DrIBEX Ideas @dribex-blog - Tumblr Blog

"Head" or "Heads" in Psalm 110

Most evangelicals view Psalm 110 as Messianic. This is hard to deny in light of the extensive use of the psalm in the NT (it is the most often cited OT passage). Ps 110:1 (LORD, Lord) is the key to the argument of Jesus in Matthew 22 and Ps 110:4 (Melchizedek) is the lynchpin text in the argument of Hebrews 7. But how about the rest of Psalm 110? I suggest that Messiah’s role of judgment in 110:5-7 has been blunted by a wrong translation of verse 6. A literal rendering of Psalm 110:6 is: “He shall crush the head (rosh) over the broad earth.” However, most English versions, along with the LXX, translate rosh as plural (“heads” or “chief men”/κεφαλὰς). And yet not all ancients thought it was plural. The Vulgate, for example, translates the verb and complement as percutiet caput (“he shall crush the head”). The Aramaic Targum also translates it as rishi, the singular for “head.” Luther rendered it by the singular Haupt. I have consulted over 30 English versions and the only major English versions that translate it as “head” are the Geneva Bible, the English Revised Version (1881), and the American Standard Version (1901). Minor versions that have the singular are Youngs Literal Translation, Jewish Publication Society (1917), Darby, and Bible in Basic English. One contextual argument for translating רֹ֜֗אשׁ in v 6 as singular is the rhetorical contrast with the Messiah’s role in v. 7: “He will drink from the brook by the way; therefore he will lift up his head.” The last word is the singular רֹ֜֗אשׁ. Romans 16:20 states that Satan will be crushed under our feet someday. This "corporate solidarity" so that the prophecy of Gen 3:15 is fulfilled both by the singular Messiah and His collective people is consistent with Psalm 2:9 being fulfilled both by Jesus (Rev 19:15) and by His people (2:27). If Ps 110:6 is to be understood as singular, who is it referencing? I suggest that it is the beast/Antichrist of the Apocalypse (Rev 13, 19) who as the “head” of Satan’s forces will be judged at the Second Coming.

Review of Craig Evans' From Jesus to the Church

Craig Evans, From Jesus to the Church: The First Christian Generation, WJK Press, 2014 Craig Evans delivered these lectures at the Ben Gurion University of Beersheba in 2010. Its title is general, but the book is mainly about the intensive Jewish character of the early Jesus movement and how that played out in conflict with the non-believing Jewish leadership through 70AD and up until 135 AD. In his Introduction, Evans defends Jesus’ prophecy about the Temple’s destruction and traces other similar prophecies in canonical and non-canonical literature are well worth its moderate cost. He lays out clearly what he is trying to do: To trace the conflict between Jesus and His followers with the Temple hierarchy led by the family of Annas. In the first chapter, Evans’ creatively explains and expounds the “Twelve Tribe Typology” in the NT (Mat 19:28; James 1:1). If Evans’ approach that neither Jesus, Peter, James, nor even Paul envisioned a “church” not in continuity with Israel is accepted, it will shake up the academy - in a good way. And I am not talking about replacement theology in which the Church replaces Israel. Evans strongly argues that Israel in Rom 11:25-26 is ethnic Israel. The second chapter expounds fresh insights into the Kingdom message of Jesus. He develops an argument that takes notice of the Aramaic versions of the OT that bring out more references to “kingdom” and “Messiah” than the Hebrew texts. He is very attuned to the importance of intertextuality which shows itself not only in the Aramaic parallels but in his careful handling of the “Son of Man” issues in Daniel 7 and in the NT. The third chapter is another excellent handling of an important but neglected subject - the role of James. It is so refreshing to find another scholar who is not afraid to describe the leadership role of James in the early church in the way the evidence presents him. James was the lead “pillar;” the “rampart;” the voice of authority; the man whom second and third century fathers recognized as número uno in the movement until his death in 62AD. Evans suggests that James and the sons of Annas were competing for the hearts of the Jerusalem populace until his death. Evans is one of the few who have pointed out the significance of Josephus’ mentioning only one early Jesus believer, James. Evans has mastered the literature and I find his arguments to be quite illuminating for the events that transpired in Jerusalem from 30-70 AD. In the Fourth Chapter, Evans brings to our attention “the zeal of Phineas” (Num 25 and Psa 106) and the “works of the law” in the DSS document 4QMMT. By skillfully explicating these texts he compares and contrasts what Paul is saying about faith vis a vis the “works of the law” and what James is commending about “works” (acts of love and mercy). Evans’ argument that Paul was reacting against a theology like that in 4QMMT (the only place outside of Rom-Gal where the phrase is mentioned) echoes some writers sympathetic to the New Pauline Perspective. The fifth chapter is Evan’s most controversial but also his most valuable. Fleshing out an article by Eyal Regev, he argues that Jesus, the twelve, Stephen, James brother of John, Peter, Paul, James brother of Jesus, and a Jesus son of Ananias (in Josephus) engaged in a temple controversy with the family of high priests known as the sons of Annas. These characters all either died or suffered at the hands of the Annas family. OT references like Psa 118 and Jeremiah 7 play a key role in this conflict. Evans’ goal is “to explore the dynamics of the conflict between Jesus and his followers with Annas and his followers.” This conflict “will help us understand better the history of the Christian church in Jerusalem in that crucial first generation.” I find his arguments quite illuminating for the events that transpired in Jerusalem from 30-70 AD. In Chapter Six Evans traces effectively the thorough Jewish context of the Gospels, the seven Letters in Revelation as well as the seven Ignatian epistles of the early second century. The tension of a Jewish believing group that viewed itself within Israel (Matthew) is contrasted with a believing Jewish group being ostracized from Israel (John). These are balanced by the many Jewish connections (good and bad) of Jesus believers in the 7 churches of Asia Minor. Ignatius in his dramatic letters criticizes some believers who still observed outward Jewish observances. The chapter closes with the evidence for the false messiah Bar Cochba’s persecution of Jesus believers in Judea who would not (and could not) follow him. Evans, as has others, sees this as a decisive break between the Jesus believing Jewish believers and the Jewish community. This is insightful information for most Gentile Christians who are simply not aware of the Jewish roots of their faith. Evans’ Appendix sums up the “root causes of the Jewish-Christian rift.” I summarize them briefly as follows: 1. Christianity’s aggressive Gentile mission and lenient requirements for Gentile entry into the church (e.g., no circumcision). 2. The divinity of Jesus, as expressed in Johannine and Pauline Christology, over against the “lower” Messianic Christology of the Ebionites. 3. Failure to include Jewish food laws, laws of purity and Sabbath observance forced a complete separation between Christians and Jews. 4. Preferring the Scriptures of the Septuagint, not the Hebrew and the Aramaic paraphrases. 5. The destruction of the Jewish temple and the subsequent Jewish hope of rebuilding the Temple (see Barnabas 16:1-4). 6. The inclusion of the birkat ha’minim in the daily synagogue prayers, which was a curse on Jewish believers. 7. The Bar Cochba War and the resulting persecution of Jewish believers by him. 8. More important than any of these is the root cause behind the Jewish-Christian rift. “The fundamental sticking points for many Jewish people were the simple facts that Jesus had been put to death and the kingdom of God failed to materialize” (145). The curse on someone who hangs on a tree (Deut 21:23) was the decisive stumbling block (1 Cor 1:23) and it even had to be faced and refocused by Paul (Gal 3:10-14). The only way this problem could be handled by early evangelists and apologists was by the appeal to the suffering Messiah in Israel’s scriptures. My only serious concern with this book is its title and subtitle, which really do not convey adequately the excellent contents of the volume: “From Jesus to the Church: The First Christian Generation.” The book really is about the intensive Jewish character of the early Jesus movement and how that played out in conflict with the non-believing Jewish leadership. And it covers that subject well, being quite familiar with other scholarly literature that confirms and furthers Evans’ arguments. I strongly commend this book to scholars and to all serious students of early Christianity.

