Tag: scholarship

“Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd Ed.)” by Emanuel Tov

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Book Details:
  • Author: Emanuel Tov
  • Category: Academic, Biblical Language
  • Publisher: Fortress Press (2012)
  • Format: hardcover
  • Page Count: 512
  • ISBN#: 9780800696641
  • List Price: $90.00
  • Rating: Recommended

Review:
Reading Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible by Emanuel Tov was both a joy and a challenge. I thoroughly enjoyed immersing myself in the world of the Hebrew Bible. Ancient manuscripts, Dead Sea Scroll finds, ancient versions, textual variants — all of these things stir the Bible-geek in me. At the same time, the state of current scholarship with regard to the Old Testament text can be a bit troubling to an evangelical Christian. While the New Testament stands affirmed by numerous manuscript discoveries to the extent that almost all textual critics can agree on the vast majority of the minute details of the text, the same cannot be said for the Hebrew Old Testament.

Emanuel Tov takes readers of all scholastic levels by the hand as he surveys the field of Old Testament textual criticism. This third edition of his classic textbook, explains things for the novice and scholar alike. Careful footnotes and innumerable bibliographic entries will impress the scholar, while charts, graphs and numerous glossaries keep the would-be scholar feeling like he is getting somewhere. I have no problem admitting that I am one of the would-be scholars, with barely a year of Hebrew under my belt. Yet I was able to work my way through this book, becoming sharper in my Hebrew and awakening to the many facets of the intriguing study of OT textual criticism.

Tov has departed from a more traditional stance in his earlier versions, opting instead to follow the evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls and contemporary studies. He manages to keep away from a fatal skepticism, however, arguing that textual evaluation still has merit. The aim is still to recover the earliest possible text, but the recognition that there are often two or three competing literary editions of the text complicate the matter. An example would be the different editions of Jeremiah, with the Septuagint (LXX) Greek version differing drastically from the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT). 1 Samuel provides another example with a Dead Sea Scroll offering perhaps a third different competing literary edition. Tov points out the two very different versions of the story of David and Goliath and Hannah’s prayer as he expounds on the problem.

Rather than trying to solve each exegetical or specific textual problem, Tov aims to illustrate the challenges facing the would-be textual critic. He surveys the textual data, and reconstructs the history of the text – giving more attention to the accidents of history, such as the destruction of the Jewish state in A.D. 70, as weighing into the nature of the textual evidence we have. Rather than the Masoretic Text gradually gaining dominance, it was the de facto winner of the “text wars”. The LXX-style Hebrew texts (which the Dead Sea Scrolls and other finds have confirmed existed), were ignored by the Jews as Christianity had owned the LXX as its own. The Samaritans had their version of the Pentateuch, and the existence of a variety of other text forms, such as those found at Qumran (the DSS) were forgotten with the cessation of a normal state of existence for Jewish people. The Masoretic text found itself with little real competition and over the years came to be further refined and stable. I should clarify here, that this is not to downplay the Masoretic text, as it manifestly preserves very ancient readings, and Tov repeatedly affirms the remarkable tenacity of the MT. Instead, Tov is saying that the majority position the MT holds among the textual evidence and in the minds of the Jewish communities in the last 1800 years should not prejudice the scholar to consistently prefer MT readings. Tov in fact claims that text types, such as are commonly discussed in NT textual criticism, are largely irrelevant in dealing with the OT text. Internal considerations are key in textual evaluation. I will let Tov explain further:

Therefore, it is the choice of the most contextually appropriate reading that is the main task of the textual critic…. This procedure is as subjective as can be. Common sense, rather than textual theories, is the main guide, although abstract rules are sometimes also helpful. (pg. 280)

Tov’s textbook goes into glorious detail concerning all the orthographic features that make up paleo-Hebraic script, and the square Hebrew script we are familiar with. His knowledge is encyclopedic, to say the least. The numerous images of manuscripts that are included in the back of the book are invaluable. His discussion on the orthographic details of the text should convince even the most diehard traditionalists, that the vowel points and many of the accents were later additions to the text, inserted by the Masoretes. Some still defend the inspiration of the vowel points, but Tov’s explanation of numerous textual variants that flow from both a lack of vowel points and from the originality of paleo-Hebraic script (and the long development of the language and gradual changes in the alphabet, and etc.) close the door against such stick-in-the-mud thinking.

