Ancient Texts For the Study of the Hebrew Bible: A Guide to the Background Literature, by Kenton L. Sparks, Hendrickson, 2005.

Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature, by Craig A. Evans, Hendrickson, 2005.

The material remains, both textual and archaeological, which are frequently summoned in aid of our exegesis and interpretation of the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) and New Testament, are extraordinarily important.  Rightly interpreted, archaeological data can ‘open a window’ on the ancient world which is simply indispensable.  Similarly, ancient texts, rightly used, can achieve the same end.

            The two books reviewed here assemble some of (though certainly not all of) the ancient texts which are useful for our work of investigating biblical texts.  Though published in 2005, both are already in the process of being revised.  And though both have been reviewed elsewhere, it’s certainly appropriate to cast a glance in their direction since 1) no matter how hard one may try, he or she may miss something when it appears and 2) with their revision impending, it’s useful to know where improvement may be needed.

            Most students of the biblical text will be familiar with ‘ANET’, edited by James Pritchard (and so famous as to be known when simply referred to by its initials).  And others will know of the three volume ‘Context of Scripture’, edited by William Hallo and others.

            ANET, in spite of its grand fame, is dated.  And ‘Context of Scripture’ is fairly expensive, making it less than ideal for a larger audience.  Furthermore, there really has never been any counterpart to ANET for New Testament studies.  There have been attempts, such as C.K. Barrett’s ‘New Testament Background’ which is quite brief and now quite dated as well (having first appeared over 35 years ago).

            Consequently, when the books cited above were published in 2005 by Hendrickson Publishers they filled a lacuna which had long needed filling.

            When I make use of such materials the first thing I look for is an index that offers something useful.  These sorts of books aren’t the kind one would sit down with and read from cover to cover.  Rather, they serve as reference works.  Hence, if the index is not ‘up to par’ then the volume will not be of much use.

            Sparks’ volume contains the following indices: 1) Modern Authors; 2) Hebrew Bible and Early Jewish Literature; 3) Ancient Near Eastern Sources; 4) English Translations Found In ANET; and 5) English Translations found in COS.  Also included is 6) an Index of Museum Numbers, Textual Realia, and Standard Text Publications (i.e., KTU 1.40 is found on pages 162 and 436).

            Evan’s volume contains indices of 1) Modern Authors; 2) Ancient Writings and Writers (which includes everything from the Dead Sea Scrolls through the Talmud); 3) Ancient Sources (a very broad category including biblical texts, deuterocanonicals, pseudepigraphals, rabbinics, DSS, Gnostic literature, etc.).

            Perhaps in future editions the Evans’ volume may decide to subdivide the indices further simply for ease of use.  They are, to be fair, subdivided a bit in the larger index scheme, but a more specific division may be useful and even desirous.

            As far as contents are concerned, here Sparks sparkles (with apologies for the pun).  He offers a very broad sampling of the most important of the texts stemming from the Ancient Near East.  After a very insightful introduction in which he delineates the importance of such collections he launches into a description of ANE libraries.  Next, to the heart of the matter- the texts themselves- including Wisdom texts, hymns, love poems, ritual texts, omens, apocalyptic materials, tales, epics, myths, genealogies, inscriptions, law codes, and treaty materials.  He is wise, in my opinion, to group these materials by genre and then to discuss the various geographical locations for their origin.  Going from Mesopotamia to Egypt chasing genre would be both cumbersome and confusing.

            Evans’ book is similarly arranged according to genre, though naturally the genre are quite different.  Here we find, after the requisite overview, a discussion of the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal materials, the DSS, Old Testament versions, Philo and Josephus, The Targums, Rabbinic Literature, New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, the Church Fathers, Gnostic texts, and other writings.  Evans also includes a number of appendices dealing with everything from the miracle stories of Jesus to other messianic claimants.  Because he covers such an enormous amount of literature it’s necessary for him to offer, in many instances, nothing more than a sentence or paragraph of description.

            Both of these ‘handbooks’ are quite useful, quite well produced, and quite readable (in terms of the font utilized); however Spark’s volume is a bit better arranged and the indices a bit better organized.  The publisher might wish to consider, in future editions, standardizing the indices and marketing the two volumes together.  Certainly many students, Pastors, and other interested persons could benefit from their use.  And the fact that they are inexpensively offered yet of high quality just makes them even more useful.

