Jesus & “deutero” Isaiah: A Christology Problem?

In the introduction to Beale 2008:17 Erosion of Inerrancy  [1],  traditionalist Tom makes the following statement:

... Jesus and other New Testament writers often quote from both Isaiah 1–39 and 40–66 and say in each case that Isaiah wrote the enitre book.

I was unable to locate any NT text where Jesus quotes from Isaiah 40-66 and explicitly names Isaiah as the prophet/author. For this reason I don't understand Beale's claim that multiple authorship of Isaiah puts christology at risk because Jesus claims Isaiah as the author of the entire book.

... if the prophet Isaiah was not responsible for the contents of the whole book, then we are left with a christological problem, since Jesus understood that the prophet Isaiah wrote the entire book. [2]

There is no problem finding quotes from Isaiah 40-66 in the NT attributed explicitly to Isaiah, but in the reported words of Jesus in the Gospels I could not find an example. Most of the quotes in the Gospels are provided by the narrator. A classic example is John 12:38-40 were two portions of Isaiah are quoted (Is. 53:1,Is. 6:9) and both attributed to Isaiah but these are not the words of Jesus. The quotes attributed explicitly to Isaiah in the reported words of Jesus include:

Matt. 13:14 καὶ ἀναπληροῦται αὐτοῖς ἡ προφητεία Ἠσαΐου ἡ λέγουσα· ἀκοῇ ἀκούσετε καὶ οὐ μὴ συνῆτε, καὶ βλέποντες βλέψετε καὶ οὐ μὴ ἴδητε.  15 ἐπαχύνθη γὰρ ἡ καρδία τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου, καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν βαρέως ἤκουσαν καὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτῶν ἐκάμμυσαν, μήποτε ἴδωσιν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν ἀκούσωσιν καὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ συνῶσιν καὶ ἐπιστρέψωσιν καὶ ἰάσομαι αὐτούς.

Matt. 13:14 With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says:  ‘You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive. 15 For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.’  RSV

Is. 6:9 καὶ εἶπεν πορεύθητι καὶ εἰπὸν τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ ἀκοῇ ἀκούσετε καὶ οὐ μὴ συνῆτε καὶ βλέποντες βλέψετε καὶ οὐ μὴ ἴδητε  10 ἐπαχύνθη γὰρ ἡ καρδία τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν αὐτῶν βαρέως ἤκουσαν καὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτῶν ἐκάμμυσαν μήποτε ἴδωσιν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν ἀκούσωσιν καὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ συνῶσιν καὶ ἐπιστρέψωσιν καὶ ἰάσομαι αὐτούς 

Is. 6:9 And he said,  “Go, and say to this people:  ‘Hear and hear, but do not understand; see and see, but do not perceive.’ 10 Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” RSV


Matt. 15:7 ὑποκριταί, καλῶς ἐπροφήτευσεν περὶ ὑμῶν Ἠσαΐας λέγων·  8 ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ·  9 μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων.

Matt. 15:7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: 8  ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’” RSV

Mark 7:6 Ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· καλῶς ἐπροφήτευσεν Ἠσαΐας περὶ ὑμῶν τῶν ὑποκριτῶν, ὡς γέγραπται [ὅτι] οὗτος ὁ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ· 7 μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων. 

Mark 7:6 And he said to them,  “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,  ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’ RSV

Is. 29:13 καὶ εἶπεν κύριος ἐγγίζει μοι ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσίν με ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με διδάσκοντες ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων καὶ διδασκαλίας

Is. 29:13 ¶ And the Lord said:  “Because this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment of men learned by rote; RSV

In the following example Isaiah is explicitly named by the narrator and Jesus does the reading from Is. 61:1-2a and claims fulfillment of the prophecy but Jesus does not mention the prophet Isaiah by name.  

Luke 4:16 Καὶ ἦλθεν εἰς Ναζαρά, οὗ ἦν τεθραμμένος, καὶ εἰσῆλθεν κατὰ τὸ εἰωθὸς αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν καὶ ἀνέστη ἀναγνῶναι.   17 καὶ ἐπεδόθη αὐτῷ βιβλίον τοῦ προφήτου Ἠσαΐου καὶ ἀναπτύξας τὸ βιβλίον εὗρεν τὸν τόπον οὗ ἦν γεγραμμένον·  18 πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ᾿ ἐμὲ οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς, ἀπέσταλκέν με, κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν, ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει,  19 κηρύξαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν.  20 καὶ πτύξας τὸ βιβλίον ἀποδοὺς τῷ ὑπηρέτῃ ἐκάθισεν· καὶ πάντων οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ ἦσαν ἀτενίζοντες αὐτῷ.  21 ἤρξατο δὲ λέγειν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὅτι σήμερον πεπλήρωται ἡ γραφὴ αὕτη ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν ὑμῶν.

