Category: Biblical Studies

In the Box: New Titles from InterVarsity Press

~ Bob Hayton ~ Leave a comment

“In the Box” posts highlight new books I’ve received in the mail.

In this post, I want to showcase a few of the titles that arrived at my doorstep in the last few weeks. I’m truly blessed to be able to read so many great books, and Christian publishers seem to never let up in their race to get high quality materials out the door. We are truly blessed with an abundance of Christian resources to help us in our walk with Christ.

The Messiah Comes to Middle Earth: Images of Christ’s Threefold Office in the Lord of the Rings by Philip Ryken (IVP)

This book promises to be a treat to read. I devoured The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien in my youth, and as I’ve aged I’ve only grown more appreciative of the rich literary treasure that Tolkien crafted. There is much that is Christian in LOTR, but it resists simple moralistic or allegorical analyses. Philip Ryken follows Peter Kreeft and others in seeing images of Christ in a wide range of LOTR characters, and in this book, he focuses on three “Christ figures:” Gandalf, Frodo and Aragorn.

For more about this book, visit this link to learn more about the Wheaton College lecture series that birthed it, or check out the book’s product page at Amazon, Christianbook.com or InterVarsity Press.

Old Testament Theology for Christians: From Ancient Context to Enduring Belief by John H. Walton (IVP)

I first encountered John Walton through his sensational book The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Since then I have read most of his Lost World books, as well as his contributions to other books, and his influential Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (which I reviewed here).  Walton has helped me greatly as I’ve navigated the waters of Ancient Near Eastern parallels with the Bible, and I appreciate his careful and confessional approach. This book looks to be his effort to apply his lifelong academic study for the benefit of the average evangelical church goer. I’m definitely looking forward to this work.

To learn more about this book, check out the book’s product page at Amazon, Christianbook.com or InterVarsity Press.

“Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament” by John H. Walton

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

I just finished poring over John Walton’s masterful book, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible. He offers a thorough comparison between Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) thought and literature, and the Bible. His main thesis is that the early Hebrew receivers of the Old Testament text were people of their day. They shared a “common cognitive environment” with that of the Egyptians, Sumerians, Assyrians and Hittites around them. However, they had a key difference. In Walton’s words: “Israel had its covenant with its one God, Yahweh, who spoke through his covenant and the prophets, who were its guardians and champions” (p. 332).

Many conservative Bible students today are leery of these conclusions. They are concerned that the Bible’s uniqueness be preserved and they are wary of modern scholarship’s consensus that there was borrowing from other ANE literature (such as the Flood story in Gilgamesh and elsewhere). Walton speaks to this concern by painstakingly showing what difference the Bible actually communicates against the backdrop of other ANE thought-systems. As an example, take the creation of humanity. In the Bible, people were created not on a whim by indifferent rival deities, but by a loving God. But the fact that people were created in the image of God is important, as that concept was universally understood by the ancients, and often expressed using similar words to what the Hebrew record contains. Walton explains: “Across the ancient world, the image of God did the work of God on the earth” (p. 212). Function and purpose more so than ontology or anthropology is in view.

Other examples of shared ANE ideas include:

  • Cosmology: A fixed earth (on pillars), surrounded by water and high mountains with a hard dome above (the sky) separating the waters above from the waters below. It is through windows or gates in this “firm”-ament, that rain falls to earth. God sits above the dome – in the sphere above the earth. The sun and moon rotate around the earth, and the stars are etched on the bottom of the dome and rotate in cycles.
  • A divine council: Yahweh’s council is not of equal gods clamoring for a vote, He is the Actor; but He is pictured with a council in several passages, likely due to the shared ideas about a divine council. The Bible’s picture of Yahweh’s council speaks directly to ANE thought, offering a contrast in how Yahweh rules.
  • Prophecy and pronouncements of doom or blessing: The prophets of the Bible find numerous parallels in the ancient world – yet true prediction and the central role of the covenant to Israel’s experience, are unique.
  • Teaching through compiling lists of similar subjects: The Bible has much that modern reader find repetitious – but this was a characteristic of ANE literature. Keeping lists of judicial decisions (also referred to as law codes), and other lists of wisdom sayings, etc., was a common teaching tool.
  • Proverbs and wisdom literature: ANE thought abounds with proverbs and wise sayings, many of which are eerily similar to what one finds in the Bible’s book of Proverbs. The book of Job, while often seeming strange to modern readers, is an example of standard genre of literature in the near east: a theodicy. Unlike ANE theodicies, however, the central figure does not ultimately find a capricious god who has no innate claims to being just. Yahweh vindicates his actions, and the reader can see there is a purpose behind Job’s pain.

I am sure to be over-simplifying the matter in some of my examples above. (The book goes into so much more detail on each of these points, and many besides). At times, all of this can be overwhelming. This is a text-book, after all; and as such space is devoted to a detailed description of all the major surviving ANE bodies of literature! But the sidebars (which compare the Bible’s approach on various subjects with ANE thought), the careful arrangement of material, and the extensive index all make the book more useful as a resource, and more accessible to the average Joe.