Bird on Dispensationalism

I honestly don't mind when authors criticize Dispensationalism (D). I am used to it and I am a modified D myself. I was saved in a church where everyone had an Old Scofield Reference Bible. As a matter of fact, the only “holy relic” I own is my first Bible, an Old Scofield Bible that no one is allowed to touch! I cut my theological teeth on the likes of Walvoord and Pentecost and Ryrie, and I watched from afar when Bock and Blaising duked it out with their old profs. I pastored a D church, then worked with a D Jewish mission, and have been at The Master's College which is at least warmly disposed to D. So I think I know the system well enough to spot a caricature. Therefore, when a theologian describes D in a way that I don't recognize and have never encountered, I think I have a right to scream "unfair." This is the case with my friend, Michael Bird, in his really admirable book, Evangelical Theology. This is not a full review and I will only briefly comment on what I consider as his screed against D on pages 220-21. I think Michael is grossly unfair and terribly wrong to charge D with being detrimental to Jewish evangelism! How in the world could he make such a scandalous charge? Where are the criminals he is accusing? Who are these deniers of the Gospel for the Jewish people? (He provides no documentation or footnote). Just the opposite is the real situation. Jewish missions have historically been D. A belief in Israel's future national conversion has never hindered Jewish missions and D churches from being in the forefront of Jewish evangelism! At best it is downright silly to make such a charge. At worst it is a scurrilous distortion that needs to be withdrawn publicly! Now to be honest, I am not going to die for my faith standing on Dispensational Hill. Although I am friendly towards it, I realize that D is not part of the Church Creeds. But critics should be fair in representing their opponents and in this case, in what is an often admirable book, Michael Bird has simply crossed the line and seriously slandered his opponents.