Luke 4:16   And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day. And he stood up to read;  17 and there was given to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. He opened the book and found the place where it was written,  18  “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,  19 to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”  20 And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him.  21 And he began to say to them,  “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” RSV

Is. 61:1 πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ᾿ ἐμέ οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς ἀπέσταλκέν με ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τῇ καρδίᾳ κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν  2 καλέσαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτὸν καὶ ἡμέραν ἀνταποδόσεως παρακαλέσαι πάντας τοὺς πενθοῦντας

Is. 61:1 ¶ The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me to bring good tidings to the afflicted; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; 2 to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn; RSV

I built this list from scratch searching on Isaiah's name in the GNT and reading each context to see if Jesus is speaking. This method is not bomb proof so I checked against Beale's list of citations from the NT which he claims is exhaustive. I end up not finding evidence to support for Beale's claim that we have a christology problem, quoting again:

... if the prophet Isaiah was not responsible for the contents of the whole book, then we are left with a christological problem, since Jesus understood that the prophet Isaiah wrote the entire book. [2]

I must be overlooking something obvious, but what?


[1] G. K. Beale, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism 2008, p. 17.

[2] ibid, p. 123

risks ...

Getting embroiled in long term intellectual interaction with secular or neo-pagan frameworks involves serious risks.  In the world of biblical studies Peter Enns[1] is by no means the first person to have problems from over exposure to secular biblical scholarship. Robert Gundry became the center of a similar tempest-in-a-teapot after the 1982 publication of Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art. The point of contention was Gundry's affirmation that Matthew took artistic liberties with the historical facts. Doesn't sound that threatening to us now but in 1982 it was radical, coming just a few years after the Chicago Statement had been hammered out.  

While I was a Francis Schaeffer disciple forty years ago, I became very deeply engaged with popular Existentialism primarily in literature, music and the visual arts. I didn't sit around reading Sartre [ Nausea was assigned reading] ,  but I did spend a Christmas break in 1969 reading modern theater, Beckett, Ionesco, Genet, Pinter, Albee. In visual arts it was the Abstract Expressionists and the Pop Art of the sixties. The excuse for this was Schaeffer's notion that you cannot speak to a culture you don't really understand. The real reason, there was something attractive about this world view, it was not just an exercise in cultural education.

Seriously engaging with contemporary culture is going to have an impact on your world view. You may not notice it at the time it is happening but you can not consume many thousands of hours of popular culture without taking on the impress of that culture. It is a problem for everyone. We live in a culture which is hostile to orthodox christian theism. We are bombarded constantly with persuaders that undermine our faith.

Biblical studies is probably the most lethal field of intellectual endeavor for an orthodox christian. The biblical studies mainstream is ultra-secular, the whole driving force behind it is hell bent on proving that the bible is just another book of religious nonsense. To earn a-place-at-the-table in biblical studies one will be constantly tempted to adopt the controlling framework, which operates on the assumption that everything in the “real world” must be understood on the assumption of the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system. Evangelical biblical scholars have been sitting at the table for decades now and it is often difficult to distinguish their publications from the rest. The methodology is the same, the unspoken assumptions appear to be the same. If you pressed them they might protest and point out how the are different but just reading thier works you will often see no material difference.

There are of course notable scholars like Richard Bauckham who have made a career out of rocking the boat in biblical studies. Bauckham launched a series of projects that not only call into question the conventional framework but replace it with something much better.  People like Bauckham are as rare as hen's teeth.


[1]Inspiration and incarnation : evangelicals and the problem of the Old Testament / Peter Enns. Baker Academic, c2005.

not a review: Peter Enns Inspiration and incarnation

Inspiration and incarnation : evangelicals and the problem of the Old Testament / Peter Enns. Baker Academic, c2005.

This book has had plenty of reviews and some really detailed critical evaluations. I do not intend to add yet another review. However, Enns' has leveled criticism at  “evangelical” biblical scholarship which does not reflect my personal experience. Enns is constantly attaching hedging qualifiers like "some" to his portrait of these poor misguided souls whom he would like to lead by the hand out of their constrained backward reactionary stances in regard to ANE culture and the OT.

I suspect that Enns' understanding of “the problem” is a cultural issue, his early training at Westminster Philadelphia where he was no doubt surround by what Frame has referred to as Machen's Warrior Children followed by a baptism of fire at Harvard for his PhD.

I studied under conservative “evangelical” old testament professors eons ago who forced us against-our-will to take a long hard look at the extrabiblical ANE texts and to think critically about their implications for OT exegesis. There was no defensive, reactionary posture what so ever. We read the standard ANE texts (e.g., Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts), we read Kitchen, Mowinckel, Gunkel ... whatever. Kitchen was blasted by J. Barr as a type of “the problem” Enns is defining but we did not read Kitchen or Harrison (Intro OT) exclusively, we were required to engage with the ANE primary sources, not selectively, as Enns claims but anything and everything that could shed light on the OT text. The general attitude toward ANE texts was positive. We were excited about the parallels to the creation account, flood stories, legal texts. There was nothing defensive about the stance taken by our OT professors. All this at a school where the president was one of the leading voices in the late great battle for the bible.