March Madness is upon us (here in the States. In Europe it’s still football season. Is it ever NOT football season in Europe?) so it’s time to talk college basketball. First and foremost, those of you with broadband will be thrilled to know that you can watch every game online- free! Those of us in the hinterlands will have to pick and choose which games we watch according to their tv availability.

Second- and of doubtless the most interest to you all- my pick for the ultimate winner: (drum roll please…..)

Duke University!!!!!!

That’s right- Duke is my pick to win it all. So there you have it. Let the naysaying begin [and my daughter will roundly denounce that claim as soon as she reads this and she will yell out 'UNC Tarheels are number 1' but she's just 21 and doesn't yet know the ways of the world nor of Duke's hoop dominance. ]

The Discovery Channel is planning to air another ‘biblically themed’ special- this time on the much rehashed much misused tale of ‘Noah’s Ark‘.

Search for the truth behind the story of Noah and his ark. Find out how Noah could have built such a structure and whether or not a great flood took place on the earth. The search for remains of the ark continues today.

Alas… Though I normally do watch these things just in case someone asks me what I thought of them, I think this time, rather than ending up wishing I hadn’t wasted an hour, I’ll skip it. If you watch it, and it turns out to be super great, do let me know and I’ll catch it during the later airing. [Originally posted at 7:30 this morning].

UPDATE: Be sure to read Antonio’s remarks about this sort of thing and especially take note of the little bit of history behind them.

Later in life Zwingli wrote to a colleague - “I am so pig headed that I make some people around me so angry that they are almost stimulated to hate me.”  But this fact wasn’t something that developed only later in life.  Early on, as a young priest, he confided to a friend, “I am one of those persons who can only be tolerated with indulgence.”  Zwingli wasn’t alone in this of course- as Luther too was viewed by his foes and even by his friends as a remarkably stubborn soul.  And Calvin…. Well, everyone knows, or should know, how very stubborn he could be.

Was their stubbornness something unusual for the 16th Century?  Hardly.  From the Reformers to the Counter-Reformers to the people in the hovels,   a certain firmness of opinion held sway.

In contrast, our own time is a time of muddled thinking, lack of clarity, and most of all, a lack of certainty.  Indeed, if the 16th Century can be characterized as a time of firmness, our own can equally well be characterized by a lack of certainty.  So when we read Zwingli or Calvin we gasp at their certitude and their forthrightness and imagine that our ‘openness’ and ‘willingness to accept differing viewpoints’ and ‘tolerate’ everything under the sun is somehow better or superior or more advanced or more honest.  I would suggest, though, that it’s probably better to be pig headed than it is to be empty headed.  That, at least, is something Zwingli could help us learn in ‘these troubled times’.  We might not like it- but it at least has the benefit of honesty and shuns the hypocrisy so common nowadays.

The Santa Barbara Independent reports

[Elaine Pagels will] be in Santa Barbara to lecture on the Book of Revelation on Sunday, March 16, at 3 p.m. at the Victoria Hall, located at 33 East Victoria Street. … Pagels will also lecture on other versions of the Book of Revelation, both Christian and Jewish, which were written concurrently with the Book that’s actually included the Bible. Why, she asks, were these left out of the Bible, when the version we know has been handed down so carefully as a part of the Gospel? She’ll also discuss how the Bible was compiled into its current standard version, and the effects of recent scholarly studies on our understanding of the history involved. And some of that recent scholarship is her own — her book, The Gnostic Gospels, was a bestselling exploration of a selection of lost Christian manuscripts that were recently found in Egypt and dubbed the “Nag Hammadi Library.”

Now that would be an excellent lecture to attend.  If you’re in the area and go- let us know what you think of it.

The Associated Press has a report of what must be the most dyed in the wool fundamentalist (it must be Fundamentalist Friday) I’ve ever heard of. He’s a ‘preacher’ in Alabama who visits college campuses and says things like

You’re going to hell if you drink beer, he says. You’re going to hell if you curse. You’re going to hell if you smoke dope, masturbate, fornicate, watch a Hollywood movie, listen to rap, read Harry Potter books or attend most Protestant churches, Armstrong says. Homosexuals are hellbound, too, he says. So are women with low-cut tops, short hair, pants or jobs. “Women have two places: In front of the sink and behind the vacuum,” Armstrong proclaims. “Ooooh,” moans the crowd, now swelled to at least 250 people. Armstrong springs forward on one foot, thumping his Bible as he lands. “Yeee-ah,” shouts a heckler, mimicking Howard Dean’s campaign scream and dressed like Armstrong with a low-slung cap, backpack and suspenders. And the show goes on. For four hours.