Joab and His "Shaft"

After being crowned as king a third time (2 Samuel 5:1-4), David decides to attack and capture the Canaanite stronghold of Jebus/Jerusalem. This city was more central to the new kingdom than Hebron plus it was on the border of Judah and Benjamin so no Israelite tribe could really claim that it was their own. There may be a third reason for choosing this place: it was the city where Melchizedek was a king-priest (Gen 14:18) and David may already have begun to recognize that he had a large role to play in that line (Psalm 110:1-4). In 2Sam. 5:8 David mentions attacking the citadel through the "tsinoor," traditionally rendered as "water shaft." The LXX reads: καὶ εἶπεν Δαυιδ … Πᾶς τύπτων Ιεβουσαῖον ἁπτέσθω ἐν παραξιφίδι καὶ τοὺς χωλοὺς καὶ τοὺς τυφλοὺς... (And David said... "Anyone who beats the Jebusites should smite the lame and the blind with a dagger"). This translates as "dagger” (παραξιφίδι) the Hebrew noun tsinnor. The Greek word appears to be a neologism (invented by the LXX translators), which only enhances the controversy over the exact meaning of the Hebrew word. I have always taken the passage to refer to Joab's secretly entering the city through the water system ("Joab's shaft" - 1Chron 11:6). Maybe the LXX translators were not familiar with the underground water system and understood the tsinnor as a similar Hebrew word for "shield" (tsinah, the suggestion from LEH LXX lexicon). This certainly is a fascinating passage that will always provide a challenge to both translators and interpreters.

How Do Words Derive Their Meaning?

A friend suggested on FaceBook that the meaning of αποστασία in 2 Th 2:3 is "departure" and refers to the departure of the saints by the rapture. Our subsequent interchange has led me to the following observation about another "semantic fallacy" in the study of languages. E. Schuyler English was the first to introduce this interpretation and Alan MacRae followed. Being positive toward a pre-trib rapture myself, I would welcome this additional evidence for the view, but I just can't be positive that such is the meaning of Paul in 2 Th 2:3. True, the meaning of the root verb (αφιστημι) means "depart" - but to transfer the spatial meaning of the verb to its cognate noun is to commit what is called the "root fallacy." Words derive their meaning from their usage, not their root. The usage of this noun from Attic Greek onward is not a physical departure but a moral/spiritual departure. Liddell and Scott define it as "A defection, a revolt, Josephus, Vita10, Plutarch, Galb.1; esp. in religious sense as a rebellion against God, apostasy, LXX Jo.22.22, 2 Ep.Th.2." Its use for such a religious revolt/departure in the LXX of Joshua 22:22 also helps to establish its meaning in the NT. In the only other use of the noun in the NT (Acts 21:21) it refers to a spiritual departure from Moses’ teaching. Thus the meaning in 2 Th 2:3 is the great spiritual departure from professed faith which is taught also in other NT eschatological passages (Matt 24; 2 Tim. 4:1-4, e.g.).

The Rabbis and Isaiah's Servant

No other passage in the OT has been used to point Jewish people to their promised Messiah like Isaiah 53. Franz Delitszch wrote that it appears that Isaiah wrote it while standing at the foot of the cross on Golgotha. The amazing description of the Suffering Servant has so many details that were fulfilled in the crucifixion of Jesus that a Christian may wonder how any Jewish person could not bow before Jesus when reading it. As early as the second Christian sermon (Acts 3:26), Peter referred to Jesus as God's pais, the Greek word for servant in the LXX translation of the Hebrew ebed. Later in Acts 8 the Ethiopian Eunuch is reading Isaiah 53 and asks Philip about the identity of this servant. Later writers of the NT appeal to this chapter and the other servant songs as prefiguring the Messiah Jesus. So how do the rabbis respond to this evidence? Well, they obviously have to refer it to someone other than Jesus. For the last 800 years, they have said that the Servant is a collective term for the people of Israel as they have suffered among the Gentiles, especially during tragedies like the Holocaust. While all of us should be sympathetic to the suffering of Israel, this simply cannot be the interpretation of the Servant in Isaiah. The Servant is an individual in the chapter. The Servant is spoken of with the pronouns he and him. Moreover the Servant suffers for the sins of Israel (and the Gentiles). He was punished for "the transgression of my people" (53:9). How could Israel suffer for Israel? A remarkable fact is that for over a thousand years the almost exclusive interpretation of the Servant was that he was the Messiah - although the rabbis did not apply this to Jesus. It was the 12th cent. French rabbi, Rashi, who popularized the Israel interpretation. This is evidenced from the Targums and many Talmudic and medieval commentators. For a Jewish source confirming this, see The Jewish Gospels by Daniel Boyarin. Finally, this chapter is skipped over in the yearly cycle of the Readings from the Prophets every August in the synagogue. Check out any table of readings in Jewish Prayer Books and Bibles if you don't believe me. Why are the rabbis afraid of this chapter? The answer to that question should be obvious. They simply do not want their members to be faced with the issue of Jesus so clearly - through the very pages of their Scripture readings! Most Jewish people don't read their Bibles, and definitely don't read the Prophets. Who will tell them about the "missing chapter?" If you would like to read more, check out my book, The Messiah: Revealed, Rejected, Received.