So I think Enns view of “the problem” is  a reflection of his personal history. I would agree that what was taught in the biblical literature classes at times created tension with what was being taught in theology classes. I would admit that the official doctrine of scripture didn't address the hermeneutical issues raised by the ANE texts. I would agree that there was tension between what later became the Chicago Statement and what we were doing in exegesis[1]. I would agree that the Chicago Statement is flawed and it needs to be revisited in light, not of ANE texts which have been around for 150 years, but the whole question of culture and language raised by cognitive approaches to linguistics.

These are just a few idle musings on the book that made Peter Enns news.

[1] The supplemental essays published in books after the Chicago Statement did address many difficult issues in hermeneutics.

The Albright-Cross-Waltke “cult” part 2

The last post was over edited, I cut out a lot personal stuff and the result was an almost unintelligible story. What ties these people together isn't just their use of the divine name. If you look for patterns of ideas about OT biblical studies, particularly the use of Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) literature out side of the Hebrew Bible, you can trace a thread of thinking about how the oldest texts in the Hebrew Bible, e.g. Job, certain Psalms, Exodus 15,  fit into the world of ANE literature and the use of the divine name is just a secondary issue. It is the line you can trace from Herman Gunkel Schöpfung und Chaos (1895) to W.F. Albright, F.M.Cross and some of his more famous students, J.J. Collins and B.K. Waltke. One of my favorite biblical literature professors Gary Staats was fresh out of Waltke's ThD program at Dallas.  Staats was a NT scholar but he had the Waltke style of teaching. No english bible, thank-you, even though the class was listed in the catalog as english bible. Ralph Alexander also had some similarities of thought to Waltke, but I only had one class from him. The big ideas were what tied these people together,  a certain attitude toward the text, an approach to ANE sources.

BTW, I just picked up the book that made Peter Enns news from the library this after noon. I'm about 30 pages into it and so far it is all review. Enns could easily end up being a member of the same group I have been describing. So far he reads like just another member of the Gunkel-Albright-Cross-Collins-Waltke ... club.   

The Albright-Cross-Waltke “cult” and the use divine name

Currently preparing a post on the divine council or the council of El with help of a small pile of books by W. F. Albright, F. M. Cross, John Day, J. A. Fitzmyer to name a few. Got to thinking about the use of the divine name in popular christian culture, when it started and why. This is just a personal account, not a definitive history so take it cum grano salis.

In 1973 I attended a winter “retreat” for college and post-college but still young people at a ski chalet near Mt Baker, in the north Cascades. The featured speaker was Ralph H Alexander, Th.D. The topic of the lectures was biblical covenants. One thing that struck me as passing strange was Ralfh Alexander's constant use of the divine name YHWH complete  with the vowels that were popular back then. I can't  tell you why, but this constant use of the divine name grated on the ear. It struck me as flippant even though R. Alexander was anything but flippant.

A few years later I discovered that other biblical studies professors were doing the same thing. There was one thing that tied several of these people together, they had all at one time or another been under the influence of Bruce Waltke who had been under influence of F.M. Cross who had been ... W. F. Albright,  I didn't figure that out for decades. It was a picture that came together gradually over time.

Fast forward to the early 1990s, I was doing some reading in F. M. Cross, principally  Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, Harvard University, 1973, a book which was foundational to Waltke's 1974 lectures Creation & Chaos[1]. Now twenty years later I reading the same book along with John Day, “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan”[2]. I find that my long term policy for using HaShem as a means of avoiding the vocalization of YHWH is starting to break down under the strain of constantly seeing YHWH vocalized in print. I am not particularly happy about this but what can I do?



[1] title borrowed from Hermann Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos, 1895.
[2] John Day, “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan”, Sheffield 2000.

ambiguity — Genesis 6:2,4 οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ

 In Genesis 6:2,4 the referent of οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ the sons of God is ambiguous. The reading  οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ the angels of God found in Codex Alexandrinus (A) appears to be an attempt to remove this ambiguity. Brayford [1] 2007:260,  Wevers [2] 1993:75-77.  The Masoretic Text reads ‏בני־האלהים bene ha'elohim which is the formal equivalent of οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ.  The text:

Gen. 6:1  καὶ ἐγένετο ἡνίκα ἤρξαντο οἱ ἄνθρωποι πολλοὶ γίνεσθαι ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ θυγατέρες ἐγενήθησαν αὐτοῖς  2 ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ [οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ (A)] τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὅτι καλαί εἰσιν ἔλαβον ἑαυτοῖς γυναῖκας ἀπὸ πασῶν ὧν ἐξελέξαντο  3 καὶ εἶπεν κύριος ὁ θεός οὐ μὴ καταμείνῃ τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τούτοις εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς σάρκας ἔσονται δὲ αἱ ἡμέραι αὐτῶν ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι ἔτη  4 οἱ δὲ γίγαντες ἦσαν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις καὶ μετ᾿ ἐκεῖνο ὡς ἂν εἰσεπορεύοντο οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸς τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἐγεννῶσαν ἑαυτοῖς ἐκεῖνοι ἦσαν οἱ γίγαντες οἱ ἀπ᾿ αἰῶνος οἱ ἄνθρωποι οἱ ὀνομαστοί

