priest
of the shrine at Shiloh, Eli, apparently attempted to inaugurate. A
third possible course of action was to establish a hereditary judgeship,
which was the aspiration of the judge Samuel. But, in either of these
two possibilities, the sons of Eli and Samuel were not of the same
stature as their fathers; and the apparent hopes of their fathers could
not be realized. The fourth alternative was a hereditary monarchy. The
book of Samuel is an account of the eventual success of those who
supported the monarchical position, along with the Deuteronomic
interpretation that pointed out the weaknesses of the monarchy whenever
it departed from the concept of Israel as a covenant people and became
merely one kingdom among other similar kingdoms.
The book of Samuel may be divided into four sections: (1) the stories
of Samuel, the fall of the family of Eli, and the rise of Saul (I
Samuel, chapters 1–15), (2) the accounts of the fall of the family of
Saul and the rise of David (I Samuel, chapter 16, to II Samuel, chapter
5), (3) the chronicles of David’s monarchy (II Samuel, chapter 6, to
chapter 20, verse 22), and (4) an appendix of miscellaneous materials
containing a copy of Psalm 18, the “last words of David,” which is a
psalm of praise, a list of heroes and their exploits, an account of
David’s census, and other miscellaneous materials.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Samuel:
Israel under Samuel and Saul » The role of Samuel
The first section (chapters 1–15) begins with the story of Samuel’s
birth, after his mother Hannah (one of the two wives of the Ephraimite
Elkanah) had prayed at the shrine at Shiloh, the centre of the tribal
confederacy, for a son. She vowed that, if she bore a son, he would be
dedicated to Yahweh for lifetime service as a Nazirite, as indicated by
the words “and no razor shall touch his head.”
Three years after she had borne a son, whom she named Samuel—which is
interpreted “Asked of God,” a phrase that fits the meaning of Saul’s
name but may actually mean “El Has Heard”—Hannah took the boy to the
shrine at Shiloh. Hannah’s song of exultation (chapter 2, verses 1–10)
probably became the basis of the form and content of the Magnificat, the
song that Mary, the mother of Jesus, sang in Luke, chapter 1, verses
46–55, in the New Testament. Eli, the priest at Shiloh (who had heard
Hannah’s vow), trained the boy to serve Yahweh at the shrine, which
Samuel’s mother and father visited annually. The sons of Eli, Hophni and
Phinehas, are depicted as corrupt, misusing their positions as servants
of the shrine to take offerings the people gave to Yahweh for their own
gratification, in contrast to Samuel, who “continued to grow in stature
and favour with the Lord and with men.” Because the sons of Eli failed
to heed the admonition of their father, the house of Eli was condemned
by a “man of God,” who told Eli that his family was to lose its position
of trust and power. This condemnation, an interruption of the later
source, is the Deuteronomic historian’s answer as to why Abiathar, a
priest of the family of Eli at the time of David, was excluded from the
priesthood at Jerusalem, which became the central shrine of the
monarchy.
While a youth (about 12 years old), Samuel experienced a revelation
from Yahweh in the shrine at night. First going to Eli three times after
hearing his name called, Samuel responded to Yahweh at Eli’s suggestion.
What was revealed to him was the fall of the house of Eli, a message
that Samuel hesitatingly related to Eli. After this religious
experience, Samuel’s reputation as a prophet of Yahweh increased.
In chapter 4 is an account of the fall of Shiloh and the loss of the
ark of the Covenant to the Philistines. Leaving the ark, the symbol of
Yahweh’s presence, at Shiloh, the Israelites go out to battle against
the Philistines near the Mediterranean coast but are defeated. The
Israelites return to Shiloh for the ark; but even though they carry it
back to the battleground, they are again defeated at great cost—the sons
of Eli are killed, and the ark is captured by the enemy. When Eli, old
and blind, hears the news of the disaster, he falls over backward in the
chair on which he is sitting, breaks his neck, and dies. The wife of his
son Phinehas gives birth to a son at this time; and, upon hearing of
what had happened to Israel and her family, names the boy Ichabod,
meaning “where is the glory?”—because, as she says, “The glory has
departed from Israel.”
Though the Philistines had captured the ark, they eventually
discovered that it did not bring them good fortune. Their god Dagon, an
agricultural fertility deity probably meaning “grain,” fell to the
ground whenever the ark was placed in close proximity to it; and, even
more calamitous to them, the Philistines suffered from “tumours,”
probably the bubonic plague, wherever they carried the ark. After
experiencing such disasters for seven months, the Philistines returned
the ark to Beth-shemesh in Israelite territory, along with a guilt
offering of five golden tumours and five golden mice carried in a cart
drawn by two cows. Because many Israelite men in Beth-shemesh also
died—“because they looked into the ark of the Lord”—the ark was taken to
Kiriath-jearim (the “forest of martyrs” in modern Israel), where it was
placed in the house of Abinadab, whose son Eleazar was consecrated to
care for it. The ark was not returned to Shiloh, probably because that
shrine centre had been destroyed, along with other Israelite towns, by
the Philistines.
In chapter 7, verse 3, to chapter 12, verse 25, the Deuteronomic
historian depicts the way in which Samuel assumed leadership as judge
and Covenant mediator of Israel. The Philistines continued to oppress
Israel, though under Samuel’s leadership the Israelites were able to
reconquer territory lost to their western enemies. When Samuel grew old,
his sons were trained to take his place; but they—like the sons of
Eli—were corrupt (“they took bribes and perverted justice”), so that the
Israelites demanded another form of government—a monarchy. Samuel
attempted to dissuade them, pointing out that if they had a highly
centralized form of government (i.e., a monarchy), they would have to
give up much of their freedom and would be heavily taxed in goods and
services. Samuel obeyed both the elders of the people, who demanded a
king, and Yahweh, who said, “make them a king.”
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Samuel:
Israel under Samuel and Saul » The rise and fall of Saul
The man selected to become the first monarchical ruler of Israel was
Saul, son of Kish, a wealthy Benjamite landowner. Because Kish had lost
some donkeys, Saul was sent in search of them. Unsuccessful in his
search, he went to the seer-prophet Samuel at Ramah. In the early
source, from which this narrative comes, he did not know Samuel’s name.
The day before Saul went to Ramah, Samuel the seer (ro’e), who was
depicted by the Deuteronomic historian as a prophet (navi’ ), received
notice from Yahweh that Saul was the man chosen to reign over Israel. At
the sacrificial meal, Saul, a tall young man, was given the seat of
honour, and the next day Samuel anointed him prince (nagid ) of Israel
in a secret ceremony. Before returning home, Saul joined a band of
roving ecstatic prophets and prophesied under the influence of the
spirit of Yahweh. In chapter 10, verses 17–27, generally accepted as
part of the later source, the Deuteronomic historian’s views are
depicted—Saul was chosen by lot at Mizpah. The early source picks up the
story of Saul in chapter 11, which illustrates Saul’s military
leadership abilities and describes his acclamation as king at Gilgal.
Samuel’s farewell address, a Deuteronomic reworking of the later source,
recapitulates the history of the Israelite tribes from the time of the
patriarch Jacob through the period of the judges and forcefully presents
the conservative view that the request for a monarchy will bring about
adversity to Israel.
The early reign of Saul and his confrontations with Samuel until the
last judge’s death is the subject of chapters 13–15. Saul’s early acts
as king centred about battles with the Philistines. Because his son
Jonathan had defeated one of their garrisons at Geba, the Philistines
mustered an army to counterattack near Beth-aven (probably another name
for Bethel). Saul issued a request for volunteers, who gathered together
for battle but awaited the performance of the sacrifice before the
battle by Samuel. Because Samuel did not come for seven days, Saul,
acting on his own, presided at the sacrifice. Immediately after the
burnt offering had been completed, Samuel appeared (perhaps waiting for
such an opportunity to reassert his leading position) and castigated
Saul for overstepping the boundaries of his princely prerogatives—even
though Saul had been more than patient. Samuel warned him that this type
of act (which Saul, in the early source, and later David and Solomon
also often performed) would cost Saul his kingdom. In spite of Samuel’s
apparent animosity, Saul continued to defend the interests of the newly
formed kingdom.
The tragedy of Saul was that he was a transitional figure who had to
bear the burden of being the man who was of an old order and at the same
time of a new way of life among a people composed of disparate elements
and leading figures. Both Samuel, the last judge of Israel, and David,
the future builder of the small Israelite empire, opposed him. Saul was
more a judge—a charismatic leader—than a monarch. Unlike most kings of
his time and area, he levied no taxes, depended on a volunteer army, and
had no harem. He did not construct a court bureaucracy but relied rather
on the trust of the people in his charismatic leadership and thus did
not alter the political boundaries or structure of the tribal
confederacy.
The issue between Saul and Samuel came to a head in the events
described in chapter 15 (a section from the later source). Samuel
requested Saul to avenge the attacks by the Amalekites on the Israelite
tribes during their wanderings in the wilderness after the Exodus from
Egypt about 200 years earlier. Saul defeated the Amalekites in a holy
war but did not devote everything to destruction as was required by the
ban (ḥerem). Because Saul had not killed Agag, the Amalekite king, and
had saved sheep and cattle for a sacrifice, Samuel informed Saul that he
had disobeyed Yahweh and was thus rejected by God, for “to obey is
better than to sacrifice.” Samuel then asked that Agag be brought to
him, and he hacked the Amalekite king to pieces. After that, Saul and
Samuel saw each other no more.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Kings: Solomon’s
successors » The divided monarchy
After Solomon died (922 bce), he was succeeded by Rehoboam, who proved
to be unfit for the task of reigning. Prior to Solomon’s death, Jeroboam
the Ephraimite, a young overseer of the forced labour battalions of the
“house of Joseph” in the north, had encountered Ahijah, a prophet from
the old shrine of the confederacy at Shiloh, and Ahijah had torn a new
garment into 12 pieces, prophesying that 10 pieces (tribes) would be
given to Jeroboam and only two pieces (tribal political units) would be
retained by the house of David. The dismemberment of the united monarchy
was to be brought about by Yahweh because Solomon had “not walked in my
ways, doing what is right in my sight and keeping my statutes and my
ordinances, as David his father did.” Though Solomon had worshipped the
Sidonian goddess Ashtoreth, the Moabite god Chemosh, and the Ammonite
god Milcom, his reign over Israel continued. Jeroboam’s initial
rebellion proved to be abortive, and he sought political asylum in Egypt
under the protection of the pharaoh Sheshonk I (Shishak).
Rehoboam, having been crowned king of the united monarchy in
Jerusalem, went north to Shechem, a shrine centre of the 10 northern
tribes of the old confederacy, to have his position ratified by the
northern units of the kingdom. Using this gathering as an opportune time
to present their grievances against Solomon’s oppressive domestic
policies, the northerners, under the leadership of the returned
political fugitive Jeroboam, asked the king from Jerusalem to lighten
their load. Requesting three days to take their grievances under
advisement, Rehoboam sought counsel from his advisers. The older
counsellors advised moderation, the younger, retaliation. Assenting to
the latter, Rehoboam returned to the people with an answer that was to
lead to the disintegration of the united monarchy that had lasted for
only about a century under three kings: “My father made your yoke heavy,
but I will add to your yoke; my father chastised you with whips, but I
will chastise you with scorpions.” The response of the northerners was
the ancient battle cry, “To your tents, O Israel.” Rehoboam, ruling from
the cities, sent Adoram, the leader of the forced labour battalions, to
Israel (the name to be used henceforth for the northern area); but he
was stoned to death. The uncrowned king of the north, unable to quell
the rebellion, returned to Jerusalem in rapid flight. Heeding the advice
of the prophet Shemaiah, Rehoboam allowed the situation to remain that
of a stalemate, thus inaugurating the period of the divided monarchy
that lasted in Israel in the north from 922–721 bce and in Judah in the
south until 586 bce.
Though the Davidic monarchy continued in Judah until the fall of
Jerusalem in 586 bce, the monarchial situation in Israel was one of
constant turmoil and confusion, except for the periods of a few
dynasties. Jeroboam I of Israel (reigned 922–901 bce) attempted to bring
about religious and political reforms. Establishing his capital at
Shechem, he set aside two pilgrimage sites (Dan in the north and Bethel
in the south) as shrine centres. Though the Deuteronomic historian—with
an anti-north prejudice—interpreted Jeroboam’s use of golden bulls in
the high place sanctuaries as a sin against Yahweh, Jeroboam’s actions
may have merely been an incorporation of religious symbols similar to
the cherubim (winged animals) that guarded the empty throne of Yahweh in
the temple of Solomon in Jerusalem. Jeroboam would not have been so
politically and religiously naïve as to introduce polytheistic practices
among the conservative-minded tribes of northern Israel. Thus, the
golden bulls may have been meant to serve as pedestals for the invisible
Yahweh just as the ark (throne) may have been the seat of the invisible
Yahweh in the Holy of Holies (inner sanctuary) of the Temple in
Jerusalem. Gods (such as the storm god Hadad) of other Syrian and
Palestinian religions also were represented as standing on the backs of
bulls.
Jeroboam remained true to Yahwistic religion, however, in that the
God of the Israelites was not represented iconographically. The first
king of the northern kingdom also inaugurated other religious reforms or
reinstituted ancient practices that were interpreted as decadent by the
Deuteronomic historian of the southern kingdom of Judah. He instituted a
harvest thanksgiving festival on the 15th day of the eighth month, a
change in the religious calendar that would preclude the journey of many
northern Israelites to a similar festival in Jerusalem; he reformed the
priesthood by installing non-Levites (the traditional shrine
functionaries) to serve Yahweh at the shrines, an action that had been
carried out in Jerusalem by David but without the opprobrium inferred by
the Deuteronomic historian on a similar action by Jeroboam.
The dynasties of the northern kingdom were shortlived. Jeroboam was
succeeded by his son Nadab, who reigned for two years before he was
overthrown by Baasha, who decimated the house of Jeroboam. Reigning for
24 years, Baasha (who “did what was evil in the sight of the Lord” like
all of the northern kings, according to the interpretation of the
Deuteronomists) had to concern himself not only with charismatic leaders
who were traditionally powerful in the north but also with the rising
power of anti-monarchical prophets, such as Jehu—who prophesied the end
of the house of Baasha (chapter 16). Elah, Baasha’s son, ruled only two
years before he was assassinated while in a drunken state by Zimri, a
chariot commander, who exterminated all of the members of the house of
Baasha. Reigning for the brief period of seven days, Zimri was besieged
in the citadel at Tirzah by Omri, commander of the army. Zimri burned to
death in the king’s house. Much of this political turmoil and confusion
in the north occurred during the reign of Asa, king of Judah from c. 913
to 873 bce, who inaugurated religious reforms, such as banning male cult
prostitutes and the worship of the Canaanite goddess Asherah that had
been sponsored by his mother, Maachah, the queen regent.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Kings:
Solomon’s successors » The significance of Elijah
With the dynasty of Omri (c. 876–842), the prophetic movement begins to
assume a position of tremendous importance in Israel and Judah. Omri
(reigned c. 876–869) reestablished Israel’s economic and military
significance among the Syrian and Palestinian minor kingdoms, so much so
that years after his death the Assyrians referred to the northern
kingdom as “the land of Omri.” He is mentioned in the Moabite Stone of
King Mesha (9th century bce) as a king who “humbled Moab many years.” To
strengthen an alliance with the Phoenicians, Omri contracted a marriage
between Jezebel, princess of Sidon, and his son Ahab. The marriage
proved to be fateful for Israel and was a catalyst that brought the
prophetic movement into a course of action and a form that became
Israel’s contribution to Near Eastern prophecy.
The reign of Omri’s son Ahab coincided with the activities of the
prophet Elijah, as recorded in I Kings, chapter 16, verse 29, to chapter
22, verse 40. Ahab, under the influence of his queen Jezebel, allowed
her to foster the worship of the fertility god Baal in Samaria—the
capital that Omri had built—and in all Israel, even though he himself
remained a worshipper of Yahweh. A temple was built for Baal in Samaria;
Jericho was rebuilt (even though the ban against its existence still
remained) by Hiel of Bethel, who sacrificed two of his own sons and
placed them in the foundation and the gates of the walls of the city.
During these apostate activities the great prophet Elijah the Tishbite
appeared. A man of erratic behaviour, wearing a garment of hair with a
leather belt around his waist, using uncouth language, and preferring
the wilderness areas to the towns, Elijah bore many of the outward signs
of social rebels. At odds with the court authorities, he began his
prophetic career just prior to a retreat in the wilderness during a
drought, which he had announced to Ahab, thus pointing out that Yahweh,
rather than Baal, is the Lord of nature. In the desert he performed two
miracles: he ensured a widow and her son of continuous food for her act
of generosity to him and cured her son, apparently dead, who had stopped
breathing, by stretching himself on top of the boy three times. Elijah
then went to the court of Ahab at Samaria, after having met one of the
leading prophets (Obadiah) who had escaped Jezebel’s attempt to destroy
the leaders of the cult of Yahweh, and stood before Ahab, accusing the
king of being the “troubler of Israel” for having followed the cult of
Baal. Elijah hurled a challenge to the Baalists, supported by Jezebel,
to meet him in a contest on Mt. Carmel.
The contest between Elijah and the 450 prophets of Baal was dramatic.
Elijah first taunted the spectators, “How long will you go limping with
two different opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal,
then follow him.” Elijah then laid the ground rules: two bulls were to
be sacrificed, one each on an altar, on which firewood was to be laid,
but no one was to light the fire—only the God “who answers by fire.” The
prophets of Baal had the first opportunity, and they prayed to Baal
loudly for a full half day, until noon. During this time, Elijah, in
coarse language, taunted them. Eliminating the euphemisms in most
English versions of the Bible, Elijah mocked the Baalists by saying that
Baal might not be responding because he was out urinating (“gone
aside”), on a trip, or sleeping. The Baalists then attempted to use
sympathetic magic. By cutting themselves they hoped that as their life
blood flowed on the ground Baal would send rain, the life blood of the
Earth.
When the Baalists had failed, Elijah rebuilt an old altar of Yahweh,
poured water on the wood three times (perhaps a remnant of an ancient
rainmaking ceremony?), and prayed to Yahweh to answer his servant; “the
fire of the Lord fell, and consumed the burnt offering, and the wood,
and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the
trench.” Though some authorities explain the action by suggesting that
Elijah poured naphtha on the wood, this does not explain the ignition of
the wood at that particular time and that particular place even if by a
bolt of lightning. The Deuteronomic historian emphasized the miracle
wrought by Yahweh. The people, upon witnessing the miracle, cried out,
“Yahweh, he is God,” and proceeded to annihilate the prophets of Baal.
Elijah told Ahab to complete the festivities while he went to the top
of Mt. Carmel to perform another rainmaking ceremony. When the rains
came in a cloudburst, Ahab was riding in his chariot in the Valley of
Jezreel. Elijah, in fear of retaliation from Jezebel, fled to the
southern wilderness. At Mt. Horeb (Sinai) after a storm, wind, and an
earthquake, Yahweh spoke to Elijah through silence and then revealed
that he should anoint Hazael to be king of Syria, Jehu to be king of
Israel, and Elisha to be his successor as prophet. I Kings, chapter 20,
records a war between Ben-hadad, king of Syria, and Ahab. Though Ahab
was victorious, he did not kill Ben-hadad according to the provisions of
the ḥerem (ban); and a prophet then informed Ahab that he would suffer
for his inaction.
Upon Ahab’s return to Samaria Jezebel attempted to coerce the king
into confiscating the vineyards of Naboth of Jezreel, which was a
Canaanite centre. Naboth asserted that as an Israelite the land was not
his own but was a trust from Yahweh and that he could not sell it. Taken
to court on trumped-up charges of blasphemy, Naboth was convicted and
stoned to death. Ahab, following Jezebel’s advice, then went to Naboth’s
vineyard and took possession of it. Upon hearing of Ahab’s unjust act as
king, Elijah proclaimed to him, “In the place where dogs licked up the
blood of Naboth shall dogs lick your own blood.” The prophet also
announced, “The dogs shall eat Jezebel within the bounds of Jezreel.”
In I Kings, chapter 22, another prophet, Micaiah, prophesied to Ahab
and to King Jehoshaphat of Judah who were preparing for battle against
the Syrians that in a vision he saw “all Israel scattered upon the
mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd.” Micaiah was put in prison to
test the validity of his vision. It turned out to be true—Ahab, even
though he disguised himself, was mortally wounded by an arrow shot by a
Syrian archer. In 850 he was succeeded by his son Ahaziah, who reigned
for only two years.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Kings: the
second book
The Second Book of Kings continues the history of the monarchies of
Israel and Judah and of the prophetic movement. Ahaziah fell from an
upper chamber of his palace in Samaria and sought help from Baalzebub,
the god of Ekron. Elijah met the messengers to castigate them for not
seeking aid from Yahweh, the God of Israel, and told a third delegation
that had been sent out to return to tell Ahaziah that because of his
apostasy he would die. After the death of Ahaziah, Elijah conferred his
mantle, the symbol of his prophetic authority, on Elisha, and “Elijah
went up by a whirlwind into heaven.”
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Kings: the
second book » The significance of Elisha
The stories of Elijah and his successor, Elisha, are of a different
literary genre from the historical accounts of the political
developments of the 9th century. The historical accounts are based on
the viewpoints and biases of the monarchy, nobility, and military
leaders. The stories of Elijah and Elisha are legendary, popular
accounts, probably having arisen among the common people. They
demonstrate the predilection of the common people to accent what appears
to them as the miraculous and the supernatural, much as has been the
case among many Roman Catholics and Eastern Christians in stories of
their saints. Elijah was depicted, in several instances, as a second
Moses—e.g., he fled to the wilderness to escape the retaliation of a
ruler, and he encountered a theophany (manifestation of a deity) of
Yahweh on Mt. Horeb. As Moses appointed Joshua as his successor, so also
Elijah passed on his prophetic mantle to Elisha. Elisha is depicted in
typical folk story embellishments and legendary motifs. The original
beginning and ending of the Elijah story apparently was lost, but the
Deuteronomic historian incorporated the popular accounts of Elijah and
Elisha into the court history that gives scholars significant insights
into the religious movements of the 9th century.
During the reigns of King Jehoshaphat of Judah (c. 873–849 bce) and
King Jehoram (Joram) of Israel (c. 849–842), Elisha began his prophetic
career. Elisha was unlike his mentor Elijah in many ways: he did not use
uncouth language, he did not shun towns, he wore more fashionable
clothing, and he used music to bring about the prophetic spirit—much as
Saul had done earlier. A cycle of miracle stories arose around Elisha;
he was said to have made bitter water sweet, revived the son of a
Shunammite woman from death by breathing into his mouth and lying on top
of him, helped a woman to avoid giving up her two sons to a creditor who
would make them slaves, informed the Syrian captain Naaman how to be
cured from his skin disease, and many other similar actions. In addition
to being a miracle worker, Elisha was a political power. He prophesied
the defeat of the Moabites as a result of a huge rainfall and advised
Joram how to defeat Ben-hadad, king of Syria. By performing this last
act Elisha instigated a revolt in Syria; Hazael murdered the sick and
dying Ben-hadad.
Elisha sent “one of the sons of the prophets” to anoint Jehu, an army
commander, to be the future king of Israel. Rushing in his chariot to
Jezreel, Jehu exterminated Jehoram, the last king of the Omri dynasty,
his nephew Ahaziah (king of Judah), who was visiting him, and the queen
mother Jezebel, who “had painted her eyes, and adorned her head” before
she was thrown out of the window and so mangled by the trampling of
horses that “they found no more of her than the skull and the feet and
the palms of her hands.” Jezebel’s end had come about in a manner
similar to the way in which Elijah had prophesied.
The revolution of Jehu was not only politically inspired. A driving
force behind him was the arch conservative Rechabite faction, led by
Jehonadab. Despising the Canaanites and their agricultural way of life,
the Rechabites—descendants of the ancient Kenites of Midian where Moses
had experienced the theophany of the burning bush—lived in tents,
refused to drink wine, and attempted to retain as many of the
accoutrements of the “good old life” of ancient nomadism as possible.
With excessive revolutionary zeal they helped Jehu to annihilate the
worshippers of Baal, who were tricked into coming to their temple and
there murdered. To further emphasize their revolutionary intent, the
followers of Jehu, in addition to the holocaust, made the site of the
temple of Baal a latrine.
Because the king of Judah (Ahaziah) had been killed in the
revolution—along with the remaining northern members of the house of
Omri—the southern kingdom was ruled over by the queen mother, Athaliah,
the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel. In her zeal to propagate the faith of
her mother, Athaliah seized the opportunity to destroy the line of David
that tended to be loyal to Yahweh. Liquidating all the male heirs to the
throne of David—except the infant Joash (Jehoash) who received asylum in
“the house of the Lord”—Athaliah ruled for six years. With support from
the priests led by Jehoiada, the army and “the people of the land”
revolted, killing Athaliah and her high priest of Baal, Mattan, and
destroying the temple of Baal.
In the north, Jehu was succeeded by his son Jehoahaz (reigned c.
815–c. 801), who, in turn, was followed by his son Joash, or Jehoash.
During the latter king’s reign, the prophet Elisha died. Though the
Deuteronomic historian says little about Israel’s next king, Jeroboam
II, he was a major monarch, reestablishing the northern kingdom’s
ancient boundaries and fostering a period of economic prosperity. During
the reign of Jeroboam II (c. 786–c. 746 bce), a time of both economic
advances and social injustice, Amos, the great prophet of social
justice, arose. During Jeroboam’s last years another great prophet,
Hosea, whose message centred on Covenant love, arose to call an apostate
people back to their Covenant responsibilities.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Kings: the
second book » The fall of Israel
After the death of Jeroboam II, however, Israel faced a period of
continuous disaster; and no prophetic figure was able to arrest the
steady internal decay. From 746–721, when Samaria finally fell to the
Assyrians, there were six kings, the last being Hoshea, a conspirator
who had assassinated the previous king. The Assyrian king Sargon II
deported the leading citizens of Samaria to Persia and imported
colonists from other lands to fill their places.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Kings: the
second book » The fall of Judah
The southern kingdom of Judah, under the Davidic monarchy, was able to
last about 135 years longer, often only as a weak vassal state. Hezekiah
(reigned c. 715–c. 687), with the advice of the prophet Isaiah, managed
to avoid conflict with or outlast a siege of the Assyrians. Hezekiah was
succeeded by his son Manasseh, an apostate king who stilled any
prophetic outcries, reintroduced Canaanite religious practices, and even
offered his son as a human sacrificial victim. Soothsaying, augury,
sorcery, and necromancy were also reintroduced. The Deuteronomic
historian also notes that many innocent persons were killed during his
reign. Manasseh was succeeded by his son Amon, who was assassinated in a
palace revolution after a reign of only two years. His son Josiah, who
succeeded him, reigned from 640 to 609 bce, when he was killed in a
battle with the pharaoh Necho II of Egypt. During his reign, one of the
most significant events in the history of the Israelite people
occurred—the Deuteronomic reform of 621 bce. Occasioned by the discovery
of a book of the Law in the Temple during its rebuilding and supported
not only by Hilkiah, a high priest, and Huldah, a prophetess, but also
by the young prophet Jeremiah, the Deuteronomic Code—or Covenant—as it
has been called, became the basis for a far-reaching reform of the
social and religious life of Judah. Though the reform was short-lived,
because of the pressure of international turmoil, it left an indelible
impression on the religious consciousness of the people of the Covenant,
Israel, whether they were from the north or the south.
From 609 to 586 Judah felt the coming oppression of Babylon under
King Nebuchadrezzar. After the death of Josiah, four kings ruled in
Jerusalem, the last being Zedekiah, who failed to heed the advice of the
prophet Jeremiah—who had attempted to persuade the king not to trust the
Egyptians in a rebellion against Babylon because there would be only one
loser, the House of David. Jehoiachin, the predecessor of the puppet
king Zedekiah, had been carried off into exile to Babylon in 598; but
about 560 he was released from prison, thus leaving a hope that the
Davidic line had not become extinct. Despite this small element of hope,
the year 586 bce marked the beginning of a tragic period for the people
of Judah—the Babylonian Exile. During this period of rethinking Covenant
faith, the prophet Ezekiel preached, both in Jerusalem and Babylon,
offering the people hope for a restoration of the symbols and cultic
acts of their covenant religion.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Isaiah
The Book of Isaiah, comprising 66 chapters, is one of the most profound
theological and literarily expressive works in the Bible. Compiled over
a period of about two centuries (the latter half of the 8th to the
latter half of the 6th century bce), the Book of Isaiah is generally
divided by scholars into two (sometimes three) major sections, which are
called First Isaiah (chapters 1–39), Deutero-Isaiah (chapters 40–55 or
40–66), and—if the second section is subdivided—Trito-Isaiah (chapters
56–66).
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Isaiah » The
prophecies of First Isaiah
First Isaiah contains the words and prophecies of Isaiah, a most
important 8th-century bce prophet of Judah, written either by himself or
his contemporary followers in Jerusalem (from c. 740 to 700 bce), along
with some later additions, such as chapters 24–27 and 33–39. The first
of these two additions was probably written by a later disciple or
disciples of Isaiah about 500 bce; the second addition is divided into
two sections—chapters 33–35, written during or after the exile to
Babylon in 586 bce, and chapters 36–39, which drew from the source used
by the Deuteronomic historian in II Kings, chapters 18–19. The second
major section of Isaiah, which may be designated Second Isaiah even
though it has been divided because of chronology into Deutero-Isaiah and
Trito-Isaiah, was written by members of the “school” of Isaiah in
Babylon: chapters 40–55 were written prior to and after the conquest of
Babylon in 539 by the Persian king Cyrus II the Great, and chapters
56–66 were composed after the return from the Babylonian Exile in 538.
The canonical Book of Isaiah, after editorial redaction, probably
assumed its present form during the 4th century bce. Because of its
messianic (salvatory figure) themes, Isaiah became extremely significant
among the early Christians who wrote the New Testament and the
sectarians at Qumrān near the Dead Sea, who awaited the imminent
messianic age, a time that would inaugurate the period of the Last
Judgment and the Kingdom of God.
Isaiah, a prophet, priest, and statesman, lived during the last years
of the northern kingdom and during the reigns of four kings of Judah:
Uzziah (Azariah), Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. He was also a contemporary
of the prophets of social justice: Amos, Hosea, and Micah. Influenced by
their prophetic outcries against social injustice, Isaiah added themes
peculiar to his prophetic mission. To kings, political and economic
leaders, and to the people of the land, he issued a message that harked
back nearly five centuries to the period of the judges: the holiness of
Yahweh, the coming Messiah of Yahweh, the judgment of Yahweh, and the
necessity of placing one’s own and the nation’s trust in Yahweh rather
than in the might of ephemeral movements and nations. From about 742
bce, when he first experienced his call to become a prophet, to about
687, Isaiah influenced the course of Judah’s history by his oracles of
destruction, judgment, and hope as well as his messages containing both
threats and promises.
Intimately acquainted with worship on Mt. Zion because of his
priest-prophet position, with the Temple and its rich imagery and
ritualistic practices, and possessed of a deep understanding of the
meaning of kingship in Judah theologically and politically, Isaiah was
able to interpret and advise both leaders and the common people of the
Covenant promises of Yahweh, the Lord of Hosts. Because they were imbued
with the following beliefs—God dwelt on Mt. Zion, in the Temple in the
city of Jerusalem, and in the person of the King—the messianic phrase
“God is with us” (Immanuel) Isaiah used was not a pallid abstraction of
a theological concept but a concrete living reality that found its
expression in the Temple theology and message of the great prophet.
In chapters 1–6 are recorded the oracles of Isaiah’s early ministry.
His call, a visionary experience in the temple in Jerusalem, is
described in some of the most influential symbolic language in Old
Testament literature. In the year of King Uzziah’s death (742 bce),
Isaiah had a vision of the Lord enthroned in a celestial temple,
surrounded by the seraphim—hybrid human-animal-bird figures who attended
the deity in his sanctuary. Probably experiencing this majestic imagery
that was enhanced by the actual setting and the ceremonial and
ritualistic objects of the Jerusalem Temple, Isaiah was mystically
transported from the earthly temple to the heavenly temple, from the
microcosm to the macrocosm, from sacred space in profane time to sacred
space in sacred time.
Yahweh, in the mystical, ecstatic experience of Isaiah, is too
sublime to be described in other than the imagery of the winged
seraphim, which hide his glory and call to each other:
“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts;
The whole earth is full of his glory.”
With smoke rising from the burning incense, Isaiah was consumed by
his feelings of unworthiness (“Woe is me! for I am lost”); but one of
the seraphim touched Isaiah’s lips with a burning coal from the altar
and the prophet heard the words, “Your guilt is taken away, and your sin
forgiven.” Isaiah then heard the voice of Yahweh ask the heavenly
council, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” The prophet,
caught up as a participant in the mystical dialogue, responded, “Here am
I! Send me.” The message to be delivered to the Covenant people from the
heavenly council, he is informed, is one that will be unheeded.
The oracles of Isaiah to the people of Jerusalem from about 740 to
732 bce castigate the nation of Judah for its many sins. The religious,
social, and economic sins of Judah roll from the prophet’s utterances in
staccato-like sequence: (1) “Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an
abomination to me. New moon and sabbath and the calling of assemblies—I
cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly,” against religious
superficiality; (2) “cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice,
correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow,” against
social injustice; and (3) “Come now, let us reason together, says the
Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as
snow,” a call for obedience to the Covenant. The prophet also cried out
for peace: “and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their
spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against
nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.” The sins of Judah,
however, are numerous: the rich oppress the poor, the nation squanders
its economic resources on military spending, idolatry runs rampant in
the land, everyone tries to cheat his fellowman, women flaunt their
sexual charms in the streets, and there are many who cannot wait for a
strong drink in the morning to get them through the day. One of Isaiah’s
castigations warns: “Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine, and
valiant men in mixing strong drink, who acquit the guilty for a bribe,
and deprive the innocent of his right!”
During the Syro-Ephraimitic war (734–732 bce), Isaiah began to
challenge the policies of King Ahaz of Judah. Syria and Israel had
joined forces against Judah. Isaiah’s advice to the young King of Judah
was to place his trust in Yahweh. Apparently Isaiah believed that
Assyria would take care of the northern threat. Ahaz, in timidity, did
not want to request a sign from Yahweh. In exasperation Isaiah told the
King that Yahweh would give him a sign anyway: “Behold, a young woman
shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Thus,
by the time this child is able to know how to choose good and refuse
evil, the two minor kings of the north who were threatening Judah will
be made ineffective by the Assyrians. The name Immanuel, “God is with
us,” would be meaningful in this situation because God on Mt. Zion and
represented in the person of the king would be faithful to his Covenant
people. Ahaz, however, placed his trust in an alliance with Assyria
under the great conqueror Tiglath-pileser III. In order to give hope to
the people, who were beginning to experience the Assyrian encroachments
on Judaean lands in 738 bce, Isaiah uttered an oracle to “the people who
walked in darkness”: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given;
and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be
called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of
Peace.” Isaiah trusted that Yahweh would bring about a kingdom of peace
under a Davidic ruler.
From 732 to 731 bce, the year the northern kingdom fell, Isaiah
continued to prophesy in Judah but probably not in any vociferous manner
until the Assyrians conquered Samaria. The king of the Assyrians is
described as the rod of God’s anger, but Assyria also will experience
the judgment of God for its atrocities in time of war. During one of the
periods of Assyrian expansion towards Judah, Isaiah uttered his famous
Davidic messianic (salvatory figure) oracle in which he prophesies the
coming of a “shoot from the stump of Jesse,” upon which the Spirit of
the Lord will rest and who will establish the “peaceable kingdom” in
which “the wolf shall dwell with the lamb.” A hymn of praise concludes
this first section of First Isaiah.
Chapters 13–23 include a list of oracles against various
nations—Babylon, Assyria, Philistia, Moab, Syria, Egypt, and other
oppressors of Judah. These probably came from the time when Hezekiah
began his reign (c. 715). In 705 bce, Sargon of Assyria died, however,
and Hezekiah, a generally astute and reform-minded king, began to be
caught up in the power struggle between Babylon, Egypt, and Assyria.
Isaiah urged Hezekiah to remain neutral during the revolutionary
turmoil. Though Sennacherib of Assyria moved south to crush the
rebellion of the Palestinian vassal states, Isaiah—contrary to his
previous advocacy of neutrality—urged his king to resist the Assyrians
because the Lord, rather than the so-called Egyptian allies, who “are
men, and not God,” will protect Jerusalem. He then prophesied a coming
age of justice and of the Spirit who will bring about a renewed
creation.
Second Isaiah (chapters 40–66), which comes from the school of
Isaiah’s disciples, can be divided into two periods: chapters 40–55,
generally called Deutero-Isaiah, were written about 538 bce after the
experience of the Exile; and chapters 56–66, sometimes called
Trito-Isaiah (or III Isaiah), were written after the return of the
exiles to Jerusalem after 538 bce.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Isaiah » The
prophecies of Deutero-Isaiah
Second Isaiah contains the very expressive so-called Servant
Songs—chapter 42, verses 1–4; chapter 49, verses 1–6; chapter 50, verses
4–9; chapter 52, verse 13; and chapter 53, verse 12. Writing from
Babylon, the author begins with a message of comfort and hope and faith
in Yahweh. The people are to leave Babylon and return to Jerusalem,
which has paid “double for all her sins.” As creator and Lord of
history, God will redeem Israel, his chosen servant. Through the Servant
of the Lord all the nations will be blessed: “I have put my Spirit upon
him, he will bring forth justice to the nations.” The Suffering Servant,
whether the nation Israel or an individual agent of Yahweh, will help to
bring about the deliverance of the nation. Though Second Isaiah may have
been referring to a hoped-for rise of a prophetic figure, many scholars
now hold that the Suffering Servant is Israel in a collective sense.
Christians have interpreted the Servant Songs, especially the fourth, as
a prophecy referring to Jesus of Nazareth—“He was despised and rejected
by men; a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief . . . ,” but this
interpretation is theologically oriented and thus open to question,
according to many scholars.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Isaiah » The
oracles of Trito-Isaiah
Chapters 56–66 are a collection of oracles from the restoration period
(after 538 bce). Emphasis is placed upon cultic acts, attacks against
idolatry, and a right motivation in the worship of Yahweh. Repentance
and social justice are themes that have been retained from the earlier
Isaiah traditions, and the ever-present element of hope in the creative
goodness of Yahweh that pervaded II Isaiah remains a dominant theme in
the last chapters of the Book of Isaiah.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Ezekiel
The Book of Ezekiel, written by the prophetpriest Ezekiel, who lived
both in Jerusalem prior to the Babylonian Exile (586 bce) and in Babylon
after the Exile, and also by an editor (or editors), who belongs to a
“school” of the prophet similar to that of the prophet Isaiah, has
captured the attention of readers for centuries because of its vivid
imagery and symbolism. The book has also attracted the attention of
biblical scholars who have noticed that, although Ezekiel appears to be
a singularly homogeneous composition displaying a unity unusual for such
a large prophetic work, it also displays, upon careful analysis, the
problem of repetitions, certain inconsistencies and contradictions, and
questions raised by terminological differences. Though the book itself
indicates that the prophecies of Ezekiel occurred from about 593–571
bce, some scholars—who are in a minority—have argued that the book was
written during widely divergent periods, such as in the 7th century and
even as late as the 2nd century bce. Most scholars, however, accept that
the main body of the book came from the 6th century bce, with the
inclusion of some later glosses by redactors who remained loyal to the
theological traditions of their master-teacher.
Containing several literary genres, such as oracles, mythological
themes, allegory, proverbs, historical narratives, folk tales, threats
and promises, and lamentations, the Book of Ezekiel may be divided into
three main sections: (1) prophecies against Judah and Jerusalem
(chapters 1–24); (2) prophecies against foreign countries (chapters
25–32); and (3) prophecies about Israel’s future.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Ezekiel »
Ezekiel—the man and his message
The man who wrote this book—at least the main body of the work—was
undoubtedly one of the leaders of Jerusalem because he was among the
first group of exiles to go into captivity—those who were forced to
leave their homeland about 597 bce in a deportation to Babylon on the
orders of the conquering king Nebuchadrezzar. Belonging to the priestly
class, perhaps of the line of Zadok, Ezekiel was a spiritual leader of
his fellow exiles at Tel-abib, which was located near the river Chebar,
a canal that was part of the Euphrates River irrigation system.
According to his own account, Ezekiel, the priest without a temple,
received the call to become a prophet during a vision “In the thirtieth
year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day”—perhaps July 31, 593 bce,
if the dating is based on the lunar calendar, though the exact meaning
of “thirtieth year” remains obscure. A married man who was often
consulted by elders among the exiles, Ezekiel carried out his priestly
and prophetic career during two distinct periods: (1) from 593–586 bce,
a date that was doubly depressing for the prophet because it was the
period when his wife died and his native city was destroyed; and (2)
from 586–571 bce, the date of his last oracle (chapter 29, verse 17).
The personality of the prophet shows through his oracles, visions,
and narrations. Frustrated because the people would not heed his
messages from Yahweh, Ezekiel often exhibited erratic behaviour. This
need not mean that he was psychologically abnormal. Like many great
spiritual leaders, he displayed qualities and actions that did not fall
within the range of moderation, and to perform an ex post facto
psychological postmortem examination on any great historical figure in
the face of a paucity of necessary details may be an interesting game
but is hardly scientifically respectable or accurate. To be sure,
Ezekiel did engage in erratic behaviour: he ate a scroll on one
occasion, lost his power of speech for a period of time, and lay down on
the ground “playing war” to emphasize a point, an action that would
certainly draw attention to him, which was his purpose. In spite of
these peculiarities, Ezekiel was a master preacher who drew large crowds
and a good administrator of his religious community of exiles. He held
out hope for a temple in a new age in order to inspire a people in
captivity. He also initiated a form of imagery and literature that was
to have profound effects on both Judaism and Christianity all the way to
the 20th century: apocalypticism (the view that God would intervene in
history to save the believing remnant and that this intervention would
be accompanied by dramatic, cataclysmic events).
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Ezekiel »
Prophetic themes and actions
The first section of the book (chapters 1–24) contains prophecies
against Judah and Jerusalem. Ezekiel’s call is recorded in chapter 1 to
chapter 3, verse 15. It came in a vision of four heavenly cherubim, who
appeared in a wind from the north, a cloud, and flashing fire
(lightning?)—traditional symbolic elements of a theophany (manifestation
of a god) in ancient Near Eastern religions. These winged hybrid throne
bearers—with the faces of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle (which
became iconographic symbols of the four Gospel writers of the New
Testament)—bore the throne chariot of Yahweh. The cherubim, symbolizing
intelligence, strength, and—especially—mobility, had beside them four
gleaming wheels, or “a wheel within a wheel” (i.e., set at right angles
to each other), which further emphasized the omnimobility of the throne
chariot. This vision harks back to Isaiah’s mystical experience (Isaiah,
chapter 6) in which that prophet envisioned the throne of the ark, which
symbolized the omnipresence of the invisible Yahweh. High above the
cherubim was a firmament, or crystal platform, above which was the
throne of Yahweh, who—in a “likeness as if it were of a human
form”—spoke to Ezekiel. The Spirit of Yahweh entered him, and he was
commissioned to preach to the people of Israel a message of doom to an
apostate people. The significance of this vision is that it occurred not
to a priest in the holy Temple at Jerusalem but to an exiled
prophet-priest in a foreign land. The God of Israel was the God of the
nations. The impact of his visionary experience so overwhelmed Ezekiel
that he simply sat at Tel-abib for seven days.
Commissioned by Yahweh to be “a watchman for the house of Israel,”
Ezekiel performed a series of symbolic acts to illustrate the impending
fate of the city from which he had been banished: he placed a brick on
the ground to symbolize Jerusalem’s future siege, lay down on the
ground, bound himself to indicate capture, ate food first cooked on fuel
composed of human feces and then animal excrement, and then cut his hair
and beard. Though these acts were performed in Babylon, news of them was
most likely communicated to the people of Jerusalem. Just as Jeremiah
had tried to repress the false hopes that the residents of Jerusalem
harboured concerning the downfall of Babylon, which had been predicted
by the popular nationalistic prophet Hananiah (Jeremiah, chapter 28,
verses 5–17), Ezekiel attempted to quash the ill-founded aspirations of
the exiles for an immediate return to Jerusalem.
In chapters 6 and 7 Ezekiel prophesies that Jerusalem’s “altars shall
become desolate,” its people will be “scattered through the countries,”
and “because the land is full of bloody crimes and the city full of
violence,” Yahweh “will put an end to their proud might and their holy
places shall be profane.” In chapter 8 he attacked the people of
Jerusalem for their idolatry, as manifest by the women sitting before
the entrance to the north gate of the Temple of Yahweh weeping in cultic
despair for the Mesopotamian fertility deity Tammuz’s “annual death.”
After prophesying the fall of Jerusalem in chapters 9–11 because “the
guilt of the house of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great,” Ezekiel
performed other symbolic acts such as packing baggage for an emergency
exile, digging a hole in his house to illustrate the fact that some will
try to escape, and eating and drinking with trembling actions to show
the future fear that the Jerusalemites will experience; he also attacked
prophets who gave the people false hopes. “Woe to the foolish prophets
who follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing. Your prophets have
been like foxes among ruins, O Israel.” He tried to underline his
message of urgency by relating the problem of apostasy to similar
situations in Israel’s past history.
About the time that Nebuchadrezzar besieged Jerusalem, Ezekiel’s wife
became ill. Though Ezekiel could mourn her impending death “but not
aloud” (i.e., only by himself so that the people would notice his
unusual reaction and thus receive the full impact of his prophetic
message), he was not to mourn her death publicly. When he did not eat
the “bread of mourners” the people asked him for an explanation. He told
them, and it was a shattering exposure: Jerusalem would be destroyed
“and your sons and daughters whom you left behind shall fall by the
sword”; when this happens—in spite of their pining and groaning—they
will know the meaning of Ezekiel’s actions.
In order to show that Yahweh was the Lord of the whole creation and
of all nations, Ezekiel issued prophecies of impending disasters that
would be experienced by many neighbouring Near Eastern countries.
Nations that exulted in Judah’s defeat—i.e., Ammon, Moab, Edom,
Philistia, and Phoenicia—would all suffer the same fate, as well as
Egypt, the formerly great empire that had manoeuvred Judah into its
disastrous foreign policy of opposing Babylon.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » Ezekiel »
Oracles of hope
In the third section, chapters 33–48, Ezekiel proclaimed, in oracles
that have become imprinted in theological discourse and folk songs, the
hope that lies in the faith that God cares for his people and will
restore them to a state of wholeness. As the good shepherd, God will
feed his flock and will “seek the lost,” “bring back the strayed,” “bind
up the crippled,” and “strengthen the weak.” He will also “set up over
them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them.” This
Davidic ruler will be a nasi (prince), the term used for a leader of the
tribal confederacy before the inauguration of the monarchy. In chapter
37, Ezekiel had a now-famous vision of the valley of dry bones, which
refers not to resurrection from the dead but rather to the restoration
of a scattered Covenant people into a single unity. To further emphasize
the restoration of the scattered people of Yahweh, Ezekiel uttered the
oracle of the two sticks joined together into one, which prophesied the
re-unification of Israel and Judah as one nation. Chapters 38 and 39
contain a cryptic apocalyptic oracle about the invasion of an
unidentified Gog of Magog. Who this Gog is has long been a matter of
speculation; whoever he is, his chief characteristic is that he is the
demonic person who leads the forces of evil in the final battle against
the people of God. Gog and Magog have thus earned a position in
apocalyptic literature over the centuries. Chapters 40–48 are a closing
section in which Ezekiel has a vision of a restored Temple in Jerusalem
with its form of worship reestablished and a restored Israel, with each
of the ancient tribes receiving appropriate allotments. Ezekiel’s
prophecies while in exile in Babylon were to have a significant
influence on the religion of Judaism as it emerged from a time of
reassessment of its religious beliefs and cultic acts during the
Babylonian Exile (586–538 bce).
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » The first six
minor prophets » Hosea
The Book of Hosea, the first of the canonical Twelve (Minor) Prophets,
was written by Hosea (whose name means “salvation,” or “deliverance”), a
prophet who lived during the last years of the age of Jeroboam II in
Israel and the period of decline and ruin that followed the brief period
of economic prosperity. The Assyrians were threatening the land of
Israel and the people of the Covenant acted as though they were
oblivious to the stipulations of their peculiar relation to Yahweh. The
Book of Hosea is a collection of oracles composed and arranged by Hosea
and his disciples. Like his contemporary Amos, the great prophet of
social justice, Hosea was a prophet of doom; but he held out a hope to
the people that the Day of Yahweh contained not just retribution but
also the possibility of renewal. His message against Israel’s “spirit of
harlotry” was dramatically and symbolically acted out in his personal
life.
The Book of Hosea may be divided into two sections: (1) Hosea’s
marriage and its symbolic meaning (chapters 1–3); and (2) judgments
against an apostate Israel and hope of forgiveness and restoration
(chapters 4–14).
In the first section, Hosea is commanded by Yahweh to marry a
prostitute by the name of Gomer as a symbol of Israel’s playing the part
of a whore searching for gods other than the one true God. He is to have
children by her. Three children are born in this marriage. The first, a
son, is named Jezreel, to symbolize that the house of Jehu will suffer
for the bloody atrocities committed in the Valley of Jezreel by the
founder of the dynasty when he annihilated the house of Omri. The
second, a daughter, is named Lo Ruḥama (Not pitied), to indicate that
Yahweh was no longer to be patient with Israel, the northern kingdom.