Response to T. Michael Law’s New Book on the LXX

I welcome any book that draws our attention more to the Septuagint. When God Spoke Greek does that through some very capable writing combined with the author’s genuine passion for his subject. While I have expressed my concerns about some of Law’s positions and statements (on Facebook), that does not destroy my enthusiasm for his work. Law writes clearly and frames his explanation of the LXX and its vastly important role in Judaism and Christianity in a narrative framework – something that lacks in most treatments of the LXX. Starting with the development of the translation sometime in the late 3rd or early 2nd century BC, Law clearly explains (as far as the evidence allows) how the rest of the books were translated and also how the many revisions took place. If you think that the 2nd century AD versions of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion were the first revisions, Law will convince you that some of these were probably earlier, including the so-called Kaige revision. Developing the story of the LXX right through its impact on the NT and early Christianity, he concludes with a truly enlightening explanation of the “conflict” between Augustine and Jerome over the latter’s fresh translation from the Hebrew scriptures into Latin, rather than from the LXX, as the Old Latin versions had been. You will learn that each of these giants had some very persuasive arguments. Law also impresses me with his thorough acquaintance with the literature on the LXX. His full bibliography (201-212) is not a token one. He references those books and scholarly articles throughout his writing. He is very qualified to write a book that can inform both the scholarly reader and the beginner who desires to learn more about this subject. I have expressed some of my concerns on the Nerdy Language Majors FB group – and Michael has responded graciously. One concern of mine, reflecting my own conservative Biblical convictions, is that Law’s acceptance of the higher critical narrative of the Bible’s origin often affects his opinions on the LXX. He responded to my concern about his personal views with a “guilty as charged” so we will just move on from there. I am also concerned about some of his broad statements that simply overstate problems and issues. While this often relates to his critical beliefs about how the Bible came together, sometimes he is just too general and guilty of assumptions without providing proof. Because of the newly recognized diversity of textual traditions found, for example, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, he will make statements like “reading the Jewish scriptures in the first century would have been exposed to a dizzying variety of textual forms” (86). Dizzying? Like Bart Ehrman on the NT mss, Law makes a bit too much of the differences in the textual readings. He has pointed them out, but in my opinion he makes far more of the differences than the vast areas of agreements. Here is another overstatement (and I could mention more if this was a full review): The Gospel of Matthew borrowed the “Son of Man” terminology from 1 Enoch, who was himself developing that tradition from Daniel 7 (88). How can he be so confident that there is such a three-fold intertextual link connecting the three documents? Why couldn’t both Jesus (Matthew) and Enoch be drawing on the same Daniel 7 “Son of Man” theme? Also why would he say that “Luther and the reformers were the only Christians in history to have definitely abandoned the broader canon” (127) when in the footnote 31 following this statement, he mentions some exceptions to his “only Christians in history” (189). These overstatements dampen but do not destroy my enthusiasm for this book. He pointed out, for example, that Jerome did not simply assume the wrong vowels in the Hebrew verb קרן keren (“horn”) for the Hebrew karan (shone) in Exo 34:29. He explained that the Aquila revision did have the Greek word κερατωδης (horned) and that may have influenced him in attempting to decipher the translation (160). This and many other observations have filled in my knowledge of the LXX and its truly significant but overlooked importance. I appreciated also his section on Pauline use of the LXX to make a particular theological argument in Romans (105-111), building on the work of Ross Wagner (Heralds of the Good News). I wrote on FB that Hebrew purists will not like this book, but they will face a real challenge in answering his arguments about the textual diversity of the Hebrew text prior to the second century AD. They will also be challenged to demonstrate how we can be dogmatic that the resulting Masoretic Text preserves the most ancient form of the Hebrew textual tradition. Law argues that the evidence of the DSS combined with a renewed appreciation for the Hebrew vorlage(n) of the LXX simply renders such dogmatism as unacceptable. The ball, therefore, is in the court of the MT advocates. A few more concerns. (1) I believe that Law has not given enough attention to the evidence from the Sirach Prologue, Philo, and Josephus that Second Temple Jews DID recognize a core set of works as their “Scriptures.” (2) The deliberate neglect of earlier scholars on the LXX like Swete, Conybeare, and Jellicoe should not take place in a book as scholarly as this one. (3) I would also have liked him to pay more attention to the Gottingen LXX as well as to reference more the LXX lexicons by Lust-Eynikel-Hauspie and Muraoka. (4) The lack of a Scripture Index also impedes the use of the book, especially after an initial reading. I am not ready to conclude that Law has dethroned such excellent LXX Introductions by Jobes and Silva, Dines, and Marcos, but Michael said on FB that this was not his intention. If you desire to see how the LXX influenced both ancient Judaism and Christianity, Law is the place to start. I personally think that Jobes and Silva avoid some of the broad generalizations that Law makes in his otherwise remarkable work.

Millennialism in the Didache?