— Rahlfs LXX [4]

(6.1) And it came about when humans began to become numerous on the earth, that daughters also were born to them. 2 Now when the sons of God [ the angels of God (A)] saw the daughters of humans, that they were fair, they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. 3 And the Lord God said, “My spirit shall not abide in these humans forever, because they are flesh, but their days shall be one hundred twenty years.” 4 Now the giants were on the earth in those days and afterward. When the sons of God used to go in to the daughters of humans, then they produced offspring for themselves. Those were the giants that were of old, the renowned humans.

— Robert J. V. Hiebert NETS  Genesis [5]

If the reading οἱ ἄγγελοι  the angels in Alexandrinus is intended to disambiguate ‏בני־האלהים bene ha-elohim then why do we find in Alexandrinus the same Hebrew expression rendered in verse four as οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ the sons of God? Brayford [1] 2007:261 solves this problem by suggesting that Alexandrinus indicates a different referent by using οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ the sons of God in Gen 6:4. She suggests that  οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ the angels of God (A) in Gen 6:2 refer to the fathers of the first γίγαντες giants and the οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ the sons of God Gen 6:4 refers to giants which became the fathers of more giants. In other words the angels of God (A) in verse two father (beget) giants and the giants father giants after their own kind. 

Wevers [2] 1993:75,77 rejects the reading οἱ ἄγγελοι  the angels in Alexandrinus. He notes that the Masoretic Text leaves the question of who fathered the ‏הנפלים ha-nephilim the giants ambiguous but the Greek Gen. 6:4 makes it explicit by by using γίγαντες giants to render both הנפלים ha-nephilim  the giants and ‏הגברים ha-gibborim the mighty. In other words, the translator of Greek Genesis, noting that the his Hebrew vorlage was ambiguous in regard to who fathered whom, chose to collapse two Hebrew words הנפלים ha-nephilim and ‏הגברים ha-gibborim with only partial semantic overlap into one Greek word to make quite specific the relationship between giants and their offspring. This is an example of translation according to reference rather than according to sense (semantic value).



[1]Genesis (LXX) By Susan Brayford, Brill 2007

[2] J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis, SBLSCS 35;. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993.

[3] a passage which is very difficult to interpret.

Rahlfs LXX  does not always follow Codex Alexandrinus but in Gen 6:4  οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ is the same. The NETS Genesis also differs at points with both Alexandrinus and Rahlfs see next note, but for our this discussion there is no problem.

[5] NETS 01 Genesis, translated by Robert J. V. Hiebert , A New English Translation of the Septuagint, as published by Oxford University Press in 2009.
NETS uses the Göttingen edition of the LXX. The insertion of the (A) reading is mine.

easy greek - a myth

Here is what ever one else is quoting from David Alan Black

"One of the distressing developments in our superficial church culture is a cheap familiarity with New Testament Greek. It is fashionable to give the impression that we (and we alone) know what the Greek really says. I have sometimes referred to this as “evangelical Greek” or, in my less sanctified moments, “philological voodoo.” There is no place in evangelical biblical scholarship for the frivolous approach by which we claim for ourselves an inerrant understanding of Scripture. None of us who has labored in the task of Bible translation is ever worthy to claim perfection for our product. That includes me, and it includes you."

— David Alan Black

I might a few words of my own. There is a story going around about a monk who devoted all his time (+/-16 hours a day) to learning ancient greek for 18 years. After  which he confessed that he was still having problems reading Aeschylus. The main thing I notice is that every year it gets easier to forget what I knew last year. I had a much better command of old school text book grammar using the traditional meta-language in the year 2000 than I do now. When you quit using the traditional meta-language it goes away, fast.

cognitive approaches to language

One thing l like about linguistics; there is no orthodoxy. Unless perhaps you fall in with a crowd of Late-Chomsky true believers who speak a sort of esoteric language known only the very small inner circle of 32nd degree Chomsky disciples. Out in the real world where linguists actually do things, like translate the bible into ethnic minority languages, the body of language theory that any given translation consultant will be working with will often be made of up an eclectic selection of bits and pieces of many different schools of thought.