The third child, a son, is named Lo ʿAmmi (Not my people), signifying
that Yahweh was no longer to be the God of a people who had refused to
keep the Covenant. In chapter 2, Hosea voiced what probably was a
divorce formula—“she is not my wife, and I am not her husband”—to
indicate that he had divorced his faithless wife Gomer, who kept “going
after other lovers.” The deeper symbolism is that Israel had abandoned
Yahweh for the cult of Baal, celebrating the “feast days of Baal.” Just
as Yahweh will renew his Covenant with Israel, however, Hosea buys a
woman for a wife—probably Gomer. The woman may have been a sacred
prostitute in a Baal shrine, a concubine, or perhaps even a slave. He
confines her for a period of time so that she will not engage in any
attempt to search for other paramours and thus commit further
adulteries.
The second section, chapters 4–14, does not refer to the marriage
motif; but the imagery and symbolism of marriage constantly recur. The
Israelites, in “a spirit of harlotry,” have gone astray and have left
their God. Their infidelity emphasized their lack of trustworthiness and
real knowledge of love, a love that could not be camouflaged by
superficial worship ceremonies. Thus, Hosea emphasized two very
significant theological terms: ḥesed, or “Covenant love,” and “knowledge
of God.” In attacking the superficiality of much of Israel’s worship,
Yahweh, through Hosea, proclaimed: “For I desire steadfast (Covenant)
love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God, rather than burnt
offerings.” Because they have broken Yahweh’s Covenant and transgressed
his law, however, the Lord’s anger “burns against them.” For “they sow
the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind.” Israel will be punished for
its rebellion and iniquities, but Hosea’s message holds out the hope
that the holiness of Yahweh’s love—including both judgment and
mercy—will effect a triumphant return of Israel to her true husband,
Yahweh.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » The first six
minor prophets » Joel
The Book of Joel, the second of the Twelve (Minor) Prophets, is a short
work of only three chapters. The dates of Joel (whose name means “Yahweh
is God”) are difficult to ascertain. Some scholars believe that the work
comes from the Persian period (539–331 bce); others hold that it was
written soon after the fall of Jerusalem in 586 bce. His references to a
locust plague may refer to an actual calamity that occurred; the prophet
used the situation to call the people to repentance and lamentation,
perhaps in connection with the festival of the New Year, the “Day of
Yahweh.” “ ‘Yet even now,’ says the Lord, ‘return to me with all your
heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning; and rend your
hearts and not your garments.’ ” Some scholars, however, believe that
the plague of locusts refers to the armies of a foreign power
(Babylonia?). In the remaining section of the book (chapter 2, verse 30
to chapter 3, verse 21), Joel, in apocalyptic imagery, predicts the
judgment of the nations—especially Philistia and Phoenicia—and the
restoration of Judah and Jerusalem.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » The first six
minor prophets » Amos
The Book of Amos, the third of the Twelve (Minor) Prophets, has been one
of the most significant and influential books of the Bible from the time
it was written (8th century bce) down to the 20th century. Comprising
only nine chapters of oracles, it was composed during the age of
Jeroboam II, king of Israel from 786 to 746 bce. His reign was marked by
great economic prosperity, but the rich were getting richer and the poor
poorer. Social injustice ran rampant in the land. The economically weak
could find no redress in the courts and no one to champion their
cause—until the coming of Amos, a shepherd from Tekoa in Judah, who also
said that he was “a dresser of sycamore trees.” Amos, thus, was no
professional prophet nor a member of a prophetic guild.
The book may be divided into three sections: (1) oracles against
foreign nations and Israel (chapters 1–2); (2) oracles of indictment
against Israel for her sins and injustices (chapters 3–6); and (3)
visions and words of judgment (chapters 7–9). Amos was the first of the
writing prophets, but his work may be composed of oracles issued both by
himself and by disciples who followed his theological views.
His prophetic oracles begin with a resounding phrase: “The Lord roars
from Zion.” He then goes on to indict various nations—Syria, Philistia,
Tyre, Ammon, and Moab—for the crimes and atrocities they have committed
in times of peace: “Because they sell the righteous for silver, and the
needy for a pair of shoes—they . . . trample the head of the poor into
the dust of the earth, and turn aside the way of the afflicted” (chapter
2, verses 6–7).
The second section (chapters 3–6) contains some of the most vehement
and cogent invectives against the social injustices perpetrated in
Israel. Though the Israelites have prided themselves on being the elect
of God, they have misinterpreted this election as privilege instead of
responsibility. In chapter 4, Amos, in language that was sure to raise
the ire of the privileged classes, attacked unnecessary indulgence and
luxury. To the wealthy women of Samaria he said: “Hear this word, you
cows of Bashan, who are in the mountain of Samaria, who oppress the
poor, who crush the needy, who say to their husbands, ‘Bring, that we
may drink!’ ” (chapter 4, verse 1). After a series of warnings of
punishment, Amos proclaimed the coming of the day of Yahweh, which is
“darkness, and not light.” His attacks against superficial pretenses to
worship have become proverbial: “I hate, I despise your feasts, and I
take no delight in your solemn assemblies” (chapter 5, verse 21).
Another verse from Amos has become a rallying cry for those searching
for social justice: “But let justice roll down like waters, and
righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (chapter 5, verse 24).
The third section (chapters 7–9) contains visions of locusts as a
sign of punishment, a summer drought as a sign of God’s wrath, and a
plumb line as a sign to test the faithfulness of Israel. The priest of
the shrine at Bethel, Amaziah, resented Amos’ incursion on his territory
and told him to go back to his home in the south. In reply to Amaziah,
Amos prophesied the bitter end of Amaziah’s family. Another vision in
chapter 8, that of a basket of ripe fruit, pointed to the fact that
Israel’s end was near. A fifth vision, depicting the collapse of the
Temple in Samaria, symbolized the collapse of even the religious life of
the northern kingdom. He ended his work with a prophecy that the Davidic
monarchy would be restored.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » The first six
minor prophets » Obadiah
The Book of Obadiah, the fourth book of the Twelve (Minor) Prophets,
contains only 21 verses. Nothing is known about the prophet as a person
or about his times. It may have been written before the Exile, though
many scholars believe that it was composed either some time after 586
bce or in the mid-5th century, when the Jews returned to the area around
Jerusalem. The prophet concentrates on the judgment of God against Edom
and other nations, with the final verses referring to the restoration of
the Jews in their native land.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » The first six
minor prophets » Jonah
The Book of Jonah, containing the well-known story of Jonah in the
stomach of a fish for three days, is actually a narrative about a
reluctant prophet. This fifth book of the Twelve (Minor) Prophets
contains no oracles and is thus unique among prophetic books. In II
Kings, chapter 14, verses 25–27, there is a reference to a prophet Jonah
who lived during the early part of the reign of Jeroboam II (8th century
bce).
The story, however, probably comes from a time after the fall of
Jerusalem in 586 bce. Probably living during the Exile, the author used
the memory of the hated Assyrians to proclaim the mission of Israel—to
teach all nations about the mercy and forgiveness of God. In the short
book of four chapters, Jonah, Amittai’s son, is commissioned by Yahweh
to go to Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, to preach repentance.
Attempting to avoid the command of Yahweh, Jonah boarded a ship, which
soon was caught up in a storm. The frightened sailors drew lots to
discover who was the cause of their unfortunate and calamitous
condition. Jonah drew the unlucky lot and was thrown overboard, after
which he was swallowed by a fish and stayed in that uncomfortable place
for three days and nights. After he cried to the Lord to let him out,
the fish vomited Jonah out onto dry land. Jonah, though still reluctant,
went to Nineveh to preach repentance. His efforts were successful, which
did not please him—because of his hatred for the Assyrians. In the end,
however, Jonah realized that God was a universal God, and not the sole
property of Israel.
Probably written sometime between 500 and 350 bce (or perhaps 250
bcebce, the message of Jonah protested the exclusiveness of a
post-exilic Judaism, with its policy of a pure blood race of Jews that
the reformers Ezra and Nehemiah had implemented in the 5th century.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » The first six
minor prophets » Micah
The Book of Micah, the sixth book of the Twelve (Minor) Prophets, was
written by the prophet Micah in the 8th century bce. Composed of seven
chapters, the book is similar in many ways to the Book of Amos. Micah
attacked the corruption of those in high places and social injustice,
and the book is divided into two sections: (1) judgments against Judah
and Jerusalem (chapters 1–3); and (2) promises of restoration for Judah
and judgments against other nations (chapters 4–7).
In the first section, Micah of Moresheth utters oracles against the
corrupt religious and political leaders of Israel and Judah. He also
attacks the prophets who attempted to give the people false hopes: “Thus
says the Lord concerning the prophets who lead my people astray, who cry
‘Peace’ when they have something to eat, but declare war against him who
puts nothing into their mouths . . . the seers shall be disgraced, and
the diviners put to shame” (chapter 3, verses 5–7). In the second
section, Israel’s future is predicted as being glorious, and it is told
that out of Bethlehem will come a ruler of the line of David who will
bring peace to the earth. Though he issues an indictment against Judah
for its idolatries, Micah proclaims what is necessary to renew the
Covenant relationship between God and Israel; “and what does the Lord
require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk
humbly with your God?” (chapter 6, verse 8). In this verse, Micah has
given a brief summation of the messages of Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » The last six
minor prophets » Nahum
The Book of Nahum, seventh of the Twelve (Minor) Prophets, contains
three chapters directed against the mighty nation of Assyria. Probably
written between 626–612 bce (the date of the destruction of Nineveh, the
Assyrian capital), the book celebrates in oracles, hymns, and laments
the fact that Yahweh has saved Judah from potential devastation by the
Assyrians.
He begins with the words “The Lord is a jealous God and avenging . .
. is slow to anger and of great might, and the Lord will by no means
clear the guilty” (chapter 1, verses 2–3). From that beginning he
predicts the overthrow of Assyria and the devastating manner in which
Nineveh will be destroyed.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » The last six
minor prophets » Habakkuk
The Book of Habakkuk, the eighth book of the Twelve (Minor) Prophets,
was written by a prophet difficult to identify. He may have been a
professional prophet of the Temple from the 7th century bce (probably
between 605–597 bce). Containing three chapters, Habakkuk combines
lamentation and oracle. In the first chapter, he cries out for Yahweh to
help his people: “O Lord, how long shall I cry for help, and thou wilt
not hear?” (chapter 1, verse 2). Though Yahweh will send mighty nations
(e.g., the neo-Babylonians will be the executors of his judgment),
Habakkuk wonders who will then stop these instruments of God’s justice,
who use great force. The answer comes in a brief, almost cryptic verse,
“but the righteous shall live by his faith.” The rest of chapter 2
pronounces a series of woes against those who commit social injustices
and engage in debauchery. The last chapter is a hymn anticipating the
deliverance to be wrought by Yahweh.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » The last six
minor prophets » Zephaniah
The Book of Zephaniah, the ninth book of the Twelve (Minor) Prophets, is
written in three chapters. Composed by the prophet Zephaniah in the
latter part of the 7th century bce, the book is an attack against
corruption of worship in Judah, probably before the great Deuteronomic
reform took place. Zephaniah attacked the religious syncretism that had
become established, especially the worship of Baal and astral deities,
and predicted the coming catastrophe of the “Day of the Lord.” He
denounced both foreign nations and Judah, but issued a promise of the
restoration of Israel: “Sing aloud, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel!
Rejoice and exult with all your heart, O daughter of Jerusalem” (chapter
3, verse 14). The reason for exultation is that Yahweh will deliver his
people.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » The last six
minor prophets » Haggai
The Book of Haggai, the 10th book of the Twelve (Minor) Prophets, is a
brief work of only two chapters. Written about 520 bce by the prophet
Haggai, the book contains four oracles. The first oracle calls for
Zerubbabel, the governor of Judaea, and Joshua, the high priest, to
rebuild the Temple (chapter 1, verses 1–11). A drought and poor
harvests, according to Haggai, had been caused because the returnees
from the Exile had neglected or failed to rebuild the Temple. The second
oracle, addressed to the political and religious leaders and the people,
sought to encourage them in their rebuilding efforts (chapter 2, verses
1–9). Apparently they were disappointed that the new Temple was not as
splendid as the former one, so Haggai reassured them: “My Spirit abides
among you, fear not.” The third oracle was issued against the people for
not acting in a holy manner (chapter 2, verses 10–19), and the fourth
proclaimed that Zerubbabel would be established as the Davidic ruler
(chapter 2, verses 20–23). His promise, however, remained unfulfilled.
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » The last six
minor prophets » Zechariah
The Book of Zechariah, the 11th book of the Twelve (Minor) Prophets,
dates from the same period as that of Haggai—about 520 bce. Though the
book contains 14 chapters, only the first eight are oracles of the
prophet; the remaining six probably came from a school of his disciples
and contain various elaborations of Zechariah’s eschatological themes.
Though little is known about Zechariah’s life, he probably was one of
the exiles who returned to Jerusalem from Babylon. After an initial call
to repentance (chapter 1, verses 1–6), Zechariah had a series of eight
visions (chapter 1, verse 7 to chapter 6, verse 15). The first is of
four horsemen who have patrolled the Earth to make sure that it is at
rest. The second vision is of four horns (i.e., nations that have
conquered Israel and Judah), which will be destroyed. The third vision
is of a man with a measuring line, but Jerusalem will be beyond
measurement. The fourth vision shows Joshua the high priest in the
heavenly court being prosecuted by Satan (the celestial adversary) and
the high priest’s eventual acquittal and return to his high position.
The fifth vision is of a golden lampstand and an olive tree to emphasize
the important positions of Joshua and Zerubbabel, which these two
figures symbolize. The sixth and seventh visions—of a flying scroll and
a woman of wickedness—symbolize the removal of Judah’s previous sins.
The eighth vision of four chariots probably refers to the anticipated
messianic reign of Zerubbabel, a hope that was thwarted. Chapters 7 and
8 concern fasting and the restoration of Jerusalem.
The remaining chapters—9–14—are additions that contain messianic
overtones. Chapter 9, verses 9–10, with its reference to a king riding
on the foal of an ass and to a vast kingdom of peace, was used by New
Testament Gospel writers in reference to Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem
prior to his crucifixion. The book closes on the note of the suffering
Good Shepherd, the final battle between Jerusalem and the nations and
eventual victory under God, and the universal reign of Yahweh, “king
over all the earth.”
Old Testament literature » The Neviʾim (the Prophets) » The last six
minor prophets » Malachi
The Book of Malachi, the last of the Twelve (Minor) Prophets, was
written by an anonymous writer called Malachi, or “my messenger.”
Perhaps written from about 500–450 bce, the book is concerned with
spiritual degradation, religious perversions, social injustices, and
unfaithfulness to the Covenant. Priests are condemned for failing to
instruct the people on their Covenant responsibilities, idolatry is
attacked, and men are castigated for deliberately forgetting their
marriage vows when their wives become older.
In chapter 3, the message is that Yahweh will send a messenger of the
Covenant to prepare for, and announce, the day of judgment. If the
people turn from their evil ways, God will bless them, and those who
“feared the Lord” will be spared. The book ends with a call to remember
the Covenant and with a promise to send Elijah, the 9th-century prophet
who ascended into heaven in a whirlwind on a chariot, “before the great
and terrible day of the Lord comes.”
Linwood Fredericksen
Old Testament literature » The Ketuvim » Overview
The Ketuvim (the Writings or the Hagiographa), the third division of the
Hebrew Bible, comprises a miscellaneous collection of sacred writings
that were not classified in either the Torah or the Prophets. The
collection is not a unified whole: it includes liturgical poetry (Psalms
and Lamentations of Jeremiah), secular love poetry (Song of Solomon),
wisdom literature (Proverbs, Book of Job, and Ecclesiastes), historical
works (I and II Chronicles, Book of Ezra, and Book of Nehemiah),
apocalyptic, or vision, literature (Book of Daniel), a short story (Book
of Ruth), and a romantic tale (Book of Esther); it ranges in content
from the most entirely profane book in the Bible (Song of Solomon) to
perhaps the most deeply theological (Job); it varies in mood from a
pessimistic view of life (Job and Ecclesiastes) to an optimistic view
(Proverbs). Psalms, Proverbs, and Job constitute the principal poetic
literature of the Hebrew Bible and, in many respects, represent the high
point of the Hebrew Bible as literature; in fact, Job must be considered
one of the great literary products of man’s creative spirit.
Although portions of some of the books of the Ketuvim (e.g., Psalms
and Proverbs) were composed before the Babylonian Exile (586–538 bce),
the final form was post-exilic, and Daniel was not written until almost
the middle of the 2nd century bce. The books were not included in the
prophetic collection because they did not fit the content or the
historical-philosophical framework of that collection, because they were
originally seen as purely human and not divine writings, or simply
because they were written too late for inclusion. Although some of the
books individually were accepted as canonical quite early, the
collection of the Ketuvim as a whole, as well as some individual books
within it, was not accepted as completed and canonical until well into
the 2nd century ce. As noted above, there are several indications that
the lapse of time between the canonization of the Prophets and of the
Ketuvim was considerable; e.g., the practice of entitling the entire
Scriptures “the Torah and the Prophets” and the absence of a fixed name.
The needs of the Hellenistic Jews in Alexandria and elsewhere in the
Greek-speaking Diaspora led to the translation of the Bible into Greek.
The process began with the Torah about the middle of the 3rd century bce
and continued for several centuries. In the Greek canon, as it finally
emerged, the Ketuvim was eliminated as a corpus, and the books were
redistributed, together with those of the prophetic collection,
according to categories of literature, giving rise to a canon with four
divisions: Torah, historical writings, poetic and didactic writings, and
prophetic writings. Also, the order of the books was changed, and books
not included in the Hebrew Bible were added. The early Christians of
both the East and West generally cited and accepted as canonical the
Scriptures according to the Greek version. When Protestants produced
translations based upon the Hebrew original text and excluded or
separated (as Apocrypha) the books not found in the Hebrew Bible, they
retained the order and the divisions of the Greek Bible. Thus the
Ketuvim is not to be found as a distinct collection in the Christian Old
Testament.
An ancient tradition, preserved in the Babylonian Talmud, prescribed
the following order for the Ketuvim: Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra (which
included Nehemiah), and I and II Chronicles. This sequence was
chronological according to rabbinic notions of the authorship of the
books. Ruth relates to the age of the judges and concludes with a
genealogy of David; the Psalms were attributed, for the most part, to
David; Job was assigned to the time of the Queen of Sheba, although the
rabbis differed among themselves about the date of the hero; Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon were all attributed to Solomon;
Lamentations, which was ascribed to Jeremiah, refers to the destruction
of Jerusalem and the beginning of the Babylonian Exile; the heroes of
Daniel were active until early in the reign of Cyrus II, the king of
Persia who ended the exile; Esther pertains to the reign of Xerxes I,
later than that of Cyrus but earlier than that of Artaxerxes I, the
patron of Ezra, reputed also to have written I and II Chronicles.
Despite this tradition, however, it would appear that the sequence of
the Ketuvim was not completely fixed, and there is a great variety in
ordering found in manuscripts and early printed editions. The three
larger books—Psalms, Job, and Proverbs—have always constituted a group,
with Psalms first and the other two interchanging. The order of the five
Megillot, or Scrolls (Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes,
and Esther), has shown the greatest variations. The order that has
crystallized has a liturgical origin; the books are read on certain
festival days in Jewish places of worship and are printed in the
calendar order of those occasions. Chronicles always appears at either
the beginning or the end of the corpus. Its final position is remarkable
because the narrative of Ezra and Nehemiah follows that of Chronicles.
The final position may have resulted from an attempt to place the books
of the Hebrew Bible in a framework (Genesis and Chronicles both begin
with the origin and development of the human race, and both conclude
with the theme of the return to the land of Israel), but it was more
probably the result of the late acceptance of Chronicles into the canon.
Old Testament literature » The Ketuvim » Job
The Book of Job is not only the finest expression of the Hebrew poetic
genius; it must also be accorded a place among the greatest masterpieces
of world literature. The work is grouped with Proverbs and Ecclesiastes
as a product of the wisdom movement, even though it contains what might
be called an anti-wisdom strain in that the hero protests vehemently
against the rationalistic ethics of the sages. Yet it is the supreme
example among ancient texts of speculative wisdom in which a man
attempts to understand and respond to the human situation in which he
exists.
The Book of Job consists of two separate portions. The bulk of the
work is an extended dialogue between the hero and his friends and
eventually Yahweh himself in poetic form. The poem is set within the
framework of a short narrative in prose form. The book falls into five
sections: a prologue (chapters 1 and 2); the dialogue between Job and
his friends (3–31); the speeches of Elihu (32–37); the speeches of
Yahweh and Job’s reply (38–42:6); and an epilogue (42:7–17).
The prologue and epilogue are the prose narrative. This is probably
an old folktale recounting the story of Job, an Edomite of such
outstanding piety that he is mentioned by the prophet Ezekiel in
conjunction with Noah and Daniel. The name Job was common in antiquity,
being found in texts ranging from the 19th to the 14th century bce.
Whether the folktale is preserved in its original oral form or whether
it has been retold by the poet of the dialogue is not known. The fact
that an Edomite sheikh is commended by the Hebrew God, however, suggests
a date before the 6th century bce, for Jewish distrust of Edomites
became intense during the exile, and the archaic language makes a date
in the 8th century probable.
Job is pictured as an ideal patriarch who has been rewarded for his
piety with material prosperity and happiness. The Satan (Accuser), a
member of the heavenly council of Yahweh, acts with Yahweh’s permission
as an agent provocateur to test whether or not Job’s piety is rooted in
self-interest. Faced with the appalling loss of his worldly possessions,
his children, and finally his own health, Job refuses to curse Yahweh.
His capacity for trusting Yahweh’s goodness has made him an unsurpassed
model of patience. Three of Job’s friends, whose names identify them
also as Edomites, now arrive to comfort him. At this point the poetic
dialogue begins. The conclusion of the tale, as given in the epilogue,
describes the restoration of Job, who receives double his original
possessions and lives to a ripe old age.
The picture of Job that is presented in the poetic portion is
radically different. Instead of the patient and loyal servant of Yahweh,
he is an anguished and indignant sufferer, who violently protests the
way Yahweh is treating him and displays a variety of moods ranging from
utter despair, in which he cries out accusingly against Yahweh, to bold
confidence, in which he calls for a hearing before Yahweh. Most scholars
have dated this section to the 4th century bce, but there is a growing
tendency to regard it as two centuries earlier, during the period of the
exile. This precise dating is based on the fact that the dialogue shows
clear literary dependence on Jeremiah, whereas equally obvious
connections with Deutero-Isaiah suggest the dependence of the latter on
Job.
The poem opens with a heartrending soliloquy by Job in which the
sufferer curses the day of his birth. The shocked friends are roused
from their silence, and there follow three cycles of speeches (chapters
4–14, 15–21, and 22–27) in which the friends speak in turn. To each such
speech Job makes a reply. The personalities of the friends are
skillfully delineated, Eliphaz appearing as a mystic in the prophetic
tradition, Bildad as a sage who looks to the authority of tradition, and
Zophar as an impatient dogmatist who glibly expounds what he regards as
the incomprehensible ways of God.
Eliphaz begins the first cycle by recounting a mystical vision that
revealed to him the transcendence of God and the fact that all men are
by nature morally frail. He suggests that suffering may be disciplinary,
although this is irrelevant to Job’s plight. Finally, he urges contrite
submission to Yahweh. Job chides his friends for failing him in his hour
of need and charges God with being his tormentor.
Bildad suggests that the fault may have lain in Job’s children and
reiterates Eliphaz’ call to humble submission. Job then retorts that the
doctrine of Yahweh’s omnipotence is no answer but a serious problem,
because Yahweh appears to be merely omnipotent caprice. He is convinced
that if he could only meet Yahweh in open debate he would be vindicated,
but he recognizes the need for an impartial third party who could
intervene and protect him from Yahweh’s overpowering might.
Zophar re-echoes his predecessors’ views on Yahweh but goes the full
length of accusing Job himself of sin and once more urges Job to a
contrition that for him could only be hypocritical. Job continues to
insist that Yahweh is capricious and defiantly challenges him but is
bewildered when no reply is forthcoming. His longing for death as a
welcome release leads him to ask whether man might not hope for a
revival after death, but this daring hope is immediately rejected.
The second cycle opens with Eliphaz accusing Job of blasphemy and
almost exultantly describing the fate of the wicked. In his reply Job
returns to the idea of a third party to the debate. Now, however, this
umpire or judge has become an advocate, a counsel for the defense. After
Bildad has again elaborated on the fate of the wicked, Job states that a
Vindicator, or Redeemer (Goʾel), will establish his innocence. The
Vindicator of this crucial but sadly corrupted passage (19:25–27) has
long been identified with God himself, so that according to some
scholars Job “appeals away from the God of orthodox theology to God as
He must be.” A few scholars, however, recognize the Vindicator as the
third party (the “umpire” or “witness”) of earlier chapters. It is also
unclear whether this vindication will take place before or after Job’s
death. Then Zophar, though freely admitting that the wicked may indeed
enjoy some prosperity, describes how they fall victim to inevitable
nemesis. Job maintains that the wicked do not end thus but live on to an
old age.
Eliphaz begins the third cycle by accusing Job at last of specific
sins and again counsels Job to humble himself before Yahweh. But Job
cannot find this God, who seems to be completely indifferent to him. The
conclusion of the dialogue is in serious disorder, with speeches placed
in Job’s mouth that could only have been uttered by the friends. The
final speech of Zophar, which is omitted, seems to be represented by a
fragment preserved within the third reply of Job.
Chapter 28 is regarded as a later addition by most scholars, because
it is hardly in place at this juncture in the dialogue, especially in
the mouth of Job. It is a magnificent hymn in praise of wisdom. Chapters
29–31 contain a monologue by Job; in them occurs an adumbration of the
highest moral ideal to be found in the Hebrew Bible.
Although a few scholars have maintained that the speeches of Elihu
formed part of the original work, most reject this section as a later
insertion. The speeches merely reiterate the dogmas of the friends and
unduly delay the appearance of Yahweh. Although the section is in poetic
form, its style is different from that of the dialogue. Significantly,
there is no mention of Elihu in the dialogue or anywhere else in the
book, yet the Elihu speeches are familiar with the dialogue, frequently
quoting verbatim from it. Chapter 32 is of interest, because it appears
to contain the writer’s notes and comments on the dialogue, often citing
passages from it. Worthy of notice is the writer’s emphasis on the
disciplinary value of suffering.
The climax of the poem is reached in the speeches of Yahweh, who
appears in a majestic theophany—a whirlwind—and reveals himself to Job
in three speeches interspersed with two short speeches by Job. Biblical
scholars have often questioned whether this section—especially the
descriptions of Behemoth (the hippopotamus) and Leviathan (the
crocodile) in the second Yahweh speech—is a genuine part of the original
poem, but there is no doubt that their presence at this point in the
book is a dramatic triumph. Throughout these speeches Yahweh does not
offer rational answers to Job’s questions and accusations; he raises the
discussion to a new perspective. With heavy irony Yahweh puts to Job a
series of unanswerable questions about the mysteries of the universe;
if, the writer is asking, Job is unable to answer the simple questions
about the divine activity in the marvels of nature, how can Yahweh
explain to him the deeper mystery of his dealings with men. Job’s
personal problem is ignored, yet he finds his answer in this direct
encounter with Yahweh:
I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees thee;
therefore I despise myself,
and repent in dust and ashes.
Job stands in a new relationship to Yahweh, one no longer based on
hearsay but the result of an act of personal faith expressed in
repentance.
A few scholars, beginning in the mid-18th century, have attempted to
demonstrate the influence of Greek tragedy upon the form of the book.
This has not met with acceptance by most critics; its long monologues
are not truly dramatic in nature. Neither is it a philosophical
discussion in the style of the Platonic dialogues. It is a deeply
religious poem with dramatic possibilities. It skillfully blends many
genres: folktale, hymn, individual lament, prophetic oracle, and
didactic poem.
The author remains quite unknown except for a few hints provided by
the book itself. That he was a Jew is assumed because of his familiarity
with much of the Hebrew literature. Nevertheless, the book does not have
a Hebrew setting, it is pervaded with foreign elements, and it shows a
special knowledge of Egypt, thus leading many to believe that he was
well travelled or lived outside the Holy Land. He was a keen observer of
the natural world, and his feeling for the agony of the sufferer is a
compelling argument that he had known anguish.
The book touches on many subjects, such as disinterested obedience to
God under testing, innocent suffering, social oppression, religious
experience and pious suffering, a man’s relation to God, and the nature
of God. Scholars have attempted to discover the basic message of the
author. Because of the greater difficulty in understanding the Job of
the poetic portion, the traditional interpretation looked to the
narrative and saw the message as the need for patient bearing and faith
despite tribulation. When certain poetic passages were thought to point
to a belief in the resurrection of the body, Job became not only a
patient sufferer but also a prophet of the resurrection. This view,
however, does not account for the Job of the poetic portion. Thus, in
the 19th century, with the advancement of biblical criticism, scholars
began to claim that the author was dealing with the problem of unmerited
suffering. The book presents a deep view of suffering, and Job’s
experience teaches that man must rest in faith and resign himself to the
incomprehensible ways of God.
It would seem, however, that the question raised by Job is both
deeper and broader than the question of how to account for the
infliction of physical adversity on the innocent. Job’s physical
suffering is the outward symbol of his intense inward agony, the agony
of a man who feels himself lost in a meaningless universe and abandoned
even by God. What torments Job—and the author—is the question of the
justice of God and the justice and honour of man before God. His
passionate pleading of his own righteousness and his calling upon God
for a hearing lead him to an encounter with God. This encounter does not
answer the question of why the innocent suffer, but it is the only
answer to the plea of a man seeking to find his God and to justify
himself to him. The complacent believer who has been shattered by
suffering, doubt, and despair is confirmed in faith and repents.
Old Testament literature » The Ketuvim » The Megillot (the Scrolls)
The five books known as the Megillot or Scrolls are grouped together as
a unit in modern Hebrew Bibles according to the order of the annual
religious festivals on which they are read in the synagogues of the
Ashkenazim (central and eastern European Jews and their descendants).
They did not originally form a unit and were found scattered in the
Bible in their supposed historical position. In the so-called Leningrad
Codex of the year 1008 ce, on which the third and subsequent editions of
Biblica Hebraica edited by Rudolf Kittel are based, the five are grouped
together but in a historical order. Nevertheless, their appearance
usually follows the order of the liturgical calendar:
The five books have little in common apart from their roles in the
liturgy. Although the Song of Solomon and Lamentations are poetic in
form and Ruth and Esther are stories of heroines, the contrast in the
moods and purposes of both pairs sharply distinguishes the books.
Ecclesiastes is a product of the Hebrew wisdom movement and exhibits the
most pessimistic tone of any book in the Hebrew Bible.
Old Testament literature » The Ketuvim » The Megillot (the Scrolls) »
Song of Solomon
The Song of Solomon (also called Song of Songs and Canticle of
Canticles) consists of a series of love poems in which lovers describe
the physical beauty and excellence of their beloved and their sexual
enjoyment of each other. The Hebrew title of the book mentions Solomon
as its author, but this seems improbable, primarily because of the late
vocabulary of the work. Although the poems may date from an earlier
period, the present form of the book is late, perhaps as late as the 3rd
century bce, and its author remains unknown.
The Song of Solomon has been interpreted in different ways, four of
which are noteworthy. The allegorical interpretation takes the book as
an allegory of God’s love for Israel or of Christ’s love for the church.
Such a view seems gratuitous and incompatible with the sensuous
character of the poems. The dramatic interpretation is based on the
dialogue form of much of the book and attempts to find a plot involving
either a maiden in Solomon’s court and the King or the maiden, the King,
and a shepherd lover. The absence of drama in Semitic literatures and
the episodic character of the book make this theory highly improbable.
The cultic-mythological interpretation connects the book with the
fertility cults of the ancient Near Eastern world. The condemnation in
the Hebrew Bible of such rituals makes it difficult to accept this view,
unless it is assumed that the original meaning of the poems was
forgotten. The literal interpretation considers it to be a collection of
secular love poems, without any religious implications, that may have
been sung at wedding festivities. According to this commonly accepted
view, the poems were received into the biblical canon despite their
secular nature and their lack of mention of God because they were
attributed to Solomon and because they were understood as wedding songs
and marriage was ordained by God.
The reasons for the Song of Solomon being read at Passover, which
celebrates the Exodus from Egypt, are not entirely clear. Possibly, they
include the fact that spring is referred to in the book and that
according to the allegorical interpretation the book could refer to
God’s love for Israel, which is so well evidenced by the events of the
Exodus and especially the Covenant at Mt. Sinai.
Old Testament literature » The Ketuvim » The Megillot (the Scrolls) »
Ruth
The Book of Ruth is a beautiful short story about a number of good
people, particularly the Moabite great-grandmother of David. Though
events are set in the time of the judges, linguistic and other features
suggest that the present form dates from post-exilic times. But it gives
the impression of being based on an ancient tradition, perhaps on
written source. It was certainly grounded on a solid core of fact, for
no one would have invented a Moabite ancestress for Israel’s greatest
king.
The book describes how, during a time of famine, Elimelech, a
Bethlehemite, travelled to Moab with his wife, Naomi, and his two sons,
Mahlon and Chilion. After his death, the sons married Moabite women, and
then they too died, leaving no children. There was thus no one to keep
the family line alive and no one to provide for Naomi. Ruth, the widow
of Mahlon, dedicated herself to the care of Naomi and insisted on
returning with her to her native land and adopting her God. They arrived
in Bethlehem during the harvest, and Ruth went out to work for the two
women in the field of Boaz, a wealthy landowner. Naomi urged Ruth to
seek marriage with Boaz because he was a kinsman of her late husband,
and the firstborn son of such a marriage would count as a son of the
deceased. (This resembles the levirate marriage that obliged a man to
marry the widow of his deceased brother if the brother died without male
issue.) Ruth crept under Boaz’ cloak while he slept, and he accepted the
implied proposal of marriage. After a nearer kinsman forfeited his claim
to Ruth, Boaz married her and a son was born. Thus, loyal Ruth was
provided with an excellent husband, the dead Mahlon with a son to keep
his name alive, and Naomi with a grandson to support her in her old age.
Many purposes have been assigned to the book: to entertain, to
delineate the ancestry of David, to uphold levirate marriage as a means
of perpetuating a family name, to commend loyalty in family
relationships, to protest the narrowness of Ezra and Nehemiah, the
leaders of the post-exilic restoration in relation to marriages with
non-Jews, to inculcate kindness toward converts to Judaism, to teach
that a person who becomes a worshipper of Yahweh will be blessed by him,
and to illustrate the providence of God in human affairs. The book may
have served all these “purposes,” but the author’s objective cannot be
determined with certainty.
Old Testament literature » The Ketuvim » The Megillot (the Scrolls) »
Lamentations of Jeremiah
The Lamentations of Jeremiah consists of five poems (chapters) in the
form of laments for Judah and Jerusalem when they were invaded and
devastated by the Babylonians in 586 bce, for the sufferings of the
population, and for the poet himself during and after the catastrophe.
These grief-stricken laments are intermingled with abject confessions of
sin and prayers for divine compassion. The first four poems are
alphabetic acrostics; the fifth is not, although like the others it has
22 stanzas, which is the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. The
formal structure served as a mnemonic device and perhaps was meant to
convey the note of wholeness, of Israel’s total grief, penitence, and
hope. The moving quality of these elegies has suited them for liturgical
use. Besides their place in the Jewish liturgy commemorating the
anniversary of the destruction of Jerusalem, the laments are employed by
the Christian Church to pour out its grief over the Passion and death of
Jesus Christ.
Most critics place the composition of the book before the return of
the Jews from exile in 537/536 bce. Certain passages appear to be word
pictures by an eyewitness and would, therefore, have been written
shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem. Until the 18th century, the
work was universally ascribed to the prophet Jeremiah, and this was
supported by a prologue found in the Septuagint and in some manuscripts
of the Vulgate. Since that time, however, many scholars have rejected
the attribution to Jeremiah chiefly because the ideas and sentiments
expressed in Lamentations are unlike those in Jeremiah. Moreover, it is
unlikely that the spontaneity and naturalness so characteristic of
Jeremiah’s utterances could be accommodated to a poetic form as
complicated and artificial as that in Lamentations. It is probable that
the laments were the product of more than one poet.
Old Testament literature » The Ketuvim » The Megillot (the Scrolls) »
Ecclesiastes
The book of Ecclesiastes is a work of the Hebrew wisdom movement,
associated by its title and by tradition with King Solomon. It is
evident, however, that the book is of much later composition; the author
may have identified himself with the famous king and wise man of the
past to give greater authority to his work. The language of the book,
including the relatively large number of Aramaic forms, and its content
point to a date in the early Greek period (later 4th or early 3rd
century bce). That the book was written prior to the 2nd century bce,
however, is shown by its influence on Ecclesiasticus, which was written
early in that century, and its appearance among the manuscripts
discovered at Khirbat Qumrān, on the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea,
where a Jewish community existed in the mid-2nd century.
The name Ecclesiastes is a transliteration of the Greek word used in
the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew Qohelet, a word connected with
the noun qahal (“assembly”). Qohelet seems to mean the one who gathers
or teaches an assembly; the author used the word as a pseudonym. He
appears to be a wisdom teacher writing late in life expressing skeptical
personal reflections in a collection of popular maxims of the day and
longer compositions of his own. The book has been described as a sage’s
notebook of random observations about life. Some interpreters have
questioned the unity of authorship, but, given the notebook character of
the work, there seems to be little need for questioning its basic
integrity.
Although the phrase “vanity of vanities! all is vanity” stressed at
both the beginning and the end of the book sums up its theme, it does
not convey the variety of tests that the skeptical Qohelet applies to
life. He examines everything—material things, wisdom, toil, wealth—and
finds them unable to give meaning to life. He repeatedly returns to
life’s uncertainties, to the hidden and incomprehensible ways of God,
and to the stark and final fact of death. The only conclusion to this
human condition is to accept gratefully the small day-to-day pleasures
that God gives to man.
Qohelet stands in sharp contrast to the conventional wisdom schools.
He recognizes the relative value of wisdom as against foolishness, but
he rejects the oversimplified and optimistic view of wisdom as security
for life. He offers a religious skepticism that rejects all facile
answers to life’s mysteries and God’s ways.
Old Testament literature » The Ketuvim » The Megillot (the Scrolls) »
Book of Esther
The Book of Esther is a romantic and patriotic tale, perhaps with some
historical basis but with so little religious purpose that God, in fact,
is not mentioned in it. The book may have been included in the Hebrew
canon only for the sake of sanctioning the celebrations of the festival
Purim, the Feast of Lots. There is considerable evidence that the
stories related in Esther actually originated among Gentiles (Persian
and Babylonian) rather than among the Jews. There is also reason to
believe that the version given in the Septuagint goes back to older
sources than the version given in the Hebrew Bible.
Laying the scene at Susa, a residential city of the Persian kings,
the book narrates that Haman, the vizier and favourite of King Ahasuerus
(Xerxes I; reigned 486–465 bce), determined by lot that the 13th of Adar
was the day on which the Jews living in the Persian Empire were to be
slain. Esther, a beautiful Jewish woman whom the King had chosen as
queen after repudiating Queen Vashti, and her cousin and foster father
Mordecai were able to frustrate Haman’s plans. Haman then schemed to
have Mordecai hanged; instead, he was sent to the gallows erected for
Mordecai, and Jews throughout the empire were given permission to defend
themselves on the day set for their extermination. The governors of the
provinces learned in time that Mordecai, who had saved the King from
being assassinated by two discontented courtiers, had succeeded to
Haman’s position as vizier; thus, they supported the Jews in the fight
against their enemies.
In the provinces, the Jews celebrated their victory on the following
day, but at Susa, where, at Esther’s request, the King permitted them to
continue to fight on the 14th of Adar, they rested and celebrated their
success a day later. Therefore, Esther and Mordecai issued a decree
obligating the Jews henceforth to commemorate these events on both the
14th and 15th of Adar.
Theme and language characterize Esther as one of the latest books of
the Hebrew Bible, probably dating from the 2nd century bce. Nothing is
known of its author. According to the postbiblical sources, its
inclusion in the canon, as well as the observance of the feast of the
14th and 15th of Adar, still met with strong opposition on the part of
the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem as late as the 3rd century ce; yet,
despite its lack of specific religious content, the story has become in
popular Jewish understanding a magnificent message that the providence
of God will preserve his people from annihilation.
Old Testament literature » The Ketuvim » Daniel
The Book of Daniel presents a collection of popular stories about
Daniel, a loyal Jew, and the record of visions granted to him, with the
Babylonian Exile of the 6th century bce as their background. The book,
however, was written in a later time of national crisis—when the Jews
were suffering severe persecution under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (reigned
175–164/163 bce), the second Seleucid ruler of Palestine.
The exiled Jews had been permitted to return to their homeland by
Cyrus II the Great, master of the Medes and Persians, who captured
Babylon in 539 bce from its last king, Nabonidus, and his son
Belshazzar. The ancient Near East was then ruled by the Persians until
Alexander the Great brought it under his control in 331. After
Alexander’s death in 323, his empire was divided among his generals,
with Palestine coming under the dominion of the Ptolemies until 198,
when the Seleucids won control. Under the Persian and Ptolemaic rulers
the Jews seem to have enjoyed some political autonomy and complete
religious liberty. But under Antiochus IV Jewish fortunes changed
dramatically. In his effort to Hellenize the Jews of Palestine,
Antiochus attempted to force them to abandon their religion and practice
the common pagan worship of his realm. Increasingly sterner restrictions
were imposed upon the Jews, the city of Jerusalem was pillaged, and,
finally, in December 167 the Temple was desecrated. The outcome of this
persecution was the open rebellion among the Jews, as described in the
books of Maccabees. This period of Hellenistic Judaism is treated more
fully in Judaism: Hellenistic Judaism (4th century bce–2nd century ce).
The conflict between the religion of the Jews and the paganism of
their foreign rulers is also the basic theme of the Book of Daniel. In
Daniel, however, it is regarded as foreseen and permitted by God to show
the superiority of Hebrew wisdom over pagan wisdom and to demonstrate
that the God of Israel will triumph over all earthly kings and will
rescue his faithful ones from their persecutors. To develop this theme
the author makes use of a literary and theological form known as
apocalypse (from the Greek apokalypsis, “revelation” or “unveiling”),
which was widely diffused in Judaism and then in Christianity from 200
bce to 200 ce. Apocalyptic literature professes to be a revelation of
future events, particularly the time and manner of the coming of the
final age when the powers of evil will be routed in bloody combat and
God’s kingdom will be established. This revelation usually occurs as a
vision expressed in complicated, often bizarre symbolism. The literature
is generally pseudonymous, proposed under the name of some authoritative
figure of the distant past, such as Daniel, Moses, Enoch, or Ezra. This
allows the author to present events that are past history to him as
prophecies of future happenings.
The Book of Daniel, the first of the apocalyptic writings, did not
represent an entirely new type of literature. Apocalypse had its
beginnings in passages in the works of the prophets. In fact, it has
been said that the apocalyptic was really an attempt to rationalize and
systematize the predictive side of prophecy. There were significant
differences, however. The prophet, for the most part, declared his
message by word of mouth, which might subsequently be recorded in
writing. The apocalyptist, on the other hand, remained completely hidden
behind his message, which he wrote down for the faithful to read. The
prophets normally spoke in their own name a message for their own day.
The apocalyptists normally wrote in the name of some notable man of the
past a message for the time of the age to come.
Like the prophets before them, the apocalyptists saw in the working
out of history, which they divided into well-defined periods, a purpose
and a goal. The evil in the world might lead men to despair, but God’s
predetermined purpose could not be frustrated. A future age of
righteousness would replace the present age of ungodliness, fulfilling
God’s purpose. This literature, then, is a mixture of pessimism—times
would become worse and worse, and God would destroy this present evil
world—and of optimism—out of turmoil and confusion God would bring in
his kingdom, the goal of history.
For many centuries the apocalyptic character of the Book of Daniel
was overlooked, and it was generally considered to be true history,
containing genuine prophecy. In fact, the book was included among the
prophetic books in the Greek canon. It is now recognized, however, that
the writer’s knowledge of the exilic times was sketchy and inaccurate.
His date for the fall of Jerusalem, for example, is wrong; Belshazzar is
represented as the son of Nebuchadrezzar and the last king of Babylon,
whereas he was actually the son of Nabonidus and, though a powerful
figure, was never king; Darius the Mede, a fictitious character perhaps
confused with Darius I of Persia, is made the successor of Belshazzar
instead of Cyrus. By contrast, the book is a not inconsiderable
historical source for the Greek period. It refers to the desecration of
the Temple in 167 and possibly to the beginning of the Maccabean revolt.
Only when the narrative reaches the latter part of the reign of
Antiochus do notable inaccuracies appear—an indication of a transition
from history to prediction. The book is thus dated between 167 and 164
bce.
Other considerations that point to this 2nd-century date are the
omission of the book from the prophetic portion of the Hebrew canon, the
absence of Daniel’s name in the list of Israel’s great men in
Ecclesiasticus, the book’s linguistic characteristics, and its religious
thought, especially the belief in the resurrection of the dead with
consequent rewards and punishments.
The name Daniel would appear to refer to a legendary hero who was
used in different ways at different times and who became particularly
popular in the storytelling of the Persian and Greek Diaspora as a
personification of the practical and theological problems faced by the
Jews in that environment. Whether there is any connection between the
Daniel of this book and the one mentioned as a wise man without equal in
the Book of Ezekiel and as a righteous man in the tale of Aqhat, a
Ugaritic text dated from about the middle of the 14th century, is
uncertain.
The book is written in two languages: the beginning (1:1–2:4a) and
the final chapters (8–12) in Hebrew and the rest in Aramaic. This offers
no proof of multiple authorship, however, because the linguistic
divisions do not correspond to the division by literary form: chapters
1–6 are stories of Daniel and his friends in exile, and chapters 7–12
are Daniel’s apocalyptic visions. Furthermore, there is a singleness of
religious outlook, spirit, and purpose throughout. Nevertheless, the
problem of the languages has never been satisfactorily answered.
The stories of the first six chapters, which probably existed in oral
tradition before the author set them down, begin with the account of how
Daniel and his three companions (Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who
were given the names Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego by the Babylonians)
came to be living at the Babylonian court and how they remained faithful
to the laws of their religion. This is followed by five dramatic
episodes calculated to demonstrate the wisdom and might of Israel’s God
and the unconquerable steadfastness of his loyal people. Thus, through
God’s gift of wisdom, Daniel excels the professional sages of the pagan
court by revealing and interpreting Nebuchadrezzar’s dream of a great
image, made of four metals, which was shattered by a stone cut without
human hand, and then the King’s further dream of a tree reduced to a
stump, which presaged the punishment of his arrogance by madness, and,
finally, the writing on the wall, which spelled Belshazzar’s doom at his
sacrilegious feast. By trust in God, Daniel’s companions, who refused to
worship Nebuchadrezzar’s golden idol, are miraculously delivered from a
fiery furnace, and Daniel himself, thrown into a den of lions for
holding fast to his tradition of prayer, is divinely protected.
The last six chapters of the book are apocalyptic. In chapter 7
Daniel is granted a vision of four beasts from the abyss, which are
brought under divine judgment, and of “one like a son of man,” who is
brought before God to be invested with his universal and everlasting
sovereignty. The mythological beasts are interpreted as four empires
(the Babylonian Empire, the kingdom of the Medes, the Persian Empire,
and the empire of Alexander) and the manlike figure as Israel. The
vision of a battle between the ram (Medes and Persians) and the goat
(the Greek Empire) in chapter 8 introduces the iniquities of Antiochus
IV Epiphanes and is an assurance to the stricken Jews that the end of
their tribulation is near. In chapter 9 the author reinterprets the
prophecy of Jeremiah that Jerusalem’s desolation would end after 70
years. By making these 70 years mean 70 “weeks of years” (i.e., 490
years), the author is again able to focus attention on the period of
Antiochus’ persecution in the 2nd century and on the imminence of his
determined doom. A precise understanding of the author’s scheme is not
possible, however, because 490 years calculated from the beginning of
the exile extends far beyond the time of Antiochus. The remaining
chapters provide the fourth commentary on the crisis provoked by the
Seleucid tyrant. The greater part of this vision is a sketch of the
events that affected the Jews from the Persian period to the time of
Antiochus and prepared for his reign of terror. After chapter 11, verse
39, the account of Antiochus’ life ceases to correspond with historical
fact; an inaccurate prediction of his end is the prelude to the
announcement of the end of Israel’s tribulation and the inauguration of
God’s kingdom.
The purpose of the whole book, stories and visions alike, is to
encourage Israel to endure under the threat of annihilation and to
strengthen its faith that “the Most High rules the kingdom of men” and
will in the end give victory to his people and establish his kingdom.
Old Testament literature » The Ketuvim » Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles
The final books of the Hebrew Bible are the books of Chronicles and
Ezra–Nehemiah, which once formed a unitary history of Israel from Adam
to the 4th century bce, written by an anonymous Chronicler. That these
books constituted a single work—referred to as the Chronicler’s history,
in distinction to the Deuteronomic history and the elements of history
from the priestly code of the Torah—appears evident because the same
language, style, and fundamental ideas are found throughout and because
the concluding verses of II Chronicles are repeated at the beginning of
Ezra. The purpose of this history seems to have been to trace the origin
of the Temple and to show the antiquity and authenticity of its cult and
of the formal, legalistic type of religion that dominated later Judaism.