When we consider that most of the final chapter of the Didache is centered on eschatological themes, it is surprising to discover that so little has been written about the role this specific chapter plays overall doctrine of the “Last Things.” There have been a few articles, but nothing has been written that approaches the thoroughness of the unpublished 1949 Harvard dissertation of George Eldon Ladd titled "The Eschatology of the Didache." Here is my own translation of the chapter: 16:1 Be watchful over your life; do not let your lamps be quenched, and do not let your waists be ungirded. But be prepared, for you do not know the hour in which our Lord is coming. 16:2 And frequently be gathered together, seeking what is appropriate for your souls; for the whole time of your faith will not benefit you unless you are perfected in the last time. 16:3 For, in the last days the false prophets and corrupters will be multiplied, and the sheep will be turned into wolves, and the love will be turned into hatred. 16:4 For, when lawlessness increases, they will hate each other and they will persecute and they will betray each other. And then will appear the world-deceiver as a son of God, and he will do signs and wonders, and the earth will be delivered into his hands, and he will do unlawful things that never have happened from eternity. 16:5 Then the human creation will come into the fiery test, and many will be led into sin and will perish, but the ones remaining firm in their faith, will be saved by the curse itself. 16:6 And then the signs of the truth will appear: first, a sign of an opening in heaven, then a sign of a trumpet sound, and the third [sign will be] a resurrection of dead ones-- 16:7 but not of all [the dead], but as it was said: "The Lord will come and all the holy ones with him." 16:8 Then the world will see the Lord coming atop the clouds of heaven . . . The chapter opens with an intense three-fold exhortation: 1) “be watchful” 2) “be prepared” and 3) “be gathered together.” With these imperatives, there is only one indicative statement that serves to be the basis for the three admonitions: “for you do not know the hour in which our Lord is coming.” Then follows the details of this coming with a series of future indicative statements in 16:3-8, with no further imperatives. We do not know if there originally were additional exhortations following 16:8 since it probably is not the original ending – more on that soon. The reference to being “perfected in the last time” recalls the other reference to being “perfect” in 6:2. The author skillfully placed these references at the beginning and the end of this second main section of the book to serve as an inclusio that frames this part of his literary discourse. These urgent exhortations are in light of what must have been considered an imminent coming of the Lord, and they are consistent with similar exhortations in the NT in light of the parousia (Matt. 24:42-44; Luke 12:35; 1 Thess. 15-18; 2 Pet. 3, etc.). Many writers have affirmed that Matthew’s “Olivet Discourse” and especially 24:42 must have influenced the writer in these verses. The current scholarly preference is that here and elsewhere he utilized oral Jesus tradition and was not using any proto-canonical writings. My own opinion is that the Didachist is here and throughout the chapter influenced by what he also calls the “Gospel of our Lord,” a Greek translation of Matthew’s logia. I also conclude that, whatever sources he may or may not have used, he adapted them and shaped them into this form for his own purposes There is an intensely practical purpose that the Didachist has in all this: the preparation of his readers for the difficulties of the end. The “World Deceiver” (ὁ κοσμοπλανὴς - a title coined by the Didachist?) will shortly appear as a false son of God and will deceive the entire earth by claiming divine powers. The one way to withstand these troubles is by faithful attendance at the Christian gatherings. He urges his readers to faithfulness so that they will not be among those who turn away. There has been much speculation about the identity of the “curse” in 16:5b: “but the ones remaining firm in their faith, will be saved by the curse itself.” The word is καταθεμα, one of a number of words that can mean “curse.” The word does not occur in the LXX and appears in the NT only as a preferred variant reading in Rev. 22:3. One could wish that the statement by Paul in Gal. 3:13 might use this word: "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree," but the “curse” there is καταρα. , Schaff comments, “This is the most difficult passage (in the Didache) next to “the cosmic mystery” in XI. 11.” Even in 1887 he mentions at least seven interpretations of the word. It is probably still best, in light of Deut. 21:23, (despite the different Greek word), that this 16:5 is a paradoxical statement that the “cursed one”(i.e., Jesus) will save the faithful from the eschatological curse, because he already experienced it by being cursed by God. Probably the Didachist had Deut. 21:23 in mind and simply used another word. The three “signs of the truth” that he describes in 16:6, 7 have similarities to Matthew’s discourse but also differences. He mentions an “opening in heaven,” which could be simply a preparation of the sky for the later appearing of the Lord (16:8). Some scholars, however, have translated the word evkpeta,sewj as a “spreading out,” signifying a celestial “sign of the cross” being displayed. The “trumpet” echoes (pardon the pun) the same sound in Matt. 24:31; 1 Cor. 15:52; and 1 Thess.4:16. To think that the Didachist, however, is referencing any Pauline statement is simply not valid. Paul and the Didachist were probably both echoing an original statement of “the Lord.” The final sign, “a resurrection of dead ones,” should not surprise Bible readers familiar with Daniel’s 12:2: “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” What we do not expect, however, is that the Didachist limits the ones in this resurrection. He adds, “but not of all [the dead]” and then quotes Zech. 14:5, applying the “holy ones’ in that passage to “saints” not angels. This has often been taken as indicating the chiliasm, or millenarianism of the author. Since 2nd century authors like Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian were pronounced chiliasts, we should not be surprised if the Didachist was also sympathetic to this view of the future kingdom. This brings us to the end of the book, which just about all, including Leon the scribe, believe was not the original ending. "Leon" indicates by the blank lines following 16:8 in his manuscript that his vorlage also did not contain anything beyond these words and that this was not the original ending. Since the Apostolic Constitutions and other works that incorporate the Didache do have additional words at this point, scholars have speculated if these works may contain the original ending. Robert E. Aldridge suggests that a combination of Constitution’s ending and that of the Georgian version “may be accepted as the proximate true ending.” However, I would like to offer my own solution as a variation of Aldridge’s. Since part of Constitution’s ending is very clearly a borrowing of Paul’s statement about the glorious eschaton in 1 Cor. 2:9, I offer the ending without that insertion which I am sure that the original Didachist would not have used. Thus after 16:8 would be the following words: ". . .with the angels of His power, in the throne of His kingdom, to condemn the devil, the deceiver of the world, and to render to everyone according to his deeds. Then shall the wicked go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous shall enter eternal life. And they shall rejoice in the kingdom of God, which is in Christ Jesus." In his dissertation, Ladd suggests that the abbreviated ending of the chapter 16 may not have been accidental. While not being dogmatic, he suggests that the original ending of Didache may have contained a clear reference to an earthly kingdom following the resurrection of the righteous dead and preceding a resurrection of the wicked dead after that kingdom. By the third century, when chiliasm had fallen out of favor with many segments of the “Great Church,” the chiliastic ending was stricken and its more generic ending left. What appeared in the Apostolic Constitutions and the Georgian version thus was a doctored ending that omitted the chiliastic reference in favor of a view more amenable to the church at that time, even adding the Pauline statement from 1 Cor. 2:9 for good effect. (For further study, see my article in Bibliotheca Sacra, "The Didache Apocalypse and Matthew 24" (Vol. 165, 2008).