This eclecticism can make monographs on language theory and translation difficult to read. It has been about thirty years since I was first introduced to Generative Grammar by a not-quite-a-PhD colleague who had studied early Chomsky at the Univ of Washington. I started by reading the Cambridge series of text books on Generative Grammar, theory that was already over twenty years old. Around a decade later I started reading different sorts of functionalists like T. Givon, S. Dik, and M.A.K. Halliday. Just after the turn of the century I got introduced to cognitive approaches by reading Reinier de Blois :  

Reinier de Blois, Towards a New Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew Based on Semantic Domains.,   United Bible Societies 2001

Blakemore, Diane. 1992. Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.

Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.

Gutt, Ernst-August 1992.  Relevance Theory: A Guide to Successful Communication in Translation, Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and New York: United Bible Societies.

Gutt, Ernst-August 2000. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context , Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing (2 nd edition).

In last few years there have been some  monographs from SIL people, two of which I found particularly helpful.

A Relevance Theoretic approach to the particle hINA in Koine Greek
Margaret Gavin Sim PhD, 2006


Scenarios, Discourse, and Translation
The scenario theory of Cognitive Linguistics,
its relevance for analysing New Testament Greek
and modern Parkari texts,
and its implications for translation theory
Richard A. Hoyle

What I really like about E-A Gutt, M. Sim, and R. Hoyle is the application oriented presentation of the theory. In other words, the theory is demonstrated in practice so you can see what is means in terms of solving actual translation problems. 


cognitive linguistics and the doctrine of scripture

In 2010, I started thinking about the implications of inference based communication models (e.g. Relevance Theory) for the doctrine of scripture. I tried to run this by a couple of translation consultants and they just threw up their hands; "we don't do theology" which is not exactly what they said but that is how I understood their response.

I took a look at the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" which was published over period of years late 70's early 80's to see to what extent the document assumed a code model of language. The answer to this isn't straight forward. In the discussion of hermeneutics the problem of language and cultural frameworks was certainly addressed. However, I think if you were to take a long hard look at the assumptions about language shared by the contributors to "Chicago Statement", I think the code model of language would be discovered as common denominator. I am still mulling this over.

authorial habits and evidence in Textual Criticism

The following quote is from a Nov 30, 2010 blog post by Kevin  Who Saved the People Out of Egypt: Ιησους or Κυριος which gives an accounting of the text critical issues in regard to Jude 5:

Charles Landon favored κυριος in his monograph on Jude from a rigorous eclectic method.[10]  ...  One reason as to why Landon believes κυριος to be original is that the author of Jude never uses ιησους as a stand alone name but always adds χριστος and/or κυριος to it (see vv. 1, 4, 17, 21, 25).

 10. Charles Landon, A Text-Critical Study of the Epistle of Jude. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, 35; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. (pp. 70-75)

“Jude never uses ιησους as a stand alone …” Every time I read a an statement like this[1], which is far too often, I wonder about it. Jude is a small text. How can we talk about authorial habits based on such a small sample? Here is an example of the author breaking the normal pattern which authors do all the time, break patterns that is.  Michael W. Holmes seems to have found this and other arguments unpersuasive. Here is the text from  Michael W. Holmes SBLGNT with the apparatus:

Jude 1:5 Υπομνησαι δε υμας βουλομαι, ειδοτας ⸂υμας απαξ⸃ ⸀παντα, οτι ⸀Ιησους λαον εκ γης Αιγυπτου σωσας το δευτερον τους μη πιστευσαντας απωλεσεν,

Jude 1:5
— υμας απαξ RP ] απαξ υμας NIV; απαξ WH Treg; υμας NA
— παντα WH Treg NIV ] τουτο RP
— Ιησους Holmes WHmarg ] κυριος WH Treg; ο κυριος NIV RP; ο κυριος απαξ NA


 [1] Landon's appealing to authorial habits as evidence is the point of criticism here not Kevin's post which was well written.

El, El Elyon in Genesis 14:18-19, 22

Against those who would find in Melchizedek a priest of a different deity than Abram's El Elyon creator of heaven and earth (Gen 14:18-19, 22), are the statements of F. M. Cross

“ ‘El is rarely if ever used in the Bible as a proper name of a non-Israelite, Canaanite deity in the full consciousness of a distinction between ‘El and Yahweh, god of Israel.” F. M. Cross[1] 1973:44

        “I am inclined to believe that  ‘elyon in Genesis 14 serves as a proper epithet of El … the creator god of Jerusalem was El, and later, at least, the epithets ‘elyon and ‘eli both became standard epithets of Yahweh alonside his alias El.” F. M. Cross[1] 1973:51-52

John Day[2] 2000:20 claims that El Elyon in Gen. 14:19, 22 is an example of El as creator language appropriated for use in reference to YHWH:

… there is some evidence that there are occasions on which the Old Testament has appropriated El language when it speaks of Yahweh as creator. Thus, it can hardly be a coincidence that Gen. 14:19, 22 speaks of ‘El-Elyon, creator (qoneh) of heaven and earth’, and Deut. 32.6 declares, ‘Is not he your father, who created you (qaneka)’. This is so because not only is it the case that the verb qnh is used outside the Bible to speak of El’s creative activity, but in both cases cited above we have other evidence supporting El influence: Gen. 14:19 and 22 specifically refer to El(- Elyon), and Deut. 32.8 also refers to the ‘sons of God’ (implicitly seventy, deriving from the seventy sons of El) as well as the name Elyon