The history that these books record has already been treated in the
historical section of this article and is found in greater detail in
Judaism. The concern in this section will be chiefly with the literary
and theological aspects of the books, but their contents can be
summarized. In I and II Chronicles the author repeats much of the
material from earlier historical books, concentrating upon the history
of the kingdom of Judah. The First Book of the Chronicles begins with an
extensive genealogy of Israel from Adam to the restoration but is
primarily a biography of David that adds further facts to the story as
given in Samuel. The Second Book of the Chronicles begins with Solomon
and goes through the division of the kingdom to the reign of Zedekiah;
once again the Chronicler had access to materials that supplemented the
account in I and II Kings. In the Book of Ezra he describes the return
of the Jews from the Babylonian Exile and the reconstruction of the
Temple. He includes lists of the families who returned and the texts of
the decrees under which they returned. In the Book of Nehemiah the
reconstruction of the city walls of Jerusalem becomes the basis for a
meditation upon the relation between God and his people. This book, too,
contains lists of those who participated in the reconstruction, but much
of it concentrates upon the description of Nehemiah and his persistence
in performing his assignment.
The fourfold division of the books derives from the Greek and Latin
versions; the more basic twofold division into Chronicles and
Ezra–Nehemiah is more complex. This original division apparently
resulted from the inclusion of the material known as Ezra–Nehemiah in
the Hebrew canon before that known as Chronicles because it contained
fresh information not found in any other canonical book. When Chronicles
was later admitted to the canon, it was placed in order after
Ezra–Nehemiah; although the book has retained this position in the
Hebrew Bible, the Greek version restored it to its proper sequence. That
Chronicles was thus “left aside” may account for the choice of
Paraleipomena (“Things Omitted”) as the Greek title of the book, but the
usual and perhaps correct explanation is that Chronicles contains
stories, speeches, and observations that were omitted from the parallel
accounts in earlier books.
Jewish tradition has identified Ezra as the author of these books,
and some modern scholars concur. According to many critics, however, the
Chronicler was a Levite cantor in Jerusalem. This position is supported
by the author’s concern with the Levites and cultic musicians. The date
of the work is more difficult to pinpoint. In its final form it has to
be later than Ezra, who came to Judah about 400 bce. An indication of
the latest date at which the entire work could have been completed is
its silence about the Hellenizing of Judaism that took place after
Alexander the Great. This, together with language considerations that
point to the late Persian period, has led the majority of commentators
to postulate a 4th-century date. Some scholars, however, claim that a
time before 300 bce would be too short to account for the genealogy at
the beginning of I Chronicles, which is carried down to the eighth
generation after Zerubbabel, one of the leaders of the band that
returned from Babylon. Thus, they push the final date to about 200 bce
or even slightly later. It is possible that the 4th-century work of the
Chronicler went through a series of minor additions and adaptations
until sometime early in the 2nd century, when it reached its final form.
The Chronicler had numerous historical sources—both biblical and
extrabiblical—at his disposal. He was closely dependent on the books of
Samuel and Kings for all of Chronicles except the first nine chapters.
Sometimes he even repeated the actual words of his model, though slight
textual variations suggest to some that the Hebrew copy he had before
him differed a little from that of the canon and corresponded to that
which lay behind the Septuagint. But he was also able to consult the
final version of the Torah and the whole of the Deuteronomic history.
His use of the personal memoirs of Nehemiah is undisputed; the nature of
his Ezra source is less clear, but some have regarded a portion of
narrative written in the first person as an autobiographical source. He
included many lists, genealogies, census reports, and other official
documents that may have been preserved as Temple records. The text
refers by name to certain documents representing royal histories and
prophetic writings about which, as they have not survived, only
speculation is possible.
The Chronicler used all these sources, but was not shackled by them.
Although his work has won increasing respect as a historical document,
especially as an indispensable source for the restoration period, his
purpose was chiefly theological. He was convinced of the definitiveness
of the divine covenant with David. The holy community that was brought
into existence by this covenant, maintained by God through the
vicissitudes of history and having its worship centred on the Temple in
Jerusalem, is the true kingdom of God. It is the true Israel and is the
Chronicler’s only concern. Thus, he mentions the northern kingdom and
the kings of Israel only to the extent that they figure in the events of
Judah. Loyalty to the Davidic line of succession, to Jerusalem, and to
the Temple worship were the central elements in the life of God’s people
according to this writer. All success and failure were the result of
such loyalty or disloyalty. Thus, if a king’s reign was long and
successful, the Chronicler saw it as the reward of God for a life led in
obedience to his will; conversely, a king suffered misfortune only if he
had sinned. Significantly, the Chronicler devotes much attention to
David’s part in the development of the liturgy, especially the
organization and functions of the Levites, and omits important but
uncomplimentary stories about the King that are found in the
Deuteronomic history.
In short, the Chronicler traced the reformed liturgy of his day back
to David and laid a solid foundation for the acceptance and conservation
of the religious community that he envisioned—a devout community that
worshipped joyfully in the Temple with sacrifice and praise and obeyed
the Law of Moses. He knew well that the realization of that community in
his day was not perfect and that the future had something better in
store, but he seems to have been content to accept the existing Davidic
leaders in order not to abandon the dynastic hope because of their
shortcomings. These books thus provided an apologia for orthodox Judaism
(perhaps in the face of opposition from the Samaritans, the inhabitants
of the former northern kingdom), and they offer to the modern reader
some insight into the post-exilic community in Jerusalem, withdrawn into
itself and trying to justify, explain, and preserve its existence and
its spirituality.
Robert L. Faherty
Intertestamental literature » Nature and significance » Persian and
Hellenistic influences
Some of the Apocrypha (e.g., Judith, Tobit) may have been written
already in the Persian period (6th–4th century bce), but, with these
possible exceptions, all the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha were written
in the Hellenistic period (c. 300 bc–c. ad 300). Yet the influence of
Persian culture and religion sometimes can be detected even in
comparatively late Jewish works, especially in Jewish apocalyptic
literature (see below Apocalypticism). The Persian influence was
facilitated by the fact that both the Jewish and Persian religions are
iconoclastic (against the veneration or worship of images) and opposed
to paganism and display an interest in eschatology (doctrines of last
times).
Although such an affinity did not exist between Judaism and
Hellenistic culture, literary activity among Hellenistic Jews was
generally Greek in character: the Greek-writing Jewish authors thought
mainly in Greek concepts, used genuine Greek terminology, and wrote many
of their works in Greek literary forms.
Though Hellenistic Jewish authors sometimes imitated biblical forms,
they learned such forms from their Greek Bible (the Septuagint). Many
Greek products written by Jews served as religious propaganda and
probably influenced many pagans to become proselytes, or at least to
abandon their heathen faith and become “God-fearing.” Thus, the Jewish
literature written in Greek could be used by Christianity for similar
purposes later.
Greek influence on Jewish writings written in Hebrew or Aramaic in
Palestine in the intertestamental period was by no means as significant
as upon Jewish works written in Greek among the Hellenistic Diaspora
(Jews living outside Palestine). In Palestine, religion and culture
formed a unity, and the Hellenization of the upper classes in Jerusalem
before the Maccabean wars (167–142 bce) was restricted to some families
who had accepted Greek civilization for practical purposes. Jews in
Palestine developed a flourishing autonomous culture based upon
religious ideals. Living without interruption in their powerful
religious tradition and with their own non-Greek education, the
Palestinian Jews were able to produce literary works without significant
evidences of Greek influence. The language of this literature was both
Aramaic and Hebrew. Under the national revival in the Maccabean period,
Hebrew became prevalent as the language of Jewish literature in
Palestine; but since Aramaic was a spoken language in Palestine during
the whole period, some of the extant literary works of Palestinian Jews
in the Maccabean and Roman period probably were originally written also
in Aramaic.
Intertestamental literature » Nature and significance » Apocalypticism
In intertestamental Jewish literature a special trend developed: namely,
apocalypticism. Apokalypsis is a Greek term meaning “revelation of
divine mysteries,” both about the nature of God and about the last days
(eschatology). Apocalyptic writings were composed in both Judaism and
Christianity; one of them (the Book of Daniel) was accepted in the
Jewish canon and another (the book of Revelation) in the New Testament.
Other apocalypses form a part of the Pseudepigrapha, and influences of
apocalypticism or similar approaches are found in some of the Apocrypha.
The sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls are the works of an apocalyptic movement,
though not all are written in the style of apocalypses. The Sibylline
Oracles are, in their Jewish passages, a part of Jewish Hellenistic
literature; inasmuch as they contain eschatological prophecies of future
doom and salvation, they are apocalyptic, but in their polemics against
idolatry and their apology for Jewish faith, they are a product of
Jewish Hellenistic propagandistic literature. Because one of the central
themes of apocalypticism is that of future salvation, messianic hopes
involving the advent of a deliverer are usually the object of
intertestamental Jewish apocalypticism.
Intertestamental literature » Apocryphal writings » Apocryphal works
indicating Persian influence » Esdras
The “Greek Ezra,” sometimes named I (or II or III) Esdras, enjoyed
considerable popularity in the early church but lost its prestige in the
Middle Ages in the Latin Church. At the reforming Council of Trent
(1545–63), the Roman Catholic Church no longer recognized it as
canonical and relegated it in the Latin Bible to the end, as an appendix
to the New Testament. One of the reasons for its non-canonicity in the
West is that the “Greek Ezra” contains material parallel to the biblical
books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah but differs in textual recension
(points of critical revision) and occasionally in the order of the
stories. The content of the book is a history of the Jews from the
celebration of the Passover in the time of King Josiah (7th century bce)
to the reading of the Law in the time of Ezra (5th century bce). Though
written in an idiomatic Greek, “Greek Ezra” is probably a Greek
translation from an unknown Hebrew and Aramaic redaction of the
materials contained in the biblical books of Chronicles, Ezra, and
Nehemiah. An important part of this book (3:1–5:6), the story of the
three youths at the court of Darius, has no parallel in the canonical
books. This story concerns a debate between three guardsmen before
Darius, king of Persia, about the question of what they consider to be
the strongest of all things; the first youth asserts that it is wine,
the second says that it is the king, and the third, who is identified
with the biblical Zerubbabel (a prince of Davidic lineage who became
governor of Judah under Darius), expresses his opinion that “women are
strongest, but truth is victor over all things.” He is acclaimed as the
victor, and, as a reward, he requests that Darius rebuild Jerusalem and
its Temple. The story evidently was written in two stages: originally,
the competition was about wine, the king, and women, but later, truth
was added. Truth is one of the central concepts of Persian religion and
the competition itself is before a Persian king; thus it seems likely
that the story is Persian in origin and that it became Jewish by the
identification of the third youth with Zerubbabel.
Intertestamental literature » Apocryphal writings » Apocryphal works
indicating Persian influence » Judith
The book of Judith is similar to the biblical Book of Esther in that it
also describes how a woman saved her people from impending massacre by
her cunning and daring. The name of the heroine occurs already in Gen.
26:34 as a Gentile wife of Esau, but in the book of Judith it evidently
has symbolic value. Judith is an exemplary Jewish woman. Her deed is
probably invented under the influence of the account of the
12th-century-bce Kenite woman Jael (Judg. 5:24–27), who killed the
Canaanite general Sisera by driving a tent peg through his head.
The story is clearly fiction, and the anachronisms in it are
intentional: they show that the story itself is a mere fiction. The book
speaks about the victory of Nebuchadnezzar, “who reigned over the
Assyrians at Nineveh” (the name is of the 7th–6th-century-bce king of
Babylon, Nebuchadrezzar) in the time of an unknown Arphaxad, king of the
Medes. Since the western nations of Nebuchadnezzar’s empire had refused
to come to his aid, the King ordered his commander in chief, Holofernes
(a Persian name), to force submission upon the rebellious nations. In
subduing these nations Holofernes destroyed their sanctuaries and
proclaimed that Nebuchadnezzar alone should henceforth be worshipped as
a god. Thus, the Jews, who had recently returned from the Babylonian
Captivity (6th century bce) and rebuilt the Temple, were compelled to
prepare for war. Holofernes laid siege to Bethulia (otherwise unknown),
described as an important strategic point on the way to Jerusalem.
Because of a long siege, the inhabitants wanted to surrender their city,
but Judith persuaded the people to delay the surrender for five days.
Judith was a virtuous, pious, and beautiful widow. She removed her
mourning garments, left the city, entered Holofernes’ camp, and was
brought before him. On the fourth day, Holofernes decided to seduce
Judith and invited her to come into his tent; he then drank more wine
than ever before. After he fell into a drunken stupor, Judith cut off
his head with his sword and returned with the head to Bethulia. The Jews
put Holofernes’ head outside the city wall, and the following morning,
upon learning of the death of their commander in chief, the Assyrian
soldiers dispersed and were pursued by the Jews of Bethulia, who took
abundant spoil. The Jews were not threatened again during Judith’s
lifetime—she lived to be 105—or for long thereafter.
Many suggestions have been made about the book of Judith’s date of
composition. Though current scholarly opinion is that the book was
written in the warlike patriotic atmosphere of the early Maccabean
period (c. 150 bce) by a Palestinian Jew, there are no Maccabean
elements in the book. It shows no direct or indirect Greek influences,
the deification of kings existed already in the ancient Near East, and
the political situation described in the book has nothing in common with
the Maccabean period. All the apparently intentional historical
mistakes, however, can be understood if it is suggested that the book of
Judith was written under Persian rule. Holofernes is, as noted above, a
typical Persian name; and the whole political and social situation
described in the book fits the Persian world, as do the Jewish life and
institutions reflected in the book. Thus, there are no serious
indications that the book of Judith is a Maccabean product, and there
are many allusions to the time of the Persian rule over Palestine. Only
a Greek translation of the book is extant, but, from its style, it is
clear that the book was originally written in Hebrew. In his preface to
the book of Judith, the Latin biblical scholar Jerome (c. 347–419/420
ce) states that he used for his translation a “Chaldaean” (i.e.,
Aramaic) text and that he also used an older Latin translation from
Greek. His translation differs in many points from the original text.
Intertestamental literature » Apocryphal writings » Apocryphal works
indicating Persian influence » Tobit
The other Jewish short story possibly dating from Persian times is the
book of Tobit, named after the father of its hero. From the fragments of
the book discovered at Qumrān, scholars now know that the original form
of the name was Tobi. Tobit was from the Hebrew tribe of Naphtali and
lived as an exile in Nineveh; his son was Tobias. Obeying the tenets of
Jewish piety, Tobit buried the corpses of his fellow Israelites who had
been executed. One day, when he buried a dead man, the warm dung of
sparrows fell in his eyes and blinded him. His family subsequently
suffered from poverty, but then Tobit remembered that he had once left a
deposit of silver at Rages (today Teheran) in Media. He sent his son
Tobias along with a companion, who was in reality the angel Raphael
under the guise of an Israelite, to retrieve the deposit. During the
journey, while Tobias was washing in the Tigris, a fish threatened to
devour his foot. Upon instructions from Raphael, Tobias caught the fish
and removed its gall, heart, and liver, since it was believed that the
smoke from the heart and liver had the power to exorcise demons and that
ointment made from the gall would cure blindness. On the way he stopped
at Ecbatana (in Persia), where Raguel, a member of Tobias’ family,
lived. His daughter Sarah had been married seven times, but the men had
been slain by the demon Asmodeus on the wedding night, before they had
lain with her. On the counsel of Raphael, Tobias asked to marry Raguel’s
daughter, and on the wedding night Tobias put Asmodeus to flight through
the stench of the burning liver and heart of the fish. Raphael went to
Rages and returned with the deposit. When he returned with his young
wife and Raphael to Nineveh, Tobias restored his father’s sight by
applying the gall of the fish to his eyes. Raphael then disclosed that
he was one of God’s seven angels and ascended into heaven.
The story of the book of Tobit is a historicized and Judaized version
of the well-known folktale of “The Grateful Dead” (or “The Grateful
Ghost”), in which a young man buries the corpse of a stranger despite
injunctions against such an act; later the youth wins a bride through
the intercession of the dead man’s spirit. Asmodeus (in Persian, Aeshma
Daeva, the demon of wrath) occurs as a powerful demon in rabbinic
literature as well as in folktales. In the Jewish form of the story,
“The Grateful Dead” is replaced by the angel Raphael. According to the
Ethiopic Enoch (20:3; 22:3), Raphael is appointed over the spirits of
the souls of the dead (for Enoch, see below). Because the cause of this
situation is not mentioned in the book of Tobit, the story itself in its
Jewish form probably existed before it became the subject of the book of
Tobit. The present work is a literary product; the interesting plot gave
to the author many occasions to insert religious and moral teachings in
the manner of wisdom literature, which is concerned with practical,
everyday issues. The book contains prayers, psalms, and aphorisms, most
of them put in the mouth of Tobit. It is the oldest Jewish witness of
the golden rule (4:15): “And what you hate, do not do to anyone.”
Eschatological hopes are also described: at the end of time, all Jewish
exiles will return, Jerusalem will be rebuilt of precious stones and
gold, and all nations will worship the true God. In these eschatological
images, however, the figure of the Messiah does not occur.
The religious, social, and literary atmosphere of the book does not
contain elements from the Greek period. Thus, the book probably was
written already in the Persian period or in the early days of Greek rule
(3rd century bce). The book exists today in three principal recensions,
and it is often difficult to determine, in a particular passage, what
was the original text. The book was written in Hebrew or Aramaic; the
Greek recensions differ, perhaps because they are based on different
Semitic versions. These questions may be answered when the Hebrew and
Aramaic fragments of the book, which were found among the Dead Sea
Scrolls, are published.
Intertestamental literature » Apocryphal writings » Apocryphal works
indicating Persian influence » The Story of Ahikar
According to the book of Tobit, Ahikar, the cupbearer of the Assyrian
king Esarhaddon, was Tobit’s nephew; he is a secondary personage in the
plot, and his own story is mentioned. Ahikar is the hero of a Near
Eastern non-Jewish work, The Story of Ahikar. The book exists in
medieval translations, the best of them in Syriac. The story was known
in the Persian period in the Jewish military colony in Elephantine
Island in Egypt, a fact demonstrated by the discovery of fragmentary
Aramaic papyri of the work dating from 450–410 bce. Thus, the author of
the book of Tobit probably knew The Story of Ahikar, in which, as in the
book of Tobit, the plot is a pretext for the introduction of speeches
and wise sayings. Some of Tobit’s sayings have close parallels in the
words of the wise Ahikar.
Intertestamental literature » Apocryphal writings » Apocryphal works
indicating Persian influence » Baruch
The apocryphon of Baruch, which is extant in Greek and was included in
the Septuagint, is attributed to Baruch, secretary to the Old Testament
prophet Jeremiah (7th–6th century bce). It was Baruch who read
Jeremiah’s letter to the exiles in Babylon. After hearing his words, the
Jews repented and confessed their sins. The first part of the book of
Baruch (1:1–3, 8), containing a confession of sins by the Jews following
the destruction of Jerusalem and the exiles’ prayer for forgiveness and
salvation, may date from the Persian or at least from the pre-Maccabean
period. This early section was originally written in Hebrew and seems to
be very ancient. The other two parts (3:9–4:4 and 4:5–5:9) were written
in Greek or freely translated from Hebrew or Aramaic. The first is a
praise of wisdom: only Israel received wisdom from God, which is the Law
of Moses. The last part of the book of Baruch contains Jerusalem’s
lament over her desolation and her consolation.
Intertestamental literature » Apocryphal writings » Apocryphal works
lacking strong indications of influence » The Letter of Jeremiah
The Letter of Jeremiah, like the book of Baruch, was conserved—together
with the Greek translation of the Book of Jeremiah—in the Septuagint.
The oldest witness of the letter is a fragment of a Greek papyrus,
written about 160 bce and found among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumrān.
Whether the letter was originally written in Greek or is a translation
from Hebrew or Aramaic is difficult to decide. The letter attacks the
folly of idolatry as did Jeremiah’s letter “to those who were to be
taken to Babylon as captives.” Though, according to some experts, the
idolatry described in the book fits Babylonian cults, the only clear
indication of its date is that of the Qumrān fragment.
Intertestamental literature » Apocryphal writings » Apocryphal works
lacking strong indications of influence » Prayer of Manasseh
In some manuscripts of the Septuagint and in two later Christian
writings, a pseudepigraphic Prayer of Manasseh is contained. This prayer
was composed with reference to II Chron. 33:11–18, according to which
the wicked Judaean king Manasseh repented and prayed. In the present
form the prayer is Greek in origin, but it may have existed in a Hebrew
version, of which the Greek is a free adaptation. The prayer was
probably composed (or translated) in the 1st century bce.
Intertestamental literature » Apocryphal writings » Additions to Daniel
and Esther
Two of the Old Testament Hagiographa (Ketuvim; see above The Hebrew
canon)—Daniel and Esther—contain, in their Greek translations, numerous
additions.
Intertestamental literature » Apocryphal writings » Additions to
Daniel and Esther » The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three
Young Men
The first addition to Daniel (in Greek and Latin translations Dan.
3:24–68) contains the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young
Men. These are the prayers of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, the three
young men who praised God after they had been placed in the midst of the
fiery furnace during a persecution of Jews in Babylon, as told in the
Book of Daniel. The first prayer is said by Azariah alone; the second, a
thanksgiving prayer, is said by all three after having been saved by
God. The two poems are not found in the original Daniel and were never a
part of it. They were translated from Hebrew originals or adapted from
them. A passage from the second, a liturgical hymn of praise, is a
poetic expansion of the doxology that was sung in the Temple when the
holy name of God was pronounced. Like the other additions to Daniel, the
two prayers were probably composed before 100 bce.
Intertestamental literature » Apocryphal writings » Additions to
Daniel and Esther » Susanna
The second addition to Daniel, the story of Susanna, and the third one,
Bel and the Dragon, are preserved in two Greek versions. In both stories
the hero is the wise Daniel. Susanna was the pious and beautiful wife of
Joakim, a wealthy Jew in Babylon. Two aged judges became inflamed with
love for her. They tried to force her to yield to their lust, and, when
she refused, they accused her of committing adultery with a young man,
who escaped. She was condemned to death, but when Daniel cross-examined
the two elders separately, the first stated that Susanna had been
surprised under a mastic tree, the other under a holm tree. Susanna was
thus saved and the two false witnesses executed.
The short story, perhaps invented even before the extant Book of
Daniel was composed, could very well be added to Daniel (whose name
means God is my Judge). The story was written in its present form in
Greek, since it contains two Greek puns, but a written Semitic prototype
may have existed.
Intertestamental literature » Apocryphal writings » Additions to
Daniel and Esther » Bel and the Dragon
The third Greek addition to the Book of Daniel is the story of Bel and
the Dragon. The Babylonians worshipped the idol of the god Bel and daily
provided him with much food, but Daniel proved to the King that the food
was in reality eaten by the priests. The priests were punished by death
and Bel’s temple destroyed. The Babylonians also worshipped a dragon,
but Daniel declined to worship him. To destroy the beast, Daniel boiled
pitch, fat, and hair together: the dragon ate it and burst asunder.
After Daniel’s sacrilege of slaying the dragon, the King was forced to
cast Daniel into the lions’ den, but nothing happened to him. Indeed, he
was given a dinner by the prophet Habakkuk, who was brought there by the
hair of his head by an angel. On the seventh day the King found Daniel
sitting in the den; so he led Daniel out and cast his enemies into the
den, where they were devoured.
The two stories are an attack against idolatry. As the addition ends
with the story about Daniel in the lions’ den, which is also narrated in
the canonical Book of Daniel with another motivation, it is probable
that this short treatise originated in a tradition that was parallel to
the canonical Book of Daniel and that the two stories were translated
from a Hebrew or Aramaic original.
Intertestamental literature » Apocryphal writings » Greek additions to
Esther
The Hebrew Book of Esther had a religious and social value to the Jews
during the time of Greek and Roman anti-Semitism, though the Hebrew
short story did not directly mention God’s intervention in history—and
even God himself is not named. To bring the canonical book up-to-date in
connection with contemporary anti-Semitism and to stress the religious
meaning of the story, additions were made in its Greek translation.
These Greek additions are (1) the dream of Mordecai (Esther’s uncle), a
symbolic vision written in the spirit of apocalyptic literature; (2) the
edict of King Artaxerxes (considered by some to be Artaxerxes II, but
more probably Xerxes) against the Jews, containing arguments taken from
classical anti-Semitism; (3) the prayers of Mordecai and of Esther,
containing apologies for what is said in the Book of Esther—Mordecai
saying that he refused to bow before Haman (the grand vizier) because he
is flesh and blood and Esther saying that she strongly detests her
forced marriage with the heathen king; (4) a description of Esther’s
audience with the King, during which the King’s mood was favourably
changed when he saw that Esther had fallen down in a faint; (5) the
decree of Artaxerxes on behalf of the Jews, in which Haman is called a
Macedonian who plotted against the King to transfer the kingdom of
Persia to the Macedonians; and (6) the interpretation of Mordecai’s
dream and a colophon (inscription at the end of a manuscript with
publication facts), where the date, namely, “the fourth year of the
reign of Ptolemy and Cleopatra” (i.e., 114 bce), is given. This
indicates that the additions in the Greek Esther were written in Egypt
under the rule of the Ptolemies.
Intertestamental literature » The Pseudepigraphal writings » Apocalyptic
and eschatological works » III Baruch
Apocalyptic literature was much concerned about sources of information
about the heavenly world and about the places of the damned and saved
souls. In later Jewish and early Christian apocalypses, in which the
hero undertakes a heavenly trip and sees the secrets that are hidden
from others, these sources of information are highly significant. III
Baruch, a book written in Greek—in which Baruch, the disciple of the
prophet Jeremiah, visits the universe and sees its secrets and the
places of the souls and of the angels—is such an apocalypse. In the
Greek text the number of heavens visited by Baruch is five, but it is
possible that originally he was said to have seen seven heavens. There
are Christian passages in the book, but it seems to have been a Jewish
work from the 1st century ce later rewritten by a Christian.
Intertestamental literature » The Pseudepigraphal writings »
Apocalyptic and eschatological works » II Enoch
Similar in content is II Enoch, or The Book of the Secrets of Enoch,
which is preserved only in an Old Slavonic translation. The oldest text
does not contain any Christian additions nor any passage from which it
could be concluded that the book was written in Greek. Thus, the book
could have been written originally in Hebrew or Aramaic, probably in the
1st century ce. The hero who visits the heavens is the biblical Enoch
(son of Jared). The author of the book knew at least some of the
treatises contained in I Enoch. The book also contains the story of the
miraculous birth of the biblical priest-king Melchizedek.
Intertestamental literature » The Pseudepigraphal writings »
Apocalyptic and eschatological works » The Psalms of Solomon
Other Jewish apocalypses or books containing eschatological elements did
not deal with the mysteries of celestial worlds but rather with the
political aspect of apocalyptic thought and with the last days and the
messianic age. This latter theme is one of the important motifs of the
Psalms of Solomon, a book written originally in Hebrew; only the Greek
translation of the Psalms is preserved. The title is evidently a later
addition—the author himself apparently had no intention to give the
impression that his 18 psalms were composed by the biblical king
Solomon. The Psalms of Solomon were written in Jerusalem about the
middle of the 1st century bce, and, though persons are not named, they
reflect the dramatic events of the Jewish history of that period,
especially the Roman general Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem in 63 bce
and his violent death in Egypt. In Psalm 17, the author denounces the
Hasmonean dynasty as illegal and describes the coming of the Davidic
Messiah (a kingly saviour from the line of David). His religious opinion
resembles the teachings of the Pharisees (a sect that espoused a
reinterpretation of Jewish laws and customs), especially in his faith in
the resurrection of the body and in the question of free will, though he
most likely was not a Pharisee but rather a member of the community of
Ḥasidim, a Jewish pietistic group that had joined the Maccabean revolt
from its beginning.
Intertestamental literature » The Pseudepigraphal writings »
Apocalyptic and eschatological works » The Assumption of Moses
The Assumption of Moses originally contained apocalyptic material—no
longer extant—in the form of a legend. According to Origen, the dispute
between the archangel Michael and the devil for the body of Moses was
narrated in the Assumption of Moses. This legend, which has parallels in
the rabbinic literature, probably formed the end of the Assumption of
Moses, the first part of which was discovered in a Latin manuscript. The
Latin version was translated from Greek, but the original language was
Semitic, probably Hebrew.
The main content of the preserved part is Moses’ prophecy about the
future, from his time until the Kingdom of Heaven will be revealed.
According to the custom of apocalyptic literature, names of persons and
groups are not mentioned, but from the last events hinted at in the book
it can be assumed that it was written at the beginning of the 1st
century ce, while Jesus was alive. In its older version, the book
apparently was written at the beginning of the Maccabean revolt, some
years before the Book of Daniel; after a description of the
pre-Maccabean Hellenistic priests (chapter 5) and before the description
of the persecutions by Antiochus Epiphanes (chapter 8), chapters 6–7
contain Jewish history from the time of the later Hasmonean rulers to
the time of the sons of Herod—as well as polemics against leading
religious circles, which are accused of religious hypocrisy, as are the
Pharisees in the Christian Gospels. The author of these chapters (6–7),
a contemporary of Jesus, evidently erroneously identified the wicked
pre-Maccabean priests with the wicked late Maccabean priestly rulers and
also interpreted Antiochus Epiphanes as a kind of eschatological
Antichrist. No messianic figure is mentioned in the eschatological
description of the Kingdom of God: God himself and his angel will bring
the salvation.
Intertestamental literature » The Pseudepigraphal writings »
Apocalyptic and eschatological works » The Sibylline Oracles
The Sibylline Oracles is a collection of oracles in Greek verse
containing pagan, Jewish, and Christian material from various periods.
It comprised 15 books (books IX, X, and XV are lost), of which 4,240
verses are extant. Sibyl is the name (or title) of a legendary ancient
pagan prophetess. In the Hellenistic period, eastern nations fabricated
Sibylline oracles as propagandistic literature against Greek and, later,
against Roman occupation. The political anti-Roman and anti-pagan tone
is typical of the Jewish and Christian parts of Sibylline oracles; they
also contain religious propaganda for the respective religion. Because
Jewish parts used pagan material and Christian authors interpolated
Jewish parts or used Jewish material, it is sometimes difficult to
decide what verses are pagan, Jewish, or Christian. The Sibylline
Oracles perhaps became a part of Jewish (and Christian) apocalyptic
literature because of their emphasis on eschatology. The oldest Jewish
“Sibyl” is contained in the third book: it dates from about 140 bce and
describes the coming of the Messiah. Book IV was written by a Jew about
80 ce: the eruption of Vesuvius (79) is viewed as a divine punishment
for the massacre of Jews in the Roman war (70). Book V was written by a
Jew about 125.
Intertestamental literature » The Pseudepigraphal writings »
Apocalyptic and eschatological works » II Esdras (or IV Esdras)
Two important apocalyptic pseudepigrapha (II Esdras and the Apocalypse
of Baruch), in which the political and eschatological aspects are
central to the aim of the books, were written in Palestine at the end of
the 1st century ce as a consequence of the catastrophic destruction of
the Second Temple in Jerusalem (70). Both were written as if they
reflected the doom that befell the people of Israel after the
destruction of the First Temple (586 bce) by the Babylonians. II Esdras
(or IV Esdras) was written in Hebrew, but only various translations from
a lost Greek version are preserved. The Latin version (in which chapters
1–2 and 15–16 have been added by a Christian hand) at one time was
printed at the end of the Latin Bible. The book consists of six visions
attributed to the biblical Ezra (who is, at the beginning of the book,
erroneously identified with Salathiel, the father of Zerubbabel, a
leader of the returning exiles from Babylon). The tragedy of his nation
evokes in the heart of the author questions about God’s righteousness,
the human condition, the meaning of history, and the election of Israel;
“Ezra” does not find consolation and full answer in the words of the
angel who was sent to him, which also contain revelations about the last
days. In the fourth vision “Ezra” sees a mourning woman; she disappears
and a city (the New Jerusalem) stands in her place. In the fifth vision
a monstrous eagle appears, the symbol of the Roman Empire, and a lion,
the symbol of the Messiah. The final victory of the Messiah is described
in the last vision of the man (Son of man) coming from the sea. In
chapter 14 “Ezra” is described as dictating 94 books: 24 are the books
of the Hebrew Bible, and the other 70 are esoteric.
Intertestamental literature » The Pseudepigraphal writings »
Apocalyptic and eschatological works » The Apocalypse of Baruch
The Apocalypse of Baruch was written about the same time as II (IV)
Esdras, and the less profound Apocalypse probably depends much upon II
Esdras. The Apocalypse of Baruch survives only in a Syriac version
translated from Greek; originally the book was composed in Hebrew or
Aramaic and is ascribed to Baruch, the disciple of Jeremiah and a
contemporary of the destruction of the First Temple. If II Esdras asks
questions about important problems of human history and the tragic
situation of Israel after the destruction of the Second Temple, the
Apocalypse of Baruch apparently was written to give a positive,
traditional answer to these doubts.
Intertestamental literature » The Pseudepigraphal writings »
Pseudepigrapha connected with the Dead Sea Scrolls
There are three Pseudepigrapha that are closely connected with the
writings of the Dead Sea sect: the Book of Jubilees, the Ethiopic Book
of Enoch, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. It is not
accidental that fragments of the two first books and of two sources of
the third were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Intertestamental literature » The Pseudepigraphal writings »
Pseudepigrapha connected with the Dead Sea Scrolls » The Book of
Jubilees
From the fragments of the Book of Jubilees among the Dead Sea Scrolls,
scholars note that the book was originally written in biblical Hebrew.
The whole book is preserved in an Ethiopic version translated from
Greek.
The book is written in the form of a revealed history of Israel from
the creation until the dwelling of Moses on Mt. Sinai, where the content
of the book was revealed to Moses by “the angel of the presence.” The
Book of Jubilees in fact is a legendary rewriting of the book of Genesis
and a part of Exodus. One of the main purposes of the author is to
promote, in the form of divine revelation, a special sectarian
interpretation of Jewish law. All the legal prescriptions noted in the
book were practiced by the Dead Sea sect; in connection with the solar
calendar of 52 weeks, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls even mentions the Book
of Jubilees as the source. The (unpublished) Temple Scroll, a book of
sectarian prescriptions that paraphrases—also as divine revelation—a
part of the Mosaic Law and was composed by the Dead Sea sect before 100
bce (i.e., in the same period as the Book of Jubilees), closely
resembles some parts of the Book of Jubilees. Thus, the Book of Jubilees
could be accepted by the Dead Sea sect and apparently was written in the
same circles, immediately before the sect itself came into existence.
The apocalyptical hopes expressed in the book are also identical to
those of the Dead Sea sect.
Intertestamental literature » The Pseudepigraphal writings »
Pseudepigrapha connected with the Dead Sea Scrolls » The Book of Enoch
Another book that was written during the period of the apocalyptic
movement in which the Dead Sea sect came into existence is the Book of
Enoch, or I Enoch. It was completely preserved in an Ethiopic
translation from Greek, and large parts from the beginning and end of
the Greek version have been published from two papyri. Aramaic fragments
of many parts of the book were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, as were
Hebrew fragments of the Book of Noah, either one of the sources of Enoch
or a parallel elaboration of the same material. Passages of the Book of
Noah were included in Enoch by its redactor (editor). Scholars generally
agree that the somewhat haphazard redaction of the book was made in its
Greek stage, when a redactor put together various treatises of the
Enochic literature that were written at various times and reflected
various trends of the movement.
Besides the passages from the Book of Noah, five treatises are
included in the Book of Enoch. The hero of all of them is the biblical
Enoch. The first treatise (chapters 1–36) speaks about the fall of the
angels, who rebelled before the Flood, and describes Enoch’s celestial
journeys, in which divine secrets were revealed to him. It was probably
written in the late 2nd century bce.
The second part of the Book of Enoch is the “Parables” (or
Similitudes) of Enoch (37–71). These three eschatological sermons of
Enoch refer to visions; their original language was probably Hebrew
rather than Aramaic. This treatise is an important witness for the
belief in the coming of the Son of man, who is expressly identified with
the Messiah; in chapters 70–71, which are probably a later addition, the
Son of man is identified with Enoch himself. The treatise probably dates
from the 1st century bce.
As Aramaic fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls show, the astronomical
book entitled “The Book of the Heavenly Luminaries” (chapters 72–82) is
in the present form abbreviated in the Book of Enoch. All these
astronomical mysteries were shown to Enoch by the angel Uriel. The
treatise propagates the same solar calendar that is also known from the
Book of Jubilees and from the Dead Sea sect. This treatise was probably
written before the year 100 bce.
The fourth treatise (chapters 83–90) contains two visions of Enoch:
the first (chapters 83–84), about the Flood, is in reality only a sort
of introduction to the second one (“the vision of seventy shepherds”),
which describes the history of the world from Adam to the messianic age;
the personages of the visions are allegorically described as various
kinds of animals. The symbolic description of history continues to the
time of Judas Maccabeus; then follows the last assault of Gentiles and
the messianic period. Thus, the treatise was written in the early
Hasmonean period, some time after the biblical Book of Daniel.
The fifth treatise (chapters 91–107) contains Enoch’s speech of moral
admonition to his family. The moral stress and the social impact is
similar to parts of Jesus’ teaching; even the form of beatitudes
(blessings) and woes is present. The treatise shows some affinities to
the Dead Sea Scrolls, but the author was not a member of the Dead Sea
sect; he opposes the central teaching of the sect, the doctrine of
predestination (98: 4–5). The treatise apparently was written at the end
of the 1st century bce. Chapter 105, lacking in the Greek version, is a
late interpolation, probably of Christian origin.
The author of the treatise himself apparently incorporated into it a
small apocalypse, the “Apocalypse of Weeks” (93:1–10; 91:12–17); in it
the whole of human history is divided into ten weeks; seven of them
belong to the past and the last three to the future.
Intertestamental literature » The Pseudepigraphal writings »
Pseudepigrapha connected with the Dead Sea Scrolls » Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs
The third pseudepigraphon that shows important affinities with the Dead
Sea sect is the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the last speeches
of the 12 sons of the Hebrew patriarch Jacob. In its extant form,
containing Christian passages, the book was written in Greek. Fragments
of two original Semitic sources of the book were found among the Dead
Sea Scrolls: the Aramaic “Testament of Levi” (fragments of it were also
discovered in Aramaic in the medieval Geniza, or synagogue storeroom, in
Cairo) and a Hebrew fragment of the “Testaments of Naphtali.” A Hebrew
“Testament of Judah,” which was used both by the Book of Jubilees and
the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in their description of the wars
of the sons of Jacob, also probably existed.
Whether Hebrew and Aramaic prototypes for all the 12 testaments of
the patriarchs existed is difficult to ascertain. The present book was
originally written in Greek. In it each of the sons of Jacob before his
death gives moral advice to his descendants, based upon his own
experience. All the testaments, with the exception of Gad, also contain
apocalyptic predictions.
Between the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Dead Sea sect
there is a historical and ideological connection. The sources of the
book were found among the scrolls, the source of the “Testament of Levi”
is quoted in a sectarian writing (the Damascus Document), a dualistic
outlook is common to the book and the sect, and the devil is named
Belial in both. There are, however, important differences: in regard to
the nature of the dualism between good and evil, there is in the
Testaments the concept of the good and bad inclination, known from
rabbinical literature, which does not exist in the scrolls; though the
sect believed in an afterlife of souls, the Testaments reflect the
belief in the resurrection of the body; there are no traces of the
doctrine of predestination in the testaments, a doctrine that is so
important for the sect. Only the “Testament of Asher” preaches, as did
the Dead Sea sect, hatred against sinners; the other testaments stress,
as does rabbinic literature and especially Jesus, the precept of love
for God and neighbour. Thus, it is probable that the testaments of the
patriarchs were composed in circles in which doctrines of the Dead Sea
sect were mitigated and combined with some rabbinic doctrines. A similar
humanistic position, founded both on doctrines of the Dead Sea sect and
of the Pharisees, is typical of Jesus’ message, and there are important
parallels between his message and the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs.
Intertestamental literature » Qumrān literature (Dead Sea Scrolls) »
Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls
New literary documents from the intertestamental period were found in
the caves of Qumrān in the vicinity of the Dead Sea in the 1940s, but
only a portion of them has yet been published. All the Dead Sea Scrolls
were written before the destruction of the Second Temple; with the
exception of small Greek fragments, they are all in Hebrew and Aramaic.
The scrolls formed the library of an ancient Jewish sect, which probably
came into existence at the end of the 2nd century bce and was founded by
a religious genius, called in the scrolls the Teacher of Righteousness.
Scholars have tried to identify the sect with all possible groups of
ancient Judaism, including the Zealots and early Christians, but it is
now most often identified with the Essenes; all that the sectarian
scrolls contain fits previous information about the Essenes, and the
Dead Sea Scrolls help scholars to interpret the descriptions about the
Essenes in ancient sources.
Intertestamental literature » Qumrān literature (Dead Sea Scrolls) »
Findings and conclusions » Apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings
The importance of the discovery is very great; the scrolls of books of
the Old Testament caused a new evaluation of the history of the text of
the Hebrew Bible; fragments of the Apocrypha (Sirach and Tobit) and of
already known and unknown Pseudepigrapha enlarge knowledge about Jewish
literature of the intertestamental period, and the properly sectarian
scrolls are important witnesses about an ancient sect that influenced,
in some points, the origins of Christianity.
Among the previously unknown Pseudepigrapha were large parts of an
Aramaic scroll, the Genesis Apocryphon, which retells stories from
Genesis in the manner of a number of apocryphal books. The chapters that
are preserved are concerned with Lamech, his grandfather Enoch, Noah,
and Abraham, and the narrators in the scroll are the respective biblical
heroes. There is a close affinity between this scroll and the Book of
Jubilees and Book of Enoch, fragments of these books having been also
found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Another pseudepigraphon that resembles
the Dead Sea sect in spirit is the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs;
fragments of two of its sources, namely, the Aramaic “Testament of Levi”
and a Hebrew “Testament of Naphtali,” are extant in the Qumrān library.
All these books were composed in an apocalyptic movement in Judaism, in
the midst of which the Dead Sea sect originated. It is sometimes
difficult to ascertain if a work was written within the sect itself or
if it represents the broader movement. The largest scroll, the Temple
Scroll, is as yet unpublished. It describes—by the mouth of God himself
and in Hebrew—not the Temple of the last days but the Temple as it
should have been built. There are strong ties between the Temple Scroll
and the Book of Jubilees and the prescriptions in it fit the conceptions
of the sect; the work was composed by the sectarians themselves.
Intertestamental literature » Qumrān literature (Dead Sea Scrolls) »
Findings and conclusions » Pesharim
An important source of knowledge about the history of the Dead Sea sect
is the pesharim (“commentaries”; singular pesher). The sectarian authors
commented on the books of Old Testament prophets and the book of Psalms
and in the commentaries explained the biblical text as speaking about
the history of the sect and of events that happened in the time of its
existence. According to the manner of apocalyptic literature in the
pesharim, persons and groups are not named with their proper names but
are described by symbolic titles—e.g., the Teacher of Righteousness for
the founder of the sect. The most important sectarian commentaries are
the pesharim on Habakkuk and on Nahum.
Intertestamental literature » Qumrān literature (Dead Sea Scrolls) »
Findings and conclusions » The War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons
of Darkness
One of the most interesting Dead Sea Scrolls is The War of the Sons of
Light Against the Sons of Darkness, a description of the eschatological
war between the Sons of Light—i.e., the sect—and the rest of mankind,
first with the other Jews and then with the Gentiles. At the end the
Sons of Light will conquer the whole world, and in this war they will be
helped by heavenly hosts; the Sons of Darkness, aided by the devil
Belial and his demonic army, and, finally, all wicked ones will be
destroyed. The work contains prayers and speeches that will be uttered
in the eschatological war as well as military and other ordinances.
Thus, the book also could be called the Manual of Discipline for the
last war.
Intertestamental literature » Qumrān literature (Dead Sea Scrolls) »
Findings and conclusions » Books of ordinances
Other books of ordinances of the sect have been preserved, containing
prescriptions and other material. Three such compositions are written on
one scroll: the Manual of Discipline, the Rule of the Congregation, and
the manual of Benedictions. The Manual of Discipline is the rule (or
statement of regulations) of the Essene community; the most important
part of this work is a treatise about the special theology of the sect.
The Rule of the Congregation contains prescriptions for the
eschatological future when the sect is expected to be the elite of the
nation. The manual of Benedictions, preserved only in a fragmentary
state, contains benedictions that are to be said in the eschatological
future.
Another sectarian book of ordinances is the Damascus Document (the
Zadokite Fragments). The work was already known from two medieval copies
before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but fragments of it also
were found in Qumrān, and the connection between this work and the Dead
Sea sect is evident. The Damascus Document was written in a community in
Damascus, which was not as rigidly organized as the Essenes. The work
contains the rules of this community and reminiscences of the sect’s
history. Some scholars think that “Damascus” is only a symbolical name
for Qumrān.
Intertestamental literature » Qumrān literature (Dead Sea Scrolls) »
Findings and conclusions » Hodayot
One of the most important Essene works is the Hodayot (“Praises”)—a
modern Hebrew name for the Thanksgiving Psalms. This scroll contains
sectarian hymns of praise to God. In its view of the fleshly nature of
man, who can be justified only by God’s undeserved grace, it resembles
St. Paul’s approach to the same problem. Some scholars think that the
work, or a part of it, was written by the Teacher of Righteousness.
Among other fragments of scrolls liturgical texts of prayers were
found, as well as fragments of horoscopes written in a cryptic script.
David Flusser
New Testament canon, texts, and versions » The New Testament canon »
Conditions aiding the formation of the canon
The New Testament consists of 27 books, which are the residue, or
precipitate, out of many 1st–2nd-century-ad writings that Christian
groups considered sacred. In these various writings the early church
transmitted its traditions: its experience, understanding, and
interpretation of Jesus as the Christ and the self-understanding of the
church. In a seemingly circuitous interplay between the historical and
theological processes, the church selected these 27 writings as
normative for its life and teachings—i.e., as its canon (from the Greek
kanōn, literally, a reed or cane used as a measuring rod and,
figuratively, a rule or standard). Other accounts, letters, and
revelations—e.g., the Didachē (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), Gospel
of Peter, First Letter of Clement, Letter of Barnabas, Apocalypse
(Revelation) of Peter, Shepherd of Hermas—exist, but through a complex
process the canon was fixed for both the Eastern and Western churches in
the 4th century. The canon contained four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John), Acts, 21 letters, and one book of a strictly revelatory
character, Revelation. These were not necessarily the oldest writings,
not all equally revelatory, and not all directed to the church at large.
The Old Testament in its Greek translation, the Septuagint (LXX), was
the Bible of the earliest Christians. The New Covenant, or Testament,
was viewed as the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises of salvation
that were continued for the new Israel, the church, through the Holy
Spirit, which had come through Christ, upon the whole people of God.
Thus, the Spirit, which in the Old Testament had been viewed as resting
only on special charismatic figures, in the New Testament became
“democratized”—i.e., was given to the whole people of the New Covenant.
In postbiblical Judaism of the first Christian centuries, it was
believed that the Spirit had ceased after the writing of the Book of
Malachi (the last book of the Old Testament canon) and that no longer
could anyone say “Thus saith the Lord,” as had the prophets, nor could
any further holy writ be produced.
The descent of the Spirit on the community of the Messiah (i.e., the
Christ) was thus perceived by Christians as a sign of the beginning of
the age to come, and the church understood itself as having access to
that inspiration through the Spirit. Having this understanding of
itself, the church created the New Testament canon not only as a
continuation and fulfillment of the Old Testament but also as
qualitatively different, because a new age had been ushered in. These 27
books, therefore, were not merely appended to the traditional Jewish
threefold division of the Old Testament—the Law (Torah), the Prophets
(Neviʾim), and the Writings (Ketuvim)—but rather became the New
Testament, the second part of the Christian Bible, of which the Old
Testament is the first.
Because of a belief that something almost magical occurs—with an
element of secrecy—when a transmitted oral tradition is put into
writing, there was, in both the Old and New Testaments, an expression of
reluctance about committing sacred material to writing. When such sacred
writings are studied to find the revealed word of God, a settled
delimiting of the writings—i.e., a canon—must be selected. In the last
decade of the 1st century, the Synod of Jamnia (Jabneh), in Palestine,
fixed the canon of the Bible for Judaism, which, following a long period
of flux and fluidity and controversy about certain of its books,
Christians came to call the Old Testament. A possible factor in the
timing of this Jewish canon was a situation of crisis: the fall of
Jerusalem and reaction to the fact that the Septuagint was used by
Christians and to their advantage, as in the translation of the Hebrew
word ʿalma (“young woman”) in chapter 7, verse 14, of Isaiah—“Behold, a
young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name
Immanuel”—into the Greek term parthenos (“virgin”).