Review of "Greek Apocryphal Gospels, Fragments, and Agrapha"

This is a temporary violation of the self-imposed end to my blog - because the Dropbox link to the following file did not work! Many Christians assume that everything Jesus said is found in the canonical Gospels, but if John wrote that Jesus did many more things than could be recorded, we should expect that He also said many more things than were recorded. Rick Brannan collects and brings these sayings to our attention, some of which are even found in other books of the NT. Ironically, these sayings are called agrapha ("unwritten") but they were indeed written down, just not written down in the canonical Gospels. Brannan uncovers the evidence of these sayings also in the Apostolic Fathers (esp. 2 Clement) as well as in Justin Martyr and even as variant readings in some NT manuscripts. Another valuable contribution is the inclusion of a number of papyri fragments which include these sayings. In addition to the agrapha, Rick publishes and explains some of those second century "gospels" that did not make it into the canon, but are the sources of some of our traditional ideas about the Nativity! What is advantageous about his presentation is that he includes both the Greek original plus his clear translation, which previous editions of these gospels usually do not. Because of the digital format, the Greek words even have morphological tagging – something that printed Greek editions of these gospels do not have! Since the Greek original and the translation are separate works, the Logos user can also view them in parallel windows for comparison. This work is a very valuable contribution that goes beyond previous lists of sayings and publications of only the English gospels. Rick's brief but insightful comments about each of the sayings, variants, and gospels round out his work in a way that makes it accessible to both lay readers and scholars. I heartily commend this valuable contribution to the burgeoning field of Jesus studies. Here is the pre-pub page for Rick's digital Book. http://www.logos.com/product/17854/greek-apocryphal-gospels-fragments-and-agrapha

#Brannan #agrapha #apocryphal gospels

Calling a Halt

A few months ago uber-blogger, Phil Johnson, “retired” from blogging. That was a major decision for a guy who had a lot of readers.

My world is much smaller, but for personal reasons, I must also retire from blogging and it will most probably be a permanent decision. I have enjoyed sharing ideas from Dr IBEX, but the time has come to concentrate on other projects and on my own personal health and family.

Thanks for the memories.

Will

PS I enjoy posting on the Nerdy Language Majors Facebook group, but even that will be curtailed.

#Retiring

Prayer for the New Year

"To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy— to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen" (Jude 24– 25 NIV). Heavenly Father, while many clamor about and try to “claim” more blessings from you, may this be a year in which we come alive to the multiplied blessings you’ve already lavished upon us in the gospel. Already you have rescued us from the dominion of darkness and have placed us in the kingdom of your beloved Son, Jesus (Col. 1: 13). Already you have blessed us with every spiritual blessing in Christ (Eph. 1: 3). Already we are completely loved by you because of Jesus’ completed work on our behalf. As the year progresses, open the eyes of our hearts to see all these glorious riches more clearly and enjoy them more fully (Eph. 1: 18– 19). Scotty Smith, Everyday Prayers: 365 Days to a Gospel-Centered Faith