Many of Walton’s conclusions warrant good hard thinking, and I don’t imagine everyone will follow him on all points. But his approach will change the way you think about certain passages of Scripture. I found many of his insights to be incredibly helpful. His discussion on Joshua 10 and the “sun standing still” highlights the role of apposition (a full moon appearing in the sky before the sun sets) as a “good omen” in ANE thought. He also argues (as he does in The Lost World of Genesis One) that when it comes to creation, the ancients thought in terms of function, name and purpose, rather than on the “substance” or physical/scientific “existence” which is our primary concern. This leads him to notice how the light created in day 1 is called “yom” (normally translated as “day” throughout Genesis 1). He contends the creation of the “stuff” of light (its physical makeup) is likely not in view — instead the creation of time, or periods of time, is what would be important to ANE readers.

Another example is his discussion of Jeremiah 31:33 and the idea of the Torah being “written on the heart.” He points out that what may very well be in view here is the common practice of looking for omens by reading the internal organs of a slaughtered animal — this practice is known as extispicy. Unlike some passages in the OT that have individuals writing something down on their heart (where memory and mnemonic learning is likely implied), in Jeremiah it is Yahweh writing the law on Israel’s heart. The terms used are similar to those used in ANE passages about extispicy. A fuller excerpt may both illustrate Walton’s style and help us understand this particular point:

The revelation that is sought out in extispicy proceedings is for guidance in major decisions and understanding of the intentions and will of deity. If Yahweh were writing the torah on the heart of Israel, he would be providing the same sort of guidance…. how does having the torah written on the heart differ from having it written on stone tablets? If the metaphor is from the world of extispicy, the text indicates that with God’s instructions/law written on the heart of his people, there would be no need for continuing guidance to teach God’s law [editor note: see Jer. 31:34]…. God would be known through his people who would be living out the law faithfully. People with the law written on their heart become a medium of communication [emphasis original]. Writing on the heart replaces not the law, but the teaching of the law. The law on stone had to be taught and could be ignored. The law on the heart represents a medium of modeling, in which case it is not being ignored. In this interpretation of the metaphor, then, the heart is a medium, not a repository. The metaphor would be one of revelation, not of memory. (p. 258)

So in light of the preceding, does the Bible borrow from ANE literature? Is it just another old book that happened to survive? Walton’s answer would be no. He repeatedly points out that it is the “common cognitive environment” that is shared by the Bible and other ANE works of literature. There is no direct borrowing, and the complexities of how different ideas influenced different cultures cannot easily be traced. What is clear is that the OT confronts ANE culture even as it borrows much from that cognitive environment. It traces out clear lines of discontinuity with the culture of its day, yet does not purport to update the thinking of ancients when it comes to science, ontology and sociology. Instead, the Bible reveals Yahweh and His covenant to Israel and calls Israel to live distinctly in their own culture.

This question of ANE influence on the Bible is a point of contention in today’s world. Walton will equip you to face the question dead-on and come away with an even greater appreciation for just what the Bible has to offer. Being aware of what type of literature forms the Old Testament’s cognitive background can help us approach the text with more understanding. I greatly benefited from this book, and recommend it highly to any who teach or preach from the Old Testament.

Where to Buy:

Charles E. Hill on Developments in New Testament Textual Criticism

~ Bob Hayton ~ Leave a comment

A common assumption among critics of Christianity is that the New Testament was standardized after a long period of textual flux. Only by the fourth century A.D., it is argued, were the competing texts consolidated into standard recensions that became the Alexandrian text and later the Byzantine text. This two to three hundred year period of textual flux gives skeptics room to assume that along with the text, received doctrines such as the deity of Christ and the role of subsitutionary atonement  were also only lately agreed upon.

While there had been textual evidence that seemed to suggest great textual fluidity in the first two centuries after Christ, the more we study the early NT papyrii (over 60 significant portions of NT manuscripts that date from the apx. A.D. 125 to the 400s) the shorter any period of textual flux becomes. Last year, Dr. Charles E. Hill delivered the Spring academic lecture at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando on the topic of the early development of the New Testament text. And his lecture which is available online, does much to clear up this question (see the lecture description here). In 53 minutes (he begins at the 6 minute mark) he gives an overview of the history of textual criticism and details how the scholastic consensus from textual critics familiar with the evidence has shifted in the last few decades. The takeaway from his lecture is that the New Testament text is much more solid than skeptics would have us believe.

If you are interested in textual debates, the new atheism, or textual criticism, this lecture will be informative. Even for those who may be majority text proponents, the recounting of the current state of textual criticism today will prove instructive. Hill is the John R. Richardson Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Reformed Theological Seminary Orlando, and has graduate degrees from Westminster Theological Seminary California (M.Div.) and the University of Cambridge (Ph.D.). He is the author of several books, and was co-editor and contributor to The Early Text of the New Testament (Oxford University Press, 2012).

“The Resurrection Fact: Responding to Modern Critics” edited by John Bombaro & Adam Francisco

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

The Resurrection Fact: Responding to Modern Critics by John Bombaro & Adam FranciscoSpring is in the air. The days are getting longer. Green grass and the hint of leaves on the trees — and is that a flower blooming already?