As far as the New Testament is concerned, there could be no Bible
without a church that created it; yet conversely, having been nurtured
by the content of the writings themselves, the church selected the
canon. The concept of inspiration was not decisive in the matter of
demarcation because the church understood itself as having access to
inspiration through the guidance of the Spirit. Indeed, until c. ad 150,
Christians could produce writings either anonymously or
pseudonymously—i.e., using the name of some acknowledged important
biblical or apostolic figure. The practice was not believed to be either
a trick or fraud. Apart from letters in which the person of the writer
was clearly attested—as in those of Paul, which have distinctive
historical, theological, and stylistic traits peculiar to Paul—the other
writings placed their emphases on the message or revelation conveyed,
and the author was considered to be only an instrument or witness to the
Holy Spirit or the Lord. When the message was committed to writing, the
instrument was considered irrelevant, because the true author was
believed to be the Spirit. By the mid-2nd century, however, with the
delay of the final coming (the Parousia) of the Messiah as the
victorious eschatological (end-time) judge and with a resulting
increased awareness of history, increasingly a distinction was made
between the apostolic time and the present. There also was a gradual
cessation of “authentically pseudonymous” writings in which the author
could identify with Christ and the Apostles and thereby gain
ecclesiastical recognition.
New Testament canon, texts, and versions » The New Testament canon » The
process of canonization
The process of canonization was relatively long and remarkably flexible
and detached; various books in use were recognized as inspired, but the
Church Fathers noted, without embarrassment or criticism, how some held
certain books to be canonical and others did not. Emerging Christianity
assumed that through the Spirit the selection of canonical books was
“certain” enough for the needs of the church. Inspiration, it is to be
stressed, was neither a divisive nor a decisive criterion. Only when the
canon had become self-evident was it argued that inspiration and
canonicity coincided, and this coincidence became the presupposition of
Protestant orthodoxy (e.g., the authority of the Bible through the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit).
New Testament canon, texts, and versions » The New Testament canon »
The process of canonization » The need for consolidation and
delimitation
Viewed both phenomenologically and practically, the canon had to be
consolidated and delimited. Seen historically, however, there were a
number of reasons that forced the issue of limiting the canon. Oral
tradition had begun to deteriorate in post-apostolic times, partly
because many or most of the eyewitnesses to the earliest events of
Jesus’ life and death and the beginning of the church had died. Also,
the oral tradition may simply have suffered in transmission. Papias
(died c. 130), a bishop of Hieropolis, in Asia Minor, was said by
Irenaeus (died c. 200), a bishop of Lugdunum (now Lyon, France) to have
been an eyewitness of the Apostle John. Papias had said, “For I did not
suppose that the things from the books would aid me so much as the
things from the living and continuing voice.” Eusebius (c. 260–c. 340),
a church historian, reported these comments in his Ecclesiastical
History and pointed out inconsistencies in Papias’ recollections,
doubted his understanding, and called him “a man of exceedingly small
intelligence.” Large sections of oral tradition, however, which were
probably translated in part from Aramaic before being written down in
Greek—such as the Passion (suffering of Christ) narrative, many sayings
of Jesus, and early liturgical material—benefitted by the very
conservativism implicit in such traditions. But because the church
perceived its risen Lord as a living Lord, even his words could be
adjusted or adapted to fit specific church needs. Toward the end of the
1st century, there was also a conscious production of gospels. Some
gospels purported to be words of the risen Lord that did not reflect
apostolic traditions and even claimed superiority over them. Such claims
were deemed heretical and helped to push the early church toward
canonization.
Faced with heresy and claims to late revelations, the early church
was constrained to retain the historical dimension of its faith, the
ephapax, or the “once for all,” revelation of God in Jesus Christ.
New Testament canon, texts, and versions » The New Testament canon »
The process of canonization » Impulse toward canonization from heretical
movements
Gnosticism (a religious system with influence both on Judaism and
Christianity) tended to foster speculation, cutting loose from
historical revelation. In defense the orthodox churches stressed the
apostolic tradition by focussing on Gospels and letters from apostolic
lives and distinguished them from Gnostic writings, such as the Gospel
of Truth (mentioned by Irenaeus) and now found in Coptic translation in
a collection of Gnostic writings from Egypt; it is a Coptic manuscript
of a Valentinian Gnostic speculation from the mid-2nd century—i.e., a
work based on the teachings of Valentinus, a Gnostic teacher from
Alexandria. In the same collection is the Gospel of Thomas in Coptic,
actually a collection of sayings purporting to be the words of the risen
Christ, the living Lord. This “gospel” also occurred in Greek (c. 140),
and warnings against it as heretical were made by the Church Fathers in
the 2nd to the 4th centuries.
In a general prophetic apocalyptic mood, another heresy, Montanism,
arose. This was an ecstatic enthusiastic movement claiming special
revelation and stressing “the age of the spirit.” Montanus (died c. 175)
and two prophetesses claimed that their oracular statements contained
new and contemporary authoritative revelations. This break with the
apostolic time caused vigorous response. An anti-Montanist reported that
“the false prophet is one who speaks in ecstasy after which follow
freedom . . . and madness of soul.”
The single most decisive factor in the process of canonization was
the influence of Marcion (flourished c. 140), who had Gnostic tendencies
and who set up a “canon” that totally repudiated the Old Testament and
anything Jewish. He viewed the Creator God of the Old Testament as a
cruel God of retribution and the Jewish Law. His canon consisted of The
Gospel, a “cleaned up” Luke (the least Jewish), and the Apostolikon (ten
Pauline letters with Old Testament references and analogies edited out,
without Hebrews, I and II Timothy, and Titus). This restrictive canon
acted as a catalyst to the formation of a canon more in line with the
thought of the church catholic (universal).
New Testament canon, texts, and versions » The New Testament canon »
The process of canonization » Late-2nd-century canons
By the end of the 2nd century, Irenaeus used the four canonical Gospels,
13 letters of Paul, I Peter, I and II John, Revelation, Shepherd of
Hermas (a work later excluded from the canon), and Acts. Justin Martyr
(died c. 165), a Christian apologist, wrote of the reading of the
Gospels, “the memoirs of the Apostles,” in the services, in which they
were the basis for sermons. In his writings he quoted freely from the
Gospels, Hebrews, the Pauline Letters, I Peter, and Acts. Justin’s
Syrian pupil, Tatian (c. 160), although he quotes from John separately,
is best known for his Diatessaron (literally, “through four” [gospels],
but also a musicological term meaning “choral” “harmony”), which was a
life of Christ compiled from all four Gospels but based on the outline
and structure of John. This indicates both that Tatian was aware of four
gospel traditions and that their canonicity was not fixed in final form
at his time in Syria. Although Tatian was later declared a heretic, the
Diatessaron was used until the 5th century and influenced the Western
Church even after four separated gospels were established.
The first clear witness to a catalog of authoritative New Testament
writings is found in the so-called Muratorian Canon, a crude and
uncultured Latin 8th-century manuscript translated from a Greek list
written in Rome c. 170–180, named for its modern discoverer and
publisher Lodovica Antonio Muratori (1672–1750). Though the first lines
are lost, Luke is referred to as “the third book of the Gospel,” and the
canon thus contains [Matthew, Mark] Luke, John, Acts, 13 Pauline
letters, Jude, two letters of John, and Revelation. Concerning the
Apocalypse of Peter, it notes that it may be read, although some persons
object; it rejects the Shepherd of Hermas as having been written only
recently in Rome and lacking connection with the apostolic age. The
Wisdom of Solomon (a Jewish intertestamental writing), is included in
the accepted works as written in Solomon’s honour.
Some principles for determining the criteria of canonicity begin to
be apparent: apostolicity, true doctrine (regula fidei), and widespread
geographical usage. Such principles are indicated by Muratori’s argument
that the Pauline Letters are canonical and universal—the Word of God for
the whole church—although they are addressed to specific churches, on
the analogy of the letters to the seven churches in Revelation; in a
prophetic statement to the whole church, seven specific churches are
addressed, then the specific letters of Paul can be read for all. Thus,
the catholic status of the Pauline letters to seven churches is
vindicated on the basis of the revelation of Jesus Christ to John, the
seer and writer of Revelation. Wide usage in the church is indicated in
calling Acts the Acts of all the Apostles and in the intention of the
“general address”—e.g., “To those who are called,” in Jude—of the
Catholic (or general) Letters—i.e., I and II Peter, I, II, and III John,
James, and Jude. The criterion of accordance with received teaching is
plain in the rejection of heretical writings. The Muratorian Canon
itself may have been, in part, a response to Marcion’s heretical and
reductive canon.
The criteria of true doctrine, usage, and apostolicity all taken
together must be satisfied, then, in order that a book be judged
canonical. Thus, even though the Shepherd of Hermas, the First Letter of
Clement, and the Didachē may have been widely used and contain true
doctrines, they were not canonical because they were not apostolic nor
connected to the apostolic age, or they were local writings without
support in many areas.
During the time of the definitive formation of the canon in the 2nd
century, apparent differences existed in the Western churches (centred
in or in close contact with Rome) and those of the East (as in
Alexandria and Asia Minor). It is not surprising that the Roman
Muratorian Canon omitted Hebrews and accepted and held Revelation in
high esteem, for Hebrews allows for no repentance for the baptized
Christian who commits apostasy (rejection of faith), a problem in the
Western Church when it was subjected to persecution. In the East, on the
other hand, there was a dogmatic resistance to the teaching of a
1,000-year reign of the Messiah before the end time—i.e., chiliasm, or
millenarianism—in Revelation. There was also a difference in the
acceptance of Acts and the Catholic Letters. With the continued
expansion of the church, particularly in the 2nd century, consolidation
was necessary.
New Testament canon, texts, and versions » The New Testament canon »
The process of canonization » Canonical standards of the 3rd and 4th
centuries
Clement of Alexandria, a theologian who flourished in the late 2nd
century, seemed to be practically unconcerned about canonicity. To him,
inspiration is what mattered, and he made use of the Gospel of the
Hebrews, the Gospel of the Egyptians, the Letter of Barnabas, the
Didachē, and other extracanonical works. Origen (died c. 254), Clement’s
pupil and one of the greatest thinkers of the early church,
distinguished at least three classes of writings, basing his judgment on
majority usage in places that he had visited: (1) homologoumena or
anantirrhēta, “undisputed in the churches of God throughout the whole
world” (the four Gospels, 13 Pauline Letters, I Peter, I John, Acts, and
Revelation); (2) amphiballomena, “disputed” (II Peter, II and III John,
Hebrews, James, and Jude); and (3) notha, “spurious” (Gospel of the
Egyptians, Thomas, and others). He used the term “scripture” (graphē)
for the Didachē, the Letter of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas, but
did not consider them canonical. Eusebius shows the situation in the
early 4th century. Universally accepted are: the four Gospels, Acts, 14
Pauline Letters (including Hebrews), I John, and I Peter. The disputed
writings are of two kinds: (1) those known and accepted by many (James,
Jude, II Peter, II and III John, and (2) those called “spurious” but not
“foul and impious” (Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of
Peter, Letter of Barnabas, Didachē and possibly the Gospel of the
Hebrews); finally there are the heretically spurious (e.g., Gospel of
Peter, Acts of John). Revelation is listed both as fully accepted (“if
permissible”) and as spurious but not impious. It is important that
Eusebius feels free to make authoritative use of the disputed writings.
Thus canon and authoritative revelation are not yet the same thing.
New Testament canon, texts, and versions » The New Testament canon »
The process of canonization » Determination of the canon in the 4th
century
Athanasius, a 4th-century bishop of Alexandria and a significant
theologian, delimited the canon and settled the strife between East and
West. On a principle of inclusiveness, both Revelation and Hebrews (as
part of the Pauline corpus) were accepted. The 27 books of the New
Testament—and they only—were declared canonical. In the Greek churches
there was still controversy about Revelation, but in the Latin Church,
under the influence of Jerome, Athanasius’ decision was accepted. It is
notable, however, that, in a mid-4th-century manuscript called Codex
Sinaiticus, the Letter of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas are
included at the end but with no indication of secondary status, and
that, in the 5th-century Codex Alexandrinus, there is no demarcation
between Revelation and I and II Clement.
In the Syriac Church, Tatian’s Diatessaron was used until the 5th
century, and in the 3rd century the 14 Pauline Letters were added.
Because Tatian had been declared a heretic, there was a clear episcopal
order to have the four separated Gospels when, according to tradition,
Rabbula, bishop of Edessa, introduced the Syriac version known as the
Peshitta—also adding Acts, James, I Peter, and I John—making a 22-book
canon. Only much later, perhaps in the 7th century, did the Syriac canon
come into agreement with the Greek 27 books.
New Testament canon, texts, and versions » The New Testament canon »
The process of canonization » Developments in the 16th century
With the advent of printing and differences between Roman Catholics and
Protestants, the canon and its relationship to tradition finally became
fixed. During the Counter-Reformation Council of Trent (1545–63), the
canon of the entire Bible was set in 1546 as the Vulgate, based on
Jerome’s Latin version. For Luther, the criterion of what was canonical
was both apostolicity, or what is of an apostolic nature, and “was
Christum treibet”—what drives toward, or leads to, Christ. This latter
criterion he did not find in, for example, Hebrews, James, Jude, and
Revelation; even so, he bowed to tradition, and placed these books last
in the New Testament.
New Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Textual
criticism » The physical aspects of New Testament texts
To establish the reliability of the text of ancient manuscripts in order
to reach the text that the author originally wrote (or, rather,
dictated) involves the physical aspects of the texts: collection,
collation of differences or variant readings in manuscripts, and
comparison in matters of dating, geographical origins, and the amount of
editing or revision noted, using as many copies as are available.
Textual criticism starts thus with the manuscripts themselves. Families
of manuscripts may be recognized by noting similarities and differences,
degrees of dependence, or stages of their transmission leading back to
the earliest text, or autograph. The techniques used in textual studies
of ancient manuscripts are the same whether they deal with secular,
philosophical, or religious texts. New Testament textual criticism,
however, operates under unique conditions because of an abundance of
manuscripts and the rather short gap between the time of original
writing and the extant manuscripts, shorter than that of the Old
Testament.
Compared with other ancient manuscripts, the text of the New
Testament is dependable and consistent, but on an absolute scale there
are far more variant readings as compared with those of, for example,
classical Greek authors. This is the result, on the one hand, of a great
number of surviving manuscripts and extant manuscript fragments and, on
the other, of the fact that the time gap between an oral phase of
transmission and the written stage was far shorter than that of many
other ancient Greek manuscripts. The missionary message—the kerygma
(proclamation)—with reports of the Passion, death, Resurrection, and
Ascension of Jesus Christ and collections of his deeds and sayings was,
at first, oral tradition. Later it was written down in Gospel form. The
letters of Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles who founded or corresponded
with churches, were also collected and distributed as he had dictated
them. All autographs of New Testament books have disappeared. In sharp
contrast to the fact that the oldest extant full manuscript of a work by
the Greek philosopher Plato (died 347 bc) is a copy written in 895—a gap
of more than 1,000 years bridged by only a few papyrus texts—there was a
time gap of less than 200 or 300 years between the original accounts of
the New Testament events and extant manuscripts. In fact, a small (about
2.5 inches by 3.5 inches [6.4 by 8.9 centimetres]) papyrus fragment with
verses from the 18th chapter of the Gospel According to John can be
dated c. 120–130; this earliest known fragment of the New Testament was
written 40 years or less after the presumed date of the production of
that Gospel (c. 90).
Excluding papyri found preserved in the dry sands, as in Egypt (where
the Gospel According to John was evidently popular judging from the
large number of fragments found there), the approximate number of New
Testament manuscripts dating from the 3rd to 18th centuries are: 2,000
of the four Gospels; 400 of Acts, Pauline, and Catholic letters
together; 300 of Pauline letters alone; 250 of Revelation; and 2,000
lectionaries—i.e., collections of gospel (and sometimes Acts and letter)
selections, or pericopes, meant to be used in public worship. Quotations
from the Church Fathers—some of which are so extensive as to include
almost the whole New Testament—account for more than 150,000 textual
variants. Of the quotations in the Fathers, however, it is difficult to
make judgments because the quotations may have been intended to be exact
from some particular text traditions, but others may have been from
memory, conflations, harmonizations, or allusions. Of the many New
Testament manuscripts to date, however, only about 50 contain the entire
27 books of the New Testament. The majority have the four Gospels, and
Revelation is the least well attested. Prior to the printing press (15th
century), all copies of Bibles show textual variations.
New Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions »
Textual criticism » Types of writing materials and methods
In Hellenistic times (c. 300 bc–c. ad 300), official records were often
inscribed on stone or metal tablets. Literary works and detailed letters
were written on parchment or papyrus, though short or temporary records
were written or scratched on potsherds (ostraca) or wax tablets. Scrolls
were made by gluing together papyrus sheets (made from the pith of the
papyrus reed) or by sewing together parchment leaves (made from treated
and scraped animal skins); they were written in columns and read by
shifting the roll backward and forward from some wooden support on one
or both ends. Such scrolls were used for literary or religious works and
seldom exceeded 30 feet (nine metres) in length because of their weight
and awkwardness in handling.
In contrast, the church used not scrolls but the codex (book) form
for its literature. A codex was formed by sewing pages of papyrus or
parchment of equal size one upon another and vertically down the middle,
forming a quire; both sides of the pages thus formed could be written
upon. In antiquity, the codex was the less honourable form of writing
material, used for notes and casual records. The use of the book form
testifies to the low cultural and educational status of early
Christianity—and, as the church rose to prominence, it brought “the
book” with it. Not until the time of the Roman emperor Constantine in
the 4th century, when Christianity became a state religion, were there
parchment codices containing the whole New Testament.
Some very early New Testament manuscripts and fragments thereof are
papyrus, but parchment, when available, became the best writing material
until the advent of printing. The majority of New Testament manuscripts
from the 4th to 15th centuries are parchment codices. When parchment
codices occasionally were deemed no longer of use, the writing was
scraped off and a new text written upon it. Such a rewritten
(rescriptus) manuscript is called a palimpsest (from the Greek palin,
“again,” and psaō, “I scrape”). Often the original text of a palimpsest
can be discerned by photographic process.
In New Testament times there were two main types of Greek writing:
majuscules (or uncials) and minuscules. Majuscules are all capital
(uppercase) letters, and the word uncial (literally, 1/12 of a whole,
about an inch) points to the size of their letters. Minuscules are
lowercase manuscripts. Both uncials and minuscules might have ligatures
making them into semi-connected cursives. In Greco-Roman times
minuscules were used for the usual daily writing. In parchments from the
4th to the 9th centuries, both majuscules and minuscules were used for
New Testament manuscripts, but by the 11th century all the manuscripts
were minuscules.
In these early New Testament manuscripts, there were no spaces
between either letters or words, rarely an indication that a word was
“hyphenated,” no chapter or verse divisions, no punctuation, and no
accents or breathing marks on the Greek words. There was only a
continuous flow of letters. In addition, there were numerous (and
sometimes variable) abbreviations marked only by a line above (e.g., IC
for IHCOUC, or Jesus, and KC for kyrios, or Lord. Not until the 8th–9th
century was there any indication of accents or breathing marks (both of
which may make a difference in the meaning of some words); punctuation
occurred sporadically at this period; but not until the Middle Ages were
the texts supplied with such helps as chapters (c. 1200) and verses (c.
1550).
Occasionally, the parchment was stained (e.g., purple), and the ink
was silver (e.g., Codex Argenteus, a 5th–6th-century Gothic
translation). Initial letters were sometimes illuminated, often with red
ink (from which comes the present English word rubric, based on the
Latin for “red,” namely ruber).
New Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Types of
manuscript errors
Since scribes either copied manuscripts or wrote from dictation,
manuscript variants could be of several types: copying, hearing,
accidental, or intentional. Errors in copying were common, particularly
with uncial letters that looked alike. In early manuscripts OC (for hos,
“[he] who”), for example, might easily be mistaken for the traditional
abbreviation of God: ΘC (for ΘEOC, theos). Dittography (the picking up
of a word or group of words and repeating it) and haplography (the
omission of syllables, words, or lines) are errors most apt to occur
where there are similar words or syllables involved. In chapter 17,
verse 15, of John, in one manuscript the following error occurs: “I do
not pray that thou shouldest take them from the [world, but that thou
shouldst keep them from the] evil one” becomes “I do not pray that thou
shouldst take them from the evil one.” This is obviously a reading that
omitted the words between two identical ends of lines—i.e., an error due
to homoioteleuton (similar ending of lines).
Especially in uncial manuscripts with continuous writing, there is a
problem of word division. An English example may serve to illustrate:
GODISNOWHERE may be read “God is now here” or “God is nowhere.” Internal
evidence from the context can usually solve such problems. Corrections
of a manuscript either above the line of writing or in the margin (and
also marginal comments) may be read and copied into the text and become
part of it as a gloss.
Errors of hearing are particularly common when words have the same
pronunciation as others but differ in spelling (as in English: “their,
there”; “meet, meat”). This kind of error increased in frequency in the
early Christian Era because some vowels and diphthongs lost their
distinctive sound and came to be pronounced alike. For example, the
Greek vowels ē, i, and u and the diphthongs ei, oi, and ui all sounded
like the ēē (as in “feet”). Remarkable mistranslations can occur as, for
example, in I Corinthians, chapter 15, verse 54: “Death is swallowed up
in victory”—becomes by itacism (pronunciation of the Greek letter ē)
“Death is swallowed up in conflict” (neikos). Another problem of itacism
is the distinction between declensions of the 1st and 2nd persons in the
plural (“we” and “you”) in Greek, which can sound the same (hemeis,
“we”; humeis, “you”), because the initial vowels are not clearly
differentiated. Such errors can cause interpretative difficulties.
A different category of error occurs in dictation or copying, when
sequences of words, syllables, or letters in a word are mixed up,
synonyms substituted in familiar passages, words read across a two- (or
more) column manuscript instead of down, or assimilated to a parallel.
Intentional changes might involve corrections of spelling or grammar,
harmonizations, or even doctrinal emendations, and might be passed on
from manuscript to manuscript. Paleographers—i.e., scientists of ancient
writing—can note changes of hands in manuscript copying or the addition
of new hands such as those of correctors of a later date.
Paleography, a science of dating manuscripts by typological analysis
of their scripts, is the most precise and objective means known for
determining the age of a manuscript. Script groups belong typologically
to their generation; and changes can be noted with great accuracy over
relatively short periods of time. Dating of manuscript material by a
radioactive-carbon test requires that a small part of the material be
destroyed in the process; it is less accurate than dating from
paleography.
New Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Critical
scholarship
Textual criticism of the Greek New Testament attempts to come as near as
possible to the original manuscripts (which did not survive), based on
reconstructions from extant manuscripts of various ages and locales.
Assessment of the individual manuscripts and their relationships to each
other can produce a fairly reliable text from various readings that may
have been the result of copying and recopying of manuscripts. It is not
always age that matters. Older manuscripts may be corrupt, and a reading
in a later manuscript may in reality be ancient. No single witness or
group of witnesses is reliable in all its readings.
When Erasmus, the Dutch Humanist, prepared the Greek text for the
first printed edition (1516) of the New Testament, he depended on a few
manuscripts of the type that had dominated the church’s manuscripts for
centuries and that had had its origin in Constantinople. His edition was
produced hastily, he even translated some parts for which he did not
have a Greek text from Jerome’s Latin text (Vulgate). In about 1522
Cardinal Francisco Jiménez, a Spanish scholarly churchman, published his
Complutensian Polyglot at Alcalá (Latin: Complutum), Spain, a Bible in
which parallel columns of the Old Testament are printed in Hebrew, the
Vulgate, and the Septuagint (LXX), together with the Aramaic Targum
(translation or paraphrase) of Onkelos to the Pentateuch with a
translation into Latin. The Greek New Testament was volume 5 of this
work, and the text tradition behind it cannot be determined with any
accuracy. During the next decades new editions of Erasmus’ text profited
from more and better manuscript evidence and the printer Robert Estienne
of Paris produced in 1550 the first text with a critical apparatus
(variant readings in various manuscripts). This edition became
influential as a chief witness for the Textus Receptus (the received
standard text) that came to dominate New Testament studies for more than
300 years. This Textus Receptus is the basis for all the translations in
the churches of the Reformation, including the King James Version.
Large extensive New Testament critical editions prepared by the
German scholars C. von Tischendorf (1869–72) and H. von Soden (1902–13)
had Sigla (signs) for the various textual witnesses; they are complex to
use and different from each other. The current system, a revision by an
American scholar, C.R. Gregory (adopted in 1908), though not
uncomplicated has made uniform practice possible. A more pragmatic
method of designation and rough classification was that of the Swiss
scholar J.J. Wettstein’s edition (1751–52). His textual apparatus was
relatively uncomplicated. He introduced the use of capital Roman, Greek,
or Hebrew letters for uncials and Arabic numbers for minuscules. Later,
a Gothic P with exponents came into use for papyri and, in the few cases
needed, Gothic or Old English O and T with exponents for ostraca and
talismans (engraved amulets). Lectionaries are usually designated by an
italicized lowercase l with exponents in Arabic numbers.
Known ostraca—i.e., broken pieces of pottery (or potsherds) inscribed
with ink—contain short portions of six New Testament books and number
about 25. About nine talismans date from the 4th to 12th centuries; they
are good-luck charms with a few verses on parchment, wood, or papyrus.
Four of these contain the Lord’s Prayer. These short portions of
writing, however, are hardly of significance for a study of the New
Testament textual tradition.
New Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Texts
and manuscripts
In referring to manuscript text types by their place of origin, one
posits the idea that the major centers of Christendom established more
or less standard texts: Alexandria; Caesarea and Antioch (Eastern);
Italy and Gallia plus Africa (Western); Constantinople, the home for the
Byzantine text type or the Textus Receptus. While such a geographical
scheme has become less accurate or helpful, it still serves as a rough
classification of text types.
New Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Texts
and manuscripts » Uncials
The main uncials known in the 17th and 18th centuries were: A, D, Dp,
Ea, and C.
A, Codex Alexandrinus, is an early-5th-century manuscript containing
most of the New Testament but with lacunae (gaps) in Matthew, John, and
II Corinthians, plus the inclusion of the extracanonical I and II
Clement. In the Gospels, the text is of the Byzantine type, but, in the
rest of the New Testament, it is Alexandrian. In 1627 the A uncial was
presented to King Charles I of England by the Patriarch of
Constantinople; it has been in the British Museum, in London, since
1751.
D, Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, is a 5th-century Greco-Roman
bilingual text (with Greek and Latin pages facing each other). D
contains most of the four Gospels and Acts and a small part of III John
and is thus designated Dea (e, for evangelia, or “gospels”; and a for
acta, or Acts). In Luke, and especially in Acts, Dea has a text that is
very different from other witnesses. Codex Bezae has many distinctive
longer and shorter readings and seems almost to be a separate edition.
Its Acts, for example, is one-tenth longer than usual. D represents the
Western text tradition. Dea was acquired by Theodore Beza, a Reformed
theologian and classical scholar, in 1562 from a monastery in Lyon (in
France). He presented it to the University of Cambridge, England, in
1581 (hence, Beza Cantabrigiensis).
Dp, Codex Claromontanus, of the same Western text type although not
remarkably dissimilar from other known texts, contains the Pauline
Letters including Hebrews. Dp (p, for Pauline epistles) is sometimes
referred to as D2. Beza acquired this 6th-century manuscript at about
the same time as Dea, but Dp was from the Monastery of Clermont at
Beauvais (hence, Claramontanus). It is now in the Bibliothèque
Nationale, in Paris.
Ea, Codex Laudianus, is a bilingual Greco-Latin text of Acts
presented in 1636 by Archbishop Laud, an Anglican churchman, to the
Bodleian Library at Oxford. It is a late-6th- or early-7th-century
manuscript often agreeing with Dea and its Western readings but also
having a mixture of text types, often the Byzantine.
C, Codex Ephraemi Syri rescriptus, is a palimpsest. Originally
written as a biblical manuscript in the 5th century, it was erased in
the 12th century, and the treatises or sermons of Ephraem Syrus, a
4th-century Syrian Church Father, were written over the scraped text.
The manuscript was found c. 1700 by the French preacher and scholar
Pierre Allix; and Tischendorf, with the use of chemical reagents, later
deciphered the almost 60 percent of the New Testament contained in it,
publishing it in 1843. The text had two correctors after the 5th century
but is, on the whole, Byzantine and reflects the not too useful common
text of the 9th century.
Although there are numerous minuscules (and lectionaries), their
significance in having readings going back to the first six centuries ad
was not noted until textual criticism had become more refined in later
centuries.
The main uncials and some significant minuscules that were discovered
and investigated in the 19th century changed the course of the textual
criticism and led the way to better manuscript evidence and methods of
dealing with it. This has continued into the 20th century. The main new
manuscript witnesses are designated ℵ or S, B, W, and Θ.
ℵ or S, Codex Sinaiticus, was discovered in 1859 by Tischendorf at
the Monastery of St. Catherine at the foot of Mt. Sinai (hence,
Sinaiticus) after a partial discovery of 43 leaves of a 4th-century
biblical codex there in 1844. Though some of the Old Testament is
missing, a whole 4th-century New Testament is preserved, with the Letter
of Barnabas and most of the Shepherd of Hermas at the end. There were
probably three hands and several later correctors. Tischendorf convinced
the monks that giving the precious manuscript to Tsar Alexander II of
Russia would grant them needed protection of their abbey and the Greek
Church. Tischendorf subsequently published ℵ (S) at Leipzig and then
presented it to the Tsar. The manuscript remained in Leningrad until
1933, during which time the Oxford University Press in 1911 published a
facsimile of the New Testament from photographs of the manuscript taken
by Kirsopp Lake, an English biblical scholar. The manuscript was sold in
1933 by the Soviet regime to the British Museum for £100,000. The text
type of ℵ is in the Alexandrian group, although it has some Western
readings. Later corrections representing attempts to alter the text to a
different standard probably were made about the 6th or 7th century at
Caesarea.
B, Codex Vaticanus, a biblical manuscript of the mid-4th century in
the Vatican Library since before 1475, appeared in photographic
facsimile in 1889–90 and 1904. The New Testament lacks Hebrews from
chapter 9, verse 14, on the Pastorals, Philemon, and Revelation. Because
B has no ornamentation, some scholars think it slightly older than ℵ.
Others, however, believe that both B and ℵ, having predominantly
Alexandrian texts, may have been produced at the same time when
Constantine ordered 50 copies of the Scriptures. As an early
representation of the Alexandrian text, B is invaluable as a most
trustworthy ancient Greek text.
W, Codex Washingtonianus (or Freerianus), consists of the four
Gospels in the so-called Western order (Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark,
as Dea). It was acquired in Egypt by C.L. Freer, an American businessman
and philanthropist (hence, the Freer-Gospels), in 1906 and is now in the
Freer Gallery of Art of the Smithsonian Institution, in Washington, D.C.
Codex Washingtonianus is a 4th–5th-century manuscript probably copied
from several different manuscripts or textual families. The Byzantine,
Western (similar to Old Latin), Caesarean, and Alexandrian text types
are all represented at one point or another. One of the most interesting
variant readings is a long ending to the Gospel According to Mark
following a reference to the risen Christ (not found in most manuscript
traditions).
Θ, Codex Koridethianus, is a 9th-century manuscript taking its name
from the place of the scribe’s monastery, Koridethi, in the Caucasus
Mountains, near the Caspian Sea. Θ contains the Gospels; Matthew, Luke,
and John have a text similar to most Byzantine manuscripts, but the text
of Mark is similar to the type of text that Origen and Eusebius used in
the 3rd–4th centuries, a Caesarean type. The manuscript is now in
Tbilisi, capital city of the Republic of Georgia.
New Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Texts
and manuscripts » Minuscules
Although there are many minuscules, most of them come from the 9th
century on; a few, however, shed significant light on earlier readings,
representing otherwise not well attested texts or textual “families.” In
the early 20th century, the English scholar Kirsopp Lake (hence, Lake
group) discovered a textual family of manuscripts known as Family 1:1,
118, 131, and 209 (from the 12th to 14th centuries) that have a text
type similar to that of Θ, a 3rd–4th-century Caesarean type. At the end
of the 19th century, W.H. Ferrar, a classical scholar at Dublin
University (hence, the Ferrar group), found that manuscripts 13, 69,
124, and 346—and some minuscules discovered later (from the 11th to 15th
centuries)—also seemed to be witnesses to the Caesarean text type.
Manuscript 33, the “Queen of the Cursives,” is a 9th–10th-century
manuscript now at the Bibliothèque Nationale, in Paris; it contains the
whole New Testament except Revelation and is a reliable witness to the
Alexandrian text (similar to B) but, in Acts and the Pauline Letters,
shows influence of the Byzantine text type.
Lectionaries range from the 5th to the 6th century on; some early
ones are uncials, though many are minuscules. Scholarly work with
lectionary texts is only at its beginning, but the textual types of
lectionaries may preserve a textual tradition that antedates its
compilation and serves to give examples of the various text forms.
New Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Texts
and manuscripts » Papyri
The earliest New Testament manuscript witnesses (2nd–8th centuries) are
papyri mainly found preserved in fragments in the dry sands of Egypt.
Only in the latter decades of the 20th century have the relatively
recently discovered New Testament papyri been published. Of those
cataloged to date, there are about 76 New Testament manuscripts with
fragments of various parts of the New Testament, more than half of them
being from the 2nd to 4th centuries. All the witnesses prior to 400 are
of Egyptian provenance, and their primitive text types, though mainly
Alexandrian, establish that many text types existed and developed side
by side. One of the most significant papyrus finds is p52, from c. 130
to 140, the earliest extant manuscript of any part of the New Testament.
P52 consists of a fragment having on one side John 18:31–33 and on the
other John 18:37–38, indicating that it was a codex, of which the text
type may be Alexandrian. It is now in the John Rylands Library at
Manchester.
In the early 1930s, British mining engineer A. Chester Beatty
acquired three 3rd-century papyri from Egypt; they were published in
1934–37. Known as p45, p46, and p47, they are, for the most part, in his
private library in Dublin.
P45, Beatty Biblical Papyrus I (and some leaves in Vienna), contains
30 leaves of an early- or mid-3rd-century codex of Matthew, Mark, Luke,
John, and Acts. Each Gospel is of a different text type, and, although
the leaves are mutilated, the Alexandrian text appears to predominate
(particularly in Acts, in which a short non-Western text prevails); the
whole may be thought of as pre-Caesarean.
P46, Beatty Biblical Papyrus II (and Papyrus 222 at the University of
Michigan), consists of 86 leaves of an early-3rd-century (c. 200) codex
quire containing the Pauline Letters in the following order: Romans,
Hebrews, I and II Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians,
Colossians, and I Thessalonians. Although some of the leaves are quite
mutilated, the text type of p46 appears to be Alexandrian. P47, Beatty
Biblical Papyrus III, is from the late 3rd century. It contains Rev.
9:10–17:2. It is the oldest, but not the best, text of Revelation and
agrees with A, C, and ℵ.
Other early significant papyri are p66, p48, p72, p75, and p74. P66,
also known as Papyrus Bodmer II, contains in 146 leaves (some having
lacunae) almost all of the Gospel According to John, including chapter
21. This codex, written before 200, is thus merely one century removed
from the time of the autograph, the original text. Its text, like that
of p45, is mixed, but it has elements of an early Alexandrian text. P66
and the other Bodmer papyri, which Martin Bodmer, a Swiss private
collector, acquired from Egypt, were published 1956–61. They are in the
private Bodmer library at Cologny, near Geneva. P48 is a
late-3rd-century text of Acts now in a library in Florence. It contains
Acts 23:11–17, 23–29 and illustrates a Greek form of the Western text in
Egypt in the 3rd century. The papyri of p72, Papyri Bodmer VII and VIII,
are also from the 3rd century. VII contains a manuscript of Jude in a
mixed text, and VIII contains I and II Peter. In I Peter the Greek was
written by a scribe whose native language was Coptic; there are many
examples of misspellings and itacisms that when corrected leave a text
similar to the Alexandrian witnesses. The papyri of p75, Papyri Bodmer
XIV and XV, are 2nd–3rd-century codices containing most of Luke and of
John, with John connected to Luke on the same page (unlike the Western
order of the Gospels). The text coincides most with B but also has
affinities with p66 and p45 as a predecessor of Alexandrian form.
P74, Bodmer Papyrus XVII, is a 6th–7th-century text of Acts and the
Catholic Letters. Acts show affinities with ℵ and A and no parallels
with the Western text.
These and other papyri witness to the state of the early text of the
New Testament in Egypt, indicating that no one text dominated and that
text types of different origin flourished side by side.
New Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions » Versions
» Early versions
Even with all these witnesses, there remain problems in the Greek text.
These include variants about which there is no settled opinion and some
few words for which no accurate meaning can be found because they occur
only once in the New Testament and not in prior Greek works. Very early
translations of the New Testament made as it spread into the
non-Greek-speaking regions of the missionary world, the so-called early
versions, may provide evidence for otherwise unknown meanings and
reflections of early text types.
In the Eastern half of the Mediterranean, Koine (common, vernacular)
Greek was understood, but, elsewhere, other languages were used. Where
Roman rule dominated, Latin came into use—in North Africa, perhaps in
parts of Asia Minor, Gaul, and Spain (c. 3rd century). Old Latin
versions had many variants, and these translations, traditionally known
as the Itala, or Old Latin (O.L.), are designated in small letters of
the Roman alphabet. The African versions were further from the Greek
than were those made in Europe.
In dealing with the New Testament, Jerome prepared a Latin recension
of the Gospels using a European form of the Old Latin and some Greek
manuscripts. Though the completed Latin translation at the end of the
4th century was produced by no one editor or compiler, a commonly
accepted Latin text, the Vulgate, emerged. A reworked official critical
edition was a concern of the Council of Trent (1545–63), and in 1592 the
Clementine Vulgate, named after Pope Clement VIII, became the
authoritative edition. Since Vatican II (1962–65), an ecumenical group
of biblical scholars using the best available manuscript witnesses has
been engaged in the preparation of a critically sound revision of the
Vulgate.
At Edessa (in Syria) and western Mesopotamia neither Latin nor Greek
was understood. Therefore, Syriac (a Semitic language related to
Aramaic) was used. Old Syriac was probably the original language of the
Diatessaron (2nd century), but only fragments of Old Syriac manuscripts
survive. The Peshitta (common, simple) Syriac (known as syrpesh) became
the Syrian 22-book Vulgate of the New Testament, and, at the end of the
4th century, its text was transmitted with great fidelity. The
Philoxenian (syrphil) and Harclean (syrharc) versions followed in the
6th–7th centuries and contained all 27 of the New Testament books. The
Palestinian (similar to Palestinian Aramaic) Syriac (syrpal) may date to
the 5th century but is known chiefly from 11th- to 12th-century
lectionaries and is quite independent of other Syriac versions,
reflecting a different text type.
In Egypt, in the later Hellenistic period, the New Testament was
translated into Coptic—in the south (Upper Egypt) the Sahidic (copsah),
and in the north (Lower Egypt) the Bohairic (copboh), the two principal
dialects. By the 4th century, the Sahidic version was known, and the
Bohairic somewhat later. The Coptic versions are fairly literal and
reflect a 2nd–3rd-century Alexandrian Greek text type with some Western
variants.
A Gothic version was made from the Byzantine text type by a
missionary, Ulfilas (late 4th century); an Armenian version (5th
century) traditionally was believed to have been made from the Syriac
but may have come from a Greek text. Related perhaps to the Armenian was
a Georgian version; and an Ethiopic version (c. 6th–7th century) was
influenced by both Coptic and later Arabic traditions. In the various
versions there is evidence of geographical spread, of the history of the
underlying text traditions used, and of how they were interpreted in the
early centuries.
The many readings in the Greek, Latin, and Syriac Fathers, who can be
dated and located, can, to some extent, shed light on the underlying New
Testament texts they quoted or used.
Another use both of the versions and of the patristic quotations is
elucidation of the meaning of hitherto unknown Greek words in the New
Testament.
An example is epiousios in the Lord’s Prayer as given in verse 11 of
chapter 6 of Matthew and verse 3, chapter 11, of Luke. The traditional
translation in the Western Church is “daily” (referring to bread). From
the Old Latin, Jerome, the early Syriac versions, and a retroversion of
the Lord’s Prayer into a proposed Aramaic substratum, the meaning is
either “daily” or, more likely, “for the morrow”; and modern
translations include this meaning in footnotes, including the suggestion
that it may refer to eucharistic bread. The Greek is possibly a coined
compound word that, on the basis of its component parts, yields “for the
morrow” or “that which is coming soon.” Such latter treatment is not
conjectural emendation but rather creative analysis in context, where no
Greek variants help. The biblical scholar, in possession of many
variants, usually uses conjecture only as a means of last resort, and
any conjecture must be both intrinsically suitable and account for the
reading considered corrupt in the transmitted text.
New Testament canon, texts, and versions » Texts and versions »
Versions » Later and modern editions
New Testament editions in the 18th century did not question the Textus
Receptus (T.R.), despite new manuscript evidence and study, but its
limitations became apparent. E. Wells, a British mathematician and
theological writer (1719), was the first to edit a complete New
Testament that abandoned the T.R. in favour of more ancient manuscripts;
and English scholar Richard Bentley (1720) also tried to go back to
early manuscripts to restore an ancient text, but their work was
ignored. In 1734 J.A. Bengel, a German Lutheran biblical theologian,
stressed the idea that not only manuscripts but also families of
manuscript traditions must be differentiated, and he initiated the
formulation of criteria for text criticism. J.J. Wettstein’s edition
(1730–51) had a wealth of classical and rabbinic quotations, but his
theory on text was better than the text itself. A German Lutheran
theologian, J.S. Semler (1767), further refined Bengel’s classification
of families.
J.J. Griesbach (1745–1812), a German scholar and student of Semler,
adapted the text-family classification to include Western and
Alexandrian text groups that preceded the Constantinopolitan groupings.
He cautiously began to alter texts according to increasingly scientific
canons of text criticism. These are, with various refinements, still
used, as, for example, that “the difficult is to be preferred to the
easy reading,” and “the shorter is preferable to a longer”—both of which
reason (with many other factors) that correction, smoothing, or
interpretation leads to clearer and longer readings.
In the 19th century, classical philologist Karl Lachmann’s critical
text (1831) bypassed the T.R., using manuscripts prior to the 4th
century. C. von Tischendorf’s discovery of ℵ (S) and his New Testament
text (8th edition, 1864) collated the best manuscripts and had the
richest critical apparatus thus far.
Two English biblical scholars, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort of
Cambridge, using ℵ ανδ Β, βρουγητ ουτ αν εδιτιον ιν 1881–82 and
classified the text witnesses into four groupings: Neutral (B, ℵ, the
purest and earliest Eastern text); Alexandrian (a smoothed Neutral text
as it developed in Alexandria); Western (D, Old Syrian, O.L., the
Western Fathers with glosses that caused many readings to be rejected);
and Syrian (Ae and the Byzantine tradition as it later developed). Such
a “family tree” clearly showed the T.R. (Syrian) and, hence, the King
James Version based upon it as an inferior text type; and the Revised
Standard Version is based on such superior text types as B and ℵ.
Another critical edition (1902–13) was made by H. von Soden, a German
biblical scholar who presupposed recensions to which all manuscripts can
lead back. The importance of his work is in his enormous critical
apparatus rather than in his theoretical groupings. B.H. Streeter, an
English scholar, revised Westcott and Hort’s classification in 1924.
Basically, he challenged the concept of any uncontaminated descent from
originals and made the observation (already alluded to in the evolution
of papyrus evidence) that even the earliest manuscripts are of mixed
text types. Yet, Streeter grouped texts in five families: Alexandrian,
Caesarean, Antiochene, European Western, and African Western—parts of
which all led into the Byzantine text and had become the T.R.
Despite grouping, it is clear that no reading backward from text
families can reach an autograph. A strictly local text theory is useless
in view of the papyrus evidence that there were no “unmixed” early
texts. The use of external evidence cannot push beyond the boundary of
the 3rd century. This insight brought about a new perspective. Only by
using the canons of the internal evidence of readings can the best texts
be determined, evaluating the variants from case to case—namely, the
eclectic method. In modern times, therefore, the value of text families
is primarily that of a step in the study of the history of the texts and
their transmission. The eclectic method of reconstruction of an earliest
possible New Testament text will yield the closest approximation of the
historical texts put together into the New Testament canon. (For other,
later and modern versions, see above Old Testament canon, texts, and
versions.)
New Testament history » The Jewish and Hellenistic matrix » Background
The historical background of the New Testament and its times must be
viewed in conjunction with the Jewish matrix from which it evolved and
the Hellenistic (Greek cultural) world into which it expanded during a
period of Jewish religious propaganda. It is difficult, however, to
separate the phenomena of the Jewish and Hellenistic backgrounds,
because the Judaism out of which the church arose was a part of a very
Hellenized world. The conquests of Alexander the Great culminated in 331
bc, and the subtle but strong influence of Greek culture, language, and
customs that was spread by his conquests united his empire. Jews in both
Palestine and the Diaspora (Dispersion) were, however, affected by
Hellenism, as in ideas of cosmic dualism and rich religious imagery
derived in part from Eastern influence as a result of the Greek
conquests. Greek words were transliterated into Hebrew and Aramaic even
in connection with religious ideas and institutions as, for example,
synagogue (religious assembly), Sanhedrin (religious court), and
paraclete (advocate, intercessor). It could be argued that the very
preoccupation with ancient texts and tradition and the interpretation
thereof is a Hellenistic phenomenon. Thus, what may appear as the most
indigenous element in the activity of the Jewish scribes, sages, and
rabbis (teachers)—i.e., textual scholarship—has its parallels in
Hellenistic culture and is part of the general culture of the times. The
thought worlds merged, confronted each other, and communicated with each
other.
New Testament history » The Jewish and Hellenistic matrix » The
Hasmonean kingdom
After Alexander’s death the empire was split, and first the Ptolemies,
an Egyptian dynasty, and then the Seleucids, a Syrian dynasty, held
Palestine. Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a 2nd-century-bc Seleucid king,
desecrated the Temple in Jerusalem; a successful Jewish revolt under the
Maccabees, a priestly family, resulted in its purification (164 bc) and
in freedom from Syrian domination in 142 bc. This began the Hasmonean
(Maccabean) dynasty, which appropriated the powers both of king and of
high priest. This reign, which created dissatisfaction on the part of
other groups who considered their own claims falsely usurped, lasted
until internecine strife brought it to an end. John Hyrcanus II, a
1st-century-bc Hasmonean king, appealed to Rome for help, and Pompey, a
Roman general, intervened, bringing Palestine under Roman rule in 63 bc.
John Hyrcanus, given the title of ethnarch, was later executed for
treason (30 bc), thus ending the Hasmonean line, but Jewish independence
had come to an end by Roman occupation.
New Testament history » The Jewish and Hellenistic matrix » Rule by the
Herods
The Herods who followed were under the control of Rome. Herod the Great,
son of Antipater of Idumaea, was made king of Judaea, having sided with
Rome, and he ruled with Roman favour (37–4 bc). Though he was a good
statesman and architect, he was hated by the Jews as a foreigner and
semi-Jew. Jesus was born a few years before the end of his reign, and
“the slaughter of the innocents,” young children of Bethlehem who were
killed as possible pretenders to Herod’s throne, was attributed to
Herod. After his death, Palestine was divided among three of his sons:
Philip was made tetrarch of Iturea (the northeast quarter of the
province) and ruled from 4 bc until ad 37. Herod Antipas became tetrarch
of Galilee and Peraea until ad 39 and, like his father, was a builder,
rebuilding Sepphoris and Tiberias before he was banished. Herod Antipas
had John the Baptist beheaded and treated Jesus with contempt at Jesus’
trial before him, before sending him back to Pontius Pilate, the Roman
procurator (ad 26–36) at the time of Jesus’ Crucifixion. Archelaus was
made ethnarch of Judaea, Samaria, and Idumaea but was removed by ad 6
for his oppressive rule, and Judaea then became an imperial province,
governed by procurators responsible to the emperor.
Two other Herods are mentioned in the New Testament: Agrippa I
(called “Herod the king,” ad 37–44) had James, the brother of John,
killed and had Peter arrested; and the last of the Herods, Agrippa II,
king of Trachonitis (c. ad 50–100), welcomed the procurator Festus (c.
ad 60–62), who replaced Felix (c. ad 52–60) for the trial of Paul.
New Testament history » The Jewish and Hellenistic matrix » Roman
occupation and Jewish revolts
In ad 66–70 there was a Jewish revolt while Nero was emperor of Rome
(54–68). When he died and was succeeded by Vespasian, his former army
commander (69–79), the siege and final destruction of Jerusalem occurred
(ad 70). Before this event, Jewish Christians had fled, perhaps to
Pella, and Yohanan ben Zakkai, a leading Jewish rabbi, with a group of
rabbinical scholars, fled to Yavneh, where they established an academy
that gave leadership to the Jews. Under the emperors Trajan (98–117) and
Hadrian (117–138), Jews in Egypt and Mesopotamia rebelled and again
fought unsuccessfully against Rome in Palestine for forbidding the
practice of religious rites, and, under Simeon Bar Kokhba (or Bar
Koziba), a Jewish revolutionary messianic figure, the final Jewish war
was waged (132–135). After this defeat Jerusalem became a Roman colony;
a temple to Jupiter was erected there, and Jews were prevented from
entering the city until the 4th century.
When the Romans had entered Palestine in 63 bc, they practiced a
relatively humane occupation until c. ad 66–70. They did not interfere
with religious practices unless they considered them a threat to Rome,
and their rights of requisition were precise and limited.
New Testament history » Jewish sects and parties
From both the New Testament and extrabiblical material the main
religious groups or parties in Palestinian Judaism may be discerned.
Such descriptions, however, may be somewhat biassed or apologetic.
Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish philosopher (died c. ad 40), Josephus, a
Jewish apologist to the Romans (died c. 100), and sectarian writings
found at Qumrān near the Dead Sea in 1947 that date back to about c. 200
bc and end about ad 70 all provide data about the respective Jewish
religious groups in Palestine in the 1st century bc and the 1st century
ad. The Pharisees (typically Jesus’ opponents, although his ideas may
have been close to their own), the Sadducees, and the Zealots are
mentioned in the New Testament. The Essenes were described by Philo and
Josephus, but new evidence from their own writings makes their group
better understood (i.e., the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumrān).
New Testament history » Jewish sects and parties » The Pharisees
The Pharisees (possibly spiritual descendants of the Ḥasidim [Pious
Ones], who were the exponents of Maccabean revolt) were strict adherents
to the Law. Their name may come from parush—i.e., “separated” from what
is unclean, or what is unholy. They were deeply concerned with the
Mosaic Law and how to keep it, and they were innovators in adapting the
Law to new situations. They believed that the Law was for all the people
and democratized it—even the priestly laws were to be observed by all,
not only by the priestly class—so that they actually had a belief in a
priesthood of all believers. They included Oral as well as Written Law
in their interpretations. Though they did not accept the Roman
occupation, they kept to themselves, and by pious acts, such as giving
alms and burying the dead, they upheld the Law. Their interpretations of
Law were sometimes considered casuistic because they believed they must
find interpretations that would help all people to keep the Law. Their
underlying hope was eschatological: in the day when Israel obeyed the
Torah, the Kingdom would come. The Pharisees were called “smooth
interpreters” by their opponents, but their hope was to find a way to
make the living of the Law possible for all people. In their meal
fellowship (ḥavura) they observed the laws strictly and formed a nucleus
of obedient Israel. The Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the
dead and had a developed angelology.
New Testament history » Jewish sects and parties » The Sadducees
The Sadducees, more conservative and static, consisted mainly of the old
priesthood and landed aristocracy and, perhaps, some Herodians. They
were collaborators with Rome. They did not believe in resurrection
because they found no Old Testament enunciation of such a doctrine. In a
way, they seemed to respect the Pharisees in legal matters; but both the
Pharisees—because they were a bourgeois rather than a popular
movement—and the Sadducees—because they were aristocrats—rejected the
ʿam ha-aretz (People of the Land), who were no party but simply the
poor, common people whom they considered ignorant of the Law.
New Testament history » Jewish sects and parties » The Zealots
The Zealots were revolutionaries who plotted actively against the Roman
oppression. That the Pharisees did not react in this way was perhaps
because of their belief in Providence: what happens is the will of God,
and their free will is expressed in the context of trust and piety in
conjunction with an eschatological hope of winning God’s Kingdom through
obedience to Law.
New Testament history » Jewish sects and parties » The Essenes
Though the Essenes of the Dead Sea Scrolls are not mentioned in the New
Testament, they are described by Philo, Josephus, and Eusebius, a
4th-century Christian historian. With publication of the Essenes’ own
sectarian writings since the 1950s, however, they have become well
known. They did not have any really new ideas, but their founder, the
Teacher of Righteousness, believed that he knew the interpretation of
the prophets for his time in a way that was not even known to the
prophets of their own day. Their withdrawal into desert seclusion was in
opposition to the ruling powers in the city and the Temple of Jerusalem.
They lived apart from society in constant study of the Scriptures and
with a firm belief that they were the elect of Israel living in the end
of days and to whom would come messianic figures—a messiah of David
(royal) and a messiah of Aaron (priestly). Membership in their group and
acceptance or rejection of its founder determined their place in the age
to come. After a long period of probation and initiation, a man became a
member of this elect community that had strict rules of community
discipline that would seal or destroy his membership in their New
Covenant. Ritual lustrations preceded most liturgical rites, the most
important one of which was participation in a sacred meal—an
anticipation of the messianic banquet, to which only the fully initiated
members in good standing were admitted and which was presided over by
representatives of the Davidic and Aaronic messiahs. From what is known
of them, their communities were celibate, living “in the presence of the
angels” and thus required to be in a state of ritual purity. Their laws
were strict, their discipline severe, and—unlike Pharisees, Sadducees,
and Zealots—they were not simply different parties within Judaism but a
separate eschatological sect. The Pharisees did have lodges and a common
meal, but membership in the Pharisaic party did not, as it did with the
Essenes, guarantee a place in the age to come; and the attitude of the
Pharisees to a leader or founder was not, as it was to the Essenes, one
of the bases on which such place could be attained. Thus, the Essenes—as
the early Jewish Christians—were an eschatological Jewish sect. They
believed that they alone, among those living in the end time, would be
saved. The apocalypticism of the Essenes and the early Christians had
many similarities, but the Christians had a higher eschatological
intensity because they already knew who the Messiah would be when he
came in the future at the Parousia (the “Second” Advent), and they also
had a recollection of the earthly Jesus, knowledge of the risen Lord,
and the gift of the Spirit upon the church. Both communities lived in an
era wherein the cosmic battle of God versus Satan-Belial was taking
place, but the Christian community already had the traditions of Jesus’
victory over Satan and the experience of his Resurrection. Both Essenes
and Christians were sects with tightly knit organizations, but the
church had a historically based messiah. The Essenes probably were
killed or forced to flee from their wilderness community c. ad 68, yet
some of their ideas can still be traced in the ministry of John the
Baptist (who might have been an Essene) and in the thought world of the
New Testament (see also Judaism).
New Testament history » The religious situation in the Greco-Roman world
of the 1st century ad » Hellenistic religions
With the expansion of Christianity into the Hellenistic world either to
Jews or increasingly to Gentiles, there were various reasons why the
Christian message that spread, for example by Paul, met the needs of the
Hellenistic Age and world. There was no lack of religions, but there was
a crisis of upheaval, unrest, and uncertainty and a desire to escape
from mortality and the domination of unbending fate. There was also a
desire to win personal knowledge of the universe and a dignified status
within it—i.e., a religious identity crisis. City-states with their
cults of civic gods were unstable, because men changed from place to
place and the gods of the city were distant from individual needs and
anxieties. After Alexander’s conquests, the resulting religious
syncretism did not meet individual needs and longings that were
increasingly becoming conscious. Many Gentiles turned to Judaism, at
least as “god fearers,” and later to Christianity. There were also
“mystery religions,” the secrets of which were known only to the
initiate, which may have arisen from Eastern fertility cults with their
dying and rising gods and were transformed in the Hellenistic Age to
cults of a saviour god whose dying and rising gives personal
immortality. Such mystery cults often provided meaningful relationships
with fellow initiates.
New Testament history » The religious situation in the Greco-Roman world
of the 1st century ad » Astrology
There were elements in the Greek world that may have come from the East,
partly Egyptian and Babylonian, which gave rise to astrology. The basic
conviction of astrology was that the heavenly bodies were deities that
in a direct way control life and events on earth. An older idea of
tychē, or “fate,” originally signified the chance element in the
universe, a capriciousness that increased insecurity. Astrology
transformed this into a fate or destiny in which everything is strictly
regulated by celestial deities. Man’s problem, then, is that of finding
security from overwhelming powers outside human control. One way is to
“read a horoscope.” Because the heavenly deities are systematic and
orderly according to astronomic observation, this order and regularity
can be exploited to see how and in what way events will happen and can
perhaps be used or avoided. Another way is to deal with such forces
through magic. From the Hellenistic period many magical papyri with
formulas for dealing with sicknesses, demons, and other adverse forces
have been found. Magic attempts to manipulate and control what affects
the world by a kind of participation in the event.
New Testament history » The religious situation in the Greco-Roman world
of the 1st century ad » Philosophical solutions
Solutions were also sought in philosophy. Socrates, a 5th-century-bc
Greek philosopher, was largely concerned with the search for the “good,”
the good life. After Plato and Aristotle, however, philosophical systems
sought to supply man’s longing for inward security and stability. These
were sought not by an in-depth understanding of reality but by ad hoc
constructions—a new dogmatism for providing infallible plans and
attaining immediate security—that the age demanded. Those philosophies
were crude constructions that gave shelter and were defended by an
unyielding dogmatism as absolute truths; if they were proved false, they
would remove their promised security. Epicureanism, founded by the Greek
philosopher Epicurus (341–270 bc), was basically a philosophy of escape,
and its goal was serenity and tranquillity, a negative concept
characterized by absence of fear, pain, and struggle. Fate, providence,
and the afterlife were eliminated to deny the anxieties they provoked in
terms of control, reward, or judgment. Epicurus attempted to meet this
crisis by adopting a completely material view of the universe, including
the soul, and thereby eliminating interference by deities both in life
and after death. He did believe in the gods; but they, too, lived in
their own perfect tranquillity, away from the universe. The Epicurean
was both self-reliant and at peace with the absence of pain. There was
also emphasis on friendship and the development of close communities.
Zeno, a 3rd-century-bc philosopher, was the founder of Stoicism.
Stoicism was a rule of life that held that all reality was material but
was animated by a rational principle that was at the same time both the
law of the universe and of the human soul. The wise man then could
accept and learn to live a life in conformity to this permeating reason
without letting anything affect him. He responded to duty and accepted
it.
Cynicism was a philosophy that maintained a cosmic view of life with
a method of dealing with crisis by reducing man’s needs to a minimum.
Later in the Hellenistic period, a group of Stoic–Cynic preachers arose
and, in New Testament times, wandered around calling men to repent and
change their lives from sin to virtue.
New Testament literature » Introduction to the Gospels » Meaning of the
term gospel
From the late ad 40s and until his martyrdom in the 60s, Paul wrote
letters to the churches that he founded or guided. These are the
earliest Christian writings that the church has, and in them he refers
to “the gospel” (euangelion). In Romans, chapter 1, verse 1, he says:
“Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for
the gospel of God . . .” and goes on to describe this “gospel” in what
was already by that time traditional language, such as: “promised
beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel
concerning his Son, who was descended . . . our Lord” (Rom. 1:1–4). This
gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith “. .
. for in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith
. . .” (1:17). In I Corinthians Paul had reminded his congregation in
stylized terms of “the gospel” he had brought to them. It consisted of
the announcement that Jesus had died and risen according to the
Scriptures.
Thus, the “gospel” was an authoritative proclamation (as announced by
a herald, kēryx), or the kerygma (that which is proclaimed, kērygma).
The earthly life of Jesus is hardly noted or missed, because something
more glorious—the ascended Lord who sent the Spirit upon the church—is
what matters.
In the speeches of Peter in Acts, the transition from kerygma to
creed or vice versa is almost interchangeable. In Acts 2 Jesus is viewed
as resurrected and exalted at the right hand of God and made both Lord
and Christ. In Acts 3 Peter’s speech proclaims Jesus as the Christ
having been received in heaven to be sent at the end of time as judge
for the vindication and salvation of those who believe in him. Here the
proclaimed message, the gospel, is more basic than an overview of Jesus’
earthly life, which in Acts is referred to only briefly as “his acting
with power, going about doing good, and healing and exorcising”
(10:38ff.). Such an extended kergyma can be seen as a transition from
the original meaning of gospel as the “message” to gospel meaning an
account of the life of Jesus.
The term gospel has connotations of the traditions of Jesus’ earthly
ministry and Passion that were remembered and then written in the
accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They are written from the
post-Resurrection perspective and they contain an extensive and common
Passion narrative as they deal with the earthly ministry of Jesus from
hindsight. And so the use of the term gospel for Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John has taken the place of the original creedal–kerygmatic use in
early Christianity. It is also to be noted that, in the Evangelists’
accounts, their theological presuppositions and the situations of their
addressees molded the formation of the four canonical Gospels written
after the Pauline Letters. The primary affirmations—of Jesus as the
Christ, his message of the Kingdom, and his Resurrection—preceded the
Evangelists’ accounts. Some of these affirmations were extrapolated
backward (much as the Exodus event central in the Old Testament was
extrapolated backward and was the theological presupposition for the
patriarchal narratives in Genesis). These stories were shaped by the
purpose for their telling: religious propaganda or preaching to inspire
belief. The kerygmatic, or creedal, beginning was expanded with material
about the life and teaching of Jesus, which a reverence for and a
preoccupation with the holy figure of Jesus demanded out of loving
curiosity about his earthly ministry and life.
The English word gospel is derived from the Anglo-Saxon godspell
(“good story”). The classical Greek word euangelion means “a reward for
bringing of good news” or the “good news” itself. In the emperor cult
particularly, in which the Roman emperor was venerated as the spirit and
protector of the empire, the term took on a religious meaning: the
announcement of the appearance or accession to the throne of the ruler.
In contemporary Greek it denoted a weighty, authoritative, royal, and
official message.
In the New Testament, no stress can be placed on the etymological
(root) meaning of eu (“good”); in Luke, chapter 3, verse 18 (as in other
places), the word means simply authoritative news concerning impending
judgment.
New Testament literature » Introduction to the Gospels » Form criticism
In the Pauline writings, as noted above, gospel, kerygma, and creed come
close together from oral to written formulas that were transmitted about
the Christ event: Jesus’ death and Resurrection. In the apostolic
Fathers (early 2nd century), the transition was made from oral to
written tradition; the translation of the presumed Aramaic traditions
had taken place before the Gospel material had been committed to
writing. By the time of Justin Martyr (c. 155), these writings were
called Gospels and referred to in the plural; they contain the words,
deeds, and Passion narratives—i.e., the present four Gospels compiled
and edited by the Evangelists according to their various needs and
theological emphases. Justin also referred to these as “memoirs of the
Apostles.”
Such a Gospel began with a missionary announcement concerning a
cosmic divine figure, a man with divine characteristics who would bring
salvation and hope to the world. The earthly historical Jesus, however,
was the criterion of the proclamation—being both the content of the
church’s proclamation and the object of its faith.
The identification of basic patterns in the history of oral and
written traditions—the stage of tradition prior to any literary form and
particularly as the traditions passed from an oral to a written form—and
the determination of their creative milieu, or their situations and
functions in various places and under various circumstances, are tasks
of form criticism. Through such study, small independent units may be
isolated in a postulated more primitive form than they were before being
incorporated into more extended accounts. The term Sitz-im-Leben refers
to the “Sitz im Leben der Kirche”—i.e., the situation in the life of the
church in which the material was shaped and adjusted to the needs at
hand. Only through such studies is it possible to progress tentatively
to an assessment of a “Sitz im Leben Jesu.”
Both Jews and Gentiles could use “biographies,” often for propaganda
purposes. Philo and Josephus recounted the wonderful lives and deeds of
Old Testament heroes such as Moses; and there are miraculous tales of
the prophets Elijah and Elisha told in order that faith might be
inspired or justified. A miracle worker (theios anēr, “divine man”) and
stories about him comprised an aretalogy (from aretē, “virtue”; also
manifestation of divine power, miracle). Aretalogies were frequently
used to represent the essential creed and belief of a religious or
philosophical movement. The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, a
Neo-Pythagorean philosopher and wonder-worker (transmitted by the Greek
writer Philostratus), was widely read. He was depicted as having
performed miracles and as being possessed of divine cosmic power not as
an exception but as an example to men who have the possibility of
sharing such power (cf. Matt. 9:8). There were tales of Heracles, the
Greek hero, and a whole literature of Alexander the Great as
wonder-workers, divine men.
Though the pericopes (small units) of which the Gospels are
constituted include many forms, or genres, they are mainly divided into
narratives (including legends, miracle stories, exorcisms, healings, and
tales) and sayings (prophetic and apocalyptic sayings, proverbs and
wisdom sayings, parables, church discipline and rules for the community,
Christological sayings, such as the socalled “I am” sayings [e.g., “I am
the bread of life”] in John, revelations, and legal sayings). Some
stories may simply be the background for a pithy saying; these latter
are sometimes called paradigmatic sayings, and the pronouncement stories
are their vehicles of transmission. The forms have many different names,
but form criticism started with Homeric form analysis (taking oral
tradition into account), which was applied to Old Testament studies by
Hermann Gunkel, a German biblical scholar, and applied to the New
Testament, on the basis of the German classical philologist Eduard
Norden’s stylistic studies, by such biblical scholars as Rudolf Bultmann
and Martin Dibelius.
Form criticism asks and answers questions about what shaped the
preliterary tradition and the earliest written traditions into blocks as
they are found in the Gospels. This may be a historical context (as a
missionary situation), a need for admonition (as church-discipline
sections), or for the transmission of teaching in a faithful way (as in
a “school,” be it Matthean, Pauline, or Johannine). One large block of
the material, however, is to all intents and purposes the same (although
differing in details) in all four canonical Gospels: the Passion
narrative. In the Synoptic Gospels there is also a basic nucleus in the
sayings about Jesus that are mysterious, prophetic, and apocalyptic and
that point to the significance of Jesus as the Christ who has come in
history in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
Such form-critical studies were centred on the smaller units of
tradition (pericopes) that make up the Gospels, and their intention was
partly to assess relative age and authenticity of such traditions. In
more recent times the tools of form criticism have been applied to a
more synthetic method that could be used to determine the relation
between a genre of literature and the Christological and theological
perspectives that made such genres natural. A presentation of Jesus
material in the form of more or less disconnected sayings (as in the
so-called Q Source, composed of independent sayings, behind Matthew and
Luke, and in the Gospel of Thomas; see below The two- and four-source
hypotheses) tends to fit a Christology in which Jesus is viewed as a
teacher of Wisdom, an envoy of Wisdom, or as Wisdom herself. The
collections of wonder stories (aretalogies) grew out of a Christology of
Jesus as the divine man. Another type of Jesus material with independent
existence seems to have been “revelations,” or “apocalypses,” in which
Jesus Christ speaks to his followers. This is seen, for example, in Mark
13, I Thessalonians, chapter 4, the canonical book of Revelation to
John, and the noncanonical Didache 16.
These genres of material now represented in the canonical Gospels are
amply represented also in the noncanonical writings from the first
Christian centuries. The discovery of a Gnostic library of Coptic
writings at Najʿ Ḥammādī, in Egypt, in the 1940s gave scholars a new
opportunity to compare the canonical Gospels with the Jesus material of
these various types, some of them having been called and used as gospels
(such as the Gospel of Thomas). In the light of such a wider spectrum of
material, it appears that the gospel form for which Mark is the earliest
witness became a criterion for the orthodox transmission of the
Christian message about Jesus. By making the confession of Jesus as the
crucified and risen Lord (the earliest kerygma and “gospel” as found in
Paul and Acts) the form of an extensive Passion account prefaced by a
limited amount of narrative and teaching, Mark set the stage for a faith
that anchored faith in Jesus Christ in the events of the earthly life of
Jesus. This form of the “gospel” became the standard within which the
other commonly accepted Gospels grew. It became the criterion for later
creedal statements concerning Jesus Christ as true God and true man. By
such a criterion, gospels that seemed to disregard his humanity (e.g.,
Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter) were judged heretical.
New Testament literature » The Synoptic problem » Early theories about
the Synoptic problem
Since the 1780s, Matthew, Mark, and Luke have been referred to as the
Synoptic Gospels (from synoptikos, “seen together”). The extensive
parallels in structure, content, and wording of Matthew, Mark, and Luke
make it even possible to arrange them side by side so that corresponding
sections can be seen in parallel columns. John Calvin, the 16th-century
Reformer, wrote a commentary on these Gospels as a harmony. Such an
arrangement is called a “synopsis,” or Gospel harmony, and, by careful
comparison of their construction, compilation, and actual agreement or
disagreement in wording or content, literary- or source-critical
relationships can be seen. Augustine, the great 4th–5th-century Western
theologian, considered Mark to be an abridged Matthew, and, until the
19th century, some variation of this solution to literary dependency
dominated the scene. It still recurs from time to time.
The Synoptic problem is one of literary or of source criticism and
deals with the written sources after compilation and redaction. Matthew
was the Gospel most used for the selections read in the liturgy of the
church, and other Gospels were used to fill in the picture. One
attempted solution to the problem of priority was the proposed existence
of an Aramaic primitive gospel, which is now lost, as the first Gospel
from which a later Mark in Greek was translated and arranged. The Greek
Mark would thus be first based on a prior Semitic Matthew, and later
both Mark and Matthew would be translations dependent on Matthew, and
Luke dependent on both. The preservation of an ecclesiastical priority
of Matthew breaks down because of the literary word-for-word agreement
in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This agreement occurs to far too great an
extent to be accounted for in translations and revisions, not to mention
the agreement in the order of the various pericopes as they are viewed
in a synoptic parallel arrangement.
For similar reasons, a fragment theory holding that the Gospels were
constructed of small written collections brought together in varying
sequences cannot stand the test of actual structure—but it has the merit
of stressing compilation of sources.
In 1789 J.J. Griesbach, a German biblical scholar, hypothesized that
the Synoptics had not developed independently, but in his
“usage-hypothesis” he recognized that there must be literary dependency.
He thought that Mark used Matthew as well as Luke, but this could not
account for the close relationship of Matthew and Luke. His basic
concept of literary dependency, however, paved the way for K. Lachmann,
who observed in 1835 that Matthew and Luke agree only when they also
agree with Mark and that, where material is introduced that is not in
Mark, it is inserted in different places. This, it is held, can only be
explained on the basis of the priority of Mark and its use as the
patterning form of Matthew and Luke. This insight led to a so-called
two-source hypothesis (by two German biblical scholars, Heinrich
Holtzmann in 1863, and Bernhard Weiss in 1887–88), which, with various
modifications and refinements of other scholars, is the generally
accepted solution to the Synoptic problem.
New Testament literature » The Synoptic problem » The two- and
four-source hypotheses
The two-source hypothesis is predicated upon the following observations:
Matthew and Luke used Mark, both for its narrative material as well as
for the basic structural outline of chronology of Jesus’ life. Matthew
and Luke use a second source, which is called Q (from German Quelle,
“source”), not extant, for the sayings (logia) found in common in both
of them. Thus, Mark and Q are the main components of Matthew and Luke.
In both Matthew and Luke there is material that is peculiar to each of
their Gospels; this material is probably drawn from some other sources,
which may be designated M (material found only in Matthew’s special
source) and L (material found only in Luke’s special source). This is
known as the four-document hypothesis, which was elaborated in 1925 by
B.H. Streeter, an English biblical scholar. The placement of Q material
in Luke and Matthew disagrees at certain points according to the needs
and theologies of the addressees of the gospels, but in Matthew the
Marcan chronology is the basic scheme into which Q is put. Mark’s order
is kept, on the whole, by Matthew and Luke, but, where it differs, at
least one agrees with Mark. After chapter 4 in Matthew and Luke, not a
single passage from Q is in the same place. Q was a source written in
Greek as was Mark, which can be demonstrated by word agreement (not
possible, for example, with a translation from Aramaic, although perhaps
the Greek has vestiges of Semitic structure form). A diagram might thus
be:
In approximate figures, Mark’s text has 661 verses, more than 600 of
which appear in Matthew and 350 in Luke. Only c. 31 verses of Mark are
found nowhere in Matthew or Luke. In the material common to all three
Synoptics, there is very seldom verbatim agreement of Matthew and Luke
against Mark, though such agreement is common between Matthew and Mark
or Luke and Mark or where all three concur.
The postulated common saying source of Matthew and Luke, Q, would
account for much verbatim agreement of Matthew and Luke when they
include sayings absent from Mark. The fact that the sayings are used in
different ways or different contexts in Matthew and Luke is an
indication of a somewhat free way in which the editors could take
material and mold it to their given situations and needs. An example of
this is the parable in Matthew and Luke about the lost sheep (Matt.
18:10–14, Luke 15:3–7). The basic material has been used in different
ways. In Matthew, the context is church discipline—how a brother in
Christ who has lapsed or who is in danger of doing so is to be gently
and graciously dealt with—and Matthew shapes it accordingly (the sheep
has “gone astray”). In Luke, the parable exemplifies Jesus’ attitude
toward sinners and is directed against the critical Pharisees and
scribes who object to Jesus’ contact with sinners and outsiders (the
sheep is “lost”).
Another example of two passages used verbatim in Luke and Matthew is
Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem. In Luke (13:34–35; the lament over
Jerusalem) Jesus refers to how they will cry “Blessed be the King who
comes in the name of the Lord” when he enters Jerusalem (Lk. 19:38). In
Luke, the passage is structured into the life of Jesus and refers to his
triumphal entry into Jerusalem, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of
the Lord”). In Matthew (23:37–39) this same lament is placed after the
entry into the city (21:9) and thus refers to the fall of Jerusalem and
the Last Judgment. Apparently, Luke has historicized a primarily
eschatological saying.
Since the 1930s, scholars have increasingly refined sources,
postulated sources behind sources, and many stages of their formation.
The premise of the two- (or four-) source hypothesis is basic and
provides information as to literary sources; further refinement is of
interest only to the specialist. Another movement in synoptic
research—and also research including John—is that which concentrates
rather on the treatment of gospels as a whole, formally and
theologically, with patterns or cycles to be investigated. It may be
significant that the latest and best regarded Greek synopsis is that of
the German scholar Kurt Aland, Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (1964;
Synopsis of the Four Gospels, 1972), which includes the Gospel According
to John and, as an appendix, the Gospel of Thomas, as well as ample
quotations from noncanonical gospels and Jesus’ sayings preserved in the
Church Fathers.
New Testament literature » The Synoptic Gospels » The Gospel According
to Mark: background and overview
The Gospel According to Mark is the second in canonical order of the
Gospels and is both the earliest gospel that survived and the shortest.
Probably contemporaneous with Q, it has no direct connection with it.
The Passion narrative comprises 40 percent of Mark, and, from chapter 8,
verse 27, onward, there is heavy reference forward to the Passion.
Though the author of Mark is probably unknown, authority is
traditionally derived from a supposed connection with the Apostle Peter,
who had transmitted the traditions before his martyr death under Nero’s
persecution (c. 64–65). Papias, a 2nd-century bishop in Asia Minor, is
quoted as saying that Mark had been Peter’s amanuensis (secretary) who
wrote as he remembered (after Peter’s death), though not in the right
order. Because Papias was from the East, perhaps the Johannine order
would have priority, as is the case in the structure of the Syrian
scholar Tatian’s Diatesseron (harmony of the Gospels).
Attempts have been made to identify Mark as the John Mark mentioned
in Acts 12 or as the disciple who fled naked in the garden (Mark 14). A
reference to “my son, Mark,” in I Peter is part of the same tradition by
which Mark was related to Peter; thus the Evangelist’s apostolic
guarantor was Peter.
The setting is a Gentile church. There is no special interest in
problems with Jews and little precision in stating Jewish views,
arguments, or terminology. Full validity is given the worship of the
Gentiles. In further support of a Gentile setting and Roman provenance
is the argument that Mark uses a high percentage of so-called
Latinisms—i.e., Latin loanwords in Greek for military officers, money,
and other such terms. Similar translations and transliterations,
however, have been found in the Jerusalem Talmud, a compendium of Jewish
law, lore, and commentary, which certainly was not of Roman provenance.
The argument from Latinisms must be weighed against the fact that Latin
could be used anywhere in the widespread Roman Empire. In addition, for
the first three centuries the language of the church of Rome was
Greek—so the Gentile addressees might just as well have been Syrian as
Roman. The Latinisms—as well as the Aramaisms—are rather an indication
of the vernacular style of Mark, which was “improved” by the other
Evangelists.
Mark is written in rather crude and plain Greek, with great realism.
Jesus’ healing of a blind man is done in two stages: first the blind man
sees men, but they look like trees walking, and only after further
healing activity on Jesus’ part is he restored to see everything
clearly. This concrete element was lost in the rest of the tradition. It
is also perhaps possible that this two-stage healing is a good analogy
for understanding Mark theologically: first, through enigmatic miracles
and parables in secret, and only later, after recognition of Jesus as
the Christ, is there a gradual clarification leading to the empty tomb.
In chapter 3, verse 21, those closest to Jesus call him insane (“he is
beside himself”), a statement without parallel in the other Gospels.
In Mark, some Aramaic is retained, transliterated into Greek, and
then translated—e.g., in the raising of Jairus’ daughter (5:41) and in
the healing of the deaf mute (7:34). The well-known abba, Father, is
retained in Mark’s account of Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane. In the two
miracle stories, the Aramaic may have been retained to enhance the
miracle by the technique of preserving Jesus’ actual words. And a cry of
Jesus on the Cross is given in Aramaized Hebrew.
The stories in Mark are woven together with simple stereotyped
connectives, such as the use of kai euthus (“and immediately,”
“straightway”), which may be thought of as a Semitic style (as a typical
simple connective in the Old Testament narrative style). More likely,
however, this abruptness indicated that the compiler-redactor of Mark
has used geography and people simply as props or scenes to be used as
needed to connect the events in the service of the narrative.
Except for the Passion narrative, there is little chronological
information. References in chapters 13 and 14 appear to presuppose that
the Jerusalem Temple (destroyed in ad 70) still stood (in Matthew and
Luke this is no longer the case); but the context of chapter 13, the
“Little Apocalypse,” is so interwoven with eschatological traditions of
both the Jewish and Christian expectations in the 1st century that it
cannot serve with certainty as a historical reference. To some extent,
however, chapter 13 does help to date Mark—the priority of which has
already been established from literary criticism—because it is in good
agreement with the traditions that Mark was written after the martyrdom
of Peter. Mark may thus be dated somewhere after 64 and before 70, when
the Jewish war ended.
New Testament literature » The Synoptic Gospels » The Gospel According
to Mark: unique structure
The organization and schematizing of Mark reveals its special thrust. It
may be roughly divided into three parts: (1) 1:1–8:26—the Galilean
ministry—an account of mighty deeds (an aretalogy); (2)
8:27–10:52—discussions with his disciples centred on suffering; and (3)
11:1–16:8—controversies, Passion, death, the empty tomb, and the
expected Parousia in Galilee.
“The beginning of the Gospel” in the first words of Mark apparently
refers to John the Baptist, who is clearly described as a forerunner of
the Messiah who calls the people to repentance. Jesus never calls
himself the Messiah (Christ). After Jesus’ Baptism by John, the heavens
open, the Spirit descends, and a heavenly voice proclaims Jesus as God’s
beloved son with whom He is well pleased. Already in this account there
is a certain secrecy, because it is not clear whether the onlookers or
only Jesus witnessed or heard. Jesus was then driven by the Spirit into
the wilderness, the place of demons and struggle, to be tempted by
Satan, surrounded by wild beasts (the symbols of the power of evil and
persecution) and ministered to by angels. Here again he is in secret,
alone. The opening of the struggle with Satan is depicted, and the
attendance by angels is a sign of Jesus’ success in the test.
Many references to persecution in Mark point toward Roman oppression
and a martyr church that was preoccupied with a confrontation with the
Satanic power behind the world’s hostility to Jesus and his message.
There was stress on the underlying fact that the church must witness
before the authorities in a hostile world. Much of the martyrological
aspect of Mark’s account is grounded in his interpretation of the basic
function of Jesus’ Passion and death and its implication that the
Christian life is a life of suffering witness.
What Jesus preached in Galilee at the beginning of his ministry was
that the time is fulfilled and the Kingdom of God is “at hand”; i.e.,
very very near—therefore repent! (1:15). In Matthew this same message is
that of both John the Baptist (3:2) and Jesus (4:17). This sets the
stage; and the miraculous ministry in Galilee about which the followers
are enjoined to secrecy points not so much to Jesus as the wonder-worker
as to the great scheme of pushing back the frontier of Satan. Toward the
end of this first section, the Pharisees ask Jesus for a sign, and he
answers in no uncertain terms that no sign will be given (8:12). In the
Synoptic Gospels the miracles are never called “signs” (as in John); and
no sign is to be given prior to the cosmological, eschatological signs
from heaven that belong to the end: darkening of the Sun and Moon and
extreme tribulations that in postbiblical Jewish eschatology—the mood of
the first Christian century—is a sign of the coming of the heavenly Son
of man to judge the world.
Parables are a revelatory mode of expression; they are not just
illustrations of ideas or principles. Jesus, the revealer, tells his
disciples that the secret of the Kingdom of God is given to them but
that to the outsider everything is in parables (or riddles) in order
that they may not hear and understand lest they repent and be forgiven
(4:10–12). This mystery and hiddenness is particularly related to the
parables about the coming of the kingdom. Yet, even Jesus’ disciples did
not recognize him as the Messiah, although his miracles were such that
only a messianic figure could perform them: forgiving sins on earth,
casting out demons, raising the dead, making the deaf hear and the
stammerer (the dumb) speak, and the blind to see—all fulfillments of Old
Testament prophecy concerning the Messiah. Only the demons, supranatural
beings, recognize Jesus. There is a constant campaign against Satan from
the temptation after Jesus’ Baptism until his death on the Cross, and,
in each act of healing or exorcism, there is anticipated the ultimate
defeat of Satan and the manifestation of the power of the new age. In
all this Mark stresses the need for secrecy and Peter’s confession of
Jesus as the Christ (8:29) is told in Mark as the opportunity to
motivate an acceptance of the admonition “not to tell” by reference to
the necessity of suffering.
This strong emphasis on the necessity of suffering—in the life of
Jesus and in the life of the disciples—before the hour of victory gives
the best explanation to what scholars have called the secrecy motif in
Mark—i.e., the constant stress on not telling the world about Jesus’
messianic power.
According to William Wrede, a German scholar, the messianic secret
motif was a literary and apologetic device by which the Christological
faith of the early church could be reconciled with the fact that Jesus
never claimed to be the Messiah. According to Wrede, Mark’s solution
was: Jesus always knew it but kept it a secret for the inner group.
After Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi, Jesus began to speak of a
suffering Son of man. The Son of man in Jewish apocalyptic was a
glorious, transcendent, heavenly figure who would come victorious on
clouds of glory to judge the world at the end of time. Suffering was not
part of this picture. E. Sjöberg (1955) has interpreted the messianic
secret not as a literary invention but as an understanding both that the
Messiah would appear without recognition except by those who are chosen
and to whom he reveals himself and that he must suffer. For outsiders,
then, he remains a mystery until the age to come. Even his disciples did
not understand the necessity of suffering. Only in the light of
Resurrection faith—the hope of the Parousia and final victory over
Satan—could they understand that he had to suffer and die to fulfill his
mission and how they, too, must suffer.
Martyrological aspects in Mark can be noted from the beginning.
Already according to 2:20 Jesus’ disciples are not to fast until “when
the bridegroom is taken away from them and then they will fast . . . .”
In Mark 8 to 10, there is great concentration on discussions with the
disciples. The theme is suffering, and repeatedly they are reminded that
there is no way of coming to glory except through suffering. Three
Passion predictions meet either with rejection, fear, or confusion. In
the Transfiguration (9:2–13; in which three disciples—Peter, James, and
John—see Jesus become brighter and Elijah and Moses, two Old Testament
prophets, appear) there is the same emphasis. The tension between future
glory and prior suffering is the more striking when the Transfiguration
is recognized as a Resurrection appearance, placed here in an
anticipatory manner. The disciples are reminded of an association of
Elijah with John the Baptist and his fate. This is also a hidden
epiphany (manifestation)—the triumphal enthroned king closely juxtaposed
with suffering and death.
After the third Passion prediction, in chapter 10, two of the
disciples ask for places of honour when Jesus is glorified. He reminds
them that suffering must precede glory for “The Son of man also came not
to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
It is worth noting that this is the only reference to the death of
Christ as a ransom or sacrifice but that Mark does not dwell on the
Christological implications, but uses the saying for ethical purposes.
Even so, the Marcan text gives one of the important building blocks for
Christological growth and reflection on the suffering Son of man.
Just as Jesus’ public ministry in Mark started with the calling of
disciples, so the central part of the Gospel calls them to participate
through suffering in his own confrontation with the power of Satan.
In the last section of the Gospel, the scene is shifted to Jerusalem,
where Jesus is going to die. His entry is described as triumphal and
openly messianic and is accompanied by acted-out parables in a judgment
of a barren fig tree, casting money changers out of the Temple, and in a
parable of a vineyard in which the beloved son of the owner is killed.
There is an increasing conflict and alienation of the authorities.
Chapter 13, the “Little Apocalypse,” made up of a complex arrangement of
apocalyptic traditions, serves as instruction to the disciples and
thence to the church that they must endure through tribulation and
persecution until the end time. Thus, although the setting is Jerusalem,
the orientation is toward Galilee, the place where the Parousia is
expected. The Holy Spirit will come to those who must witness in the
situation of trial before governors and authorities (13:11); in the
final eschatological trials only by God’s intervention can anyone endure
unless the time be shortened for the elect. Because this chapter is
shaped as a discourse that precedes the Passion narrative, it serves as
a farewell address, a type of testament including apocalyptic sayings
and warnings to the messianic community at the end of the “narrative”
before the Passion—as do most testament forms (admonitions given before
death to those beloved who will remain behind).
The Cross is both the high point of the Gospel and its lowest level
of abject humiliation and suffering. A cry of dereliction and agony and
the cosmic sign of the rending of the Temple veil bring from a Gentile
centurion acknowledgment of Jesus as Son of God. The disciples reacted
to the scandal of the Cross with discouragement, although already the
scene is set for a meeting in Galilee. There are no visions of the risen
Lord, however, in the best manuscripts (verses 9–20 are commonly held to
be later additions), and Mark thus remains an open-ended Gospel. The
Resurrection is neither described nor interpreted. Not exultation but
rather involvement in the battle with Satan is the inheritance until the
victorious coming in glory of the Lord—a continual process with the
empty tomb pointing to hope of the final victory and glory, the Parousia
in Galilee. The Gospel ends on the note of expectation. The mood from
the last words of Jesus to the disciples remains: What I say to you, I
say to all: Watch!
New Testament literature » The Synoptic Gospels » The Gospel According
to Matthew
Matthew is the first in order of the four canonical Gospels and is often
called the “ecclesiastical” Gospel, both because it was much used for
selections for pericopes for the church year and because it deals to a
great extent with the life and conduct of the church and its members.
Matthew gave the frame, the basic shape and colour, to the early
church’s picture of Jesus. Matthew used almost all of Mark, upon which
it is to a large extent structured, some material peculiar only to
Matthew, and sayings from Q as they serve the needs of the church. This
Gospel expands and enhances the stark description of Jesus from Mark.
The fall of Jerusalem (ad 70) had occurred, and this dates Matthew later
than Mark, c. 70–80.
Although there is a Matthew named among the various lists of Jesus’
disciples, more telling is the fact that the name of Levi, the tax
collector who in Mark became a follower of Jesus, in Matthew is changed
to Matthew. It would appear from this that Matthew was claiming
apostolic authority for his Gospel through this device but that the
writer of Matthew is probably anonymous.
The Gospel grew out of a “school” led by a man with considerable
knowledge of Jewish ways of teaching and interpretation. This is
suggested by the many ways in which Matthew is related to Judaism. It is
in some ways the most “Jewish” Gospel. Striking are 11 “formula
quotations” (“This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet . . .”)
claiming the fulfillment of Old Testament messianic prophecies.
The outstanding feature of Matthew is its division into five
discourses, or sermons, following narrative sections with episodes and
vignettes that precede and feed into them: (1) chapters 5–7—the Sermon
on the Mount—a sharpened ethic for the Kingdom and a higher
righteousness than that of the Pharisees; (2) chapter 10—a discourse on
mission, witness, and martyrological potential for disciples with an
eschatological context (including material from Mark 13); (3) chapter
13—parables about the coming of the Kingdom; (4) chapter 18—on church
discipline, harshness toward leaders who lead their flock astray and
more gentleness toward sinning members; and (5) chapters 23–25—concerned
with the end time (the Parousia) and watchful waiting for it, and
firmness in faith in God and his Holy Spirit. Each sermon is preceded by
a didactic use of narratives, events, and miracles leading up to them,
many from the Marcan outline. Each of the five sections of narrative and
discourse ends with a similar formula: “now when Jesus had finished
these sayings. . . .” The style suggests a catechism for Christian
behaviour based on the example of Jesus: a handbook for teaching and
administration of the church. This presupposes a teaching and acting
community, a church, in which the Gospel functions. The Greek word
ekklēsia, (“church”) is used in the Gospels only in Matthew (16:18 and
18:17).
The discourses are preceded by etiological (sources or origins)
material of chapters 1–2, in which the birth narrative relates Jesus’
descent (by adoption according to the will of God) through Joseph into
the Davidic royal line. Though a virgin birth is mentioned, it is not
capitalized upon theologically in Matthew. The story includes a flight
into Egypt (recalling a Mosaic tradition). Some “Semitisms” add to the
Jewish flavour, such as calling the Kingdom of God the Kingdom of the
Heaven(s). The name Jesus (Saviour) is theologically meaningful to
Matthew (1:21). Chapter 2 reflects on the geographical framework of the
Messiah’s birth and tells how the messianic baby born in Bethlehem came
to dwell in Nazareth.
After the five narrative and discourse units, Matthew continues from
chapter 26 on with the Passion narrative, burial, a Resurrection
account, and the appearance of the risen Lord in Galilee, where he gives
the final “great commission,” with which Matthew ends.
Matthew is not only an original Greek document, but its addressees
are Greek-speaking Gentile Christians. By the time of the Gospel
According to Matthew, there had been a relatively smooth and mild
transition into a Gentile Christian milieu. The setting could be Syria,
but hardly Antioch, where the Pauline mission had sharpened the
theological issues far beyond what seems to be the case in Matthew.
Matthew has no need to argue against the Law, or Torah, as divisive for
the church (as had been the case earlier with Paul in Romans and
Galatians, in which the Law was divisive among Gentile Christians and
Jewish Christians), and, indeed, the Law is upheld in Matthew (5:17–19).
For Matthew, there had already been a separation of Christianity from
its Jewish matrix. When he speaks about the “scribes and the Pharisees,”
he thinks of the synagogue “across the street” from the now primarily
Gentile church. Christianity is presented as superior to Judaism even in
regard to the Law and its ethical demands.
The Matthean church is conscious of its Jewish origins but also of a
great difference in that it is permeated with an eschatological
perspective, seeing itself not only as participating in the suffering of
Christ (as in Mark) but also as functioning even in the face of
persecution while patiently—but eagerly—awaiting the Parousia. The
questions of the mission of the church and the degree of the “coming” of
the Kingdom with the person and coming of Jesus are handled by the
Evangelist by a “timetable” device. The Gospel is arranged so that only
after the Resurrection is the power of the Lord fully manifest as
universal and continuing. Before the Resurrection the disciples are sent
nowhere among the Gentiles but only to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel; and the end time is expected before the mission will have gone
through the towns of Israel. Even in his earthly ministry, however,
Jesus proleptically, with a sort of holy impatience, heals the son of a
believing Roman centurion and responds to the persistent faith of a
Canaanite woman—whose heathen background is stressed even more than her
geographical designation, Syro-Phoenician, given in the parallel in
Mark—by healing her daughter. The Jewish origins of Jesus’ teaching and
the way the Evangelist presents them do not deny but push beyond them.
The prophecies are fulfilled, the Law is kept, and the church’s mission
is finally universal, partly because the unbelief of the pious Jewish
leaders left the gospel message to the poor, the sick, the sinner, the
outcast, and the Gentile.
In Matthew, because of the use of Q and Matthew’s theological
organization, there is stress on Jesus as teacher, his sharpening or
radicalizing of the Law in an eschatological context; and Jesus is
presented not in secret but as an openly proclaimed Messiah, King, and
Judge. In the temptation narrative Jesus refuses Satan’s temptations
because they are of the devil, but he himself later in the Gospel does
feed the multitude, and after the Resurrection he claims all authority
in heaven and on earth. By overcoming Satan, Jesus gave example to his
church to stand firm in persecution. Messianic titles are more used in
Matthew than in Mark. In the exorcism of demoniacs, the demons cry out,
calling him Son of God and rebuking him for having come “before the
time” (8:29). Again, this shows that Jesus in his earthly ministry had
power over demons, power belonging only to the Messiah and the age to
come; and he pushed this timetable ahead. Yet, as in Mark, the miracles
are not to be interpreted as signs. When asked for a sign, the Matthean
account gives only the sign of Jonah, an Old Testament prophet—i.e., the
preaching of the gospel—which in later tradition took on an added
interpretation as presaging the Son of man (Jesus) being three days and
nights in the tomb (12:40, a later addition to Matthew).
Even the antitheses in the Sermon on the Mount are not new but
demonstrate a higher ethic—one that is sharpened, strict, more immediate
because the end time is perceived as coming soon. People who took this
intensification of the Law upon themselves dared to do it as an example
of “messianic license”—i.e., to use the ethics of the Kingdom in the
present in a church still under historical ambiguity and in constant
struggle with Satan.
At such points the peculiar nature of Matthew comes into focus. The
sharpening of the Law and the messianic license for the disciples are
clearly there. At the same time Matthew presents the maxims of Jesus as
attractive to a wider audience with Hellenistic tastes: Jesus is the
teacher of a superior ethic, beyond casuistry and particularism.
Similarly, in chapter 15, he renders maxims about food laws as an
example of enlightened attitudes, not as rules for actual behaviour.
According to Matthew, the “professionally” pious were blind and
unhearing, and these traits led to their replacement by those who are
called in Matthew the “little ones”; in Final Judgment the King-Messiah
will judge according to their response to him who is himself represented
as one of “the least of these.” The depiction of Jesus as Lord, King,
Judge, Saviour, Messiah, Son of man, and Son of God (all messianic
titles) is made in a highly pitched eschatological tone. The Lord’s
Prayer is presented in this context, and, for example, the “temptation”
(trial, test) of “Lead us not into temptation” is no ordinary sin but
the ordeal before the end time, the coming of the Kingdom for which the
Matthean church prays. Martyrdom, though not to be pursued, can be
endured through the help of the Spirit and the example of Jesus.
The Passion narrative is forceful and direct. Pilate’s part in
sentencing Jesus to be crucified is somewhat modified, and the guilt of
the Jews increased in comparison with the Marcan account. In Matthew the
Resurrection is properly witnessed by more than one male witness so that
there can be no ambiguity as to the meaning of the empty tomb. The risen
Lord directs his disciples to go to Galilee, and the Gospel According to
Matthew ends with a glorious epiphany there and with Jesus’ commission
to the disciples—the church—to go to the Gentiles, because the risen
Jesus is Lord of heaven and earth for all time.
New Testament literature » The Synoptic Gospels » The Gospel According
to Luke
Luke is the third in order of the canonical gospels, which, together
with Acts, its continuation, is dedicated by Luke to the same patron,
“most excellent” Theophilus. Theophilus may have been a Roman called by
a title of high degree because he is an official or out of respect; or
he may have been an exemplification of the Gentile Christian addressees
of the Lucan Gospel. The account in Luke–Acts is for the purpose of
instruction and for establishing reliability by going back to the
apostolic age. The very style of this preface follows the pattern of
Greek historiography, and thus Luke is called the “historical” Gospel.
Historically reliable information cannot be expected, however, because
Luke’s sources were not historical; they rather were embedded in
tradition and proclamation. Luke is, however, a historian in structuring
his sources, especially in structuring his chronology into periods to
show how God’s plan of salvation was unfolded in world history. That he
uses events and names is secondary to his intention, and their
historical accuracy is of less importance than the schematization by
which he shows Jesus to be the Saviour of the world and the church in
its mission (Acts) to be part of an orderly progress according to God’s
plan.
The sources of the Gospel are arranged in the service of its
theological thrust with definite periodization of the narrative.
Approximately one-third of Luke is from Mark (about 60 percent of Mark);
20 percent of Luke is derived from Q (sometimes arranged with parts of
L). Almost 50 percent is from Luke’s special source (L), especially the
infancy narratives of John the Baptist and Jesus, and parables peculiar
to Luke (e.g., the prodigal son, the good Samaritan, the rich fool). L
material is also interwoven into the Passion narrative. While Matthew
structured similar teaching materials in his five discourses, Luke
places them in an extensive travel account that takes Jesus from Galilee
to Judaea via Jericho to Jerusalem. This is similar to the ways in which
Acts is structured on the principle of bringing the word from Jerusalem
to Rome (see below).
The author has been identified with Luke, “the beloved physician,”
Paul’s companion on his journeys, presumably a Gentile (Col. 4:14 and
11; cf. II Tim. 4:11, Philem. 24). There is no Papias fragment
concerning Luke, and only late-2nd-century traditions claim (somewhat
ambiguously) that Paul was the guarantor of Luke’s Gospel traditions.
The Muratorian Canon refers to Luke, the physician, Paul’s companion;
Irenaeus depicts Luke as a follower of Paul’s gospel. Eusebius has Luke
as an Antiochene physician who was with Paul in order to give the Gospel
apostolic authority. References are often made to Luke’s medical
language, but there is no evidence of such language beyond that to which
any educated Greek might have been exposed. Of more import is the fact
that in the writings of Luke specifically Pauline ideas are
significantly missing; while Paul speaks of the death of Christ, Luke
speaks rather of the suffering, and there are other differing and
discrepant ideas on Law and eschatology. In short, the author of this
gospel remains unknown.