The notion of appropriation is crucial for our understanding of god-language in the OT. When we see the names of foreign deities used outside of prophetic contexts where the pagan deities are being lambasted by the prophet, the question of reference will often arise. Most of the time Ba‘l (aka Baal) is not going to be a problem in this regard. Ba‘l is seldom if ever used in context where the referent could possibly be the God of Israel. By way of contrast El (with or without epithets) is used frequently with reference to the God of Israel. This borrowed god-language includes formulas like ‏אל עליון קנה שמים וארץ El Elyon creator of heaven and earth. That fact that we find similar language used in reference to Canaanite deities isn't a cause for concern since appropriation of language from pagan sources is a common feature of the Old Testament.

Appropriaton is a complex process. Not only are the original referents for the divine names changed but the cosmology and theology represented in the borrowed language in its original cultural religious setting in some cases is simply ignored by the biblical author. In other words the language may remain intact but the meaning is transformed into biblical authors cultural religious framework. In other cases the borrowed language is put to use in refuting the cosmology and theology of the culture from which it was appropriated. In this way the language is turned against the source culture, something like an ancient form of deconstruction.


[1] Frank Moore Cross: Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, Harvard University, 1973

[2] John Day, “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan”, Sheffield 2000.

linguistic minutia in Gen 14:18-22

After pointing out earlier today that exegetical disputes are often not resolved by attention to minute linguistic detail I am now going to raise an objection to Susan Brayford's[1] claim that referent for ὁ θεὸς ὁ ὕψιστος The Most High God in Gen 14:19 is different from the referent of τὸν θεὸν τὸν ὕψιστον in Gen 14:22. In regard to v19 Brayford[1] 2007:296 states "That Abram does not protest his blessing by a foreign deity implies that his own God at the time is not 'Jealous.'"

Then Brayford turns around in v22 and claims that τὸν θεὸν τὸν ὕψιστον The Most High God refers in the Greek Genesis to YHWH as it does in the Masoretic Text ‏ אל־יהוה אל עליון which she displays as evidence? I very carefully checked her text against in v19 and v22 against Rahlfs and they were identical. I also looked again at John Wevers' Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis. I am somewhat baffled by her statements. The full expression identifying the deity is nearly identical:

v19 τῷ θεῷ τῷ ὑψίστῳ ὃς ἔκτισεν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν
v22 τὸν θεὸν τὸν ὕψιστον ὃς ἔκτισεν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν

To say that the v22 is a clear reference to YHWH like the MT just ignores the fact that the divine name YHWH is inserted in the MT in front of El Elyon. There is no translation equivalent for YHWH in v22 of Greek Genesis. So what is Brayford talking about? On level of language code the difference is the dative case v19 and the accusative case v22. The case has nothing to do with the referent.

Gen. 14:18 καὶ Μελχισεδεκ βασιλεὺς Σαλημ ἐξήνεγκεν ἄρτους καὶ οἶνον ἦν δὲ ἱερεὺς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου  19 καὶ ηὐλόγησεν τὸν Αβραμ καὶ εἶπεν εὐλογημένος Αβραμ τῷ θεῷ τῷ ὑψίστῳ ὃς ἔκτισεν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν  20 καὶ εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς ὁ ὕψιστος ὃς παρέδωκεν τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποχειρίους σοι καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ δεκάτην ἀπὸ πάντων  21 εἶπεν δὲ βασιλεὺς Σοδομων πρὸς Αβραμ δός μοι τοὺς ἄνδρας τὴν δὲ ἵππον λαβὲ σεαυτῷ  22 εἶπεν δὲ Αβραμ πρὸς βασιλέα Σοδομων ἐκτενῶ τὴν χεῖρά μου πρὸς τὸν θεὸν τὸν ὕψιστον ὃς ἔκτισεν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν

Would the translator of Greek Genesis accept the notion that Abram would accept a blessing in the name of a foreign deity, and then turn around and immediately use the identical language to make reference to his own deity? That is how the Greek Genesis[2] reads. This is a commentary on the Greek Genesis. In the Greek Genesis Abram and Melchizedek use the same expression "the Most High God creator of heaven and earth." When that expression comes out of Melchizedek's mouth it is a foreign god when the same expression comes out of Abram's mouth it is Abram's God? Certainly the author of Hebrews does not read the Greek Genesis in that manner.

The scenario described by Brayford seems to me untenable. The Greek Genesis was the bible of the Jews in the diaspora who were struggling to maintain their faith while surrounded on all sides by rampant paganism. To leave ambiguity of reference to a deity in the text runs up against the cultural religious situation of the translator. I think we should assume that the translator considered the text unambiguous and that both Melchizedek and Abram were understood by the translator to be making reference to the same deity. That is the scenario which is reflected in the identical language. The insertion of YHWH into the MT was an act of over-caution by some scribe who didn't see things the same way as the Greek translator.