Tov’s book details the pros and cons of different Hebrew texts, as well as discussing electronic resources and new developments in the study of textual criticism. His work is immensely valuable to anyone interested in learning about textual criticism, and of course is required for any textual scholars seeking to do work in this field.

Tov doesn’t add a theology to his textual manual, however. And this is what is needed to navigate OT textual criticism. After having read Tov, I’m interested in seeing some of the better evangelical treatments of the textual problems of the Hebrew Bible. I believe we have nothing to fear in facing textual problems head on. Seeing different literary editions of the text can fill out our understanding of the underlying theology of the Bible as we have it. Some of the work of John H. Sailhamer illustrates this judicious use of contemporary scholarship concerning the literary strata of the text.

Tov’s book is not law, and he sufficiently qualifies his judgments. He stresses that textual criticism, especially for the Old Testament, is inherently subjective. It is an art. And those who don’t recognize that, are especially prone to error in this field. This book equips the student to exercise this art in the best possible way. Tov walks the reader through evaluating competing textual variants, and his study will furnish the careful reader with all the tools to develop their own approach to the text. Tov’s findings won’t erode the foundations of orthodox theology. I contend that they will strengthen it. As with NT textual criticism, paying attention to the textual details has unlooked-for and happy consequences. It strengthens exegesis, and allows for a greater insight into the meaning of the text. And it can build one’s faith.

Bible-geeks, aspiring scholars, teachers and students alike will benefit from this book. Understanding the current state of OT textual criticism puts many of the NT textual debates into perspective. Christians don’t know their Old Testaments well enough, and studying the text to this level is rare indeed. I encourage you to consider adding this book to your shelf, and making it a priority to think through the challenges surrounding the text of the Hebrew Bible.

Author Info:
Emanuel Tov is J. L. Magnes Professor of Bible at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and Editor-in-Chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls Publication Project. Among his many publications is The Greek and Hebrew Bible-Collected Essays on the Septuagint (1999).

Where to Buy:
  • Christianbook.com
  • Amazon
  • direct from Fortress Press.

Disclaimer:
Disclaimer: This book was provided by Fortress Press. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

The Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism Refutes a King James Onlyist

~ Bob Hayton

I guess this shouldn’t be too much of a surprise. The Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism refutes Thomas Holland, a King James Onlyist. But the fact that a scholarly journal took the time to interact with Holland’s attempts at scholarship is actually quite surprising. But I’m very glad they did.

Jan Krans, lecturer in NT at VU University in Amsterdam, is an expert on Erasmus’ translation work. He has written a book with the intriguing title Beyond What Is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament (Brill, 2006) (the book is available online through archive.org). So Krans knows what he is talking about as he discusses Holland’s claim that Erasmus really didn’t translate the last six verses of Revelation directly from the Latin into Greek.

Here is the abstract of Krans’ article:

With Thomas Holland’s lengthy discussion of a reading in Rev 22:19 as an example, this article shows how Holland’s way of doing New Testament textual criticism falls short on all academic standards. With respect to the main issue, Erasmus’ retranslation of the final verses of Revelation, Holland fails to properly find, address and evaluate both primary and secondary sources.

Krans systematically dismantles Holland’s reasoning and exposes his lack of careful scholarship. For anyone who is familiar with King James Onlyism, this paper will be an insightful read. Those who claim perfection for the Textus Receptus have to grapple with the last six verses of Revelation, and the many errors introduced to the text by Erasmus that have never been corrected.

I share a bit more about this paper over at my team blog, KJVOnlyDebate.com. But you’ll want to read the article for yourself. I’m interested in anyone’s thoughts on this. Please interact in the comments.

“Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings” by James Payton Jr.

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

The title of a new book by James Payton is sure to raise some eyebrows: Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings. This new book from Inter-Varsity Press does more than merely challenge long held assumptions. In 272 short pages, it provides a comprehensive and accessible overview of the Protestant Reformation.

