Category: Nevi’im

The donkey and the colt in Matthew 21.1-7.

In Mark 11.2 Jesus sends two disciples to get a colt for Jesus to ride into Jerusalem. Since this Gospel was written prior to Matthew (according to most scholars) many assume that Matthew used this story in his own Gospel. One major difference is that Matthew 21.2 adds a second animal, depicting a donkey and colt. Then he quotes Zechariah 9.9 as a text that this event “fulfilled”,

Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion!

Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem!

Lo, your king comes to you;

triumphant and victorious is he,

humble and riding on a donkey,

on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

These last two lines are a form of Hebrew parallelism. As we see above to “Rejoice greatly” is to “Shout aloud” and the daughter Zion is one Jerusalem. Likewise, there is a line about a donkey paralleled by a line about a colt, which seems to be a more precise description of the donkey in line one. That donkey is a colt.

 

Mark says nothing of a donkey being with the colt. Matthew does. Did Matthew add to Mark’s story because of his reading of Zechariah 9.9?

 

In Craig A. Evans’ new commentary on Matthew for the New Cambridge Bible Commentary (NCBC) series he writes the following (p. 359):

 

“Although some commentators have thought that Matthew has misunderstood the synonymous parallelism of Zech 9:9 in thinking that the text speaks of two animals, others rightly recognize that it is highly unlikely that the evangelist, who can work with Greek and probably Aramaic and Hebrew, would not recognize synonymous parallelism. As with other texts that are cited as “fulfilled,” Matthew may well have seen a correspondence between an event in the life of Jesus and the details of a prophetic text. Matthew would have read Mark’s reference to a colt as “never been ridden” (Mark 11.2) and would have assumed that the mother of the young colt was present and would have accompanied it. Matthew either assumed this from the practice of his time or actually knew that this had been the case. The presence of both the mother and the foal, seen through the eyes of typology, would have drawn a close correspondence with the prophetic texts.”

 

Evans appeals to the reality that in Matthew we find the Evangelist working very hard to make texts from the Hebrew Scripture fit events in the life of Christ in order to “find” Christ in Scripture. If this is so, then maybe Evans (and others whom he cites like R.H. Gundry, D.A. Hagner, and C.S. Keener) is right that Matthew knew something Mark did not know and he found Zechariah 9.9 to provide him with the necessary “biblical” language. Could it be that Matthew’s account is a more accurate description of the events, hence the stretching of Zechariah 9.9 to make it fit? It’s something worth considering.

Advent 2011: Third Sunday

Yesterday I gave the homily for the Third Sunday of Advent. These are the notes for those present who wanted to access them:

“Out of Egypt: Exile, Exodus, and Jesus”

Hosea 11.1-11

Matthew 2.13-15

Introduction:

 

Exile is something with which many of us are mostly unfamiliar, but with which many people in the world know all too well.

-         Displaced people due to war or famine

-         The plight of the immigrant

 

Exile: “It is the unhealable rift forced between a human being and a native place, between the self and its true home”. –Edward W. Said

Israel‘s history

- Adam and Eve “exiled” from Egypt

- In Genesis 37-50 we find the story of Joseph wherein Abraham’s descendants are exiled because of a famine, but they find relief in Egypt.

- In Exodus 1.8 we read, “A new king arose who did not know Joseph…”

- Egypt as “home” quickly became Egypt as exile again.

- The Hebrews became slaves in Egypt for over four hundred years before Moses was sent to free them.

- At the Exodus they were freed from slavery and they were eventually brought into the land that had been given to Abraham. God established them as a nation, but they forgot God often worshiping pagan deities.

Hosea’s prophecy (read Hosea 11.1-11)

- By the time of Hosea’s prophecy the nation was split into the ten tribes of Israel and two of Judea.

- Hosea prophecies against Israel primarily.

- Israel had become accustom of worshiping deities like Baal. Baal was a word for “lord” or “master” and it was used of a variety of deities in the Ancient Near East.

- Israel calling another god “Baal” when she was married to YHWH God was the equivalent to infidelity in the marriage relationship. Israel was cheating on God with other gods.

- In 11.1-11 Hosea serves as YHWH’s spokesperson reminding Israel of how he delivered them from slavery in Egypt, but how he would let them go back before someday giving them a ‘new Exodus’ of restoration.

- Israel and Judah’s disobedience resulted in exile into Assyria and Babylon.