#Prayer #New year

The Sunday AFTER Christmas

What do you preach on the Sunday AFTER Christmas? Perhaps this event which took place 40 days AFTER the birth is appropriate. These summary ideas are seed-starters for your own further reflection. I wrote out the Scripture (Luke 2:25-35) in the last post. When Jesus was 8 days old he was circumcised (Lk. 2:21). When he was 40 days old he was presented in the Temple as part of the ceremony of the Redemption of the First Born Son (Lk. 2:22-34; Num. 3:11-12, 40-43). Mary purified herself by immersion in one of the “baptismal” pools for this function right outside the Temple. They then entered with the baby to find a priest for the ceremony. They did not have to find one because the Lord directed one to find them (Lk. 2:25-27). But when Simeon took Jesus in his arms to perform the ceremony (returning the son in exchange for 5 silver coins), he uttered some amazing words about the child’s future that must have stunned the proud parents (Lk. 2:28-32). The child was to bring salvation as the glory of Israel and as a light to the Gentiles! Mary had known about His future ministry to Israel, but this blessing for the goyim came to her as something brand new! But Simeon then delivered the dark side to this message of Jesus’ Messiahship (Lk. 2:34- 35). The child would not only cause the rise of many in Israel, he would also cause many of them to fall (who would reject Him). Furthermore, he would be a sign that would attract severe opposition (“many would speak against Him”). No Mother likes to hear people criticizing and rejecting their kid! Finally, Simeon tells the teenage Mother that some day a sword would pierce her soul! Here the darkness and death that accompanied the First Nativity becomes even more evident. There were a number of incidents during Jesus’ adult ministry that must have caused pain to Mary (Lk. 4:16-30 and Mk. 3:31-35 drive the sword deeper into her heart). None were more painful, however, than what she saw and heard at the foot of a Roman cross over thirty years later (Jn. 19:26-27). It was at that unbelievably painful moment that she must have recalled Simeon’s words about the sword piercing her soul. But the pain and death that originally hung over this Nativity were all part of the process of bringing salvation to Israel and also to Mary herself. How wonderful it is to see Mary and Jesus’ once perplexed half-brothers gathered in that upper room to worship the Ascended One and to wait for His promised Spirit (Acts 1:14). Yes, Christmas IS a time of light and peace, but first came the darkness and war that was encountered and defeated by Messiah’s coming!

#Simeon #Mary #Messiah

A Post Christmas Message

"Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord's Messiah. And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the Law, he took him up in his arms and blessed God and said, "Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace, according to your word; for my eyes have seen your salvation that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel." And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him. And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, "Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is opposed (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), so that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed." (Luke 2:25-35) Simeon speaks sobering words that the coming of the baby will be a "stone" (of stumbling), a "sign" that will be opposed, and a "sword" that will pierce Mary's heart.

#Simeon

The "Biblical" Christmas Hymns

I love Christmas carols, but "Biblical" Christmas hymns are different from our familiar and beloved carols. These songs are rooted in the history of Abraham, Moses, David, and the desire to "ransom captive Israel." They are found in Luke 1 and 2, surrounding the brief but more familiar hymn of the angels (Luke 2:13-14).

What does Mary sing about in Luke 1:46-55? "My soul magnifies the Lord” (Magnificat in Latin). She magnifies the Lord’s mercy to those who fear Him, His generosity to the poor and hungry, His hostility to the proud and rich, and the help He gives to Israel. She sings about the fulfillment of the Lord’s promised covenant mercy. And she talks about Abraham, for all this is done to fulfill what He “spoke to our Fathers, to Abraham and to His seed forever.”

How about Zechariah’s song in Luke 1:67-79? “Blessed be the Lord…” (Benedictus in Latin). The Lord comes to accomplish redemption for His people and to bring salvation to the house of David. More specifically, this refers to a king from David’s line, a king who is going to deliver Israel from their enemies and from the hand of those who enslave them. The birth of the fore-runner to the Messiah is a sign that the Lord has “remembered His holy covenant, the oath which He swore to Abraham our Father.” Day has dawned; light has shone in the darkness – but the darkness is specifically something that has overtaken Israel.

What does Simeon sing about after the birth of Jesus in Luke 2:28-32? “Now dismiss your servant in peace…”(Nunc dimittis in Latin). When he takes the infant Jesus into his arms, he thanks God “because my eyes have seen Your salvation.” And what is that? Access to heaven? Forgiveness of sins? Yes, but more! This little one is “the light of revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of Your people Israel.”

The angelic hymn sung to the shepherds should be understood in that context. Peace on earth is not some left-wing dream. It’s the promise of peace for Israel, which will lead to peace for the nations.

Before we sing any more new Christmas hymns, we all should try to learn the words of the Magnificat (Mary’s) and the Benedictus (Zechariah’s) and the Nunc Dimittis (Simeon’s) so well that these hymns will burst forth from our hearts at Christmas. Then we will sing about Jesus’ birth in light of the promises to Abraham and David - as did Mary, Zechariah, and Simeon.

--- Adapted from a post by Peter Leithart on "First Things" (12/22/12) http://bit.ly/12S522V