As someone who looks favorably on Reformed theology, I was somewhat skeptical going into this book. But Payton’s calm and careful approach won me over. He adds meat to the skeletal concepts many have of the Reformation. And along the way upholds the basic Protestant view that the Reformation was a good thing. He does correct some misunderstandings, however. He gives a lesson in Church history to challenge conservative, evangelical Protestants in some needed ways.

The book starts out with an explanation of how the study of history has advanced over the years. Historians are consciously aware of their self prejudices today, as they attempt to uncover what actually happened in the past. In the past, authors often erred in trying to see past eras too much through the lenses of their current age, or else they mistakenly thought pure objectivity was attainable through modernistic rationalism. Payton shows how the initial studies of the Reformation had some clear deficiencies, even though many of the findings from that era of scholarship are still parroted in many circles, both in the church and in the classroom, today. He aims to bring fresh discoveries from decades of research into the original documents of the period to light, and set the record straight while holding up contemporary views of the Reformation to close scrutiny.

He goes on to give a masterful treatment of the medieval background to the Reformation, as well as the connection it has with the Renaissance. He shows how from all quarters in the church, a strong call for reform was raised in the years preceding the Reformation. Reformatio in capite et membris — “reform in head and members” was the clarion call. This was hastened along by the dreadful scourge of the bubonic plague and how the clergy often would desert their posts in fear of the coming devastation. In his discussion of the Renaissance, he disproves a widely held notion that the Renaissance was a human-centered movement for reform, whereas the Reformation was God-centered. This myth comes from a misunderstanding of the term “humanism” when referring to the movement to study the classic literature of ages past as the best way to learn helpful lessons for the problems of the day. In part this was a reaction to the medieval scholasticism which emphasized philosophy to the neglect of more practical sciences. Humanism was the birth of liberal arts studies. But like everything else in Europe in the 14 and 1500s, it was very much compatible with deep-seated religious faith. In fact the Reformation very much grew out of this renewed zeal for studying the humanities, as Payton explains:

By the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, all but one of the more than thirty Protestant religious leaders in the Lutheran camp had been trained in northern Christian humanism. Similarly, all those who became leaders in the nascent Reformed movement (following Zwingli in Zurich, Bucer in Strasbourg, and Oecolampadius in Basel) had been devoted adherents of the northern Renaissance. It is no exaggeration to state that, aside from Luther himself, the leadership of the Reformation was in the hands of northern Christian humanists. (pg. 70)

Payton next explains the rise of the Reformation focusing on Luther. He dispels the myth that Luther’s theology was fully developed when he nailed the 95 Theses on the Wittenburg Church door. He shows how Luther and what became his movement, was carried along by numerous misunderstandings. People saw what they wanted to in Luther. And Luther was growing in his own understandings too. Luther was backed as a hero by discontent peasants, many of whom rebelled in a lawless, bloody riot. He was backed by princes and land-owners who saw his views as a way to gain autonomy and ascendancy. All of this was used in God’s providence to spur on the growth of the Reformation movement and give it freedom to grow until it was too large to stop.

Many aspects of life in the 1500s are brought to life through Payton’s book. Particularly important is his discussion of the peculiar challenges to life in medieval cities. Luther’s distance from city life may have influenced his strong law-gospel antithesis and emphasis on the two distinct kingdoms of Church and State. The Law shouldn’t impact life in the State. But other early reformers, such as Zwingli, Bucer and Oecolampadius “laid heavy emphasis on the transformation of society; social ethics was a prime consideration for them” because they were each leading pastors of a struggling city (pg. 106). Another aspect he illuminates is scholastic thought, in which various theologians (and Luther held the privileged Doctor of Theology degree) would build a coherent logical system of thought from one principle idea. Luther did this with justification by faith, and this primary idea influenced his view of law and the two-kingdom approach to society. It also slowed his pace of reform, as he was reluctant to go on to more conforming of church practice to Scripture until everyone thoroughly absorbed the first principle of grace.