- Eventually there was a new Exodus from Babylon, but for many things never seemed quite right, something was missing.

- Pagan nations ruled over the Jews—including the Greeks and Romans.

Matthew’s interpretation (read Matthew 2.13-15)

- Context: Herod seeks to kill the baby Jesus, the angel warns Joseph, Joseph takes Mary and Jesus into Egypt until Herod dies.

- Jesus embodies the “return from Egypt”, the end of exile.

- He is “Jesus” = YHWH saves. Immanuel = God with us.

- Our God saves. God saves from slavery and exile. God provides a home, a family, and a land.

Conclusion:

-         In Jesus God has enacted the greatest exodus. We have been removed from the exile cause by Satan and we are marching toward the New Jerusalem—New Heavens, New Earth.

-         This plight should make us more aware of exile around us. We experience a sort of exile now as we await the Second Advent.

Who is Elijah? Juxtaposing Matthew 17.10-13 and Mark 9.11-13.

"No, no, not that Elijah, the other Elijah!"

Matthew 17.10-13 is the end of the Transfiguration narrative in the First Gospel. At the Transfiguration Jesus was joined by Moses and Elijah. Afterward the disciples have a question about the second coming of Elijah. Likely, this idea was inspired by Malachi 4.1-5 wherein Israel’s God said Elijah would come before the Day of the Lord. Jesus tells them Elijah has come and it seems to be quite obvious that his appearance with Jesus on the mountain is the fulfillment. Yet the narrator says in v. 13, “The disciples understood that he had spoken to them about John the Baptist.”

Why John the Baptist? Elijah was just there!

Mark 9.11-13 is the end of the Transfiguration narrative in the Second Gospel. It parallels Matthew’s account quite nicely, except that it does not have the commentary that Jesus was speaking of John the Baptist. In Mark’s telling there is no reason to say that the second coming of Elijah is John the Baptist because Elijah’s second coming was fulfilled at the Transfiguration.

So why does Matthew say what he says?

The most obvious answer is consistency. Matthew has already quoted Jesus in 11.14 saying that “John himself was Elijah who was to come.” Still his statement in 17.13 seems odd since the real Elijah was present. Thoughts? 

Let the reader understand. (Mark 13.14)

This weekend my pastor and I were discussing the narrator’s cryptic statement “Let the reader understand” in Mark 13.14. We were wondering what he wanted the reader to understand. Let me give you my interpretation and then I’d like to hear from anyone willing to leave a comment.

The author wanted to grab the reader’s attention by using the phrase “the abomination of desolation” (τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως) which should bring to mind Daniel 9.27; 11.31 (βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως); and 12.11 (τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως). What the author of the Book of Daniel intended is secondary. The primary point is that it provides imagery of a pagan ruler corrupting the temple of God. Whether this was first Antiochus Epiphanes is relevant only in that it provides a physical example of such an event happening (and it may have been the event that inspired the writing of this part of Daniel depending on when you date the “final form” of the book).

I don’t know that Jesus or the evangelist intended hearers/readers to think of an event that “fulfilled’ the Book of Daniel (Matthew’s Gospel does connect this to the Danielic prophecy), but that they were concerned primarily with their audience being prepared to flee when they saw a Gentile ruler enter the temple or one could suggest even move toward the temple.

That said, I tend to see Jesus’ prophecy and the Mark’s recording as being fulfilled when Titus embodied the symbolism of the “Abomination of Desolation” by leading the Roman forces to devastate Jerusalem in 70 CE. I am very, very sure that this Luke understood this to be fulfilled in 70 CE because of the words he has Jesus say in 21.20-25. I think Luke realizes the tension of how the fall of Jerusalem seems to have been a single event that would result in the coming of the Son of Man in judgement which is why he provides the caveat that “Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” He follows this statement with “cosmic collapse” language and then the Son of Man comes.

OK, your turn: What is Mark saying in 13.14? 

Was Jesus an original thinker?

Guest Post: Dr. Craig A. Evans

Read Question 1 here and Question 2 here.

Question 3: Was Jesus an original thinker? How did he personally rework the cultural features that he inherited? What are the most original elements of his thought?

Most of what Jesus proclaimed and did have precedent and was hardly controversial, from a pious Jewish perspective. What Jesus proclaimed was rooted in the Scriptures of Israel. Jesus did not appeal to any authority other than Israel’s God and what Israel’s God has revealed in the Scriptures. But Jesus did rework, even subvert some of Israel’s sacred tradition.