Luke can be dated c. 80. There is no conjecture about its place of
writing, except that it probably was outside of Palestine because the
writer had no accurate idea of its geography. Luke uses a good literary
style of the Hellenistic Age in terms of syntax. His language has a
“biblical” ring already in its own time because of his use of the
Septuagint style; he is a Greek familiar with the Septuagint, which was
written for Greeks; he seldom uses loanwords and repeatedly improves
Mark’s wording. The hymns of chapters 1 and 2 (the Magnificat, beginning
“My soul magnifies the Lord”; the Benedictus, beginning “Blessed be the
Lord God of Israel”; the Nunc Dimittis, beginning “Now lettest thou thy
servant depart in peace”) and the birth narratives of John the Baptist
and Jesus either came from some early oral tradition or were consciously
modelled on the basis of the language of the Septuagint. These sections
provide insight into the early Christian community, and the hymns in
particular reflect the Old Testament psalms or the Thanksgiving Psalms
from Qumrān. Though on the whole Matthew is the Gospel most used for the
lectionaries, the Christmas story comes from Luke. The “old age” motif
of the birth of John to Elizabeth also recalls the Old Testament birth
of Samuel, the judge. All the material about John the Baptist, however,
is deliberately placed prior to that of Jesus. When Mary, the mother of
Jesus, visits Elizabeth, Jesus’ superiority to John is already
established. The Davidic royal tradition is thus depicted as superior to
the priestly tradition.
Writing out of the cultural tradition of Hellenism and that of Jewish
ʿanawim piety—i.e., the piety of the poor and the humble entertaining
messianic expectations—Luke has “humanized” the portrait of Jesus. Piety
and prayer (his own and that of others) are stressed. Love and
compassion for the poor and despised and hatred of the rich are
emphasized, as is Jesus’ attitude toward women, children, and sinners.
In the Crucifixion scene, the discussion between the robbers and Jesus’
assurance that one of them would be with him in Paradise, as well as the
words, “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!”—which are in
contrast to the cry of dereliction in Mark and Matthew—all point toward
the paradigm of the truly pious man. Parables peculiar to Luke—among
which are those of the good Samaritan, the importunate friend, the lost
coin, and the prodigal son—have an element of warmth and tenderness.
Thus, Luke “civilizes” the more stark eschatological emphasis of Mark
(and Matthew), leading the way, perhaps, to a lessening of
eschatological hopes in a time in which the imminent Parousia was not
expected but pushed into the distant future.
The interplay between Luke and Acts reveals Luke’s answer to the
coming of the Kingdom. Once the church has the Holy Spirit, the delay of
the Parousia has been answered for a time. Thus, Luke divides history
into three periods: (1) the end of the prophetic era of Israel as a
preparation for revelation, with John the Baptist as the end of the old
dispensation; (2) the revelation of Jesus’ ministry as the centre of
time—with Satan having departed after the temptation and, until he once
again appears, entering into Judas to betray Jesus; and (3) the
beginning of the period of the church after Jesus’ Passion and
Resurrection.
Consistent with this schematization, John the Baptist’s arrest occurs
before Jesus’ Baptism, though it is placed later in Mark and Matthew.
From the beginning, the rule of the Spirit is a central theme, important
in healing, the ministry, the message, and the promise of the continued
guidance of the Spirit in the age of the church, pointing toward part
two of Luke’s work, the book of Acts of the Apostles, in which Pentecost
(the receiving of the Holy Spirit by 120 disciples gathered together the
50th day after Easter) is a decisive event.
Just as Luke arranges his Gospel to show the divine plan of salvation
in historical periodization, so he orders its structure in accordance
with a geographical scheme. Chapter 1 (verse 8) of Acts provides the
framework: after the coming of the Spirit, the church will witness in
Jerusalem, in all Judaea and Samaria, and then to the end of the
inhabited world. These places foreshadow the church’s mission. The end
of the old dispensation takes place in Jerusalem and its environs. The
Resurrection appearances in Luke are placed in Jerusalem (Mark, Matthew,
and John point toward Galilee). Jerusalem is also the place of the
beginning of the church, and the old holy place thus becomes the centre
of the new holy community. The necessity of suffering was made clear and
interpreted as the fulfillment of prophecy. Rejection by people from his
old home, Nazareth, and by Jewish religious leaders corresponds to the
beginning of the ministry to the Gentiles—to the end of the earth.
Luke’s account of the Crucifixion heightens the guilt of the Jews,
adding a trial and mockery by Herod Antipas. The Crucifixion in Luke is
interpreted as an anticipatory event: that the Christ must suffer by
means of death before entering into glory. Jesus’ death, therefore, is
not interpreted in terms of an expiatory redemptive act. The centurion
who saw the event praised God and called Jesus a righteous man, thus
describing his fate as that of a martyr, but with no special meaning for
salvation. The link between past salvation history and the period of the
church is through the Spirit; salvation history continues in Acts.
New Testament literature » The fourth Gospel: The Gospel According to
John » Uniqueness of John
John is the last Gospel and, in many ways, different from the Synoptic
Gospels. The question in the Synoptic Gospels concerns the extent to
which the divine reality broke into history in Jesus’ coming, and the
answers are given in terms of the closeness of the new age. John, from
the very beginning, presents Jesus in terms of glory: the Christ, the
exalted Lord, mighty from the beginning and throughout his ministry,
pointing to the Cross as his glorification and a revelation of the glory
of the Father. The Resurrection, together with Jesus’ promise to send
the Paraclete (the Holy Spirit) as witness, spokesman, and helper for
the church, is a continuation of the glorious revelation and
manifestation (Greek epiphaneia).
Irenaeus calls John the beloved disciple who wrote the Gospel in
Ephesus. Papias mentions John the son of Zebedee, the disciple, as well
as another John, the presbyter, who might have been at Ephesus. From
internal evidence the Gospel was written by a beloved disciple whose
name is unknown. Because both external and internal evidence are
doubtful, a working hypothesis is that John and the Johannine letters
were written and edited somewhere in the East (perhaps Ephesus) as the
product of a “school,” or Johannine circle, at the end of the 1st
century. The addressees were Gentile Christians, but there is accurate
knowledge and much reference to Palestine, which might be a reflection
of early Gospel tradition. The Jews are equated with the opponents of
Jesus, and the separation of church and synagogue is complete, also
pointing to a late-1st-century dating. The author of John knows part of
the tradition behind the Synoptic Gospels, but it is unlikely that he
knew them as literary sources. His use of common tradition is molded to
his own style and theology, differing markedly with the Synoptics in
many ways. Yet, John is a significant source of Jesus’ life and
ministry, and it does not stand as a “foreign body” among the Gospels.
Confidence in some apostolic traditions behind John is an organic link
with the apostolic witness, and, from beginning to end, the confidence
is anchored in Jesus’ words and the disciples’ experience—although much
has been changed in redaction. Traces of eyewitness accounts occur in
John’s unified Gospel narrative, but they are interpreted, as is also
the case with the other Gospels. Clement of Alexandria, a
late-2nd-century theologian, calls John the “spiritual gospel” that
complements and supplements the Synoptics. Although the Greek of John is
relatively simple, the power behind it (and its “poetic” translation
especially in the King James Version) makes it a most beautiful writing.
Various backgrounds for John have been suggested: Greek philosophy
(especially the Stoic concept of the logos, or “word,” as immanent
reason); the works of Philo of Alexandria, in which there is an
impersonal logos concept that can not be the object of faith and love;
Hermetic writings, comprising esoteric, magical works from Egypt
(2nd–3rd centuries ad) that contain both Greek and Oriental speculations
on monotheistic religion and the revelation of God; Gnosticism, a
2nd-century religious movement that emphasized salvation through
knowledge and a metaphysical dualism; Mandaeanism, a form of Gnosticism
based on Iranian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Jewish sources; and
Palestinian Judaism, from which both Hellenistic and Jewish ideas came.
In the last source there is a Wisdom component and some ideas that
possibly come from Qumrān, such as a dualism of good versus evil, truth
versus falsehood, and light versus darkness. Of these backgrounds,
perhaps, all have played a part, but the last appears to fit John best.
In the thought world of Jewish Gnosticism, there is a mythological
descending and ascending envoy of God. In the prologue of John, there is
embedded what is proclaimed as a historical fact: The Logos (Word) took
on new meaning in Christ. The Creator of the world entered anew with
creative power. But history and interpretation are always so
inextricably bound together that one cannot be separated from the other.
New Testament literature » The fourth Gospel: The Gospel According to
John » Form and content of John
In John there is a mixture of long meditational discourses on definite
themes and concrete events recalling the structure of Matthew (with
events plus discourses); and, although the source problem is complex and
research is still grappling with it, there can be little doubt that John
depended on a distinct source for his seven miracles (the sign [or
sēmeia] source): (1) turning water to wine at the marriage at Cana; (2)
the healing of an official’s son; (3) the healing of a paralytic at the
pool at Bethzatha; (4) the feeding of the multitude; (5) Jesus walking
on water; (6) the cure of one blind from birth; and (7) the raising of
Lazarus from the dead. In chapter 20, verse 30, the purpose of the signs
is stated: “Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples,
which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you
may have life in his name.”
A major part of John is in the form of self-revelatory discourses by
Jesus. Some would assign these to a distinct source, but they may rather
be the work of the author.
Jesus’ coming “hour”—the hour of his glorification—could not come
about at any bidding but only according to a divine plan, and Jesus is
obedient to it. The Paraclete is promised to come to the disciples, and
it is necessary that Jesus go away in order that the Paraclete may come
to the church. In John, Christ is depicted as belonging to a higher
world, and his kingship is not of this world. He is said to have come
into this world to his own people, and they rejected him, but this is
but another example of the church’s mission having passed both
historically and theologically to the Gentile milieu.
The Christology in John is heightened: though the Synoptics have
Jesus speaking about the Kingdom, in John, Jesus speaks about himself.
This heightened Christology can be seen in many of the “I am” sayings of
Jesus (e.g., “I am the bread of life”) in the context of their
discourses and accompanying signs. This type of discourse is a
concentration in terms and titles of the way in which the Messiah openly
reveals his identity by a striking phenomenon: in the Old Testament the
association with “I am” is the revelation of the name of God in the
theophany (manifestation of God) to Moses (Exodus), and this theophanic
interpretation carries over in John. Jesus says “I am” with regard to
his function as Messiah, as divine. These sayings are self-revelatory
pronouncements: (1) bread of life, (2) light of the world, (3) door of
the sheepfold, (4) good shepherd, (5) resurrection and life, (6) way,
truth, and life, and (7) true vine. Such theophanic expressions are
heightened in other sayings: “I and the Father are one”; “Before Abraham
was, I am”; “He who has seen me has seen the Father”; and Thomas’ cry
after the Resurrection “My Lord and my God.”
John 14 is a farewell speech, one of a series, before the Passion. In
testament form, it is the bidding of farewell by one who is dying and
giving comfort to those he loves. In John, however, the eons (ages)
overlap. The significance of the farewell address, thus, is in the
teaching that Jesus is God’s representative. The fact that he must go to
the Father means that the eschatological era already started in Jesus’
presence as the Christ and will be intensified at his death and
manifested further in the coming of the Spirit to the church. The times
shift; the eschatology—here and still to come—also shifts but remains on
the whole realized in John, although there is still a tension between
the “already” and the “not yet.”
John’s allegorical thought is shown by his ending of the miracle of
Jesus’ walking on the sea. The frightened disciples took him into their
boat, “and immediately the boat was at the land.” This fits the pattern
of John’s Gospel, namely that, when Jesus is with his church, the new
era has already arrived, and, where Jesus is, there is the Kingdom
fulfilled. Similarly, the raising of Lazarus in chapter 11 is to
demonstrate that the power of the Resurrection, of the fulfilled
“eschaton” (last times), is already present in Jesus as Christ now, not
only in some future time. Thus, there would appear to be a “realized
eschatology” in John; i.e., the last times are realized in the person
and work of Jesus. The coming of the Spirit, the Paraclete, however, is
still to come, so, even in this most eschatological Gospel, there is a
building up, a crescendo, of glorification. In chapter 12, verse 32,
Jesus is depicted as saying, “I, when I am lifted up . . . will draw all
men to myself”—again an exaltation and glorification that points to the
Cross. At the point of death on the Cross, Jesus’ words “It is finished”
are interpreted to mean that part of the “eschaton” is consummated,
fulfilled. After the finding of the empty tomb, there is a Resurrection
appearance to the disciples. This includes the “doubting Thomas”
pericope, which teaches that those who have to depend on the witness of
the Gospel are at no disadvantage.
In an appended chapter, 21, there is a touching story of the Apostle
Peter, who, having denied his Lord thrice, is three times asked by Jesus
if he loves him. Peter affirms his knowledge that Jesus knows what love
is in his heart and is given the care of the church and a prediction
that he himself will be persecuted and crucified.
The numerous differences between the Synoptics and John can be summed
up thus: in John eternal life is already present for the believer, while
in the Synoptics there is a waiting for the Parousia for the fulfillment
of eschatological expectations. This Johannine theology and piety has
great similarities to the views that Paul criticizes in I Cor. 15 (see
below). The contrast between Paul and John is even more striking if one
accepts the most plausible theory that John as we have it includes
passages (added later) by which the realized eschatology has been
corrected so as to fit better into the more futuristic eschatology that
was stressed in defense against the Gnostics. John 5:25–28 is such a
striking correction.
The Johannine chronology also differs from the Synoptic. John starts
the public ministry with the casting out of the money changers: the
Synoptics have this as the last event of the earthly ministry leading to
Jesus’ apprehension. The public ministry in John occupies two or three
years, but the Synoptics telescope it into one. In John Jesus is
crucified on 14 Nisan, the same day that the Jewish Passover lamb is
sacrificed; in the Synoptics Jesus is crucified on 15 Nisan. The
difference in the chronologies of the Passion between John and the
Synoptics may be because of the use of a solar calendar in John and a
lunar calendar in the Synoptics. Nevertheless, the actual dating is of
less importance than the fact that John places the Crucifixion at the
time of the Passover sacrifice to emphasize Jesus as the Paschal lamb.
There is no celebration of the Last Supper in John, but the feeding of
the multitude in chapter 6 gives the opportunity for a eucharistic
discourse. Because Jesus is regarded as the Christ from the very
beginning of John, there is no baptism story—John the Baptist bears
witness to Jesus as the Lamb of God—no temptation, and no demon
exorcisms. Satan is vanquished in the presence of Christ. Each of the
four Gospels presents a different facet of the picture, a different
theology. Although in all the Gospels there is warning about persecution
and the danger of discipleship, each has the retrospective comfort of
having knowledge of the risen Lord who will send the Spirit. In John,
however, there is a triumphant, glorious confidence: “In the world you
have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”
New Testament literature » The Acts of the Apostles
As indicated by both its introduction and its theological plan (see The
Gospel According to Luke), Acts is the second of a two-volume work
compiled by the author of Luke. Both volumes are dedicated to Theophilus
(presumably an imperial official), and its contents are divided into
periods. In the Gospel, Luke describes first the end of the old
dispensation and then the earthly life of Jesus. Near the end of the
Gospel, the stage is set for the next period: the “new dispensation” of
the church as presented in Acts. After the Ascension of the risen Lord
in Jerusalem (Acts 1), there is Pentecost, called Shavuot in Hebrew
(i.e., “the 50th day” after Passover). This Jewish festival of the
revelation of the Law on Mt. Sinai becomes the day when the Spirit is
poured out. For Acts this event marks the beginning of a new era (Acts
2): as in Luke, Jesus, endowed by the Spirit, was led from Nazareth to
Jerusalem, so in Acts, the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost leads
the church from Jerusalem to Rome.
New Testament literature » The Acts of the Apostles » The purpose and
style of Acts
Although the title, Acts of the Apostles, suggests that the aim of Acts
is to give an account of the deeds of the Apostles, the title actually
was a later addition to the work (about the end of the 2nd century).
Acts depicts the shift from Jewish Christianity to Gentile Christianity
as relatively smooth and portrays the Roman government as regarding the
Christian doctrine as harmless. This book is the earliest “church
history,” viewing the church as guided by the Spirit until a future
Parousia (coming of the Lord).
Probably written shortly after Luke (c. 85) as a companion volume, in
no manuscripts or canonical lists is Acts attached to the Gospel.
Luke edited his history as a series of accounts, and thus Acts is not
history in the sense of accurate chronology or of continuity of events
but in the ancient sense of rhetoric with an apologetic aim. The author
weaves strands of varying traditions and sources into patterns loosely
clustered around a nucleus of past events viewed from the vantage point
of later development.
The structuring of the material by time and geography may account for
the unique way in which both the Ascension of Christ to heaven (40 days
after the Resurrection) and the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost
(50 days after the Resurrection) became fixed and dated events.
The redactor (editor) of Acts composed speeches with primary
primitive material within them; about one-fifth of Acts is composed in
this way. This manner of using speeches was part of the style and
purpose of the work and was not unlike that of other ancient historians
such as Josephus, Plutarch, and Tacitus.
In the latter part of Acts are several sections known as the
“we-passages” (e.g., 16:10, 20:5, 21:1,8, 27:1, 28:16) that appear to be
extracts from a travel diary, or narrative. These do not, however,
necessarily point to Luke as a companion of Paul—as has been commonly
assumed—but are rather a stylistic device, such as that noted
particularly in itinerary accounts in other ancient historical works
(e.g., Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius of Tyana). Though the pronoun
changes from “they” to “we,” the style, subject matter, and theology do
not differ. That an actual companion of Paul writing about his mission
journeys could be in so much disagreement with Paul (whose theology is
evidenced in his letters) about fundamental issues such as the Law, his
apostleship, and his relationship to the Jerusalem church is hardly
conceivable.
Acts was written in relatively good literary Greek (especially where
it addresses the Gentiles), but it is not consistent, and the Koinē
(vernacular) Greek of the 1st century was apparently more natural to the
writer. There are some Semitisms, especially when stressing Jewish
backgrounds; thus, Paul is called Saul in accounts of his conversion
experience on Damascus road. In chapter 17, Paul’s speech on the
Areopagus, a hill in Athens that traditionally was the meeting place of
the city’s council, for an intellectual Athenian audience is in good
Greek, assimilating Gentile thought patterns, but is expressed in Old
Testament universalistic terms.
New Testament literature » The Acts of the Apostles » The content of
Acts
The outline of Acts can be roughly divided into two parts: the mission
under Peter, centred in Jerusalem (chapters 1–12); and the missions to
the Gentiles all the way to Rome (cf. chapter 1, verse 8), under the
leadership of Paul (chapters 13–28). The earlier sections deal with the
Jerusalem church under Peter and the gradual spread of the gospel beyond
Jewish limits (in chapters 10–11, for example, Peter is led by the
Spirit to baptize the Roman centurion, Cornelius). References to Peter
are abruptly ended in chapter 12; James, the brother of the Lord, has
become the head of the Jerusalem church, and Philip, a Greek-speaking
missionary, is commanded by the Spirit to baptize an Ethiopian eunuch.
Paul’s missionary journeys are traditionally separated into three:
(1) 13:1–14:28; followed by the Council of Jerusalem c. ad 49 (15:1–35);
(2) 15:36–18:22 with a stop at Antioch; and (3) 18:23–21:14. After that,
Paul is imprisoned and sent to Rome where Acts leaves him witnessing
openly and unhindered in the capital of the Empire. These journeys may
be seen as a part of the writer’s “theological geography,” because they
form one continuous circuit—with stops on the way—between the
geographical poles of Jerusalem and Rome. After the Council of Jerusalem
c. ad 49, the situation was changed, and Paul became the spokesman for
the whole Christian mission.
The earliest chapters of Acts contain some primitive traditions
important both for any study of the early church and its preaching and
for the church’s own development of its understanding of itself and of
Jesus. After Peter healed a lame man, he made a speech, in chapter 3, in
which Jesus is proclaimed as the one appointed but who is now in heaven
and who will come as the Christ at the Parousia (Second Coming). In his
Pentecost speech in chapter 2, Peter preached that God made Jesus Lord
and Christ at his Resurrection.
The titles used for Jesus show both a preservation of primitive
tradition and theology and a clear differentiation made by the writer
between Jesus in his earthly life (in Luke) and reflection on him in
Acts. Christ (Messiah) is consciously used as the title of Jesus; the
title Son of man, used frequently in Luke, is used only once in Acts, at
the death of the martyr Stephen, when he is granted a vision of the Lord
in glory. Early titles, “servant” and “righteous one,” reflect the Old
Testament background of God’s “suffering servant.” The Hellenistic term
saviour (sōtēr) is used in Acts in chapters 5 and 13. The more primitive
Christologies and titles show not only a flexibility of traditions but
also the functional nature of New Testament Christology.
Acts presents a picture of Paul that differs from his own description
of himself in many of his letters, both factually and theologically. In
Acts, Paul, on his way to Damascus to persecute the church, is
dramatically stopped by a visionary experience of Jesus and is later
instructed. In his letters, however, Paul stated that he was called by
direct revelation of the risen Lord and given a vocation for which he
had been born (recalling the call of an Old Testament prophet, such as
Jeremiah) and was instructed by no man.
The account of Paul’s relation to Judaism in Acts also differs from
that in his letters. In Acts, Paul is presented as having received from
the Jerusalem apostolic council the authority for his mission to the
Gentiles as well as their decision—the so-called apostolic decree
(15:20; cf. 15:29)—as to the minimal basis upon which a Gentile could be
accepted into fellowship with Jewish Christians. According to this
decree, Gentile converts to Christianity were to abstain from pollutions
of idols (pagan cults), unchastity, from what is strangled, and from
blood (referring to the Jewish cultic food laws as showing continuity
with the old Israel). Circumcision, however, was not required, an
important concession on the part of the Jewish Christians.
In Acts Paul is not called an Apostle except in passing, and the
impression is given, contrary to Paul’s letters, that he is subordinate
to and dependent upon the twelve Apostles. When Paul entered a new city,
he went first to the synagogue. If his message of the gospel was
rejected, he turned to the Gentiles. According to Paul’s missionary
practice and theology, the message had first to be spoken to the Jews as
a reminder that Christianity is grounded in redemptive history; this
prevents the connection with the old Israel from being forgotten.
Because most Jews rejected Paul’s message, the author proclaimed that
salvation thus passed to the Gentiles.
Roman authorities are depicted as treating Paul (and other
Christians) in a just manner. The author repeatedly stressed that the
Roman authorities did not find fault with the Christians but rather
viewed Christian–Jewish antagonisms merely as one problem among Jewish
factions. While in Corinth, during a conflict with the Jews, the Roman
proconsul of Achaea in Greece, Gallio, refused to hear the charges
brought against Paul because, according to Roman law, they were
extralegal. On a later occasion in Ephesus, during a conflict with the
silversmiths who derived their income from selling statuettes of the
goddess Diana, Paul was protected from local antagonisms and a riot by
Roman authorities. Toward the end of his career, after having been in
the protective custody of the Judaean procurator Felix, Paul was heard
by Felix’s successor, Festus, and the Jewish king Agrippa II, and, had
he not appealed to Caesar as a Roman citizen, he could have been set
free. He thus had to go to Rome to be tried, and that is the last that
is heard about him in Acts.
The doctrine of the Holy Spirit is a dominant theme in Acts, as it is
in the Gospel According to Luke. Just as Jesus started his public
ministry in Luke by reading from the Book of Isaiah: “The Spirit of the
Lord is upon me . . .” so also in Acts the new age of the Spirit began
at Pentecost, which is viewed as the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel
that in the new age the Spirit would be poured out on all men. That
persons from many nations heard in their own tongues the mighty works of
God has been viewed as a reversal of the Tower of Babel narrative, with
languages no more confused and people no longer scattered.
Although Peter, Stephen, and Paul are central figures in Acts, the
piety of the humbler members of the church also permeates the book.
Church structure and organization, with apostles, disciples, elders,
prophets, and teachers, exhibits great fluidity. Paul, in bidding
farewell at Miletus to the elders from Ephesus, exhorted them to “take
heed . . . to all the flock in which the Holy Spirit made you guardians
(bishops) to feed the church. . . .” Offices may be conveyed by prayer
and laying on of hands but there is little stress on distinction of
office or succession, thus indicating a very early period in the life of
the church.
Because Peter “departs and goes to another place” and Paul is left
under house arrest awaiting trial, the readers appear to be left in
suspense concerning the fates of these two leaders. The readers,
however, probably knew what had happened to them—i.e., that these
Apostles had eventually been martyred sometime in the 60s before Acts
was written. What is more, the interest in Acts is not in the fates of
Peter and Paul; the gospel has finally reached Rome, the center of the
oikoumenē (“the inhabited world”), and thus the ending is suitable to
the book—Paul is left “preaching the kingdom of God and teaching about
the Lord Jesus Christ quite openly and unhindered.”
New Testament literature » The Pauline Letters » Background and overview
In the New Testament canon of 27 books, 21 are called “letters,” and
even the Revelation to John starts and ends in letter form. Of the 21,
13 belong to the Pauline corpus; the Letter to the Hebrews is included
in the Pauline corpus in the East but not, however, in the West. Three
letters of this corpus, the Pastoral Letters, are pseudonymous and thus
are not considered here. Of the remaining 10, the Letters to the
Colossians and Ephesians are from the hand of a later Pauline follower
and II Thessalonians is spurious. How this Pauline corpus was collected
and published remains obscure, but letters as part of Holy Scripture
were an early established phenomenon of Christianity.
The church was poor and widespread, and, in the early stages,
expected an imminent Parousia. More formal sacred writings were thus
superseded in importance by letters (e.g., those of bishop Ignatius of
Antioch) that answered practical questions of the early churches.
The letters of Paul, written only about 20–30 years after the
crucifixion, were preserved, collected, and eventually “published.” In
general, they answered questions of churches that he had founded. When
all the Pauline Letters as a corpus were first known is difficult to
determine. Because Pauline theology and some quotations and allusions
were certainly known at the end of the 1st century, the Pauline Letters
probably were collected and circulated for general church use by the end
of the 1st century or soon thereafter. A disciple of Paul, possibly
Onesimus, may have used Ephesians as a covering letter for the whole
collection.
The letters Galatians and Romans both contain an extensive discussion
about the Law (Torah) and justification (in language not found in the
other letters) to solve the problem of the relation of Christianity to
Judaism and of the relationship of Jewish Christians with Gentile
Christians. Galatians is older and differs from Romans in that it deals
with Judaizers—i.e., Gentile Christians who were infatuated with Jewish
ways and championed Jewish ceremonial law for Gentile Christians. On the
other hand, Romans speaks to the question of the Jews and the Christian
faith and church in God’s plan of salvation.
In I and II Corinthians (which may include fragments of much
Corinthian correspondence preserved in a somewhat haphazard order),
there is no preoccupation with either Jews or Judaizing practices. They
deal with a church of Gentile Christians and are therefore the best
evidence of how Paul operated on Gentile territory.
The earliest book in the New Testament is I Thessalonians, which is
concerned with the problem of eschatology. Though II Thessalonians is
obvious in its imitation of the style of I Thessalonians, it reflects a
later time, elaborates on I Thessalonians, and is thus not viewed as
genuine.
Philippians may be a composite letter in which various themes of
Pauline teaching are held together by a testament form. Thus, it is a
compendium without too specific a focus on the Philippian situation.
Philemon, although addressed to a house church, is uniquely concerned
with the fate of a slave being returned to his master, with the hope
that he will be forgiven and be sent back to help Paul in prison, an
example of manumission in Paul’s name.
Ephesians appears to be dependent on Colossians, and both, although
using the Pauline style, reflect a time and imagery sometimes different
from and later than Paul’s genuine letters. Ephesians covers the content
of Colossians in more compact form and may be a covering letter for the
entire Pauline corpus by a disciple or other later Paulinist.
The style of Paul’s letters is an admixture of Greek and Jewish form,
combining Paul’s personal concern with his official status as Apostle.
After his own name, Paul names the addressees or congregation being
addressed and adds “grace and peace.” This is often followed by
thanksgivings and intercession that are significantly adapted to the
content and purpose of the letter. Doctrinal material usually precedes
advice or exhortation (parenesis), and the letters conclude with
personal news or admonition and a blessing: “The grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ be with you.” Paul’s letters were probably dictated to an
amanuensis (who might be named, for example, Sosthenes, I Cor. 1:2), and
some greetings were written at the end of the letters in his own hand.
They were obviously meant to be read aloud in the church, however, and
thus their style is different from that of purely personal letters.
New Testament literature » The Pauline Letters » The Letter of Paul to
the Romans
Romans differs from all the other Pauline letters in that it was written
to a congregation over which Paul did not claim apostolic authority. He
stressed that he was merely going to Rome in transit, because it was his
principle not to evangelize where others had worked. Because his
apostolic ministry appeared to be completed in Asia Minor and Greece,
Paul planned to go to Spain via Rome, a city that he had never visited.
Before going westward, however, he first had to go to Jerusalem to
deliver to the church there a collection of money.
Because Paul was going to a church he had not founded, his writing to
the Roman Christians offered him an opportunity to present his
theological views in a systematic way, which he had not done in other
letters. Paul reflected on how his special mission fitted into God’s
plan for the salvation of mankind, of both Jews and Gentiles—a theme
that reached its climax in chapters 9–11. Chapters 1–8 unfold with great
specificity how the coming of Jesus the Messiah has made it possible for
the Gentiles to become heirs to God’s promises. His argument is at first
negative, stating that neither Gentile nor Jew could effect his own
salvation. He then shows a new way in which eventually both can be
delivered from the bondage of sin by being justified—i.e., made “right
with God”—not through acceptance of the Law but by faith in the
crucified Lord.
The theological section (chapters 1–11) is followed (as is often the
case in Pauline letters) by ethical instructions. There is little doubt
about the integrity of Romans 1–15; the letter was written from Corinth
c. 56. Chapter 16, however, seems to be a later addition. It contains
numerous salutations to individuals (which is unusual in that Paul had
never been to Rome) and an antinomian (antilegalistic) tone that would
be more appropriate to the situation in Asia Minor. The doxology
(16:25–27) is rhetorical and its vocabulary is not in keeping with that
of Paul’s usual thought. Because the doxology occurs in different
manuscripts in varying positions in the course of textual transmission,
it is probably secondary. Chapter 16 may thus preserve portions of a
letter or letters from some other time or to some place other than Rome,
possibly Ephesus.
In chapter 1, verses 1–17, there are greetings and thanksgivings
leading to the main theme of the letter: the gospel is
the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith (i.e., that
Jesus is the Messiah), to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it
the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is
written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”
Paul took this sentence from the Old Testament Book of Habakkuk,
chapter 2, verse 4, not as a principle but as a prophecy now fulfilled.
Thus, the translation should read “will live” rather than “shall live.”
This does not refer to God’s faithfulness but rather to the believer’s
trust. Justification by faith is not, however, the answer to the
question of man, plagued by conscience, about his salvation nor is it
deep theology. It is rather an argument totally grounded in the problem
of the relationship of Jews and Gentiles—i.e., how it will be possible
for the Gentiles to be fellow heirs with Jews and how both Jews and
Gentiles can be members of the church. In chapters 2–3 both Gentiles and
Jews are demonstrated to have fallen short of the glory of God and to be
under condemnation. A turning point, however, is emphasized in chapter
3: “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law.
. . .” Justification is a gift through Jesus Christ and his expiating
death for the salvation and vindication of all who believe in him.
Because all this is through Christ and not by works of the Law,
salvation is equally available to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews.
For both, the means is the same: faith in Jesus the Christ.
The central problem after chapter 8, which describes the glory of the
new dispensation in Christ and the Spirit (presented in chapters 9–11),
centres on the mystery revealed to Paul, namely, that the Gentiles
should be incorporated and be fellow heirs with the Jews. This is what
Paul yearned for with respect to his fellow Jews. What makes it equally
possible for Jew or Gentile to come to Christ is justification by faith,
with the Law viewed as obsolete because Christ is the end of the Law
(chapter 10, verse 4). Thus, there are, in effect, no distinctions
between Gentile and Jew. Paul viewed his ministry as having made
possible the inclusion of the Gentiles; as an apostle to the Gentiles he
never urged them to carry on a mission to the Jews. He envisaged the
Jewish acceptance of Christ as a mystery beyond human planning and
effort, a divine event that will be the climax of history.
The ethical section (12:1–15:13) has no special reference to a
situation in Rome. A close analysis shows that Paul here repeats
thoughts and admonitions that are more specific in other letters. A
metaphor of the church as a body (12:5), for example, is stylized and
compressed as compared with the fuller use of the same in I Corinthians,
chapter 12, and the pattern of weakness and strength in matters of food
is best understood in the light of the fuller exposition in I
Corinthians, chapters 8 and 10.
New Testament literature » The Pauline Letters » The First Letter of
Paul to the Corinthians
This letter is part of Paul’s correspondence with the Corinthian
congregation founded by him and composed of Gentile Christians. The
problems of Galatians and Romans, written to Christians with Jewish and
Roman legal concepts, are different from those of I Corinthians, and,
thus, the justification language is absent.
Except for the brief communication with Philemon (see below), I
Corinthians is the most specifically practical, situation-oriented of
Paul’s letters. No other Pauline letter is so directly devoted to the
consideration of practical and theological problems, many of them
apparently communicated by the congregation through correspondence or by
delegations. The letter, therefore, does not tend to stand as a unit and
it is not uniform in its treatment of the varying situations.
Literary criticism—or redaction—has traditionally split the letter
into several fragments with a presumed historical development within a
relatively short period in the Corinthian church. Paul’s reference to a
previous letter of his in chapter 5, verse 9, has been the object of
scholarly efforts to restore the earlier letter. The fragmentary and
not-too-uniform nature of both I and II Corinthians, however, precludes
much probability of success in such searches.
Writing from Ephesus c. 53 or 54 upon hearing from a certain Chloe’s
people that the church was rent by party factions, Paul tried to bring
unity to the congregation. Whether these factions actually represented
outside interference (e.g., Cephas [Peter], Apollos, or others) or were
factions of the congregation under the influence of a widespread heresy
of the time is a question perhaps best answered by the fact that the
factions do not come up again after I Corinthians, chapter 1, and that I
Corinthians, chapter 3, reduces the factions to Apollos and Paul, who
claims he is head of no party. The Christ “party”—i.e., those who claim
no party at all—(1:12; cf. 3:23) may be the only “party” Paul advocated
because Christ is not divided. Paul warned that Christians should not
fashion themselves into parties under various leaders, because all these
leaders are servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God
through whom Christians come to belief. The church is not a society with
competitive philosophical schools.
The letter is a response to difficulties caused or increased by a
relatively strong group in Corinth that may be described as
“enthusiasts.” This group of enthusiasts may have been proto-Gnostics
(early religious dualists not yet organized into definite sects). The
Corinthian enthusiasts did, however, have some characteristics that
would later be found in 2nd–3rd-century Gnosticism: a belief in
salvation through spiritual knowledge or wisdom communicated by a
revealer (not a redeemer); an otherworldliness that could lead either to
licentiousness (scorn) or asceticism (withdrawal); and a basically
dualist and deliberately syncretistic system of beliefs using the
mythical speculations and magical ideas of their time.
The Corinthian problems might well be traced to such enthusiasts.
Their gnōsis (“esoteric knowledge”) was a religious knowledge that gave
them the feeling of superiority over more pedestrian Christians. This
gnōsis Paul identified as false wisdom. In chapter 14 Paul describes the
views and related practices of those maintaining that they have
spiritual gifts of inspiration, especially speaking in tongues
(glossolalia) and gnōsis. Such enthusiasts prized eloquent or secret
wisdom; they sought a revealer who had come into the world hidden from
the evil powers and known only to those, the pneumatikoi, or the
spiritual elite, who recognize him; and they tolerated gross immorality
by claiming anything to be lawful for them (especially their slogan
quoted by Paul: “for me all things are lawful”). These enthusiasts also
rejected marriage because it furthered the propagation of the present
evil world; they claimed to possess knowledge that made them indifferent
to the world; and they believed that their salvation was guaranteed by
ritual and rites. Though they prized spiritual gifts, they scorned the
ordinary Christian services for the community; and they did not believe
in a future resurrection of the dead, which in their system had no place
or was nonsense.
The main Pauline answer (e.g., as emphasized in chapter 13) was that
love, namely concern for the building up of the community, surpasses all
knowledge or spiritual gifts and that love is a corrective because it
demands service, edification (i.e., building up) of the church, and
involves Christians with one another. Those Corinthians whom Paul viewed
as opponents emphasized gnōsis over against love. The discussion of the
resurrection in chapter 15 sheds further light on this. The opponents
did not deny the Resurrection of Jesus Christ about which there was
common agreement, but rather they debated about the future resurrection
of Christians from the dead. Their view was perhaps similar to that
reported as heresy in II Timothy, chapter 2, verse 18—i.e., the believer
already had eternal life and that a future resurrection of the body was
meaningless. In holding such a view, Paul’s opponents claimed they were
faithful to the received kerygma (proclamation).
Another indication that some Corinthians had no disagreement with
tradition but interpreted it too enthusiastically is found in I
Corinthians, chapter 11. The liturgical formula pertaining to the Lord’s
Supper is sound:
The Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when
he had given thanks, he broke it, and said “This is my body which is for
you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after
supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as
often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (11:23–25.)
In a discussion of the sacraments in chapter 10, however, the
enthusiasts probably believed in a rather magical efficacy of Baptism
and the Eucharist, though Paul qualified such an interpretation and took
exception to it. The misunderstanding of the enthusiasts points to a
special reinterpretation of Scripture and tradition (which resembles
that of the 1st-century Jewish philosopher Philo and also the later
Gnostics)—taking Scripture, tradition, and liturgical practices as
effectively bringing about an otherworldly, spiritual reality
immediately for those who really understand (i.e., those who have
gnōsis). Paul also criticized these spiritualists for their disregard of
the poor members of the congregation, who found no food left when they
came from their work.
Discussions about Christian and apostolic freedom (in chapters 5, 6,
7, 9, and 11) and also a discussion about being free to eat meat that
had been sacrificed to idols and leftovers of pagan sacrifices sold in
the marketplace were caused by conflicts with the enthusiasts who
paraded their spiritual freedom, strength, and superiority at the
expense of their weaker brothers in the faith, who were not ready for
this freedom. A shift in the discussion in chapter 12 (the body and its
members are equal in Christ)—from a very speculative idea of the body of
Christ to a more metaphorical one that is reminiscent of Stoic
philosophical ideas about society as an organism—can best be understood
if it is assumed that the enthusiasts actually pressed for a mythical
understanding of Christianity, in which one became literally
incorporated into Christ, otherworldly, and divine. Paul added some
qualifications that brought the church into concrete everyday life and
even provided a source of political reality. A somewhat drastic
understanding of spiritual gifts that was presupposed and criticized by
Paul in chapters 12–14 fits well into such a pattern.
Permeating all the discussion of individual topics in I Corinthians
is the theme of Christian unity and edification, a topic introduced and
underscored in the preface and thanksgiving of this letter and in its
introduction. Such unity is defended as being very inclusive, real, and
concrete—as over against the enthusiastic attempt to speak in terms of
spiritual reality and achievement, in which the true life of the spirit
is only for the few (i.e., the Gnostic elitists).
Paul viewed the necessity of unity in the wisdom of God as it is
evinced in the scandal of the cross. In order to deflate the exalted and
to make foolish the destructive (speculative) wisdom established by men,
God showed his wisdom in the “foolishness” of Jesus’ crucifixion. Here,
although hidden, is God’s true wisdom. The opponents hailed their ideal
teachers as bringers of hidden wisdom. To this Paul said that it is
Christ who is the Wisdom.
In chapters 5 and 6 Paul dealt with certain ethical scandals and
difficulties in the congregation: incest and fornication; the use of
pagan courts for settling disputes among Christians; traffic with
prostitutes—all for the demonstration of Christian “freedom.” These
wrongs might have been the direct or indirect consequences of the
spiritual “powers” of the enthusiasts. According to Paul, however, such
immorality was impossible for the Christian because of the concreteness
of his allegiance to Christ and of inspiration (with the idea of the
body as the temple of the Holy Spirit).
Because Paul expected an imminent Parousia (Second Coming of Christ),
he suggested (chapter 7) the unmarried state as the preferable one, but
conceded that marriage can prevent fornication. Paul even advised
against breaking up mixed marriages between baptized Christians (both
Jews and Gentiles) and unbaptized Gentiles. He advocated the practice of
ascetics living together as “virgins,” male and female, although he took
this as a strain that is hard to bear and thus suggested marriage in
unbearable cases. Not only the imminence of the Parousia but also
radical change (“the form of this world is passing away”) caused Paul,
on the whole, to affirm the social status quo—whether it concern
circumcision, slavery, or other matters. Everybody is advised to
remain—for the short time ahead—in the state in which he finds himself.
Such eschatological fervour caused Paul to argue against any worldly
anxiety, fear, or worries stemming from them. This is reflected in the
ethical criterion of possessing things as though one did not have them.
In chapter 9, Paul used his own conduct, in contrast to that of the
enthusiasts who flaunted their freedom in such a way that it often had
destructive influences, as a paradigm for an understanding of
responsible freedom. Here he showed by various examples from his own
life-style that he had never made use of his rightful privileges to the
fullest, that he has, rather, been guided by what serves the weaker
brothers and sisters. It is in this sense that he subdued his body and
that he urged the spiritual “snobs” to imitate him.
In chapters 11–14, Paul turned to problems of corporate worship. Paul
did not question the right and ability of prophetically gifted women to
make inspired statements in Christian worship, but he pointed out that
women need protection. Arguments about a veil or long hair for a woman
are in the context of the church’s worship before God himself, in which
the congregation worships in the presence of the angels. Paul stressed
the subordination of women in chapters 11 and 14; they are forbidden to
speak in worship. In chapter 14 Paul stated (perhaps) a general
principle that would allow for exceptions in cases of clear prophetic
inspiration of women (cf. however, Galatians, chapter 3, verse 28).
In discussion of proper restraint and mutual regard in celebrating
the Lord’s Supper, Paul seemed to presuppose a prior common meal
(possibly an agape meal) as part of the eucharistic celebration. This
common meal, however, had apparently been devalued because of the
interest of the enthusiasts in the sacrament itself. As a result, the
communal aspect showed up social differences in the community; and some
brought ample food, whereas others, of lower station, had nothing. In
view of this, Paul again used the criterion of love and suggested that
people eat their meal at home and then come together, being sensitive to
each other’s needs. The Lord’s Supper would then be what it is, a
proclamation of the death of Christ in anticipation of his return;
mutual and corporate concern and responsibility thus become a part of
the Eucharist.
Similarly, mutual edification and love are linked in chapter 13 as
the appropriate centre of the discussion of spiritual gifts, manifested
particularly in public worship (chapter 14).
The emphasis on the communal aspect of the church is continued in
chapter 15. Paul did not dwell on his own vision of Christ nor on his
role in founding the church at Corinth but rather argued for the
resurrection of all as a future experience, not as though each person
had already had this experience. Paul viewed the resurrection as a
collective phenomenon in the expectation of an end-time resurrection
from the dead, with Christ as the first fruits of those who have died.
That love is to extend beyond the immediate community and be shared
with all the saints (members of the church) is demonstrated in chapter
16, the closing chapter, by the collection for the Jerusalem church. The
keynote might be: “Let all that you do be done in love.” The final
passage—including the cry: “Our Lord, come!”—may reflect or repeat a
eucharistic formula or setting.
New Testament literature » The Pauline Letters » The Second Letter of
Paul to the Corinthians
This letter, as is I Corinthians, is composed of a collection of
fragments of Paul’s correspondence with the Corinthians about a year
later (i.e., c. 55) from Macedonia. The diversity of I Corinthians was
caused by the variety of problems discussed, but the diversity of II
Corinthians was the result of a reflection of the underlying, rather
turbulent history of Paul and his congregation. A pattern of fragments
that make up II Corinthians can be understood in terms of a development
that can be reconstructed. Gaps and editorial seams in this pattern are
more recognizable and abrupt than those in I Corinthians, and a more
original order for II Corinthians can be restored by fitting together
blocks of material that obviously belong with one another in terms of
context and unity of thought.
Though historical settings can be reconstructed with a high degree of
validity to account for the fragments of II Corinthians, later editorial
processes account for the order in which the fragments appear in the
letter as it is now written. Based on both internal and external
evidence, II Corinthians probably was later than I Corinthians, which
was written after Paul’s first trip to Corinth. Not long before the
composition of II Corinthians, Paul was in mortal danger in Asia and
travelled to Macedonia, where he remained.
New apostles and heresies had apparently invaded the Corinthian
congregation and Paul sent his companion Timothy to try to bring them
back to the true gospel as Paul had preached it. This mission was
apparently unsuccessful, and Paul, in chapters 2 to 7, wrote to the
church with a defense of his apostolic office, still counting on the
loyalty of the Corinthians. His letter apparently did not change things,
and there is some dispute as to whether Paul himself made an
intermediate second visit to Corinth that was abruptly cut short by
conflict with a member of the Corinthian church who violently opposed
him. He considered such a second visit, but, according to chapter 2,
verse 4, and chapters 10 to 13, he sent Titus to Corinth with a strongly
polemical “letter of tears” and anxiously awaited his return, going from
Troas to Macedonia to meet him.
Paul had almost been in despair over the Corinthians, but Titus and
the letter seemed to have restored the Corinthian church to order. Titus
and some of his companions were then sent to take up the collection for
the church at Jerusalem, a sign of Christian mutual love and unity. He
took with him Paul’s “letter of reconciliation,” which was written from
Macedonia and which can be noted in chapter 1, verse 1, to chapter 2,
verse 3; chapter 7, verses 5 and 6; and chapter 8. In chapter 8 the
Macedonians are held up as an example of generosity. A similar section
regarding the collection is in chapter 9, and the Achaeans (and probably
their capital city, Corinth) were cited as an example to the Macedonians
for generous giving. This was probably sent shortly before Paul’s third
(and last) visit to Corinth. From Corinth Paul wrote to the Roman church
a letter that shows no sign of difficulties with the Corinthians and
that presumed the conveying of the collection to Jerusalem.
If the Corinthian controversy had been smoothed out, a question is
raised as to why II Corinthians ends in the “letter of tears” rather
than in the “letter of reconciliation.” This may be understood if the
literary order of the several sections was arranged by a redactor who
collected the fragments probably in the last decade of the 1st century.
The redactor may have used a “form” amply illustrated in Christian
writings of the late 1st and early 2nd century; one of the end-time
expectations was that “false prophets would show signs and wonders to
lead the elect astray,” and chapters 10–13 deal with “false prophets”
and “servants of Satan.” Such warnings were placed at the end of
writings of that time.
Several abrupt editorial seams that resulted from an arrangement of a
letter of reconciliation, an apology on the nature of Paul’s apostolic
authority, a polemic against opponents, two letters concerning the
collection, and a possible non-Pauline insertion (in chapter 6, verse
14, to chapter 7, verse 1) can thus be understood. The reconciliation of
chapters 1 and 7 is hardly in agreement with Paul’s elaborate defense of
his ministry in chapter 2. Even more jarring to such a reconciliation is
the polemic of chapters 10–13. These latter chapters are viewed as a
substantial fragment of Paul’s “letter of tears,” after which the
Corinthians disengaged themselves from outside agitators and caused them
to leave. Such opponents, who are mentioned in chapter 11, verse 4, and
who tried to attract the congregation away from Paul’s ideas, were
probably Hellenized Jewish Christians from Palestine.
The outside agitators (who provoked the response of chapters 10–13)
probably were Christians who imitated the Hellenistic-Jewish
missionaries and had developed an elaborate propagandizing missionary
theology and practices analogous to the missionary movements in the
pagan world. Their goal was to prove the spiritual power of their own
religion in conscious and aggressive competition with other religions,
thus hoping to attract others and convert them to Christianity.
The major criteria for successful competition were affinity or
identity with the ancient Mosaic traditions and objective manifestations
of the current power of that tradition in the form of miraculous
demonstrations. The link between the ancient traditions and the current
careers of the itinerant missionaries was the record of Jesus as
understood from the miracle stories of the Gospels—a demonstrated
epiphany of the powers of the Spirit. These missionaries were seen as
“divine men,” as were the heroes of old. Their miracles were to be
imitated. Such traditions about Jesus as a wonder-worker might have been
used by Paul’s opponents, with over-emphasis on such works as criteria
of power.
That which Paul attacks as “bragging” or “boasting,” particularly the
preaching of the so-called “super-apostles,” in chapter 11, verse 5, was
probably understood by his opponents as no more than faithful testimony
to, and a demonstration of, the spiritual powers of tradition as they
perceived it in their own experiences. To them faithfulness to Jesus was
primarily the acknowledgment of Jesus’ being the most powerful “divine
man” and, secondarily, their establishment and maintenance of
relationship to him through imitation in their powerful demonstrations
and wondrous acts.
Paul (who in I Corinthians, chapter 1, had advocated the dialectic of
the cross) would thus be discredited by miracle-working men like the
opponents in II Corinthians. Paul’s credibility and validity as an
Apostle came into question along with his Christology, which was a
“theology of the cross.” Confronted with the challenge of the powerful
“super-apostles,” Paul’s message could be distorted as hiding his own
inability or incapacity—an apostle who dared not take money because,
being an ineffective speaker and a weak person, he had nothing for which
to ask payment. His defense was Paul’s first attempt to deal with these
new problems caused by invading opponents who had undercut his
authority.
Paul centred his defense around the issue most debated; true
apostleship and his own sufficiency. Because he derived his ministry
from God himself as a servant preaching not himself but Jesus Christ as
Lord, no “peddler of God’s word or selling or recommendation is called
for, but only the living record—i.e., the people brought to believe in
Christ. Paul quickly alluded to his own weakness and “carrying in the
body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be
manifested . . .” (chapter 4, verse 10). Paul found his weakness one of
the things that made him one with the Lord and that made his ministry a
true ministry of Jesus Christ, who was crucified through weakness but
lives by the power of God—as does his true apostle. This weakness seems
to refer to a physical handicap of Paul’s (epilepsy?), the “thorn in the
flesh” that interfered with his travel plans.