After explaining how the early Reformers had various conflicts which kept them apart, the book goes on to challenge popular misconceptions of the Reformation ideas of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. He explains how faith was lauded as the sole ground of our justification. The Reformers were unified in this tenant, which is still the predominant Protestant view today. He points out how the Reformers also insisted that faith always is accompanied by works, however. He offers several substantiating quotes, but this one by Zwingli from his book An Exposition of the Faith (1530) is my favorite: “Where there is true faith, works necessarily result, just as fire necessarily brings with it heat.” In discussing this point, Payton takes on a widespread problem in the evangelical church today. Payton explains:

This notion of solitary faith nonetheless has led many pastors and evangelists to call their hearers… to be sure they can recount the date and the hour when.. they “prayed the sinner’s prayer’ and thus were eternally saved, no matter what they might do in the rest of their lives. This calls people to rely on a spiritual birth certificate to know they are alive; the Reformers called them to live…. Justification sola fide has nothing to do with a call to such solitary faith. This is one of the most glaring and striking ways of getting the Reformation wrong. For the Reformers, justification is by faith alone, but faith is never alone. (pg. 131)

The misconception Payton attacks regarding Sola Scriptura centers on: “A simplistic ‘Scripture good, tradition bad’ notion” (pg. 133). He shows how the Reformers urged the Scripture as the primary authority but did not spurn other sources of authority. Luther summarized his entire program by urging, “Back to the Bible, to Augustine and to the church fathers!” (pg. 138). The Reformers were scholars of the church fathers and took pains to show their teaching as supported by the church fathers. They viewed the era of the early fathers as the “golden age” of church history, actually. He uses this point to challenge the evangelical neglect of the church fathers and of church history in general. Let me quote some of his conclusion on this point:

For the Reformers, sola scriptura found its boundaries in the faithful teaching of the church fathers, the ancient creeds and the doctrinal decrees of the ecumenical councils. Exposition of Scripture which remained within those limits could be expansive and imaginitive. However, to wander outside those limits and produce something “new” was for the Reformers not the mark of someone reading Scripture responsibly and using its authority rightly. How often, though, do Christians in the contemporary world hear about the allegedly scriptural “principle of seed faith” used to invite investment in a ministry? And what about “green prosperity prayer cloths” or the “health and wealth” gospel? None of these (nor similar aberrations) find any support whatsoever from the Protestant Reformation’s material principle of sola scriptura. (pg. 159)

After a treatment of the counter-Reformation which highlights some of the positive changes to the Roman Catholic church brought about by the Reformation age (while still not neglecting the negative reactions against evangelical beliefs from the Council of Trent), and after a treatment on the many-headed ana-Baptist movement (which he argues is not directly related to the Baptists of today), Payton goes on to critique the years following the Reformation. He sees the Reformer’s successors’ return to scholasticism and Aristotlean logic as a way to defend the newly recovered faith as largely a failure. He sees the systematization of the faith as necessarily losing some of the actual life of the Biblical faith of the Reformers. He points out how sin became defined as an infraction of God’s law, whereas the Reformers first saw it as “unfaithfulness toward God and estrangement from him” (pg. 208). Payton elaborates on the difference between the Reformers and their scholastic heirs on another topic, that of faith:

Under Protestant scholasticism, faith was depersonalized to the acceptance of right doctrine–which could be objectively and convincingly laid out for others to see. For the Reformers, though, faith was first and foremost personal bonding to God–cleaving to him, assured of his loving embrace. Again, these two conceptions of faith need not exclude each other; the important issue is which one receives the chief place…. (pg. 208)

Payton doesn’t stop where he could, but digs in even deeper to challenge how we should view the Reformation. Was it a success? He documents the Reformers’ own disappointment with the movements of their day. He also shows how the infighting in Protestantism gave way to bloodshed and warfare even, and how some errors like unitarianism found avenues to come to light through the rise of Protestantism. He cautions against viewing any era as a “golden age” and urges a recovery of the study of the church fathers. He also challenges the disunity and fighting which characterizes so much of Protestantism today: “It is at least a horrendous anomaly that the sixteenth-century Reformation got rid of the clutter that obscured the foundation of the Christian faith, only to have Protestants cover that foundation again with the clutter of our manifold division.” (pg. 256-257)

Payton spares no punches, and his book presents numerous challenges to today’s evangelical Christianity. Yet he brings the world of the Reformation to light, and gives life to that era of history. He shows how we shouldn’t revere that time as a magical age of impossible heroes; rather they should be seen with their failures and flaws, and be imitated to the degree that they remained faithful to the truth.