In his well known “antitheses” Jesus challenged several points of the Oral Torah, as taught by the scribes and Pharisees of his day. Jesus did not challenge Moses, but the interpretation of Moses. But in some cases Jesus seems to have subverted Scripture itself. For example, whereas Daniel thanks God for revealing his insights to the wise and learned (Dan 2:21, 23), Jesus thanks God for withholding his revelation from the wise, disclosing it, instead, to mere “babes” (Matt 11:25–26). Or, for another example, whereas in Daniel the Son of Man figure will be served by the nations (Dan 7:13–14), Jesus says that the “Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). Jesus’ surprising interpretations of Scripture sometimes grow out of a conflation of texts. In the last example, the inversion of Dan 7:14 is accommodated (or necessitated?) by allusion to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, who suffered and “bore the sin of many” (Isa 53:12).

Sometimes Jesus tempered judgmental aspects of the Law of Moses with appeals to the prophets or other Scriptures. Mercy, forgiveness, and reconciliation figured prominently in Jesus’ teachings. The temple and sacrifice are important, but love and mercy are more important. Similarly, the Sabbath was not to be given priority over human needs. “The Sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). Nor were purity concerns to be given priority over human needs. Hence Jesus was willing to eat with tax collectors and sinners.

One of the most surprising elements in Jesus’ thought was his teaching that “sinners” and outsiders (Samaritans and Gentiles) would be included among the righteous. Gentiles, like the centurion of Capernaum or the woman of Syro-Phoenicia, can possess more faith than Israelites themselves. Indeed, even a Samaritan can fulfill the Great Commandments of love of God and of neighbor (as in the parable of the Good Samaritan).

But perhaps the most original element of all is seen in the words of institution, where Jesus, faced with the grim reality of his approaching death, spoke of his death as in some sense bringing about the promised new covenant. We have in Jewish thought the idea that through the death or suffering of the righteous divine judgment upon Israel is ended or averted, but the idea that through the shedding of his blood (and here we have an allusion to the language of Exod 24:8) Jesus himself brings about the prophesied new covenant is truly remarkable. This teaching, in combination with the resurrection, is what gave rise to the distinctive essence of the Christian movement.

 

Throwing mountains in the sea (Mark 11.12-26; Isaiah 56)

On Sunday my pastor preached on Mk. 11.12-26. As I listened to his sermon and read through the passage some things about it became more apparent. In this passage Jesus sees a fig tree that has no figs on it because it is out of season. He curses the fig tree and then he goes to the Temple. In the Temple he finds a corrupt economic system has overthrown the intent of the Temple to be “a house of prayer for all the nations” (v. 17). Rather than being a place that welcomes Jews from abroad and Gentiles seeking to learn more about Israel’s God, the Temple has become Wall Street. Jesus creates chaos by overthrowing their tables as well as the place where doves were being sold to the poorer, likely also for a profit.

Once Jesus has completed his judgment on the Temple he walks back outside Jerusalem past the fig tree that he had cursed. It is dead. The disciples note this and it becomes a vivid analogy for what will happen to the Temple which no longer bears the intended fruit.

In v. 23 Jesus says words that used to haunt me when I was a Pentecostal. He says that if one says to “this mountain” (τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ) that it should “Be taken and cast into the sea” and this is done without doubt it will happen. Of course, those influenced by the Word of Faith Movement used this as a proof text that certain “levels” of faith brought various results.

Since no Christian in the history of the church has successfully thrown a mountain into the sea it seemed like a bit of a mute point anyways. Even Jesus didn’t do it. I always assumed that this was hyperbolic, but I think I understand it a bit better now.

In v. 17 when Jesus says that the Temple will be a house of prayer for all the nations he is lifting this from Is. 56.7b where YHWH says of his holy mountain, Zion, “My house will be called a house of prayer for all peoples.” In v. 3 he says that the foreigner that comes to Israel as a proselytite should not feel abandoned by YHWH. Also, the eunuch should not think of himself as “a dry tree” (v. 3b). Israel is to welcome the nations into the Temple to serve the true God.

By the time of Jesus this is exactly what is not happening. Gentiles are not welcome. There are warning signs of their demise if they enter the Temple inappropriately. The money changers are making a profit on anyone who has foreign currency. Gentiles do not feel close to YHWH; they feel like a dry, dying tree.