With the season comes one special holiday: Easter. This is the time that Western culture dedicates to the special remembrance of bunnies and Easter eggs, candies and chocolates — oh, and jelly beans. But once upon a time, we used to remember the real meaning of Easter.

Jesus Christ, his betrayal and mournful death on Good Friday, followed by the brightness of Resurrection Sunday. “He is risen! He is risen indeed!” once sounded on many lips. Sadly the only time we have for Christ now is a documentary or two rehashing old denials of the empty tomb. A religious expert and scholar spins a witty yarn about how gullible people were back in the dark ages. We enlightened people don’t need a Risen savior now. The empty tomb was a mistake, and Jesus’ corpse must have lain somewhere else – forsaken and neglected until years later, imaginations ran wild…

It is to this sad modern state of affairs, that Christians in the West are called to minister. We are to upend the malaise and awaken the sleepy populace with the wonder of the Risen Son of God.

A new book from New Reformation Publications, and the 1517 Legacy Project, aims to help us in this daunting task. In The Resurrection Fact: Responding to Modern Critics, John J. Bombaro and Adam S. Francisco bring together an intriguing mix of Lutheran churchmen, theologians, and experts in philosophy and legal practice to tackle modern criticism of the resurrection head on.

The centrality of the resurrection for Christian faith and practice is underscored, even as attempts to downplay the importance of the bodily resurrection are countered. Specific arguments by Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Michael Martin, Robert Price, Dale Allison, Gerd Lüdemann and others are addressed and several lists of additional resources are shared with the reader. The result is an accessible introduction to the debate surrounding the resurrection.

At times the book is a bit repetitive: several of the contributors treat us to the same explanation of David Hume’s influence behind the bias toward antisupernaturalism so prevalent today. Occasionally, there seemed to be an over-dependence on secondary sources and a tendency to summarize rather than quote the arguments of the critic being addressed. There was even a wholesale borrowing of significant parts of N.T. Wright’s research on the resurrection, particularly evident in the chapter by Jonathan Mumme in his critique of Dale Allison. Wright’s work (specifically his book The Resurrection of the Son of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 3, Fortress Press, 2003) is credited and pertinent to the discussion for sure, but perhaps overly relied on in the space of one chapter. Wright is second only to C.S. Lewis in the number of references found in the book’s index.

Quibbles aside, this is a sound book with a wealth of information and excellent references for further research. Many readers may encounter this book without much exposure to the arguments being raised against the historicity of Christ’s bodily resurrection. This book will educate and equip the reader to stand firm in an age of unbelief. Another helpful theme throughout the book is the idea of myth not being simplistically dismissed as the opposite of rational fact. To the contrary, Christianity is both myth and fact. This idea expounded by C.S. Lewis, Tolkien and Chesterton, can be helpful in responding to attempts to classify Christianity as just a myth, no different from other ancient belief systems.

For more information on this helpful book, check out a podcast interview with one of the editors, John Bombaro, or check out other reviews of this new book.

Consider picking up the book at Amazon, or direct through New Reformation Publications.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by the publisher for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

R. Albert Mohler & C. John Collins Debate: Does Scripture Speak Definitively on the Age of the Universe?

~ Bob Hayton ~ Leave a comment

I came across a recent debate that R. Albert Mohler and C. John Collins had at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School on the topic: “Does Scripture Speak Definitively on the Age of the Universe?” Here is a link to the video of the debate.

The 2 hour long debate is worth watching, particularly the contributions of C. John “Jack” Collins, OT professor at Covenant Theological Seminary (St. Louis, MO). Skip the first 10 minutes of the video, which is just preliminary info about the debate programs at TEDS).  Collins’ presentation starts at 47:43 on the video.

Listening to the whole thing, I thought that Mohler’s presentation argued more from a theological standpoint — staying in the tradition of Christian thought down through the ages, and alarmed at the potential slippery slope that allowing for an old earth presents. He marshals Scriptural arguments but not in a cogent and forceful manner. Most of the observations Jack Collins gives are agreed to in principal by Mohler but then they are just not enough to push him out of a literal 24 hour day/young earth view.

Collins is no friend of evolutionary creationism (or Biologos). He comes off every bit the conservative churchman he is, as a subscriber to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Yet Collins takes pains to read the text in a way the Text wants to be read. He doesn’t twist the meaning of “day” but sees the days as an analogy and thus not meant to be taken literally. He argues compellingly that the Scripture does not aim to speak definitively on the age of the universe or the age of the earth.  I found his presentation winsome and very carefully laid out. The debate bogged down at the end with Mohler taking most of the time and some important points being skipped for lack of time.

Collins’ emphasis on precision of language and his overall thoughts about the science and faith debate refreshing. Here is a faithful scholar who is thinking deeply on this matter and offering some helpful thoughts. This debate spurred me to pick up my copy of his Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Care. The book is excellent and I hope to search out other materials Dr. Collins has written on this overall topic.