His list of ’sins’ is fascinating. The beer drinking one gets poor old Luther (and Calvin too along with Zwingli and every other European Christian from at least the 16th century). And the ‘masturbation’ condemnation eliminates every male who has ever been born. Heaven will be male-less and evidently woman-less too, since there can’t be 5 women on the planet who think their place is behind a vacuum. And there won’t be any American children there either since they have all (or nearly all?) read the Harry Potter series. Several times. (Though he might be right about those who listen to rap).

This sort of ‘preacher’ is a shameful mis-representer of the Gospel and clearly shows the danger of persons speaking about the message of the Bible when they clearly haven’t a clue as to what it means or says. If this chap is your first exposure to Christianity- yikes.

The Trumpet, a Fundamentalist website, has taken aim at those who have questioned Mazar’s ‘discovery’ of ‘David’s Palace’. In their words

It’s not what she’s uncovering that rankles scholarly critics—it’s that her findings confirm the biblical narrative.

Actually it’s not what she’s uncovering or her findings that rankle sensible scholars, it’s the outrageous, unsubstantiated claims. The Trumpet continues further on

In 1993, seven years after the Mazars discovered the Solomonic gate, a team digging in northern Israel found a large stone tablet, dated to the ninth century b.c., bearing these carved inscriptions: “House of David” and “King of Israel.” It was a stunning discovery—scientific proof that David not only existed, but his kingly reign began a royal dynasty.

There’s that word- ‘proof’ - of what? ‘David not only existed, but his kingly reign began a royal dynasty’. That’s not only an overstatement, it’s a misrepresentation of what the Tel Dan stele implies or can demonstrate. The Trumpeter continues

In the nine-page article [in BAR from 1997 when she urged the excavation of the 'City of David'], Mazar cited Kathleen Kenyon, Benjamin Mazar, Yigal Shiloh and several other scholars—oh, and also the Bible. Maybe that “chief sin” is one reason why Mazar found it difficult to obtain the financial support needed to test her theory. Or maybe it was because so many archaeologists had already excavated around that location. Whatever the reason, it took eight years for Mazar to receive the funding needed to excavate.

She cited scholars and ‘oh- and also the Bible’. Obviously for the article’s author and readers that implies that the case is now closed. The Bible says it so Mazar must be right. The circularity of this argument is visible to one and all (save for those who simply refuse to see it). Further, the appeal to authority too is perceived as relevant. It isn’t. 5000 people can be wrong just as surely as 1 can be. And then, after listing a whole string of things that ‘prove’ the Bible, the essayist suggests (with a straight face?)

And yet, even as these now-frequent discoveries are being made, all confirming the biblical record, there has been a corresponding rise in the level of hostility from scholars who reject the conclusions made from these findings—not because they question the credentials of the archaeologists, but because they reject the word of God.

Huh? The ‘word of God’ is a faith claim which has nothing, NOTHING to do with archaeological evidence. But this is the procedure typical of Fundamentalism; everything must be tied to ‘proof’ or ‘evidence that demands a verdict’ regarding the Biblical text and those who deny those connections or require more than the simplistic ‘this is what the bible says about this piece of pottery and that’s all there is to it’ are unbelievers. It’s a methodology that - rather than being ‘more faithful’ than an honest evaluation of the evidence - is simply inappropriate. Shriek though it may that the scholars rejecting Mazar’s conclusions are faithless, the Trumpet is making use of the methodologically bankrupt ‘bible and spade’ system of archaeology.  This may appeal to the readers of the Trumpet- but it doesn’t pass the test of modern biblical or archaeological scholarship.  And not because modern biblical and archaeological scholarship are ‘unbelief’- but because they are honest.  A claim impossible to be made by the practitioners of the ‘biblical archaeology’ school of thought.

Mazar doesn’t need to be defended, because SHE hasn’t been attacked.  Her conclusions, however, are under scrutiny  because they are unproven.   That’s the way scholarship works.  That’s what the Trumpet doesn’t recognize.