Yet as Jesus’ actions show it is the Temple official who are the dying tree. They are symbolized by the fig tree whom Jesus cursed. Jesus enacts God’s judgement on Israel’s Temple system because Israel has failed to listen to the words of their God spoken in Is. 56.

What of “this mountain”? I think I first read mention of this interpretation somewhere in the writings of N.T. Wright, but it was likely a half decade ago (maybe The New Testament and the People of  God ?). In Is. 56.7-8 we see that Israel was to bring the nations to the mountain of God where the Temple was to welcome them. Now the Temple prohibits the nations from worshiping Israel’s God.

It is time for the Temple to go.

I think that when Jesus says that the “this mountain” will be tossed into the sea he isn’t speaking of some generic “level of faith = impressive results” concept, but rather it is time to believe that God can do something amazing by removing this mountain where the Temple stands so that it is no longer a barrier to the Gentiles. In other words, Jesus sees Israel ignoring YHWH’s command so he predicts YHWH’s judgement on Israel.

This seems like an imperative for the Gentile mission. As know in 70 AD “this mountain” was devastated and the Temple ceases to exist even to this day. The faith of Jesus has resulted in Israel’s God moving to include the nations without the Temple as part of his plan.

The Apostle Paul’s use of the Book of the Twelve

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a post asking why the Apostle Paul never used the Book of Jonah in support of his argument for the Gentile mission when it would seem that there was no book more qualified to address Israel’s hardened heart toward their neighbors. This led Matt Emerson to write one noting the same thing can be said of important biblical characters like Joseph and Joshua who are never mentioned in the whole of the New Testament! In our exchange in the comments he mentioned another solution that I thought I would post here to see what everyone (or anyone) has to say.

Matt suggested that since the Book of the Twelve was considered a unified whole it may not have crossed his mind to cite Jonah specifically since we have quotations from books like Habakkuk, Hosea, and Joel that are part of the twelve.

I don’t know enough about the Book of the Twelve or how it was used in Second Temple interpretive schemes to know if this is a likely answer or not. Any thoughts?

__________

At this time the best response has been from J. Michael Rios who wrote,

“ I suspect that the answer stems from the interpretation of Jonah, which isn’t primarily about a challenge to mission, but rather about condemnation of Israel’s reticence to fulfill mission. Hence, Paul doesn’t quote it with respect to his Gentile mission because it isn’t a source that bolsters that argument. (See also Jesus’ references to Jonah, which always bear an edge of lurking condemnation.) Hence, if I were looking for Paul to use Jonah in his writings, I would look for passages that condemn (national) Israel’s resistance to the call of the gospel. But since Paul desires, rhetorically, to invite in and not condemn national Israel (e.g., Rom 10:1), this is something he doesn’t do. Hence, no Jonah in Paul.”

Reading Levison’s Filled with the Spirit: Part Two, Chapter One

Levison, Filled with the Spirit

Levison, John R. (2009) Filled with the Spirit. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Several months ago I suspended my reading of Jack Levison’s book Filled with the Spirit (see here). At that juncture I had written a little by way of introduction (see here), as well as some commentary on the prescript to part one (here), chapter one (here), two (here), three (here), and finally the postscript to part one and the prescript to part two (here). After meeting Jack at the recent SBL PNW it seems like a good time to resume.

Why? Because I think this is going to be the most important book on pneumatology for some time. It revisits biblical texts in relation to Second Temple Judaism in a similar way to how E.P. Sanders forced Pauline scholars to rethink their presuppositions.

In chapter one of part two, titled “A Wise and Holy Spirit Within”, Levison examines how the spirit provides wisdom to the scribal vocation as seen in Sirach. He observes that “universal wisdom comes to reside in Israel through the word of Torah (Sirach 24)”. (p. 118) This spirit empowers the scribe to do three important tasks: (1) travel; (2) study of Torah; (3) prayer. (p. 120) In contrast to others who see  pneuma as providing ecstatic speech and prophecy, Sirach sees the role of spirit in the scribe laboring to understand Torah (pp. 121-122)

This leads Levison to understand the spirit in Sirach not as “charismatic endowment” but rather something more or less like a human soul (p. 124). In literature like the Book of Daniel it is the spirit within that is stirred up, not an external spirit that comes from without. (pp. 127-130). In the Damascus Document the “holy spirit” is merely the human spirit (pp. 130-133). In Liber antiquitatum biblicarum of Pseudo-Philo the spirit is essential for life of the human, indicating it is something anthropological (pp. 133-140).