Paul placed his own apparent weakness, in which he proclaimed that
God had manifested himself, against the boastings of the
“super-apostles.” Unlike them, he strikes a non-heroic note. It is
confidence in the power of Jesus’ Resurrection that produces glory for
the Gospel message and final (eschatological) reward and recognition for
the Apostle.
Though Paul may himself sound “enthusiastic,” his statements are made
with a realistic assessment of the world, as demonstrated not least in
the sufferings of Paul himself. Emphasis on God’s act of grace, however,
makes Paul urge the Corinthians to accept him and to reach out to the
promise of God’s salvation even in the present.
Paul’s defense of his apostleship and a following visit did not
succeed. Agitation from outside opponents apparently increased and
solidified. The “letter of tears” reflects this situation. Paul revealed
himself personally, coming close to autobiographical statements. Paul
spoke of himself only with theological purpose and as part of his
tactical argument with his opponents concerning attitudes and conduct.
His point was that a style of life is a reflection of an underlying
theology. He demonstrated to his opponents that his work for the church
is constructive, and that though he boasted of his ministry, he boasted
only “of the Lord,” of the work Christ had done through him.
In his so-called fool’s speech, in which he blatantly asked the
Corinthians to “bear with me in a little foolishness,” Paul adopted the
technique of the mime of the street theatres of his times, consciously
drawing on the laughter and mockery of his audience, but then he
successfully reversed the scene and made his audience realize that in
laughing at him they mocked themselves, thus revealing the perversion of
their criteria of superiority. Paul used metaphorical images,
identifying the congregation with the bride, Jesus as the bridegroom,
himself as the best man, and Satan (the opponents) as the adulterer. The
plot assumed a successful seduction, and the best man who recommended
the bride stands disproven. Paul then pretended to try to shift this
balance by bragging about himself and scolding both seducers and the
seduced. He accepted no inferiority to the opponents—the seducers
(“super-apostles”)—and claimed that they preached another Christ than
the true Christ and brought another spirit and that he would accept no
support from the church that was led astray.
In chapter 11, Paul continued to boast “as a fool,” claiming to have
all the qualifications of his opponents, but that he was more truly a
representative of Christ. This he explained ever more intensely in an
ironic and almost sarcastic trend in the dialectic of the so-called
fool’s speech. He boasted not of strength but of weakness—though he
could boast of ecstatic experience as his opponents had—and that he had
learned through bitter experience (possibly a chronic illness) that he
must not exalt himself, but rather that he has been told through a word
of Christ that his power is made perfect in weakness. In the enumeration
of his qualifications, Paul has jested “as a fool” concerning his
suffering, visions, miraculous heavenly travels, and oracles. Yet, it is
clear that through Christ these modes of experience and communication
have been transformed. Thus, Paul establishes that he is a true apostle
and not inferior to the “super-apostles.”
Paul expressed his intention of visiting the congregation and told
them that he desired to come not as a judge but as a father. Neither he
nor Titus had or would deceive or take advantage of them. At this, the
end of the “letter of tears,” Paul announced his possible third visit
and revealed a definite fear that he might be forced to act as a judge
of the congregation, which was increasingly falling away from the
apostolic gospel. Paul, however, still hoped that reconciliation might
be accomplished, that truth would prevail, and that his authority could
be used for building up rather than destruction. He exhorted the
community to keep peace and blessed them.
The “letter of reconciliation,” found in chapters 1, 2, and 7,
assumed that Titus had returned with good news of the Corinthians, their
eagerness to prove that they had amended their ways. Paul responded with
a report of the consolation this had brought him and of the grave danger
he had escaped (in prison in Ephesus). He exhorted the church at Corinth
to remember the Christian message in love—of Paul for them and of the
congregation for him. The shadow between Paul and the Corinthians had
been dispersed, and Paul reaffirmed his constant and continuous concern
for them and God’s love in Christ manifest in Baptism and the gift of
the Spirit. Paul interceded for a man who had offended him and forgave
him. Paul then told the Corinthians of his eagerness for Titus’ news of
them that occasioned his special trip to Macedonia. This news brought
joy and consolation; therefore, Paul urged the Corinthians again to
forgive the man who had offended him.
Fragments of two letters concerning the collection for Jerusalem, a
sign of unity of the church (chapter 8 especially being close to the
“letter of reconciliation” and chapter 9, a fragment probably later than
chapter 8), are signs that Paul’s relation to the Corinthians again
became close and joyful. The collection was a bond of mutual and
reciprocal relationship that reached its climax in thanksgiving and
praise of God. For the whole church he exclaimed: “Thanks be to God for
His inexpressible gift!”
New Testament literature » The Pauline Letters » The Letter of Paul to
the Galatians
Paul’s Letter to the Galatians is a forceful and passionate letter
dealing with a very specific question: the relation of Jewish Christians
and Gentile Christians in the church, the problem of justification
through faith not works of the Law, and freedom in Christ. Paul probably
wrote from Ephesus c. 53–54 to a church he had founded in the territory
of Galatia in Asia Minor.
This congregation had been “unsettled” since his last visit to
Galatia. Gentile Christians, Judaizers who were fascinated with Jewish
customs and festivals and who asserted that Gentiles must adhere to the
Law, the Torah, had attempted to undermine Paul’s message and
effectiveness. The Judaizers believed that Gentile Christians should be
circumcised and keep the Jewish food laws. There were probably some
Jewish Christians in this church, but the majority were Gentile
Christians. Paul attacked the Judaizers vigorously by defending his own
call and the independence of the revelations of his personal apostolate.
This is supported by reports of agreement between him and the Jerusalem
church and by argument from Scripture. In these, he proved that the Law
was given only a limited role in the total history of salvation. The
letter ends with Paul pointing out that through the Spirit the Christian
in faith is admonished to good behaviour and brotherly love. He
admonishes faith in the cross of Christ, wishes peace upon his
followers, and prays for mercy on Israel.
This Pauline letter is the only one without either kindly ingression,
thanksgiving, or personal greetings appended to the final blessing. It
is very specific in dealing with the problems concerned. In chapter 1,
an account of Paul’s call, he defended his apostolic office, having
received it directly from God in the revelation of Christ. He provided
autobiographical data concerning his former persecution of the church
and zeal in his Jewish tradition. He referred to his call on the model
of that of the Old Testament prophets called by God in order that they
may serve him and said that his mission had been revealed to him to be
the apostle to the Gentiles. Paul viewed himself as being chosen to be
an instrument to take the message of God and Christ to the Gentiles, a
call rather than a “conversion experience.” Handpicked as God’s servant
(slave), he received a revelation—not from men but by secret knowledge
from God—that the Gentiles will come to the Christian faith without the
Law, the Torah of the Jews. He himself could bear the Law, but he was
told that the Gentiles do not need the Law in order to be accounted
righteous. The conviction that the Gentiles stand equal before God was
reinforced by his visit to James, Cephas (Peter), and John in Jerusalem,
who confirmed his mission, enjoining him only to remember the poor
(probably reference to the Jerusalem collection). Faith in Christ has
thus superseded righteousness of works, and the Law is no longer needed.
The freedom of the gospel is the theme developed in chapters 3–4 in a
series of allegorical-typological interpretations based on the Law. Paul
first recalled the covenant promise to Abraham: that he “believed God
and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” and that through Abraham
all nations would be blessed.
In chapter 3 there is a complex line of thought: Christ has redeemed
men from the curse of the Law by becoming a “curse” for men; Christ has
taken away this curse by accepting it himself in order that all men by
faith might receive the Spirit that was promised. But the promise had
already been made to Abraham and his seed (singular), the Messiah,
Christ; the Law had come only 430 years later, a sign that it is not
eternal. In this chapter, Paul constructed arguments against the Law.
First, the Law was added because of transgressions committed first by
the people who caused Moses to shatter the first tablets of the Law and
was thus not ultimate but rather time-bound, limited, and tainted by the
evil reality it had to counteract; secondly, the Law was given only for
a restricted time, from Moses “till the offspring should come to whom
the promise had been made” (i.e., Christ); thirdly, the Law came
“ordained by angels through an intermediary,” who is not God and thus is
neither something glorious in itself nor the absolute manifestation of
the salvation of God. Paul expanded on the Law in the image of a
paidagōgos (instructor or custodian). Such a custodian is now not needed
and served only as a restraint so that in God’s timetable of salvation
the Gentiles could be delivered after the Law has been “outgrown.” Paul
then showed the reasoning behind his statement that the Law was
obsolete: in Christ (i.e., in the church) there are no divisions between
Greek and Jew, slave or free, male or female—all divisions or partitions
are broken down.
Paul’s arguments are bold. He even claimed that, as heirs through
Christ, men were no longer bound under the elemental powers of the
universe, which were apprehended as negative, as was the Law, in Paul’s
mind. In chapter 4 the Judaizers are said to keep themselves, like many
Greeks, under astrological powers—not unlike the Jewish calendar of
feasts—which kept man, according to Paul, enslaved by cosmic order. But
to those free from the Law and possessing the Spirit, sonship and
inheritance can come by adoption. Thus, Paul was negative in Galatians
concerning the Law, and taught that freedom from it brings unity and the
fruits of the Spirit.
In chapters 5–6 Paul listed catalogs of virtues and vices, fruits of
the Spirit or the flesh, and stressed mutual forgiveness in the church.
This is an exhortatory section that leads to the closing of the letter
in Paul’s own hand and to his stress on seeing his only glory in the
cross of Christ.
New Testament literature » The Pauline Letters » The Letter of Paul to
the Philippians
In its present canonical form Philippians is, according to several
scholars, a later collection of fragments of the correspondence of Paul
with the congregation in Philippi that was founded by Paul himself. The
first of the two major difficulties leading to this conclusion
concerning redaction of the letter is created by a discrepancy between
chapters 2 and 3—i.e., an entirely unexpected polemic in chapter 3 after
a calm second chapter. Another major difficulty is the relationship of
chapter 4, verses 10 and following, with Paul’s joyful acceptance of his
suffering, and the remainder of the present letter that deals with the
collection the Philippians had made and sent to Paul in prison. The
place of the expression of Paul’s gratitude at the end of the letter is
odd, particularly because Epaphroditus, the Philippian delegate
conveying the gift, is thanked as though he had just arrived; yet he has
already been described as ill when he was with Paul (who apologized in
chapter 2 for not having told about Epaphroditus’ illness sooner and the
delay in sending him back). Yet, Epaphroditus is obviously back and the
sequence of events is, indeed, confusing.
The following rearrangement of the parts of the letter is probably
acceptable. Chapter 4, verses 10–20, shows Paul reacting to the gift of
the Philippians and the arrival of its bearer, Epaphroditus, and seems
to be the earliest fragment, written probably during Paul’s imprisonment
(c. 53–54). The portions of the letter that treat of the theme of mutual
joy (1:1–3, 4:4–7, and probably 4:21–23 that refers back to chapter 1)
are best taken together as fragments of a second and somewhat later
letter. The third section is 3:2–4:3 and possibly 4:8–9, which addresses
the danger caused by outsiders and opponents who had started to
penetrate the Philippian congregation with a theology Paul considered
heretical and against which he aimed his polemic. Because this is an
entirely new situation, it is probably a third letter, of which only the
preface is missing. This arrangement also attempts properly to account
for the fact that chapter 4 actually comprises endings of several
letters. Thus, chapter 3, verse 1, which is itself a summation and
ending, fits in.
The reference to frequent visits between Paul and the Philippians
referred to in the correspondence makes its origin in Rome unlikely and
points rather toward Ephesus as the place of imprisonment. Paul’s
reaction to the gift of the Philippians is almost rude (although he
accepted gifts from no other congregation but preferred to support
himself during his apostolic mission). He actually avoided expressing
direct gratitude and attempted to divert the significance of the gift
from its material side to its spiritual meaning. He emphasized the
sympathy proven by the Philippians, the importance of the value of the
gift for them as a spiritual sacrifice for God.
The “letter of joy” section describes Paul’s enthusiasm in his
mission efforts—and their success—and his joy in the energy and growth
of the mission in Philippi, which Paul shared with his congregation.
Paul’s address to “bishops and deacons,” terms unique in Paul’s letters
except here, are, perhaps, circumlocutions for missionaries active in
Philippi, a congregation that had become a strong and stable Christian
community. Paul had traditionally remained there about one week and, in
chapters 1 and 2, encouraged and praised the Philippians for continuing
in their faith in his absence. This is part of the thanksgiving in
Philippians—an emphasis on the participation, cooperation,
collaboration, and empathy of the Philippians with respect to the
preaching of the gospel. Thus, the terms bishop and deacon may belong to
the language of a self-supporting mission church with its own overseers
(bishops) and workers (deacons) and does not carry the connotations of
later ecclesiastical structures. Paul expressed his confidence in the
fine beginning of this young church that sought “to become pure and
blameless for the day of Christ,” the final judgment.
Paul then turned to his own experience of imprisonment, which he
viewed as advancing the gospel. Though he considered that not all
preachers of Christ preach on the basis of selfless motives, the fact
that Christ is proclaimed is a most important cause for rejoicing. Paul
then exhorted the Philippians to work hard for the sake of the gospel,
not minding any opposition, and to do this in a sense of unity and
mutual support.
This exhortation toward a strong and active sense of community was
reinforced by quoting an early Christian hymn that described the
humiliation (kenōsis) and exaltation of Jesus who is made the Lord of
the universe and confessed by all cosmic powers. A part of Jesus’
humiliation, his death on the cross, can be taken as part of his
manifest glorification. The verses following the hymn make clear that
the incorporation of the hymn with its triumphal ending also has a
missionary purpose, because Paul emphasized again the need to
responsibly act out one’s own calling even before non-Christians. Thus,
active responsibility continuously exercised in the perspective of the
approaching Parousia merges with Paul’s own readiness to sacrifice
himself.
In chapters 3–4 the situation may be totally different. Paul reacted
to the threat of the appearance of Jewish-Christian missionaries who are
rather close in theology to the Galatian Judaizers. Paul’s polemic
indicates that in addition to Jewish tradition, they must have
emphasized the Law in particular. Reference is made to circumcision, and
Paul emphatically claimed that he could compete with heretics boasting
of their Jewish tradition and, in elaborating on that, emphasized his
former pious righteousness under the Law, in which he was blameless. He
then stressed categorically that for him the experience of Christ has
terminated his former piety completely and that he has left it behind as
of no value. Such a polemic implies that for his opponents such was not
the case. Paul also argued against libertinistic tendencies, which
indicates that his opponents were not legalists in an ordinary sense but
combined faithfulness to the Law with a strong and fanatical enthusiasm
that could lead toward “mysticism” and easily be misinterpreted as
libertinism. Paul’s emphasis on true Christian experience as not being
completed but rather still being in the state of expectation might be a
further polemic against overenthusiasm. In chapter 4, verse 8, Paul
reaffirms his own example, making it, in imitation of the teaching of
popular philosophy, the epitome of all positive ethical values and
virtues, and thus the pattern to be imitated. This tendency toward the
paradigmatic, together with warnings and autobiographical material in
chapter 3, verse 2, to chapter 4, verse 3, can be seen as a “testament”
of Paul, consciously written with an awareness of impending death or
martyrdom. Thus Paul presents himself—his life, ideas, admonitions, and
an eschatological section—as his heritage and as an incorporation of the
message he preached and its value.
New Testament literature » The Pauline Letters » The Letter of Paul to
the Colossians
Colossians presents the problem of having, on the one hand, numerous
(though superficial) affinities with the circumstances of the Letter of
Paul to Philemon while, on the other hand, being addressed mainly to a
different situation. In this new situation he uses ideas and expressions
that seem to be rather a development of Pauline ideas about the cosmic
realm than genuinely Pauline argumentation. In this latter aspect,
Colossians and Ephesians share the heritage of Paul, but a later
“Paulinist” changed details to meet different situations.
Colossians was written ostensibly by Paul from prison (in Ephesus) to
a predominantly Gentile Christian congregation founded by his co-worker,
Epaphras, at Colossae. The Colossian congregation was endangered by a
heresy involving a “philosophy” that was connected with the elemental
spirits of the universe to which men seemed to be bound, with
circumcision, feast days and food laws, visions, and an asceticism that
was not only false in its piety but foreign to the Christian faith.
To combat these proto-Gnostic, syncretistic, and Judaizing
tendencies, the Paulinist appealed to the authority of Paul’s apostolate
and his thought but accented his theology in a new way, enlarging Paul’s
theological dimensions, so that they included the whole universe, the
fate of the entire cosmos. This whole world is depicted as subject to
Christ and has its meaning, aim, and goal in the church, which is
Christ’s body and over which he is the head. This transformation of
Paul’s theology would appear to be somewhat later than Paul, yet not so
much later than Philemon, and its import has been forgotten. Colossians
cannot be dated or placed with certainty, but the end of the 1st century
or the beginning of the 2nd century has been suggested.
In a first edition, before the Paulinist changed or added to it,
Colossians seems close to the situation of Philemon. In both letters
Paul is in prison. Onesimus appears in Colossians, chapter 4, and the
readers of Colossians are asked to transmit a special injunction through
the church of the Laodiceans to Archippus—possibly that the former
slave, Onesimus, now referred to as a “beloved brother,” be freed for
service of the gospel. The same five names appear in Philemon and
Colossians (Col. 4:10 ff.; cf. Philem. 23), which is unusual because the
church at Colossae is strange to Paul. The lost letter to the Laodiceans
may possibly be the Letter to Philemon, and the request to the slave
owner would, by being read aloud in a neighbouring large church
(Colossae), reinforce Paul’s request that the slave be freed.
Later substantial redaction has obviously taken place, however, and
it is the heresy at Colossae rather than the situation of Philemon that
is mainly addressed in Colossians. Though Paul asserted that he did not
preach and exhort where another has founded a church, here the
Paulinist, using and amplifying Pauline theology, taught, gave thanks,
and interceded for a church that he did not found and that was in danger
of accepting heretical Judaizing teachings, thus falling away from
Christ. The doctrinal section of Colossians sets forth in a hymn
Christ’s preeminence over the whole cosmos, all principalities and
powers, to bring redemption through the cross and to be the head of the
body, the church.
From this cosmological beginning, the style and imagery differ from
the authentic Pauline letters. Colossians is wider and broader in scope,
with long, almost breathless sentences. There is a hierarchy in Christ
being head of the body, his church, which differs from the Pauline
expression of equality of all the members, although with differing
functions (cf. I Corinthians, chapter 12, and Romans, chapter 12).
The Christology is applied to the situation of the church and Paul’s
role in behalf of the church—his suffering with Christ and knowledge of
God’s mystery, Christ—is used to bolster his defense against heresy.
This polemic is based first on tradition and then proceeds to specific
warnings against false teaching, cult, or practice. An admonition “to
set your minds on the things that are above,” because in Baptism the
Christian has died and been raised with Christ, is followed by the
conclusion that the Christian’s conduct should be ruled by love and be
thus free from all wrongdoing.
Another difference from the genuine Pauline letters can be noted in
this latter section. When Paul referred to the resurrection of
Christians he used the future tense in most cases, but Colossians,
chapter 2, verse 12, and chapter 3, verse 1, presuppose that because the
Christian is risen with Christ, ethical demands can be made.
In Colossae, such Christian ethics apparently were lacking, thus the
inclusion of a table of duties—i.e., a list of household duties and of
relations between members of a household. General exhortations to prayer
and right conduct are followed by the conclusion of the letter with its
list of greetings. There are some similarities in Colossians to Paul’s
polemic against Judaizers in Galatians, but Colossians seems to reflect
a later time and a more developed “cosmic” theology of a later
deutero-Pauline writer.
New Testament literature » The Pauline Letters » The First Letter of
Paul to the Thessalonians
In all probability I Thessalonians is the earliest of Paul’s letters,
particularly because the memory of the events that led to the founding
of that congregation are still fresh in the mind of the Apostle. The
letter was written from Corinth. According to I Thessalonians, chapter
3, verse 2, Paul had sent Timothy to Thessalonica from Athens during his
brief stay there, had just experienced the delegate’s return, and had
received reports about the congregation to which he is reacting in this
letter. I Thessalonians gives expression to Paul’s surprise over the
rapid growth of the Christian mission at Thessalonica, which was
achieved despite immediate persecutions from pagan contemporaries. Paul
acknowledged that the successful development had been wrought in the
Thessalonians by their own acceptance, fully recognizing the human
frailty of the Apostle, their founder (2:1–12), and not by a mistaken
understanding that he himself was divine.
Paul’s surprise results, therefore, in overwhelming gratitude, and
the customary Pauline thanksgivings here exceed the usual limits. A
second reason for this unusually long thanksgiving—which actually makes
thanksgiving the theme of the letter—is Paul’s intent to undergird the
encouragement he gives in 4:13–5:11. After having dwelt so extensively
on his being moved by the change in the Thessalonians, Paul continues to
state that therefore they have no reason for giving up faith in the face
of the death of some fellow Christians, who had died between their
conversion and the expected imminent Parousia of Christ. Apparently,
they had expected the Parousia and final salvation as the promise of the
Christian message. Paul encouraged his congregation that he had a “word
of the Lord” that the dead and the living in Christ will rise together.
“Word of the Lord” could refer to a word of Jesus known to Paul but
could instead be a direct revelation to Paul.
In chapter 5 there is further thanksgiving, emphasizing the present
gift and power of Christian faith and corporate Christian life. This
emphasis is linked with ethical applications, with stress on
brotherhood, diligence in keeping the faith, and religious
industriousness. The difficulties of balancing the expectation of the
Christian with God’s timetable is outweighed by the hope and joy in what
has already been experienced and what is hoped for. Paul’s real emphasis
is more on the actual description of Christian life in the face of
coming salvation and vindication than on the preceding discussion of the
fate of those who had died or on the actual circumstances of Christ’s
appearance from heaven.
The encouragement of the Thessalonians was introduced in chapter 4 by
a genuinely ethical exhortation to proceed properly on the way to
holiness and sanctification already begun. The brevity of this rather
traditional exhortation is most unusual in Paul’s letters and supports
the observation that it was written in joy and confidence for a new
congregation well begun in order to support it against attacks and
doubts as it matured in the faith.
New Testament literature » The Pauline Letters » The Second Letter of
Paul to the Thessalonians
A feature of II Thessalonians that resembles the otherwise most unusual
feature of I Thessalonians is its excessively long thanksgiving. Within
this thanksgiving there is an excursus dealing with the timing of the
Parousia, but in II Thessalonians Paul aggressively argues against any
expectation of an imminent coming of Christ that might be expected from
the things he wrote in I Thessalonians. II Thessalonians perhaps
presupposes I Thessalonians and intimates that believers had a false
understanding of that communication of Paul. In II Thessalonians, much
to the surprise of the reader of both letters, the statement is made
that a letter “purporting to be from us” is “to the effect that the day
of the Lord has come.” II Thessalonians then presents a problem as to
whether it was a self-correction of Paul or directed to the situation of
a later time and thus the writing of a later author in a “Pauline”
tradition. II Thessalonians does have more apocalyptically catastrophic
language than I Thessalonians. Such a description not only
underestimates the positive work of God and Christ for the believer but
also says little about the Parousia. II Thessalonians claims that not
all the events preceding the Parousia have yet occurred. The “mystery of
lawlessness,” opposed to the “mystery of godliness,” is still at work in
the world, and the full activity of Satan has not yet unfolded itself.
Emphasis in II Thessalonians is on steadfastness as God’s gift and
promise in the days of tribulation, which makes the apostle ask for
support in prayer. Criticism of people leading disorderly and idle lives
follows. The perhaps casual admonition to work is thus elaborated into a
major point.
Salvation seems to be sought almost exclusively in futuristic terms.
Incipient or actual Gnosticism in the church could account both for the
assertion that the fulfillment has already come and for the depiction of
disorderly lives (because in “proto-Gnostic” terms the world is evil and
provokes a response either of total renunciation or libertinism). II
Thessalonians may thus reflect these problems and fit into the late 1st
century. Verbal agreements between the two letters may be evidence of
deliberate spurious writing, as also the suggestion in II Thessalonians
that false letters may be circulating. A later author saw Paul’s
heritage threatened by too enthusiastic an understanding of Paul in
Thessalonians and composed this letter to preserve Paul’s meaning.
New Testament literature » The Pastoral Letters: I and II Timothy and
Titus » The Letter of Paul to Philemon
From Ephesus, where he was imprisoned (c. 53–54), Paul wrote his
shortest and most personal letter to a Phrygian Christian (probably from
Colossae or nearby Laodicea) whose slave Onesimus had run away, after
possibly having stolen money from his master. The slave apparently had
met Paul in prison, was converted, and was being returned to his master
with a letter from Paul appealing not on the basis of his apostolic
authority but according to the accepted practices within the system of
slavery and the right of an owner over a slave. He requested that
Onesimus be accepted “as a beloved brother” and that he be released
voluntarily by his master to return and serve Paul and help in Christian
work. Paul appealed to the owner that Onesimus (whose name in Greek
means “useful”) is no longer useless because of his conversion and
claimed that the owner owed Paul a debt (as he probably was also
instrumental in his conversion) and that any debt or penalty incurred by
the slave would be paid by Paul. Such manumission is part of Paul’s
concept of being an ambassador to further the mission of Christianity,
rather than a judgment on the social framework of slavery, because in
the Lord such social order is transcended.
Philemon, however, is not a purely personal letter, because it is
addressed to a house church (a small Christian community that usually
met in a room of a person’s home), and it ends with salutations and a
benediction in the plural form of address. The body of the letter,
however, uses “you” (singular) and is addressed to the slave’s owner, a
man whom Paul himself has not met. Philemon, the first name in the
address, is called a “beloved fellow worker,” which implies that he knew
Paul, and it has been convincingly argued that the slave’s owner was
Archippus (see above The letter of Paul to the Colossians), perhaps
Philemon’s son, who was called a “fellow soldier,” a term usual in
business accounts and suitable for a document on the manumission of a
slave. The thanksgiving contains the main theme of the whole letter:
sharing of faith for the work of promoting knowledge of Christ.
The letter was written from prison, and Paul apparently expected a
release in the near future, because he requested a guest room, a
suggestion that he was not very far from Colossae or Laodicea, which
would be true of Ephesus. Colossae would be reached from Ephesus via
Laodicea, and the letter could be addressed to a house church there.
In a letter to the Ephesians (c. 112) by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch,
the language is very reminiscent of Philemon, and the name of the bishop
of Ephesus (c. 107–117) was Onesimus. It has been suggested that the
slave was released to help Paul, that in his later years he might have
become bishop of Ephesus, and that his “ministry” or “service” was the
collection of the Pauline corpus. This is based not simply on the
identity of name, but on similarities to Philemon found in Ignatius’
letter to the Ephesians, as well as two possible plays on words in
chapter 2, verse 2 (cf. Philemon, verse 20), and chapter 4, verse 2 (cf.
Philemon 11), relating to the bishop and unity of the church. Such a
prominent position and role for one of Paul’s followers might shed
further light on why Philemon, apparently a very personal plea, became a
part of the canon and Pauline corpus. Even if this suggestion cannot be
proved, Philemon still shows Paul in his apostolic ministry, furthering
the message of Christ and seeing beyond the limitations of the social
order of his day, in which both slaves and freemen are servants of God.
New Testament literature » The Letter to the Hebrews » Textual
ambiguities
The writing called the Letter to the Hebrews, which was known and
accepted in the Eastern church by the 2nd century, was included also by
the Western church as the 14th Pauline epistle when the canon of East
and West was assimilated and fixed in 367. Hebrews has no salutation
giving the name of either the writer or the addressees, although it does
have a doxology and greeting at the end, which suggest that at some
point the writing was sent as a letter to a community known to the
author. There are also numerous admonitions in the text that appear to
be directed to a definite circle of addressees and some admonitions to
the church at large. In chapter 6, verses 4–8, is a severe warning
against the sin of apostasy, for which there is no second repentance.
Even so, Hebrews is essentially more a theological treatise than a
letter. It is homiletical in style and calls itself a paraklēsis, which
has many meanings: consolation, exhortation, sermon, advocacy, and even
intercession.
The thoughts, metaphors, and ideas of Hebrews are distinct from the
rest of the New Testament, with closest affinities to Stephen’s speech
in Acts, chapter 7. It attempts to prove the superiority and ultimacy of
the revelation in Christ and the perfection of his offering of himself
once and for all supersedes and makes obsolete any other revelation.
Hebrews gives strength to its readers through the example of Christ and
the hope and promise of free access to God and to eternal rest, an
access in which Christ is High Priest and mediator forever. Such
promise, on the basis of Christological developments and new covenant
hopes, enables endurance in persecution, but its vocabulary is that of
the sacrificial language of the Old Testament. Another theme is a
typological analogy with the wilderness wanderings of Israel in which,
despite their murmurings of unbelief and the hardening of their hearts
in their trials, they persevered. Thus, the church, as the pilgrim
people of God, travels toward the future place of Sabbath rest with
Christ as their pioneer and perfector of faith.
A “word of consolation” is needed to strengthen faith in time of
trouble. Actual persecution leading to martyrdom is seen as not yet
come, but the church is sharply warned against apostasy, the sin of all
sins. Hope during persecution and trial is expressed in the image of
Christ as the perfect everlasting high priest, one of whose functions is
to stand as intercessor and protector.
Hebrews was considered a Pauline letter in the early Eastern church.
Clement of Alexandria, a theologian of the late 2nd and early 3rd
centuries, held that Paul had written it in Hebrew for the Hebrews and
that Luke had translated it into Greek. Origen, Clement’s successor as
leader in the catechetical school at Alexandria, commented that its
thoughts reflected Paul but that it was written at a later time with a
totally different style and phraseology, and he stated “who wrote the
epistle, God knows.” Paul, for example, uses the term mediator only once
and in a negative sense, in Galatians, chapter 3, verse 19, but Hebrews
uses it several times of Christ as mediator of the new covenant. In the
West, Tertullian, a North African theologian of the late 2nd and early
3rd centuries, suggested Barnabas as the author, because Hebrews, called
a “word of consolation,” might have been written by Barnabas, whose name
is translated by Luke as “son of consolation” in Acts, chapter 4, verse
36. After Hebrews’ acceptance into the canon in the mid-4th century, it
was considered Pauline, but doubts persisted; and because of basically
different content and style in contradiction to Paul, various authors
have been suggested for Hebrews—e.g., Apollos (a Jewish Christian
Alexandrian), or a follower of Stephen and the Hellenists, who had come
into conflict with those not sharing his universalistic ideas. Hebrews,
however, remains anonymous. The title “To the Hebrews” is secondary and
may reflect either an idea as to its addressees or that it was
influenced by its extensive Old Testament material.
According to internal evidence, Hebrews was written in a second or
later generation of Christians. Persecution references suggest a time
after Nero’s persecution and about the time of the emperor Domitian but
early enough to be quoted or alluded to in the First Letter of Clement
(c. 96), thus suggesting a date of c. 80–90.
The place of the addressees may be Italy, because 13:24 is understood
as a greeting sent home from one writing from abroad, but this is not
certain. The addressees were probably Gentile Christians who needed
instruction in “the elementary doctrines of Christ” and concerning faith
in God.
Hebrews constitutes the first Christian example of a thoroughly
allegorical, typological exegesis (critical interpretation) of the Old
Testament. There were precursors of such a methodology in Jewish
Alexandrian biblical exegesis (e.g., Philo), and Platonic tendencies
found in Hebrews can also be found in Jewish-Alexandrian methods of
interpretation of the Old Testament. The language of Hebrews is
extremely polished, elegant, and cultured Greek, the best in the New
Testament. Linguistically and stylistically, it shows only a slight
influence of the Koine (common Greek). The Attic style is broken only in
passages in which Hebrews quotes the Septuagint. Plays on words and
synonyms with similar beginnings for emphasis show the author’s literary
craftsmanship.
There are more Old Testament citations in Hebrews than in any other
New Testament book. They are drawn mainly from the Pentateuch and some
psalms.
New Testament literature » The Letter to the Hebrews » Christology in
Hebrews
The church is viewed as being in danger of discouragement in the face of
persecution and possible apostasy. If faithless, church members risk
total loss, for no second repentance is possible. Through his special
Christology, the author seeks to help the readers by showing that Christ
is the saviour superior to any other and that as Saviour, Son of God,
High Priest, pioneer, guide, and forerunner, he who has already suffered
and been glorified will lead the wandering people of God to their
eternal Sabbath rest, an eschatological future state of peace and
renewal.
This high type of Christology is combined with much stress on Jesus’
humanity. He partook of man’s nature and overcame death to destroy the
power of the devil in order to deliver man. Thus, having been made like
his brethren he has become a faithful High Priest to make expiation for
the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered and was tested, he
can help those who are tested and tempted. Through suffering, tears, and
obedience Jesus was made perfect and thus the source of help and
salvation, being designated by God a High Priest after the order of
Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of God Most High in Abraham’s
time.
Christ and his once for all (ephapax) sacrifice has superseded and
made all Old Testament sacrifices and cultic practices obsolete. Christ
is superior to the prophets because he is a son, superior to the angels
because they worship him, and (in the light of his cosmic role as
apostle and High Priest) superior to Moses, who brought God’s Law to
Israel, because Moses was a servant in God’s house and Christ a son.
Christ is also superior to Moses’ successor Joshua, because Joshua did
not bring the wandering people into a perfect rest; superior to the Old
Testament priesthood of Aaron, because Christ, the true High Priest, has
sacrificed himself once for all and is without sin; and superior to the
patriarch Abraham, because Abraham paid tithes to the priest of Salem,
Melchizedek, who as the prototype of Christ had no human antecedents.
Christ, High Priest forever by obedient suffering and perfection in that
he lives up to the demand, has become the source of salvation. He is
High Priest in the heavenly tabernacle and mediator for the new
covenant. On the basis of this Christology and ecclesiology, the rest of
Hebrews is composed of injunctions to faithful life in all situations,
spiritual or temporal. In chapter 11, verse 1, Hebrews gives a
programmatic statement that should be translated: “Faith is the Reality
[rather than “assurance,” as in the usual translation] of what is hoped
for and the Proof concerning what is invisible.” In Hebrews, Jesus is
that Reality and that Proof, and everything else is unreal or at best an
earthly copy or a shadow. The heroes and martyrs of old were looking
toward his coming (chapter 11) and those now under persecution look
toward him and find strength (chapter 12) as they leave the ultimately
unreal structures of this world, seeking the “coming city” and going out
to him who was executed outside the walls of the city made with hands.
Thus, the message of Hebrews is: Reality versus sham and shadow,
Christ’s sacrifice (priest and victim in one) versus the cult of
temples, and the real heavenly rest and heavenly city versus the sabbath
and Jerusalem.
New Testament literature » The Catholic Letters » The First Letter of
Peter
The purpose of the First Letter of Peter is exhortation directed to “the
exiles of the Dispersion” in Asia Minor in order that they “stand fast”
in God’s grace in the face of persecution. On the one hand, such
persecution is viewed as part of the trials of the end-time that the
community must undergo before the coming of the new age. On the other,
persecution is viewed as a simple fact of Christian community life in
the world. In imitation of Christ, tribulations and testing can be a
basis for joy.
In the address, the author calls himself “Peter, an apostle of Jesus
Christ,” and in chapter 5, verse 1, a “fellow-elder and witness of the
suffering of Christ.” Any Christian, not just a fellow eyewitness,
however, might be such a witness and hope to partake in the future
“glory that is to be revealed.” The writer or the redactor of I Peter
used Pauline and gospel theology and terminology both in quotations and
in allusions and, if literary dependency cannot always be demonstrated,
there is dependence on the catechetical traditions known in the
post-apostolic church.
The milieu of the letter seems to reflect the time and temper of the
correspondence of the emperor Trajan with Pliny the Younger, governor of
Bithynia (c. 117). Pliny requested clarification as to the punishment of
Christians “for the name itself” or for crimes supposedly associated
with being a Christian. I Peter, chapter 4, verse 15, appears to reflect
this situation: that a Christian be blameless of all crime and, if
punished, be persecuted only “as a Christian.” Pliny continued that
denounced Christians are executed if they persevere in their belief but
that whatever their creed “contumacy and inflexible obstinacy deserved
punishment”; Trajan’s response was that those denounced as Christians be
punished. The warning in I Peter, chapter 3, on a Christian’s manner of
defense and submissiveness to authorities points to a date in the first
quarter of the 2nd century. Such a date does not preclude reflection on
earlier persecutions, such as those under Domitian.
The Greek style is hardly in keeping with a Galilean Peter—described
as illiterate or uneducated in Acts, chapter 4, verse 13. The Greek is
fluid, and the Old Testament citations are from the Septuagint. The
addressees appear to be Gentile Christians portrayed as the new Israel
dispersed among the (heathen) Gentiles, based on the analogy of the old
Israel, a diaspora among the nations.
The work is thus pseudonymous, attributed to Peter through Silvanus,
whose name constitutes a part of the pseudepigraphic device that
strengthens the authority of the epistle. I Peter is an excellent
example of the testament form modelled on the traditions of an Apostle
and the message of his martyrdom. Peter, whose death and traditions
concerning him were known to the readers of the time of I Peter, gives
weight and authority to the letter that is formed in many ways as a
farewell and admonition to those who follow, in order that they may
stand firm.
Warnings are given from the Apostle’s own example along with
counter-virtues for vices. Such testament forms have a mixture of wisdom
material, advice, exhortation, hymns for ethical admonition, and
apocalyptic elements with accounts of trials to come. This mixture is
found in strange arrangements, but is perhaps solved if read as a
testament form. Peter had denied that Christ must suffer and in I Peter
suffering is the way of discipleship and even of joy. In Luke, chapter
22, Peter’s denial was prophesied, and Jesus interceded for him in order
that he might repent and strengthen his brethren (cf. I Peter, chapter
5, verses 10 and 12). In Mark and Matthew the defection of the Apostles
was foretold in terms of the scattering of the sheep when the shepherd
was stricken, and Peter does deny his Lord. In John, chapter 21, the
risen Lord paralleled Peter’s threefold denial with a threefold question
as to Peter’s love. At each affirmation the Lord responds with the
forgiving command to feed the sheep—to care for the community. This is a
central motif in I Peter. Immediately following the charge to Peter in
John is the prediction of his own martyr death, and in I Peter the
church is urgently admonished to accept trials as nothing strange,
because they are a sharing in the sufferings of Christ. In the Garden of
Gethsemane, Peter in particular was rebuked because he did not watch,
and in I Peter the church is admonished to watch and be vigilant against
the Devil. Prayer against temptation is also stressed.
In the Matthean account, Peter is delegated to build the church, and
in I Peter it is the chief Apostle (Peter) who points to Christ as
Shepherd and Bishop, who through his suffering collected the wandering
sheep to himself. In like manner—on the model of Christ or perhaps
Peter—the elders are exhorted to feed their flocks humbly and
faithfully. Thus, there is a typical testament form: Peter has failed
and repented; and the church is warned, admonished, and strengthened as
by the Apostle, who, on the analogy of Jesus’ Passion and death in
innocence, exhorts the church to share in the vocation of innocent
suffering and to do good in innocence. Finally, I Peter, viewed as a
“testament,” is in itself an apocalyptic “witness,” and with its
admixture of advice, example, and general address to the faithful living
in the Diaspora as sojourners, with the authority of its martyred
“author,” it constitutes authority and strength for the church that
faces the persecution of the world. References in chapter 5 to Rome
(called Babylon) and to Mark are then also part of the pseudepigraphic
testament form, as they presuppose the common tradition of Peter’s
martyrdom in Rome and his connection with Mark.
There are three Christological hymnic fragments in I Peter: 1:18–21,
ransom by Christ; 2:21–25, with reference to the Book of Isaiah, chapter
53, used as ethical admonition; and 3:18–20, Christ’s descent into hell.
The last is in the context of Christ’s going and preaching to the
spirits in prison (a reference to the apocryphal First Book of Enoch
with Satan chained under the earth but his descendants at work in the
world until the end-time) in order to show that Christ, through his
descent, has overcome the powers that underlie and engender persecution
of the Christians. This is reaffirmed in chapter 5 by encouraging
Christians in their fight against the Devil, for, though suffering will
be a part of this resistance, there will be victory at the end.
Imitation of Christ is a basis for joy even in suffering. The end is
viewed as near, and final salvation can thus be anticipated.
New Testament literature » The Catholic Letters » The Johannine Letters:
I, II, and III John
The three epistles gathered under the name of John were written to guide
and strengthen the post-apostolic church as it faced both attacks from
heresies and an ever increasing need for community solidarity—along with
the concomitant love and ethics necessary to such unity.
I John, though lacking any formal epistolary salutation or ending,
directs itself to a circle of readers with whom the writer is
acquainted. Taking the form of an anonymous “homily” for admonition
against heresy and instruction in faith and love, it was directed to a
wide audience or was to be circulated beyond a particular congregation.
II and III John are brief letters from an author described only as “the
elder,” implying a position of some authority. II John, chapter 1, is
addressed to an “elect lady and her children,” probably a designation of
a church with difficulties similar to those found in I John. III John is
the most personal, being addressed by the elder “to the beloved Gaius,”
who has been praised particularly for his hospitality (probably to
missionaries) and his brotherly love. The presbyter (elder), probably
the author of II and III John, apparently was a man who was
authoritative enough to influence and direct mission activities. All
three letters, despite their differences of address, appear to have been
accepted among the Catholic Letters as having been circulated for the
church at large.
I, II, and III John share much common terminology, style, and general
situation. They are all called Johannine because they are loosely
related to the Gospel According to John in style and terminology and
could be the outcome of its theology.
The early church attributed I, II, and III John to John, the Apostle,
the son of Zebedee. Although II and III John may possibly have been
written by the same presbyter, this “elder” is not necessarily the
author of I John, although it is commonly accepted that the three
Johannine letters came from a “Johannine” inner circle. The earliest
reference to the Johannine letters is in the Letter to the Philippians
by Polycarp of Smyrna (7:1). Papias, who was a 2nd-century bishop of
Hierapolis, mentions I John and quotes it several times, but he
distinguishes between John, the Apostle, and John, the presbyter.
Polycarp, Papias, and internal evidence point to the region of Asia
Minor as the probable sources of the Johannine literature. These
references and the organization of the churches indicated in the
letters, as well as the lack of signs of persecution, suggest a date for
the letters at around the beginning of the 2nd century.
New Testament literature » The Catholic Letters » The Johannine
Letters: I, II, and III John » The First Letter of John
I John assumes a knowledge of the Johannine Gospel (the author of I John
may be the ecclesiastical redactor of the Gospel According to John) and
adds ethical admonition and instruction regarding the well-being of the
church as it confronts heresy and stresses the lack of moral concern
that springs from it. There is strong defense against the threat of a
type of Gnosticism called Docetism that denied the reality of Jesus’
earthly life and thus the meaning of the cross. Possessing special
spiritual knowledge, the Docetic Gnostics had no need of the earthly
Jesus and the humanity of Christ. This Docetic heresy led them to reject
the Lord’s Supper, but not Baptism. Their special possession of the
Spirit had led them erroneously to consider themselves sinless and to
deny the fellowship that has the cleansing of sins. Because the heresy
may have led to libertinism, the ethics of Christians must accord with
their faith and find expression in the love of the brethren in the
church. “He who hears my word and . . . believes has passed from death
to life” (John 5:24) is continued in I John 3:14, “We have passed out of
death into life, because we love the brethren.” The Gnostics separated
themselves from the church in schism and have thereby committed the “sin
unto death.” They are false prophets and deceivers described by the term
Antichrist. The true Christians, the “children of God,” hold the true
faith evidenced by their loyalty to the church and their charity toward
its members.
A constant theme in I John is that of God’s love, which makes
Christians the children of God. As children of God they keep the new
commandment of love, which is of light—that of brotherly love—and resist
the world, evil, and false teaching. Because Christ gave his life for
man, the Christian’s response is also to be self-giving. Through
obedience and faith, God forgives even when man’s heart condemns him,
“for God is greater than his heart.” It is of interest to note that in I
John 2:1–2, Jesus is referred to as paraclete (advocate), but in the
Gospel According to John, such references are to the Spirit. John 14:16,
however, refers to “another Counselor.” This discrepancy can be resolved
by interpreting Jesus with his disciples as their advocate with another
to come (the Spirit), and, in I John 2:1–2, the risen Lord becomes the
advocate for the expiation of all sin. Righteousness and faith are
emphasized in chapters 4–5, and again these characteristics are those of
the children of God, who will finally in the end-time be like him who
gave the promise, the commandment, and the joy of love.
New Testament literature » The Catholic Letters » The Johannine
Letters: I, II, and III John » The Second Letter of John
II John warns a specific church (or perhaps churches), designated as
“the elect lady and her children,” against the influence of the Docetic
heresy combatted in I John, whose proponents lured Christians from
“following the truth, just as we have been commanded by the Father.” In
II John, as in the Gospel According to John and I John, the
light–darkness images are similar to those of the Dead Sea Scrolls. To
“walk in the truth” in II John is to reject heresy and follow the
doctrine of Christ.
New Testament literature » The Catholic Letters » The Johannine
Letters: I, II, and III John » The Third Letter of John
III John, addressed to Gaius, shows that the writer is concerned about
and has responsibility as presbyter for the missionaries of the church.
It is somewhat of a short note concerned with church discipline,
encouraging hospitality to true missionaries, and thus not unconnected
with true doctrine and the command of love.
New Testament literature » The Catholic Letters » The Letter of Jude
The Letter of Jude, after a salutation that attributes it to Jude, the
brother of James, and addresses itself to the church as a whole,
develops the theme of the short letter—a polemic against heretics who
have abandoned the transmitted traditional faith and who will thus be
judged by the Lord. They deny Christ, and punishment similar to that of
Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament for such a denial is threatened.
Heretical beliefs have led to various sins and libertinism, and the
judgment that will come upon them is cited from Enoch 1:9, demonstrating
that this short letter reflects the postbiblical Jewish apocalyptic
train of thought in the early Christian era.
“Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James” is probably
meant pseudepigraphically to relate this Jude to James the brother of
the Lord so that this Jude is also a brother of the Lord. This, however,
is impossible because the letter reflects a later time. Verse 17 refers
to “the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ” concerning
mockers and sinners. Thus, the author is recalling a former time that
was prophesied regarding the heresies and trials of the end-time. Such a
bearer of apostolic tradition is violently attacking heresy in the
interest of transmitted traditional faith. Again, it would appear that
the letter is pseudepigraphic and may have originated in Syria or Asia
Minor.
The author struggles forcefully against heretics who deny God and
Christ and attempts to strengthen his readers in their fight against
such heresy that leads to wickedness and disorder. Libertinism is a
characteristic of such heresy, and the punishment of the heretics will
be similar to that which befell the unfaithful in the Old Testament
patriarchal times. Only steadfastness in faith, true doctrine, and
prayer can lead to mercy, forgiveness, restoration, and final salvation.
An attempt to bring the erring to repentance may save them. The letter
concludes with a typical doxology.
The form is less a catholic letter than a declared position that lays
down general rules. The date is probably near the end of the 1st century
and before II Peter, which draws upon it.
New Testament literature » The Revelation to John » Purpose and theme
The Revelation (i.e., Apocalypse) to John is an answer in apocalyptic
terms to the needs of the church in time of persecution, as it awaits
the end-time expected in the near future. The purpose of the book is to
encourage and admonish the church to be steadfast and endure. The form
of an apocalypse shows affinities with contemporary Jewish, Oriental,
and Hellenistic writings in which problems of the end of the world and
of history are linked both with prophecy of an eschatological nature and
with “sealed” secret mysteries. Such revelations are traditionally
received in trances, characterized by strange symbols, numbers, images,
and parables or allegories that represent people and historical
situations. Apocalypticism is essentially dualistic, presenting the
present eon as evil and the future as good, with an ultimate battle
between the divine and the demonic to be won only after one or more
cosmic catastrophes. The aim of apocalyptic literature is to depict in
the age of present tribulation a knowledge of a future glorious victory
and vindication, thus giving hope and assurance.
In Revelation it is God who gives the revelation to Jesus Christ to
be shown by Christ through an angel to his servant John, in exile on the
island of Patmos, in order that John become his seer and prophet to the
church. John is to write down what he has seen, what is, and what is to
come. In contradistinction to most Jewish apocalyptic works, Revelation
is not pseudonymous and John is to give finally unsealed, clear prophecy
related to the present and to the end-time.
As in the rest of the New Testament, the starting point of
eschatological hope is the saving act of God in Jesus, a historical
centre pointing toward historical developments that will bring about the
establishment of God’s kingdom and vindication of his people, ransomed
by the blood of Christ, the Lamb who was slain. It provides certainty
and encouragement with the example of the faithfulness of those who have
already witnessed unto death (martyrs) and their reward—special
inheritance in the eternal kingdom.