#Magnificat #Benedictus #Nunc Domittis

When God Moved In

“The Word became flesh and blood, and moved into the neighborhood. We saw the glory with our own eyes, the one-of-a-kind glory, like Father, like Son, Generous inside and out, true from start to finish.” (The Message). So staggeringly new was this conception of God in a human form that it is not surprising that even in the Church there were some who could not believe it. What John says is that the word became sarx (σαρξ). Now sarx is the very word Paul uses over and over again to describe what he called the ﬂesh, human nature in all its weakness and in all its liability to sin. The very thought of taking this word and applying it to God was something that their minds staggered at. So there arose in the Church a body of people called Docetists. Dokein (δοκειν) is the Greek word for to seem to be. These people held that Jesus in fact was only a phantom; that his human body was not a real body; that he could not really feel hunger and weariness, sorrow and pain; that he was in fact a disembodied spirit in the apparent form of a man. John dealt with these people directly in his First Letter. "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the ﬂesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist" (1 John 4:2–3). It is true that this heresy was born of a kind of mistaken reverence which recoiled from saying that Jesus was really, fully and truly human. To John, it contradicted the whole Christian gospel. It may well be that today we are often so eager to preserve the fact that Jesus was fully God that we tend to forget the fact that he was also fully human. The word became ﬂesh—here, perhaps as nowhere else in the NT, we have the full humanity of Jesus gloriously proclaimed. In Jesus we see the creating word of God, the controlling reason of God, taking human nature upon himself. In Jesus we see God living life as He would have lived it if he had been a man. "He wished to become one of our children in order to make us His Children" - Augustine

#Incarnation #John 1:14

Oy! There Goes the Neighborhood!

“The Word became flesh and blood, and moved into the neighborhood. We saw the glory with our own eyes, the one-of-a-kind glory, like Father, like Son, Generous inside and out, true from start to finish.” (The Message). This is the sentence for the sake of which John wrote his gospel: John 1:14. He has thought and talked about the Logos of God - that powerful, creative word who was the agent of creation; that guiding and directing word who puts order into the universe and intelligence into human beings. Now he says quite simply: ‘This word which created the world, this reason which controls the order of the world, has become a person, and with our own eyes we saw him.’ The word that John uses is theasthai; used in the NT more than twenty times and always used of physical sight. This is no spiritual vision seen with the eye of the soul or of the mind. John declares that the word actually came to earth in the form of a man and was seen by human eyes. He says: ‘If you want to see what this creating word, this controlling reason, is like, look at Jesus of Nazareth.’ This is where John parted with all thought which had gone before him. This was the entirely new thing which John brought to the Greek world for which he was writing. Augustine afterwards said that in his pre-Christian days he had read and studied the great pagan philosophers and had read many things, but he had never read that the Logos became ﬂesh. To a Greek, this was impossible. The one thing that no Greek would ever have dreamed of was that God could take a body. To a Greek, the body was an evil, a prison house in which the soul was shackled, a tomb in which the spirit was conﬁned. It was nothing less than blasphemy to involve God in the affairs of the world. The Jew Philo could never have said it. He said: ‘The life of God has not descended to us; nor has it come as far as the necessities of the body.’ So here was the alarming new idea—that God could and would become a human person, that God could enter into this life that we live, that eternity could appear in time, that somehow the Creator could appear in creation in such a way that he could actually be seen. More tomorrow

#Incarnation #John 1:14

The Shepherds and THE Shepherd

The episode about the shepherds, which takes up more space than the discussion of the birth itself, has a real historical plausibility to it, since Bethlehem was one of the main areas near Jerusalem where sheep were raised for the sacrifices in the Temple. Due to their profession, shepherds were viewed as unclean peasants by some Jews, but Luke sees them as examples of the marginalized, for whom the birth of a savior would be seen as good news indeed (Lk. 1:52, 4:18). Throughout the Bible, angels are harbingers of divine activity and messengers of God, and the angel of Luke 2 is no exception. Lk. 2:9 speaks of the glory of the Lord shining around the angel and the shepherds, a reference to the bright and shining presence, or Shekinah, of God. Naturally, the shepherds are frightened by the sight. Verbrugge in A Not So Silent Night develops the idea that the use of the term “host” to describe the angels stresses a military role as they enter into conflict with the “legions” of Satan, a term used of wicked and good angels in the Gospels (cf. Mark 5:9 and Matt. 26:53). Their song then could be compared to an ancient “Hail to the Chief.” “Do not be afraid,” the angel reassures them, “for see—I am bringing you good news of great joy for all the people: to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Messiah the Lord” (Lk. 2:10–11). The angel emphasizes that the savior is born “to you,” the shepherds—that is, to the least, the last and the lost. The “savior language” used by the angel draws on the rhetoric of the imperial cult in Luke’s day. Throughout the empire, boastful inscriptions celebrated the birth of the emperor who had “pacified” the entire region around the Mediterranean. Caesar is described as a god walking upon the earth in the flesh. In his gospel, Luke is using this same language, portraying the Jewish infant of humble origins, Jesus, as the real Savior and the real Lord whose coming will bring peace on earth, compared to the Emperor Augustus, who is just a pretender or counterfeit. In other words, the message of the angels to the shepherds was that Jesus is Lord. Therefore, Caesar is not. When the shepherds hear the news (Lk. 2:15), they go to the manger in haste to see with their own eyes the confirming sign. They then go forth as the very first evangelists or proclaimers of the good news. How insightful that the first messengers of Jesus’ birth were despised shepherds, not the professional clergy in Jerusalem! Over thirty years later the first messengers of Jesus’ resurrection were despised women, not the fearful male disciples (Lk. 24:22-24). Let’s all of us - males, females, laypeople, ministers - be faithful witnesses this Christmas to the One whose birth has changed our lives forever!

#Shepherds #Bethlehem #Christmas #Jesus #Nativity

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

DrIBEX Ideas