What about outside Jewish literature? Seneca understand the holy spirit as something that “dwells within us, one who marks our good and bad deeds, and is our guardian. As we treat this spirit, so are we treated.” (Moral Epistles, 41.2) (p. 141) This sounds similar to what we today may say of the conscience. The Stoic idea is that the human spirit is part of a greater divine spirit and this maintains life (pp. 141-142).

Once one has read this chapter it seems evident that this literature, including Wisdom of Solomon, some other writings by Philo, and so forth, depict the spirit, and even the holy spirit, as something intrinsic to human existence (often citing Gen. 2.7).

What does this mean for the common understanding of the “holy spirit”? Does this impact Christianity in any way? We will investigate Levison’s views more when we read those chapters covering early Christian literature. In our next entry we will look at part two, chapter two, “Spirit and the Allure of Ecstasy”.

Why didn’t the Apostle Paul cite the Book of Jonah?

I don’t know why it bothers me that the Apostle Paul never cited the Book of Jonah in defense of his Gentile mission, but it does. When I was taking my biblical Hebrew sequence in seminary we chose Jonah for our exegetical exercises. I had to write a couple papers on the book as well as a half dozen translation assignments. By the end of the semester I wrote the following (in “Exegetical Exposition of Jonah 4″, p. 10):

Yet Jonah 4 shows that the problem that Jesus sought to address was already apparent
even before the return from exile. Jonah is the Jews par excellence. He boasts in his relationship with YHWH. He sees himself as loyal to the God of the temple. He even sings Psalms (see Jonah 2) regarding YHWH‟s deliverance and mercy. Yet he refuses to announce to the pagan world that YHWH is a God of mercy and grace for all people

I know the Apostle is fond of using characters are represent Israel (i.e. Adam) so why not use Jonah? Would there have been a better representative of a pious Israelite who missed the point? Couldn’t he have slipped a metalepsis into Rom. 9-11 somewhere?!

I guess there is no way to answer this question, but it is one I have had for a long time. Thoughts? 

If the Book of Job were a drama and the Book of Jonah a parable

If the Book of Job were merely some form of ancient drama (i.e. there was no historical figure named Job who went through what the story tells us), and/or if the Book of Jonah were merely a parable with the prophet Jonah (a real historical person used as an icon) merely representing Israel’s incredulity toward their calling to spread the Abrahamic promises to the Gentiles, do you think this would change how you read and interpret these stories? In other words, do you need them to be grounded in actual events for the text to make the same impact on you or do you find the “moral of the story” is the same either way?

Smoke that rises forever (Isaiah 34.9-10 and Revelation 14.10-11)

The other day I was reading through the Book of Isaiah when I came to 34.9-10 where the prophet tells of the judgment to come upon Edom. It says, “Its streams will be turned into pitch, and its loose earth into brimstone, and its land will become a burning pitch. It will not be quenched night or day; its smoke will go up forever. From generation to generation it will be desolate; none will pass through it forever.”

What we have here is elevated speech. The prophet’s rhetoric means “utter destruction”, but the words, if read hyper-literally, indicate that this is something that maybe should be going even today. Well, the land that was Edom is currently under the rule of the nation of Jordan. After this prophecy it does appear that the area has been inhabited by people here and there. Therefore, it is best to not over-read this text.

Then I read a post yesterday by Justin Taylor (read here) quoting Moses Stuart indicating that when Scripture speaks of something as being forever it must be forever. If hell is said to be forever and heaven forever, yet we say hell is temporal in some way, then heaven must be temporal in some way as well. This is not the argument that concerns me (there seems to be decent reason for such an assertion). Rather, I was taken back by the assertion that the lexical meaning of biblical words for forever must means “forever” as we ponder it.

In the LXX translates לעולם as αἰῶνα χρόνον which can be translated into English as “forever”, but it can also convey a very long time. Even if we choose “forever” it is apparent from this text in 34.9-10, and history, that the lexical definition should not be narrowed too much.

What is interesting is how much this text sounds like Rev. 14.10-11 which says of the fiery punishment of the wicked that it will last εἰς αἰῶνας αἰώνων. This does seem to intensify things a bit, but the imagery is still very similar. Both passages speak of the smoke rising and the fire burning “night and day/day and night” (νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας in Is. 34.10 and ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός in Rev. 14.11).