After the introduction, Revelation continues first as a series of
seven letters to seven churches in the province of Asia, thence to the
whole church with an epistolary introduction and, after the apocalypse
proper, an epistolary blessing as the last verse. The letters sent from
the heavenly Christ through John (chapters 2 and 3) exhort, comfort, or
censure the churches according to their condition under persecution or
danger of heresy. From chapters 4–22 there are series of visions in
three main cycles, each recapitulating but expanding the former in
greater and clearer detail with groups of seven symbols predominating in
each (seals, chapters 6–7; trumpets, chapters 8–10; and bowls, chapters
15–16). This material is interspersed with visions of God in his
heavenly council, various visions of catastrophe and of Satan, the
destroyer, the appearance of two witnesses and other martyr examples to
spur the church to endurance, the victory of the archangel Michael over
the dragon (Satan) by the blood of the Lamb (Christ), and the
representation of the powers of emperor cult and false prophecy as
beasts who bring destruction to the unfaithful in God’s judgment. A
heavenly woman who bears a messianic son is threatened by a dragon. Her
child is carried up to heaven by God, and she escapes by hiding in a
place prepared for her by God. The beasts who appear persecute the
Christians and the “number” signifying the first beast is that of a man,
“666” (or, in a variant reading, “616”) probably indicating the emperor
Nero. God’s triumph in history is depicted in his judgment on the harlot
Babylon (Rome), and the final consummation portrays the victory of
Christ over the Antichrist and his followers. In chapter 20 the
thousand-year reign of Christ with those who witnessed unto death is
depicted. Satan, again loosed, is vanquished by fire from heaven with
the beasts (imperial power and false prophet), and the last judgment
leads to a new heaven and a new earth, the new Jerusalem. This writing
is, thus, a prophetic-apocalyptic work.
In summary, the seer reminds the reader that the words, because they
are of God, are trustworthy and true. The motif that the Lord is coming
soon is again repeated. This reflection of the early Christian watchword
suggests a sacred liturgical style. The last verse is the closing
benediction—perhaps not only of the letters in the beginning of
Revelation but of the whole of Revelation, which was to be read aloud in
a worship setting.
New Testament literature » The Revelation to John » Authorship and style
Apocalypticism was introduced into Asia Minor after ad 70 (the fall of
Jerusalem), and c. 80–90 a prophetic circle was formed near Ephesus. Its
leader was John, a prophet, who might well have been the author of
Revelation, which is deeply steeped in apocalyptic traditions. The
“Johannine circle” bearing the tradition of John, the Apostle of the
Lord, and from which emerged the Gospel and letters bearing his name,
might have been a continuation of the prophetic conventicle of Ephesus
in which John was prominent. The various writings do not have to be
consistent except in their basic faith in Jesus Christ; and, as the
situations to which they addressed themselves were different, different
styles and content were required. The seer was probably involved in an
actual historical situation in the late 80s under Domitian, a time when
there was open conflict between the church and the Roman state. There is
a tradition supported by Irenaeus, a 2nd-century bishop of Lyons, that
in this persecution punishment was death or banishment. John’s
prominence might have led to banishment to Patmos, an isle off the coast
of Asia Minor, from his homeland in or around Ephesus. From Patmos he
wrote a circular letter to the churches in Asia.
Though the style of Revelation is certainly eclectic in form and
content, containing elements of a heavenly epistle and with more than
three-fourths of the rest made up of prophetic-apocalyptic forms from
varied sources, it reflects a systematic and careful plan. Even the
apocalyptic, however, is “anti-apocalyptic” in that the seer’s message
is open and the mysteries serve not to conceal but to heighten what is
seen and to be expected. Apocalyptic schemata and motifs are, however,
used toward this purpose, and allegorical incorporation of sources is
more a demonstration of the true, ultimate message than a literary
device. Blurred images (e.g., God, Christ, and angels; chiliastic
[1,000-year] eras and temporal duplications; as well as interpretations)
are part of the apocalyptic style, but a current concrete historical
situation is the foundation. Revelation is written in fantastic imagery,
blending Jewish apocalypticism, Babylonian mythology, and astrological
speculation. It is pictorial, dramatic, and poetic.
Revelation contains long sections characterized by Greek that is
grammatically and stylistically crude, strangely Hebraized to give a
unique, almost Oriental, colour. This may have been deliberate. Although
Revelation is replete with Old Testament allusions, there are no direct
quotations, and this may reflect the seer’s conviction that the work is
a direct revelation from God. In other sections the poetry of Revelation
might stem from the seer’s experience in the heavenly throne room of
God, from hearing the hymns of the angelic host, or from his
recollection on Patmos of the liturgical practice of the church. The
image of the Bride and wedding feast together with the “Come, Lord
Jesus!” have associations with the eucharistic liturgy of the early
church.
The recapitulations of the seven seals, trumpets, and bowls may be
deliberate schematization. The purpose of such repetition and increasing
revelation can be a way of heightening enthusiasm to encourage the
church.
Mysterious numbers and divisions (such as 7, 3, 12) recur and are
part of the theme of assurance, because God has numbers in their order
as a sign of his plan of salvation, turning chaos to orderly cosmos. The
mysterious name of the first beast, 666, in 13:18, can be calculated by
“gematria,” assigning their numerical values to letters of the word and
summing them up. The most adequate solution is Nero (the numerical value
of the Hebrew letters for Caesar Neron equals 666), a demonic Nero
redivivus (revived), who returns from the dead as Antichrist. Astronomy
and astrology have also been applied to Revelation in terms of the signs
of the zodiac or a calendar of feasts and seasons as keys to
understanding its structure, because it is God who orders the times and
seasons.
Two witnesses described in chapter 11 have been assumed to be Elijah
and Moses, Peter and Paul, or simply two examples of martyrs through
whom God shows his punishment of the wicked and vindication of the
righteous to his glory. There are strong martyrological themes
throughout Revelation, and it seems to stand on the border line of the
point at which the word witness (martys) became a technical term for a
witness unto death, or martyr. The cosmic battle in heaven is fought by
those willing to give their lives, who mix their blood with the blood of
the Lamb, whose blood “ransomed men for God.” The writer of Revelation
based his hope for the church on perseverance, on endurance even to
death, and on what the future will bring when the church will live with
the glorified Christ, slain as a lamb. The harlot of Babylon will be
destroyed and the church will endure; Babylon falls and the new
Jerusalem, the city of God that is to come, is depicted in all its
glory. These are the hopes to strengthen the persecuted church,
assurance that God will soon triumph. With trumpet call and heavenly
voices there is the joyful promise that “The kingdom of the world has
become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign for
ever and ever.”
The Rev. Krister Stendahl
Emilie T. Sander
New Testament Apocrypha » Nature and significance
The title New Testament Apocrypha may suggest that the books thus
classified have or had a status comparable to that of the Old Testament
Apocrypha and have been recognized as canonical. In a few instances such
has been the case, but generally these books were accepted only by
individual Christian writers or by minority heretical groups. The word
apocryphal (secret) is applied to Gnostic traditions and writings both
by Gnostics and by their critics; from the 2nd century, for example,
comes the Apocryphon (secret book) of John. In the 4th century the word
referred to books not publicly read in churches. It meant apocryphal in
the modern sense (i.e., fictitious) only by implication, as when the
church historian Eusebius speaks of some of “the so-called secret books”
as forgeries composed by heretics.
Like the New Testament books themselves, the New Testament apocryphal
books consist of gospels, acts, letters, and apocalypses. The apocryphal
writings, however, are almost exclusively pseudepigraphical—i.e.,
written in the name of the apostles or disciples or concerning
individual apostles. In general, they were created after and in
imitation of the New Testament books but before the time when a
relatively restricted canon, or list, of approved books was being
formulated. They arose chiefly during the 2nd century, when the lines
between orthodoxy and heresy were not absolutely fixed and when popular
piety seems to have been rather freely expressed. What these works tell
about Jesus and his disciples resembles the imaginative Midrashic
(didactic commentarial) retelling of Old Testament stories among Jewish
teachers.
As the New Testament canon was gradually given definite shape, these
apocryphal books came to be excluded, first from public reading in
churches, then from private reading as well. With the development of
creeds and of systematic theologies based on the nascent canon, the
apocryphal books were neglected and suppressed. Most of them have
survived only in fragments, although a few have been found in Greek and
Coptic papyri from Egypt. They are valuable to the historian primarily
because of the light they cast on popular semi-orthodox beliefs and on
Gnostic revisions of Christianity; occasionally, they may contain fairly
early traditions about Jesus and his disciples. In the 3rd century,
Neoplatonists (followers of the philosopher Plotinus, who advocated a
system of levels of reality) joined Christians in attacking such books
as “spurious,” “modern,” and “forged.”
The difficulties the New Testament apocryphal books caused at the end
of the 2nd century are well illustrated in a letter by Serapion, bishop
of Antioch. He stated that he accepts Peter and the other apostles “as
Christ” but rejects what is falsely written in their name. When some
Christians showed him the Gospel of Peter, he allowed them to read it,
but after further investigation he discovered that its teaching about
Christ was false, and he had to withdraw his permission.
In the early 4th century Eusebius himself found it difficult to
create categories for the various books then in circulation or used by
earlier authors. He seems to have concluded that the books could be
called “acknowledged,” “disputed,” “spurious,” and absolutely rejected.
Thus, the Acts of Paul, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Gospel
According to the Hebrews were rather well attested, and he called them
spurious but disputed. He definitely rejected books used by heretics but
not by church writers: the gospels ascribed to Peter, Thomas, and
Matthias, and the Acts of Andrew, John, and other apostles. About a
century earlier, the North African theologian Tertullian had written
about how a presbyter who wrote the Acts of Paul had been deposed.
Without reference to the standards of canonicity and orthodoxy
gradually being worked out by the churches of the 2nd through 4th
centuries, it is evident that many of these books reflect the kinds of
rather incoherent Christian thought that church leaders were trying to
prune and shape from the 1st century onward. Often such works
represented what was later viewed as inadequate orthodoxy because the
views presented had become obsolete. All the apocrypha taken together
show the variety of expression from which the canon was a critical
selection.
New Testament Apocrypha » The New Testament Apocryphal writings
Biblical literature in liturgy » Biblical literature in the liturgy of
Judaism
The liturgy of Judaism is that of the synagogue, which arose during and
after the Babylonian Exile of 586–538 bce and gradually replaced the
Temple cult as the spiritual centre of Jewish life. The Hebrew biblical
canon and the liturgy of the synagogue, to a great extent, grew up
together.
Because the synagogue arose in a land separated from the Jerusalem
Temple with its sacrificial emphasis and its priestly class, worship in
the synagogue differed from what went before it in several respects. A
local congregation worshipped together on a certain day of the week in a
place set apart for that purpose, rather than primarily on special
festival days and periods. The people worshipped without priest or
cultic sacrifice, yet consciously as a community within a larger
covenant fellowship and in response to a divine word that was written
down in a holy scripture. Bible reading and interpretation, the singing
of psalms, and prayers, both corporate and individual, were the staple
content of the liturgy. The ancient synagogue liturgy has come down to
the present in two books: the Siddur, or daily prayer book, and the
Mahzor, or festival prayer book.
The biblically prescribed rhythm of days, weeks, months, and years
gave order to the lives of the people. The Bible became familiar to old
and young by being read aloud in the synagogue, and no part of worship
was esteemed more highly than the reading of scripture. The Torah, the
first five books of the Bible, is handwritten on a scroll. Viewed as the
holiest object in the synagogue, it is kept in a sacred cabinet called
the ark. Special prayers and ceremonies accompany its being taken out
and replaced in the ark, and during the course of the year it is read in
its entirety at the sabbath services. Torah portions are also read on
the religious holidays.
A reading from the Prophets, called the Haftarah, follows each Torah
reading. One of the five Megillot (Scrolls) is read on certain holidays:
the Song of Solomon at Pesah (Passover), the Book of Ruth at Shavuot
(Weeks), Lamentations of Jeremiah at Tisha be-Av (Av 9), Ecclesiastes at
Sukkot (Tabernacles), and the Book of Esther at Purim (Lots). The Book
of Jonah is read on the afternoon of Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement).
Psalms are said or sung in every service. From the chanting of biblical
texts, especially the Psalms, the music of the synagogue’s cantor has
developed into an incomparable art form (see also Judaism).
Biblical literature in liturgy » Biblical literature in the liturgy of
Christianity » Eastern Orthodoxy
The first Christians were Jews, and they worshipped along with other
Jews in the synagogue. The earliest Gentile converts also attended the
synagogue. When Christians met outside the synagogue, they still used
its liturgy, read its Bible, and preserved the main characteristics of
synagogue worship. Every historic liturgy is divided into (1) a
Christian revision of the sabbath service in the synagogue and (2) a
celebration of Jesus’ Last Supper with his disciples as a fulfillment of
the Passover and a new covenant with a newly redeemed people of God.
Thus, the church was never without traditional forms of worship.
For more than 100 years Christians had no authorized New Testament,
the Old Testament being read, as had been done previously, in the
worship service. By the middle of the 2nd century, however, Christian
writings also were in the Sunday service. The Old Testament, the version
used most generally in its Greek translation (the Septuagint), was the
Bible from which the Gospel was preached. Its reading preceded that of
the Christian writings, and the reading was far more extensive than it
is in modern Christian churches.
As the liturgies grew longer and more elaborate, the biblical
readings were reduced, and the New Testament gradually displaced the Old
Testament. No Old Testament lesson remained in the Greek or Russian
liturgy or in the Roman mass, though it has been reintroduced in the
20th century in most liturgies. All liturgies have at least two readings
from the New Testament: one from a letter or other (non-Gospel) New
Testament writing, and one from a Gospel, in that order. The Eastern
liturgies all honour the Gospel with a procession called the Little
Entrance. This action is accompanied by hymns and prayers that interpret
the Gospel as the coming of Christ to redeem the world.
The Eastern liturgies, especially after the great theological
controversies of the first four centuries, have favoured composed texts
of prayers, hymns, and choral anthems that summarize the thought of many
biblical passages, thus becoming short sermons or confessions of faith.
The Nicene Creed (4th century) itself is one such text, in contrast with
the Shema (“Hear, O Israel”—a type of creed) in Judaism, which consists
of verbatim passages from Deuteronomy and Numbers.
The Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox churches contains many
such composed texts, such as prayers that proclaim Orthodox theology
(e.g., the “Only begotten Son and Word of God” following the second
antiphon). Isaiah, chapter 6, verse 3 (“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of
hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory”), used in the Jewish
Kedusha (Glorification of God), generates two separate texts in the
Eastern liturgy: the Trisagion (a solemn threefold acclamation to God)
at the Little Entrance and the Greek original of the “Holy, holy, holy”
in the eucharistic liturgy.
Psalms are sung extensively at the daily hours of prayer in the East
as in the West. At the beginning of the Sunday service, entire psalms or
more than one psalm are sometimes sung. More often, however, a psalm
verse or two are combined with other material into a composite text of a
hymn or anthem. A mosaic of selected psalm verses may be used either as
a text for music or a spoken prayer. Most characteristic of all,
especially in the Greek Church’s tradition, however, is the freely
composed and imaginative hymn text, based on a biblical incident or
person, or an extended paraphrase of a passage of scripture. In addition
to such biblically based psalms and other hymns, there are the famous
Cherubic Hymn of the Greek and Russian liturgies and the original texts
of hymns that have become well known in the Western churches—e.g., “O
gladsome light of the Father immortal,” and “Let all mortal flesh keep
silent.”
Biblical literature in liturgy » Biblical literature in the liturgy of
Christianity » Roman Catholicism
Liturgical worship in both Judaism and Christianity is an action that
moves within the framework of biblical ideas and explains itself in
biblical language. Preoccupied with really different views from opposite
windows, Jews and Christians have often overlooked the common heritage
that they share. This has likewise been true of the differences between
Eastern and Western Christians.
At Rome, the liturgy was sung and said in Greek until the 4th century
and was probably more like the liturgy of Syria at that time than that
of Rome after the 16th century. The Latin rite developed many
distinctive features, but what happened in Rome happened also to some
extent in the East. The biblical readings at mass were reduced to two:
the first reading, formally called the Epistle, was usually from an
apostolic letter but sometimes from the Acts of the Apostles or even the
Old Testament, and the second was a Gospel passage selected as
appropriate for that particular day in the Church Year. The West, like
the East, retained the Jewish week and developed a yearly cycle of
Easter–Pentecost and Christmas–Epiphany celebrations with appropriate
biblical selections. The development of the Church Year became so
elaborate in the West, however, that the Roman calendar provided for
every day in the year.
In the West as in the East, monastic and other religious communities
observed the daily hours of prayer, in which there was little Bible
reading as such but a great deal of corporate praying as well as the
reading or singing of psalms. The Roman canonical hours were further
enriched with homilies and legends from many sources, with Latin
metrical hymns, and with biblical canticles, including a daily singing
of the early Christian songs that are quoted in the Gospel According to
Luke: the “Benedictus” (“Song of Zechariah”) in chapter 1, verses 68–79,
at Lauds (morning prayer), the “Magnificat” (“Song of Mary”) in chapter
1, verses 46–55, at Vespers (evening prayer), and the “Nunc Dimittis”
(“Song of Simeon”) in chapter 2, verses 29–32, at Compline (prayer at
the end of the day). The great anonymous canticle called the “Te Deum,”
a vast array of biblical images ascribing praise and glory to God, is
sung every day at Matins (an early morning prayer).
The mass is an abbreviation of a much longer liturgy. Many items are
mere vestiges of more elaborate actions or texts. The psalms once sung
at the entrance, for example, have been reduced to a traditional form of
a sung text: an antiphon of one or two verses from a psalm, the first
verse of the psalm, the “Glory be to the Father,” and the antiphon
repeated. The same has occurred in other parts of the mass. Psalms were
once interspersed among the readings of scripture. The traditional
gradual was a formalized text sung between the Epistle and Gospel, but
in the reformed mass it becomes a responsorial psalm between the first
and second readings. The short texts at the Offertory (offering of the
bread and wine) and Communion are fragments in biblical language, but
they are also masterpieces of the Latin genius for brevity, clarity, and
order—as are the inimitable Latin collects (prayers), each basing its
definite petition on an equally definite biblical revelation.
For centuries the mass was heard only in Latin and repeated the same
readings on the same days every year, with the result that only a
limited number of unconnected passages were heard in church. The second
Vatican Council (1962–65) approved the plan of having a three-year cycle
of biblical readings, providing an Old Testament lesson for every mass,
a more nearly continuous reading from one of the Gospels each year, and
a reading from one of the letters or other New Testament books over a
period of weeks.
The critical study of biblical literature: exegesis and hermeneutics
Exegesis, or critical interpretation, and hermeneutics, or the science
of interpretive principles, of the Bible have been used by both Jews and
Christians throughout their histories for various purposes. The most
common purpose has been that of discovering the truths and values of the
Old and New Testaments by means of various techniques and principles,
though very often, due to the exigencies of certain historical
conditions, polemical or apologetical situations anticipate the truth or
value to be discovered and thus dictate the type of exegesis or
hermeneutic to be used. The primary goal, however, is to arrive at
biblical truths and values by an unbiassed use of exegesis and
hermeneutics.
The critical study of biblical literature: exegesis and hermeneutics »
Nature and significance
Biblical exegesis is the actual interpretation of the sacred book, the
bringing out of its meaning; hermeneutics is the study and establishment
of the principles by which it is to be interpreted. Where the biblical
writings are interpreted on a historical perspective, just as with
philological and other ancient documents, there is little call for a
special discipline of biblical hermeneutics. But it has been widely held
that the factors of divine revelation and inspiration in the Bible,
which, according to Jewish and Christian belief, set it apart from other
literature, impose their appropriate hermeneutical principles, although
there has been divergence of opinion on what these principles are.
Again, because of the place that the biblical writings have occupied in
synagogue and church, their exploitation for apologetical or polemical
ends, their employment as a source for dogma or as a means of grace,
fostering individual and community devotion, and the use of certain
parts (especially the psalms) in the congregational liturgy, the science
of hermeneutics has been studiously cultivated as a theological
discipline. To treat the Bible like any other book (even in order to
discover that it is not like any other book) has been condemned by
believers as an unworthy, not to say impious, attitude.
At times the languages in which the biblical texts were originally
composed have for that reason been treated as sacred languages. Hebrew
may be to the philologist a Canaanite dialect, not substantially
different from Phoenician, or Moabite, or other Semitic languages, but
for some people even today this language is invested with an aura of
sacredness. As for the language of the New Testament, in the days before
its place within the general development of Hellenistic Greek was
properly appreciated, it could be called a “language of the Holy Ghost,”
as it was by the German Lutheran theologian Richard Rothe (1799–1867).
And even scholars who know very well the true character of the biblical
languages are tempted at times to make the Old and New Testament
vocabularies, down to the very prepositions, bear a greater weight of
theological significance than sound linguistic practice permits. Where
in other Greek literature the context would be allowed to determine the
precise force of this or that synonym, there is a tendency to approach
the New Testament with definitions ready made and to impose them on the
text: to give one example, of two common Greek words meaning “new,” it
is sometimes laid down in advance that kainos denotes new in character
and neos new in time (“young”). Often such distinctions are valid, but
their validity must be established by the context; where the context
discourages such precise differentiations, they must not be forced upon
it.
Again, it is a truism in linguistic study that the meaning of a word
depends on its usage, not on its derivation. It may be of interest to
know that the Hebrew word for “burnt offering” (ʿola) etymologically
means “ascending” (cf. the verb ʿala, “ascend”), and to trace the stages
by which it attained its biblical meaning, but this knowledge is almost
wholly irrelevant to the understanding of the word in the Old Testament
ritual vocabulary, and any attempt to link it, say, with the ascension
of Jesus in the New Testament, as has been done, can lead only to
confusion.
Similarly there has been a tendency to place the history contained in
the biblical writings on a different level from “ordinary” history. Here
the increasing knowledge of the historical setting of the biblical
narrative, especially in the Old Testament, has helped to remove the
impression that the persons and peoples portrayed in this narrative are
not quite “real”; it has integrated them with contemporary life and
promoted a better understanding of what they had in common with their
neighbours and what their distinctive qualities were.
The critical study of biblical literature: exegesis and hermeneutics »
Biblical criticism
A prerequisite for the exegetical study of the biblical writings, and
even for the establishment of hermeneutical principles, is their
critical examination. Most forms of biblical criticism are relevant to
many other bodies of literature.
The critical study of biblical literature: exegesis and hermeneutics »
Biblical criticism » Textual criticism
Textual criticism is concerned with the basic task of establishing, as
far as possible, the original text of the documents on the basis of the
available materials. For the Old Testament, until 1947, these materials
consisted principally of: (1) Hebrew manuscripts dated from the 9th
century ad onward, the Masoretic text, the traditional Jewish text with
its vocalization and punctuation marks as recorded by the editors called
Masoretes (Hebrew masora, “tradition”) from the 6th century to the end
of the 10th; (2) Hebrew manuscripts of medieval date preserving the
Samaritan edition of the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible); (3)
Greek manuscripts, mainly from the 3rd and 4th centuries ad onward,
preserving the text of the pre-Christian Greek version of the Hebrew
Bible together with most of the apocryphal books (the Septuagint); (4)
manuscripts of the Syriac (Peshitta) and Latin (Vulgate) versions, both
of which were based directly on the Hebrew. Since 1947 the discovery of
Hebrew biblical texts at Qumrān (then Jordan) and other places west of
the Dead Sea has made it possible to trace the history of the Hebrew
Bible back to the 2nd century bc and to recognize, among the manuscripts
circulating in the closing generations of the Second Jewish Commonwealth
(c. 450 bc–c. ad 135), at least three types of Hebrew text: (1) the
ancestor of the Masoretic text, (2) the Hebrew basis of the Septuagint
version, and (3) a popular text of the Pentateuch akin to the Samaritan
edition. A comparative examination of these three indicates that the
ancestor of the Masoretic text is in the main the most reliable; the
translators of the Revised Standard Version (1952) and New English Bible
(1970) have continued to use the Masoretic text as their Old Testament
basis.
For the New Testament the chief text-critical materials are (1)
manuscripts of the Greek text, from the 2nd to the 15th centuries, of
which some 5,000 are known, exhibiting the New Testament text in whole
or in part; (2) ancient versions in Syriac, Coptic, Latin, Armenian,
Georgian, Ethiopic, and other languages; and (3) citations in early
Christian writers. A comparative study of this material enables scholars
to get behind the Byzantine type of text (the type that first diffused
from Constantinople from the 4th century onward, gained currency
throughout Greek-speaking Christendom, and formed the basis of the
earliest printed editions of the Greek Testament) to a variety of types
current in various localities in the generations immediately preceding;
but the more recent discovery of manuscripts (mainly on papyrus) of the
3rd and even 2nd centuries, which cannot be neatly assigned to one or
another of these types, makes the earlier history of the text more
problematic, and the Revised Standard Version and New English Bible are
both based on an eclectic text (in which, where the witnesses show
variant readings, the reading preferred is that which best suits the
context and the author’s known style).
The critical study of biblical literature: exegesis and hermeneutics »
Biblical criticism » Other types of exegetical critical techniques »
Redaction criticism
Redaction criticism concentrates on the end product, studying the way in
which the final authors or editors used the traditional material that
they received and the special purpose that each had in view in
incorporating this material into his literary composition. It has led of
late to important conclusions about the respective outlooks and aims of
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
The critical study of biblical literature: exegesis and hermeneutics
» Biblical criticism » Other types of exegetical critical techniques »
Historical criticism
Historical criticism places the documents in their historical setting
and promotes their interpretation in the light of their contemporary
environment. This is necessary for their understanding, whether they are
historical in character or belong to another literary genre. If they are
historical in character it is important to establish how faithfully they
reflect their dramatic date—the date of the events they record (as
distinct from the date of final composition). This test has been applied
with singularly positive results to Luke–Acts, especially in relation to
Roman law and institutions; and in general the biblical outline of
events from the middle Bronze Age (c. 21st–c. mid-16th centuries bc) to
the 1st century ad fits remarkably well into its Near Eastern context as
recovered by archaeological research.
The critical study of biblical literature: exegesis and hermeneutics
» Biblical criticism » Other types of exegetical critical techniques »
“History of religions” criticism
“History of religions” criticism, to use an ungainly expression, relates
Old and New Testament religion to the religious situation of the
contemporary world of the writings and tries to explain biblical
religion as far as possible in terms of current religious attitudes and
practices. This is helpful to a point, insofar as it throws into relief
those features of Hebrew and Christian faith that are distinctive; it is
carried to excess when it attempts to deprive those features of their
unique qualities and to account completely for them in
religious–historical terms. When the cult of Israel was practically
indistinguishable from that of the Canaanites, the protests of the
8th-century-bc Hebrew prophets Amos or Hosea stand out over against
popular Yahweh worship (Hebrew) and Baal worship (Canaanite) alike.
Another attempt has been made by historians of religion to recreate for
the 1st century ad a pre-Christian Gnostic myth—referring to an esoteric
dualism in which matter is viewed as evil and spirit good—of the primal
or heavenly man who comes from the realm of light to liberate particles
of a heavenly essence that are imprisoned on earth in material bodies
and to impart the true knowledge. By men’s acceptance of this secret
salvatory knowledge (gnosis), the heavenly essence within man is
released from its thraldom and reascends to its native abode. Fragments
of this myth have been recognized in several books of the New Testament.
But the attempt has not been successful: according to many recent
(latter half of the 20th century) New Testament scholars and historians
of the early church, it is probable that the concepts of primal man and
redeemer-revealer were not brought together in Gnosticism except under
the influence of the Christian apostolic teaching, in which Jesus fills
the role of Son of man (or Second Adam) together with that of Saviour
and Revealer.
On the other hand, the Iranian religious influence, primarily that of
Zoroastrianism, on the angelology and eschatology (concepts of the last
times) of Judaism in the last two centuries bc is unmistakable,
especially among the Pharisees (a liberal Jewish sect emphasizing piety)
and the Qumrān community (presumably the Essenes) near the Dead Sea. In
the latter, indeed, Zoroastrian dualism finds clear expression, such as
in the concept of a war between the sons of light and the sons of
darkness, although it is subordinated to the sovereignty of the one God
of Israel.
The value of these critical methods of Bible study lies in their
enabling the reader to interpret the writings as accurately as possible.
By their aid he can better ascertain what the writers meant by the
language that they used at the time they wrote and how their first
readers would have understood their language. If the understanding of
readers today is to have any validity, it must bear a close relationship
to what the original readers were intended to understand.
For additional information about the various forms of biblical
criticism, see above: Old Testament canon, texts, and versions; and New
Testament canon, texts, and versions.
The critical study of biblical literature: exegesis and hermeneutics »
Types of biblical hermeneutics
As has been said, the importance of biblical hermeneutics has lain in
the Bible’s status as a sacred book in Judaism and Christianity,
recording a divine revelation or reproducing divine oracles. The
“oracles” are primarily prophetic utterances, but often their narrative
setting has also come to acquire oracular status. Quite different
hermeneutical principles, however, have been inferred from this axiom of
biblical inspiration: whereas some have argued that the interpretation
must always be literal, or as literal as possible (since “God always
means what he says”), others have treated it as self-evident that words
of divine origin must always have some profounder “spiritual” meaning
than that which lies on the surface, and this meaning will yield itself
up only to those who apply the appropriate rules of figurative exegesis.
Or again, it may be insisted that certain parts must be treated
literally and others figuratively; thus some expositors who regard the
allegorical (symbolic) interpretation of the Old Testament histories as
the only interpretation that has any religious value maintain that in
the apocalyptic writings that interpretation which is most literal is
most reliable.
The critical study of biblical literature: exegesis and hermeneutics »
Types of biblical hermeneutics » Literal interpretation
Literal interpretation is often, but not necessarily, associated with
the belief in verbal or plenary inspiration, according to which not only
the biblical message but also the individual words in which that message
was delivered or written down were divinely chosen. In an extreme form
this would imply that God dictated the message to the speakers or
writers word by word, but most proponents of verbal inspiration
repudiate such a view on the reasonable ground that this would leave no
room for the evident individuality of style and vocabulary found in the
various authors. Verbal inspiration received classic expression by the
19th-century English biblical scholar John William Burgon:
The Bible is none other than the voice of Him that sitteth upon the
Throne! Every Book of it, every Chapter of it, every Verse of it, every
word of it, every syllable of it, (where are we to stop?) every letter
of it, is the direct utterance of the Most High! (From Inspiration and
Interpretation, 1861).
This explains Burgon’s severe judgment that the revisers of the
English New Testament (1881), in excluding what they believed to be
scribal or editorial additions to the original text, “stand convicted of
having deliberately rejected the words of Inspiration in every page”
(The Revision Revised, p. vii, London, 1883). Such a high view of
inspiration has commonly been based on the statement in II Tim. 3:16
that “all [Old Testament] scripture is God-breathed” (Greek
theopneustos, which means “inspired by God”) or Paul’s claim in I Cor.
2:13 to impart the gospel “in words not taught by human wisdom but
taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths in spiritual
language.” On this latter passage the English bishop and biblical
scholar Joseph Barber Lightfoot (1828–89) remarked:
The notion of a verbal inspiration in a certain sense is involved in
the very conception of an inspiration at all, because words are at once
the instruments of carrying on and the means of expressing ideas, so
that the words must both lead and follow the thought. But the passage
gives no countenance to the popular doctrine of verbal inspiration,
whether right or wrong (From Notes on Epistles of St. Paul from
Unpublished Commentaries, 1895).
The detailed attention that Lightfoot and his Cambridge University
colleagues, Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901), successor of Lightfoot as
bishop of Durham, and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828–92), paid in their
exegesis to the vocabulary and grammatical construction of the biblical
documents, together with their concern for the historical context,
sprang from no dogmatic attachment to any theory of inspiration but,
rather, represented the literal method of interpretation at its best.
Such grammatico-historical exegesis can be practiced by anyone with the
necessary linguistic tools and accuracy of mind, irrespective of
confessional commitment, and is likely to have more permanent value than
exegesis that reflects passing fashions of philosophical thought.
Biblical theology itself is more securely based when it rests upon such
exegesis than when it forms a hermeneutical presupposition.
The critical study of biblical literature: exegesis and hermeneutics »
Types of biblical hermeneutics » Moral interpretation
Moral interpretation is necessitated by the belief that the Bible is the
rule not only of faith but also of conduct. The Jewish teachers of the
late pre-Christian and early Christian Era, who found “in the law the
embodiment of knowledge and truth” (Rom. 2:20), were faced with the
necessity of adapting the requirements of the Pentateuchal codes to the
changed social conditions of the Hellenistic Age (3rd century bc–3rd
century ad). This they did by means of a body of oral interpretation,
which enabled the conscientious Jew to know his duty in the manifold
circumstances of daily life. If, for example, he wished to know whether
this or that activity constituted “work” that was forbidden on the
sabbath, the influential school of legal interpretation headed by the
rabbi Hillel (late 1st century bc to early 1st century ad) supplied a
list of 39 categories of activity that fell under the ban.
The Christian Church rejected the Jewish “tradition of the elders”
but for the most part continued to regard the Ten Commandments as
ethically binding and devised new codes of practice, largely forgetting
Paul’s appeal to the liberty of the Spirit, or viewing it as an
invitation to indulge in allegory. In order to deduce moral lessons from
the Bible, allegorization was resorted to, as when the Letter of
Barnabas (c. ad 100) interprets the Levitical food laws prescribed in
the book of Leviticus as forbidding not the flesh of certain animals but
the vices imaginatively associated with the animals. To set up
principles of exegesis by which ethical lessons may be drawn from all
parts of the Bible is not easy, since many of the commandments enjoined
upon the Israelites in the Pentateuch no longer have any obvious
relevance, such as the ban on boiling a kid in its mother’s milk (Ex.
23:19b, etc.), or on wearing a mixed woollen and linen garment (Deut.
22:11); and much of the teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount is
widely regarded as a counsel of perfection, impracticable for the
average man, even when he professes the Christian faith. Even summaries
of the biblical ethic, such as the golden rule (Matt. 7:12; cf. Tob.
4:15) or the twofold law of love to God and love to one’s neighbour
(Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18), in which the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) is
comprehended (Mark 12:29–31; cf. Rom. 13:8–10), involve casuistic
interpretation (fitting general principles to particular cases) when
they are applied to the complicated relations of present-day life. The
difficulties of applying biblical ethics to modern situations do not
mean that the task of application should be abandoned but that it should
not be undertaken as though it provided an easy shortcut to moral
solutions.
The critical study of biblical literature: exegesis and hermeneutics »
Types of biblical hermeneutics » Allegorical interpretation
Allegorical interpretation places on biblical literature a meaning that,
with rare exceptions, it was never intended to convey. Yet at times this
interpretation seemed imperative. If the literal sense, on which
heretics, such as the 2nd-century biblical critic Marcion, and
anti-Christian polemicists, such as the 2nd-century philosopher Celsus,
insisted, was unacceptable, then allegorization was the only procedure
compatible with a belief in the Bible as a divine oracle. Law, history,
prophecy, poetry, and even Jesus’ parables yielded new meanings when
allegorized. The surface sensuous meaning of the Canticles (the Song of
Solomon) was gladly forgotten when its mutual endearments were
understood to express the communion between God and the soul, or between
Christ and the church. There are still readers who can reconcile
themselves to the presence of a book such as Joshua in the canon only if
its battles can be understood as pointing to the warfare of Christians
“against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Eph.
6:12). As for the Gospel parables, when in the story of the good
Samaritan (Luke 10:30–37) an allegorical meaning is sought for the
thieves, the Samaritan’s beast, the inn, the innkeeper, and the two
pence, the result too often is that the explicit point of the story, “Go
and do likewise,” is blunted.
Closely allied to allegorical interpretation, if not indeed a species
of it, is typological interpretation, in which certain persons, objects,
or events in the Old Testament are seen to set forth at a deeper level
persons, objects, or events in the New. In such interpretations, Noah’s
ark (Gen. 6:14–22) is interpreted to typify the church, outside which
there is no salvation; Isaac carrying the wood for the sacrifice (Gen.
22:6) typifies Jesus carrying the cross; Rahab’s scarlet cord in the
window (Jos. 2:18–21) prefigures the blood of Christ; and so on. These
are not merely sermon illustrations but rather aspects of a
hermeneutical theory that maintains that this further significance was
designed (by God) from the beginning. Traces of typology appear in the
New Testament, as when Paul in Rom. 5:14 calls Adam a “type” of the
coming Christ (as the head of the old creation involved its members in
the results of his disobedience, so the head of the new creation shares
with its members the fruit of his obedience), or when in I Cor. 10:11 he
says that the Israelites’ experiences in the wilderness wanderings
befell them “typically,” so as to warn his own converts of the peril of
rebelling against God. The fourth evangelist stresses the analogy
between the sacrificial Passover lamb of the Hebrews and Christ in his
death (John 19). The writer of the Hebrews treats the priest-king of
Salem, Melchizedek, who was involved with Abraham as a type of Christ
(Heb. 7)—without using the word “type”—and the Levitical ritual of the
Day of Atonement as a model (though an imperfect one) of Christ’s
sacrificial ministry (Heb. 9).
The critical study of biblical literature: exegesis and hermeneutics »
The development of biblical exegesis and hermeneutics in Christianity »
Early stages
The earliest Christian exegesis of the Old Testament is found in the New
Testament, not in the written texts only but in the oral tradition lying
behind them. Some lines of exegesis are present in so many separate
strands of primitive Christian teaching that they are most reasonably
assigned to Jesus, who began his Galilaean ministry with the
announcement that the time appointed for the fulfillment of prophecy,
and the Kingdom of God that was its main theme, had arrived. If the
accomplishment of his ministry involved his death, that was accepted in
the same spirit; he submitted to his captors with the words: “. . . Let
the scriptures be fulfilled” (Mark 14:49). The church began with the
conviction that Jesus, crucified and risen, was the one of whom the
prophets spoke. He was the prophet like Moses, prince of the house of
David, priest of the order of Melchizedek, servant of the Lord, Son of
man, and exalted Lord. If the prophets themselves were uncertain about
the person or time indicated by their oracles, the early Christians were
certain: the person was Jesus, the time was now. The New Testament
writers shared a creative and flexible principle of exegesis that has
regard for the literary and historical context and traces a consistent
pattern of divine action in judgment and mercy, reproduced repeatedly in
the history of Israel and manifested definitively in Christ. This
exegesis is elaborated at times by means of typology and allegory, as
when Paul illustrates the relationship between law and gospel by the
story of Hagar and Sarah, the concubine and wife of Abraham,
respectively (Gal. 4:21–31), or when Israel’s tabernacle in the
wilderness becomes the material counterpart to the heavenly sanctuary in
which believers of the new age offer spiritual worship to God (Heb. 8:2
fol.). The writer to the Hebrews, indeed, occasionally relates the old
order to the new order platonically in terms of the earthly copy of an
eternal archetype.
At an early date Christians developed a line of Old Testament
exegesis designed to show that they, not the Jews, stand in the true
succession of the original people of God. This line is seen in the
Letter of Barnabas, the apologist Justin’s (c. 100–c. 165) Dialogue with
Trypho, and the 3rd-century Against the Jews ascribed to the North
African bishop Cyprian (c. 200–258).
The critical study of biblical literature: exegesis and hermeneutics »
The development of biblical exegesis and hermeneutics in Christianity »
The patristic period
Alexandria had long boasted a school of classical study that practiced
the allegorical interpretation of the Homeric epics and the Greek myths.
This method of exegesis was taken over by Philo and from him by
Christian scholars of Alexandria in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Clement
of Alexandria (c. 150–c. 215) and Origen (c. 185–c. 254) did not
completely rule out the literal sense of Scripture—Origen’s Hexapla, a
six column edition of various biblical versions, was a monument to his
painstaking study of the text—but claimed that the most meaningful
aspects of divine revelation could be extracted only by allegorization.
Clement stated that the Fourth Gospel was a “spiritual gospel” because
it unfolds the deeper truth concealed in the matter-of-fact narratives
of the other three. Origen treated literal statements as “earthen
vessels” preserving divine treasure; their literal sense is the body as
compared with the moral sense (the soul) and the spiritual sense (the
spirit). The true exegete, he claimed, pursues the threefold sense and
recognizes the spiritual (allegorical) as the highest. Later, the
Antiochene fathers, represented especially by Theodore of Mopsuestia (c.
350–428/429) and John Chrysostom (c. 347–407), patriarch of
Constantinople, developed an exegesis that took more account of literal
meaning and historical context. But the allegorizers could claim that
their method yielded lessons that (while arbitrary) were more relevant
and interesting to ordinary Christians.
In the West, the Alexandrian methods were adopted by Ambrose (c.
339–397), bishop of Milan, and Augustine (354–430), bishop of Hippo,
especially as formulated in the seven “rules” of Tyconius (c. 380), a
Donatist heretic (one who denied the efficacy of sacraments administered
by an allegedly unworthy priest), which classified allegorical
interpretation in relation to: (1) the Lord and his church, (2) true and
false believers, (3) promise and law, (4) genus and species, (5)
numerical significance, (6) “recapitulation,” and (7) the devil and his
followers. There were other Latin exegetes, like Ambrosiaster
(commentaries ascribed to Ambrose) and, supremely, Jerome (c.
347–419/420), the learned Latin Father, who paid close attention to the
grammatical sense. In the Old Testament Jerome appealed from the Greek
version to the “Hebraic verity” and in such a work as his commentary on
Daniel provided some fine examples of historical exegesis. Augustine,
though not primarily an exegete, composed both literal and allegorical
commentaries and expository homilies on many parts of Scripture, and his
grasp of divine love as the essential element in revelation supplied a
unifying hermeneutical principle that compensates for technical
deficiencies.
The critical study of biblical literature: exegesis and hermeneutics »
The development of biblical exegesis and hermeneutics in Christianity »
The medieval period
As the patristic age gave way to the scholastic age, the English monk
Bede of Jarrow (died 735) wrote commentaries designed to perpetuate
patristic exegesis, mainly allegorical: thus Elkanah with his two wives
(1 Sam. 1:2) is interpreted as referring to Christ with the synagogue
and the church.
In the early Middle Ages the fourfold sense of Scripture—developed
from Origen’s threefold sense by subdividing the spiritual sense into
the allegorical (setting forth the doctrine) and the anagogical
(relating to the coming world)—was increasingly expounded and received
its final authority from Thomas Aquinas (1225/26–74). For Thomas, the
literal sense, expressing the author’s intention, was a fit object of
scientific study; the figurative senses unfolded the divine intention.
Medieval exegesis was greatly influenced by the Glossa Ordinaria, a
digest of the views of the leading fathers and early medieval doctors
(teachers) on biblical interpretation. This compilation owed much in its
initial stages to Anselm of Laon (died 1117); it had reached its
definitive form by the middle of the 12th century and provided the
exegetical norm of the Summa theologiae (“Summation of Theology”) of
Thomas Aquinas and others.
For all the interest in allegory, literal interpretation was
cultivated in many centres in the West, often with the aid of Hebrew,
knowledge of which was obtainable from Jewish rabbis. One such centre
was the Abbey of Saint-Victor at Paris, where Hugh (died 1141) compiled
biblical commentaries that fill three volumes of J.-P. Migne’s (1800–75)
Patrologiae Cursus Completus (Series Latina) and indicate the
commentator’s dependence on Rashi as well as on his Christian
predecessors. Of Hugh’s disciples, Andrew, abbot of Wigmore (died 1175),
carried on his master’s tradition of literal scholarship, and Richard,
the Scottish-born prior of Saint-Victor (died 1173) pursued a line more
congenial to his mystical temperament. Herbert of Bosham (c. 1180)
produced a commentary on Jerome’s Hebrew Psalter. Robert Grosseteste,
bishop of Lincoln (died 1253), wrote commentaries on the days of
creation and the Psalter that both drew on the Greek fathers and
profited by his direct study of the Hebrew text. Nicholas of Lyra (c.
1265–c. 1349), the greatest Christian Hebraist and expositor of the
later Middle Ages, compiled postillae, or commentaries, both literal and
figurative, on the whole Bible; he insisted that only the literal sense
could establish proof. Luther ranked him among the best exegetes: “a
fine soul, a good Hebraist and a true Christian.”
The critical study of biblical literature: exegesis and hermeneutics »
The development of biblical exegesis and hermeneutics in Christianity »
The Reformation period
The English theologian John Colet (c. 1466–1519) broke with medieval
scholasticism when he returned from the Continent to Oxford in 1496 and
lectured on the Pauline letters, expounding the text in terms of its
plain meaning as seen in its historical context. The humanist Erasmus
(c. 1466–1536) owed to him much of his insight into biblical exegesis.
By the successive printed editions of his Greek New Testament (1516 and
following), Erasmus made his principal, but not his only, contribution
to biblical studies.
Martin Luther (1483–1546) was a voluminous expositor, insisting on
the primacy of the literal sense and dismissing allegory as so much
rubbish—although he indulged in it himself on occasion. The core of
Scripture was to him its proclamation of Christ as the one in whom alone
lay man’s justification before God. John Calvin (1509–64), a more
systematic expositor, served his apprenticeship by writing a youthful
commentary on the Roman statesman and philosopher Seneca the Younger’s
(c. 4 bc–ad 65) De clementia (“Concerning Mercy”); systematic theologian
though he was, he did not allow his theological system to distort the
plain meaning of Scripture, and his philological–historical
interpretation is consulted with profit even today.
Scientific exegesis was pursued on the Catholic side by scholars such
as F. de Ribera (1591) and L. Alcasar (1614), who showed the way to a
more satisfactory understanding of the Revelation. On the Reformed side,
the Annotationes in Libros Evangeliorum (1641–50) by the jurist Hugo
Grotius (1583–1645) were so objective that some criticized them for
rationalism.
The critical study of biblical literature: exegesis and hermeneutics »
The development of biblical exegesis and hermeneutics in Christianity »
The modern period
The modern period is marked by advances in textual criticism and in the
study of biblical languages and history, all of which contribute to the
interpretation of the Bible. The German theologian J.A. Bengel’s
(1687–1752) edition of the Greek text of the New Testament with critical
apparatus (1734), in which he framed the canon that “the more difficult
reading is to be preferred,” was followed by his exegetical Gnomon Novi
Testamenti (“Introduction to the New Testament,” 1742): “apply thyself
wholly to the text,” he directed; “apply the text wholly to thyself.”
The English bishop Robert Lowth’s (1710–87) Oxford lectures on The
Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, published in Latin in 1753, greatly
promoted the understanding of the poetry of the Old Testament by
expounding the laws of its parallelistic structure. The German
philologist Karl Lachmann (1793–1851) applied his expertise in classical
criticism to editing the text of the New Testament; to him also belongs
the credit of arguing that Mark was the earliest of the Gospels and a
main source of Matthew and Luke (1835). The problem of the source
analysis of the Pentateuch was given what for long appeared to be its
final solution by Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918), who related the
successive law codes to the development of the Israelite cultus. For the
period preceding the 9th century bc, however, he operated in a
historical vacuum that Near Eastern archaeology was in his day only
beginning to fill; its subsequent findings have dictated radical
modifications in his reconstruction of Israel’s religious history. In
the middle half of the 19th century, New Testament exegesis was
overshadowed by the school of Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–1860),
which envisaged a sharply opposed Petrine (Peter) and Pauline (Paul)
antithesis in the primitive church, followed in the 2nd century by a
synthesis that is reflected in most of the New Testament writings. In
France, Ernest Renan’s (1823–92) works on early Christianity were
helpful philological and historical studies; the most popular volume,
his Vie de Jésus (1863), was the least valuable. In England, where the
poet and educator Matthew Arnold (1822–88) endeavoured to find an
impregnable moral foundation for biblical authority, New Testament
exegesis received contributions of unsurpassed worth between 1865 and
the end of the century from J.B. Lightfoot, B.F. Westcott, and F.J.A.
Hort.
At the beginning of the 20th century a new direction was given to
Gospel interpretation by the German scholar William Wrede (Das
Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien, 1901) and the medical missionary
theologian Albert Schweitzer (The Quest of the Historical Jesus, Eng.
trans., 1910), who so emphasized the eschatological orientation of
Jesus’ mind and message that New Testament scholarship can never be the
same again. The writings of the biblical scholar C.H. Dodd (The Parables
of the Kingdom, 1935; The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments,
1936) stressed realized eschatology—that the standards of the last times
were realized by Jesus and his disciples—in the preaching of Jesus and
of the primitive church; he has been a leading pioneer of the “biblical
theology” movement. Karl Barth’s (1886–1968) commentary on Romans (1919)
launched an existential interpretation of the New Testament, which has
been pursued more radically by Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976), under the
influence of Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–1911), according to whom the
interpreter must project himself into the author’s experience so as to
relive it, and of Martin Heidegger (1889–1976), whose conception of the
truly authentic man as capable of freedom because he has faced reality
provides the “pre-understanding” for Bultmann’s existential theology.
Bultmann’s disciple Ernst Fuchs considers the hermeneutical task to be
the creation of a “language event” in which the authentic language of
Scripture encounters one now, challenging decision, awakening faith, and
accomplishing salvation. The chief rival to existential exegesis is the
“salvation-history” hermeneutic espoused by Oscar Cullmann.
Rudolf Bultmann and Martin Dibelius (1883–1947) pioneered the modern
form-critical study of the Gospels. The form-critical method was
fruitfully applied to the Old Testament by Hermann Gunkel (1862–1932)
and Sigmund Mowinckel (1884–1965). Among Catholic scholars, exegetical
studies are vigorously promoted by Jean Daniélou (with his researches
into early Jewish Christianity), the Dominicans of the École Biblique et
Archéologique (The School of the Bible and Archeology) in Jerusalem (to
whom one must credit the Jerusalem Bible), and the Jesuits of the
Pontifical Biblical Institute and others.
The encouragement given by the second Vatican Council (1962–65) of
the Roman Catholic Church to biblical scholarship, to be cultivated in
association with “separated brethren” and with consideration for the
requirements of non-Christians, is one indication of a new direction in
biblical exegesis, in which this study will no longer be pursued as a
vindication of sectional traditions but rather as a cooperative
enterprise aiming at making widely available the permanent value of the
Bible.
Frederick Fyvie Bruce