 [1]Genesis (LXX) By Susan Brayford, Brill 2007

[2] YHWH  in front of El Elyon is pobably not original in the MT.

When did the Jews stop reading Hebrew and why?

On page one, the first paragraph Susan Brayford[1] says:

Did the Jews outside of "Israel" loose their ability to read and speak Hebrew because of Alexander the great?

[1]Genesis (LXX) By Susan Brayford, Brill 2007 page 1.

apologetics, exegesis and cognitive linguistics

The code model[1] (CM) of natural language is still being used in biblical exegesis by many of those who engaged in christian apologetics. The doctrine of scripture that was hammered out during the  late great battle for the bible which culminated in the Chicago Statement(CS) is still hovering in background of the apologetic discourse. The Chicago Statement is constructed on the code model of language. In the world of bible translation the code model is not totally passe. However, since the early 90's Ernst-August Gutt has been publishing on Relevance Theory (RT) and has been joined by a growing number of his colleagues.

RT is an inferential model of communication. For an act of communication to succeed there needs to be a mutually shared cognitive framework between the author and the addressee. The meaning and intent of the message is not totally encoded in the language used. What is encoded is sufficient to trigger an inferential process in the addressee which will fill in the meaning from shared cultural assumptions. This model entails a certain level of cultural relativity which will wave a red flag for proponents of propositional revelation.

In the last paragraph the expression "wave a red flag" illustrates the inferential dynamic. If the addressee was Chinese,  born and raised in China after 1949 the inference prompted by the expression "wave a red flag" will probably not match what was intended when I wrote the sentence. The communication breaks down because author and addressee have a different set of cultural assumptions.

Natural language is ambiguous. The traditional apologist has often viewed ambiguity as the enemy of orthodoxy. When two different interpreters of scripture come the same scriptural text they often bring with them a different cognitive framework, a different set of cultural assumptions. The ancient author wrote the passage with a certain target audience in view who had yet another set of cultural assumptions. The well trained apologist is normally well aware of these cultural issues. But because she is working with a code model of language she will probably try and resolve the problem by attention to the details of the language code. In this manner she places a burden on the language of scripture which it cannot bear. She is looking for the meaning in the text and according to cognitive approach to semantics the meaning is not in the text[2].

... more on this later. 

[1]

According to the code model, a communicator encodes her intended message into a signal, which is decoded by the audience using an identical copy of the code. According to the inferential model, a communicator provides evidence of her intention to convey a certain meaning, which is inferred by the audience on the basis of the evidence provided. An utterance is, of course, a linguistically coded piece of evidence, so that verbal comprehension involves an element of decoding. However, the linguistic meaning recovered by decoding is just one of the inputs to a non-demonstrative inference process which yields an interpretation of the speaker's meaning.

— Relevance Theory D. Wilson & D. Sperber

[2] Kevin J. Vanhoozer  Is There a Meaning in This Text?  1998

apologetics, the quest for certainty and biblical exegesis

I have read what seems like countless[1] books and articles in the apologetics genre starting with  Francis Schaeffer Escape from Reason in 1967 ...  down to The End of Christianity 2009 by William A. Dembski.  When Schaeffer was still news (late '60s) and I was a student at Seattle Pacific College, I attended a week of lectures given by Schaeffer. At that time I was taking a class on modern philosophy with Prof. Walter Johnson and we were embroiled in a long discussion of absolutes as presented in A Place to Stand by Elton Trueblood. My older sister had just graduated from Whitworth College where she had been exposed to the leading secular theologians of the day, Harvey Cox The Secular City, John A.T. Robinson Honest to God, Thomas J.J. Altizer, The Gospel of Christian Atheism. My pastor Gilbert R. Martin was leading a weekly college level discussion of Escape from Reason and The God Who is There. A couple of years later I was regularly giving public lectures to secular audiences on the christian worldview employing Schaeffer's framework. One of my colleagues at that time Ed Sherman is still giving lectures on christian worldview for the University of the Nations. What is the point? I am not opposed to apologetics.

One of the key methods of attacking the  the orthodox christian worldview is to undermine the certainty of central doctrines including the personal transcendent  Creator God who is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, the full deity of Jesus Christ, the incarnation, the atonement and the resurrection. All of this was going on in the era of secular theology when Francis Schaeffer published his first book. The main objectives haven't changed. The current players have different names and different methods, like Bart Ehrman who is hyperactively engaged in recycling old scholars like Adolf Harnack and Walter Bauer for popular consumption.    