Now I am not saying that because Is. 34.9-10 uses exalted language that in reality proved to be a temporal punishment that we should transfer this to Rev. 14.10-11, especially because the latter passage has the important qualifier that it is the smoke “of their torment” (ὁ καπνὸς τοῦ βασανισμοῦ αὐτῶν). What must be debated here is whether or not the “smoke of their torment” going up forever means their torment happens forever. I do not know.

What is important is that we must be careful when making proposals like Taylor made that seem to indicate “forever” always means “forever” as we understand the word. I am not saying it does, nor am I saying it does not. I think we must proceed with a bit more caution.

What do you think? Is there a conceptual connection between these two passages? Is the imagery intended to convey something that lexical definitions alone cannot convey? What about biblical words for “forever”? What hermeneutical principles would you apply to determine if the text means for a long, long time or literally “forever”?

 

Blogging the Book of Isaiah: The circle of the earth? Well, not quite. (40.22)

When I was in college I read a lot of apologetics. There was some benefit to this, but most of the arguments that I found convincing almost a decade ago have proven to be much too simplistic. One example would be the use of Is. 40.22 as a proof-text for Scripture’s scientific accuracy.

Many English translations render this passage, “It is he that sits on the circle of the earth…”. The “he” being YHWH God. Overzealous defenders of the accuracy of Scripture quickly noted that this shows the author knew something about the planet that modern science confirms: it is a sphere!

But is that what this text says? Well, not quite.

The text translated “above/upon the circle of the earth” is עַל-חוּג הָאָרֶץ. Yes, חוּג has the idea of a spherical shape to some extent, but not like we may think. Rather, it would be more like a dome above. One could even say the “circle” of the horizon. We would do well to read this text while visualizing how ancient Hebrews formulated their cosmology. This picture provides a helpful visual:

What we have here is not so much a sphere like we see of earth in satellite pictures, but rather a dome above where God dwells. God dwells in the highest heavens. He reigns above the earth.

I don’t mention this to discredit Scripture. First of all, Scripture isn’t a scientific text book. It does not seem that at any point God felt obligated to have a scientific apocalypse. God saved his ultimate break-through with humanity for the resurrection.

Second, Hebrew cosmology is phenomenological. For example, I speak of the sun rising and setting. It does neither. The earth circles around the sun spinning the whole time causing there to be certain times when from certain places the sun shines on the earth. If we hold the language of Scripture to scientific language (which we don’t even use in our modern scientific society in day-to-day conversations) then Scripture will be in trouble. If we hear Scripture as it is meant to be heard, i.e. God is above all and transcendent over creation, then we don’t have any problems.

So what is it about the apologetical use of this passage that bothers me? Well, it holds Scripture to the same foreign standard and misguided hermeneutic of its critics. The way to answer criticism of Scripture’s scientific “inaccuracy” (for lack of a better term) is not to try to show where it does cooperate with modern science, but to point out it is not using language that way and it is not having the same conversation that modern science is having anymore than you are when you sit next to someone and say, “Wow, that was a beautiful sunset. Our Creator is amazing!”

 

Blogging the Book of Isaiah: Authorship

Most biblical scholars do not affirm that the entire Book of Isaiah was written by the prophet Isaiah who lived at the end of the eighth and beginning of the seventh century B.C. I am one of those traditionalist that finds the arguments against a unified authorship unconvincing and therefore willing to assume the claims of tradition. At the end of the day it is the canonical standing of the book that really matters, but I find a unified authorship has less theological problems and no less historical problems.

Bryan E. Beyer does a good job of presenting both sides of the debate in Encountering the Book of Isaiah: A Historical and Theological Survey (153-161):

Multiple-authors:

(1) Time span: Is. 1-39 cover Judah’s troubles with Assyria while 40-66 focus upon Babylon. It would appear that whoever wrote 40-66 did not share the immediate concerns of whoever wrote 1-39. Whoever wrote the second part was around during Babylon’s empire.

(2) Subject matter: Also, in 40-48 King Cyrus of Persia is mentioned by name a couple of centuries before he came to power. This seems unlikely and the more natural explanation would be that the author was a contemporary of those events. It is rare for biblical prophecy to be that precise.