One will not agree with all of Payton’s emphases and may disagree with some of his claims. But Getting the Reformation Wrong will certainly encourage a critical engagement with the Reformation. My hope is that I’ll get it right. I applaud Payton’s zeal for the truth and his insightful analysis of many of our contemporary blind-spots. A careful reading of his book will help us see ourselves more clearly, and may help us achieve a needed Reformation of today’s church. May God be pleased to grant that!

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Inter-Varsity Press for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Pick up a copy of this book at Amazon.com or through IVP direct..

Quotes to Note 15b: Sailhamer on How Genesis Intends Joseph’s Life As a Type of the Coming Messiah

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

I’m working my way through John Sailhamer’s The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation (IVP). I’m finding multiple nuggets of special insight and blessing; the reward for reading through this 600 page book is well great indeed.

Often the interpretation of the Joseph narratives proves problematic among pastors and evangelical theologians today. Many don’t want to see Joseph’s life as paralleling Christ’s because the New Testament doesn’t expressly indicate that Joseph’s life is typical of the Messiah. But right in Genesis, however, Sailhamer finds a warrant for seeing Joseph’s life typified as an example of what the coming Messiah-King will be like.

…special attention [is] given to Judah in the whole of the Joseph narrative (Gen 37-50). As the story of Joseph’s journey to Egypt is getting underway (Gen 37), the author interrupts the narration to insert a lengthy story about Judah and his “righteous” (Gen 38:26) descendants (Gen 38). Also, when Joseph’s brothers devised a plot to kill him (Gen 37:18), it was Judah, rather than the firstborn, Reuben, who saved Joseph from sudden death. Such “reversals” occur numerous times within the remainder of the Joseph narrative. Judah is singled out from the other brothers as the one through whom the rescue of the family of Jacob was accomplished.

…Joseph’s brothers understood his [dreams] to mean they… would bow down to him…. As the narratives unfold, that is exactly what happens…. When they bow to him, Joseph “remembers his dreams” (Gen 42:9), and with him, the reader discovers that this is a work of divine intervention. The point of the narrative is to show that these and similar events are a fulfillment of Joseph’s dreams.

The narratives that focus attention on the fulfillment of Joseph’s dreams are not permitted a final word. There are still important parts of the narrative that draw our attention not to Joseph, but to Judah. That focus reaches its fullest expression in Jacob’s poem (Gen 49). The last word of the Joseph narrative turns our attention toward the preeminence of the tribe of Judah: “your brothers will bow down to you”… (Gen 49:8b). These words connecting Judah to Joseph’s dreams are… important in giving us another look at the author’s understanding of Jacob’s first words to Judah. By means of these words (Gen 49:8b), a larger lesson is drawn from the Joseph narratives. What was once true only of Joseph, that his brothers would bow down to him (Gen 37:7-10), is now to find its fulfillment in the reign of one who holds the scepter from the house of Judah (Gen 49:10)…. In drawing a connection between the Joseph narratives and the promise to the house of Judah, Joseph and the events of his life foreshadow what will ultimately happen to the king from the house of Judah, the one spoken of in this poem. The king who was to come from the house of Judah is foreshadowed by the life of Joseph. He will save his people and the nations, just as Joseph saved the families of the sons of Jacob (Gen 50:20) and the nations (Gen 47:19). Joseph, rather than Reuben, will be the firstborn among his brothers, but Judah will reign through the kingship… (pg. 327-328)

A redemptive-historical approach to interpretation such as I advocate, would already feel liberty to find divinely-intended parallels between the life of Joseph and the life of Christ. Now with Sailhamer’s work, a stronger connection is forged, and we can see that the prophetic shapers of the final canonical form of the Tanak, themselves, saw parallels between Joseph’s career and the life and work of the coming Messiah-King.