(3)  Vocabulary and style: The author of 1-39 wrote a lot of narrative, many oracles, and some poetic passages, but none that were as detailed and rich as 40-66. The tune has changed as well. In 1-39 it is a bit pessimistic, while 40-66 are uplifting and hopeful.

There is no arguing against the fact that it is more logical that someone would have been in Babylon, watching the rise of Cyrus of Persia, who was a more poetic writer addressing a more hopeful time. It is not absurd to hold to multiple authors and there are even many evangelicals who do. I do not and I think Beyer’s reasons for singular authorship are convincing.

Singular author:

(1) Predictive prophecy: Of course, if God sees the future it is altogether possible that he could have told the prophet about Cyrus and the eventual fall of Babylon. In chapter thirty-nine we have Isaiah predicting Babylon’s rise at a time when Assyria was still the dominant power in the Near and Middle East.

(2) Different subject matter: There is nothing preventing the prophet Isaiah from finishing his own book on a hopeful note. There is no reason that he could not have written such amazing poetry and why couldn’t he have been the one to have these visions? It does seem odd, as Beyer notes, that if there is another author of 40-66 he disappears into history unknown while the lesser skilled prophet remains a prominent historical figure.

(3) Different vocabulary and style: Again, if the context of what Isaiah is addressing has changed, and he wants to end his own work with hopeful visions of the future, why could he not have written differently?

(4) Lack of chronological order: As I mentioned in my post a few days ago (see here) the chronological order of chapters 36-39 doesn’t match the literary order. It seems that Isaiah intentionally told a story about Babylon after telling some stories that happened later because he intended to tie it into 40-66′s address of Babylon’s future. Beyer notes at 2 Kings 18-20 does this very same thing even though it tends to go along a strict chronology when possible. He even argues that the author of 2 Kings 18-20 may have had access to Is. 36-39.

(5) Textual evidence: There has never, ever, ever been a transcript of the Book of Isaiah either lacking 40-66 or hinting that 1-39 and 40-66 were two books. Singular authorship has been assumed by Jews and Christians until the last two hundred years.

(6) NT quotations: There are several quotations in the NT that come from 40-66 that mention Isaiah as the author, e.g.:
- Is. 40.3 in Mt. 3.3
- Is. 40.3-5 in Lk. 3.4-6
- Is. 42.1-4 in Mt. 12.17-21
- Is. 53.1 in Jn 12.38
- Is. 53.4 in Mt. 8.17
- Is 65.1-2 in Rom. 10.20-21

Honestly, this often comes down to various premises related to Isaiah’s vision of Cyrus in my opinion. I am not saying this is the only motive for denying singular authorship, but likely the first and foremost. Of course, if you believe in a future seeing God then why couldn’t Cyrus be mentioned by name? Also, if you do not believe in a future seeing God that could name Cyrus what hope do we have that any of the visions of the new heaven and new earth in the age to come are of any worth?

Blogging the Book of Isaiah: Further thoughts on King Hezekiah

Who wouldn't be relieved to avoid Assyrian invasion?!

Earlier this morning (see here) I wrote about my befuddlement regarding YHWH God answering King Hezekiah’s plea to extend his life since it was during those additional fifteen years that his legacy would be tainted because he showed delegates from Babylon all his riches which eventually led to Babylon deciding to invade Judah after Hezekiah’s death (39.1-8). Bryan E. Beyer (Encountering the Book of Isaiah: A Historical and Theological Survey, 142-152) has provided a possible scenario that would make better sense of it. What if the prophet’s literary point is not written chronologically?

Beyer proposes that the events of 39.1-8 occurred before 38.1-22. In 39.1-8 the delegation is from the Babylonian king Merodach-Baladan seeking a political alliance with Hezekiah against Sennacherib of Assyria. Hezekiah becomes a bit arrogant as a host to Babylon’s delegates which provides Babylon with the insight they would use later to conquer Judea when Hezekiah’s son Manasseh is king. This makes more sense of Hezekiah’s prayer of relief in 39.8 that there would be peace in his day—that means Assyria would not win.

Assyria likely had already begun putting pressure on Hezekiah at this point and the prophet’s words that it would be Babylon in the days of his descendants that would conquer Judah was guarantee Assyria would not be victorious.

This may be the cause of Hezekiah’s boldness to go before YHWH in 37.14-20?

I wonder what the prophet’s literary motives may have been in reversing these stories? Thoughts?