In the quest for certainty there is a constant danger of over simplifying complex issues to provide what looks like certainty but is not. Nowhere is this more apparent than the use of scripture in apologetic argumentation. Natural language is ambiguous. Print that out in large bold type and make several copies to use as bookmarks for your bible. Ambiguity might appear at first to be the enemy of certainty. In my recent posts on Hebrews 7:13 we have looked at the exegetical problems with the affirmations concerning Melchizedek. The argument has some local tensions, things that don't at first glance seem to logically hang together. This ambiguity has been from the time of the early Church employed by those who want to promote various heresies. The strategy is simple. They locate and isolate a text where the language is open to several interpretations and they fix on that text in isolation and build from it a doctrine which is totally incompatible with biblical author's theology.   

Natural language is ambiguous but the communication strategy employed in the bible is one of massive communication redundancy (MR).  The crux interpretum in Hebrews 7:13 isn't a serious theological problem because the message of Hebrews concerning Jesus Christ is massively redundant and abundantly clear. So print that out on the other side of your "natural language is ambiguous" bookmarks. Ambiguity is overcome by massive communication redundancy.

This has implications for apologetic strategy. Don't let the Arians and the Unitarians choose the location of the battle[2]. If you get embroiled in a debate over a crux interpretum your going to waste a lot of time and probably be tempted to take short cuts using less that valid linguistic and exegetical procedures. Debates over linguistic minutia are very difficult to win because of natural language ambiguity. The core issues in the orthodox christian worldview are not suspend by weak threads like the syntax of a particular clause (e.g. John 1:1c). Letting the Arians and the Unitarians choose the ground were the battle is to engage is a loosing strategy.

More on this later. 


[1]  Some of  most significant titles and authors: The God Who is There, He is there and is not Silent, C.S. Lewis The Abolition of Man, C. Van Til, Defense of the Faith, Christian Epistemology ... John Frame Doctrine of the Knowledge of God ... A. Plantinga ... N. Wolterstorff  ...  .

 [2] In the movie Gettysburg one of the opening scenes is Brig. Gen. John Buford from the Union Army arriving early before the battle and looking over the battle ground from Seminary Hill.  Hancock asks if this is good ground on which to fight. Buford says it's very good ground.

Is Melchizedek "a true Deity"? Hebrews 7:3 — part 3

This is the third post in a critical reading  of J. H. Neyrey's[1] article on Hebrews 7:3 which will make better sense if you read part one and part two.

Heb. 7:3 ἀπάτωρ ἀμήτωρ ἀγενεαλόγητος, μήτε ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν μήτε ζωῆς τέλος ἔχων, ἀφωμοιωμένος δὲ τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ θεοῦ, μένει ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸ διηνεκές.

Heb. 7:3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

A common reading of Heb 7:13a  understands the alpha privatives ἀπάτωρ ἀμήτωρ ἀγενεαλόγητος "without father, without mother, without genealogy" on the principle that "nothing must be regarded as as having existed before the time of its first biblical mention" F. F. Bruce 1964:196, n.18[2]. In other words, the father and mother of Melchizedek are not mentioned in Genesis so an argument from silence  draws an inference that he had no father or mother. The purpose of the author in Hebrews 7 is to exalt Jesus Christ. Pointing out that Melchizedek has no father, no mother, no genealogy recorded in the OT does not exalt Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, if  "without father, without mother, without genealogy" is a Hellenistic formula for "true Deity" as J. H. Neyrey's[1] article demonstrates from numerous Hellenistic sources,  how can we avoid the conclusion that Hebrews builds the argument for Jesus Christ's eternal priesthood on Melchizedek's true deity and eternal priesthood? In other words, without Melchizedek's true deity and eternal priesthood the argument falls apart. Neyrey[1] does not solve this problem. The second paragraph on the first page of his article states:

I. Focus and Hypothesis

{ ... }

This study focuses on the Graeco-Roman background to the language and concepts in Heb 7:3. Paraphrased in terms of Greek philosophy, the author states three things of Melchizedek: he is (1) ungenerated, (2) uncreated in the past and imperishable in the future, and (3) eternal or immortal. According to my hypothesis, these three things are topoi from Hellenistic philosophy on what constitutes a true god.(3) In light of the topoi, the figure in 7:3 should be acclaimed a true deity. That predication, however, is directed not to Melchizedek, but to Jesus. The author of Hebrews inflated the character of Melchizedek in 7:3 beyond anything found in Scripture or midrash, so as to make comparable statements about Jesus, who is unquestionably acclaimed a divine figure in Hebrews. Thus the author supplies specific content to his acclamation of Jesus as a deity, for like true gods he is fully eternal.

— J. H. Neyrey 1991:1 [1] 

The statement "That predication, however, is directed not to Melchizedek, but to Jesus." is an assumption not a conclusion based on evidence. The fact that we can find extravagant portrayals of the patriarchs in Second Temple Judaism does not in and of itself prove that Hebrews is presenting Melchizedek's priesthood as a extravagant fictional fantasy about a shadowy historical person in the manner of the Enoch literature. At the end of section II[1]. The Shape of Hellenistic God-Talk we read a paragraph that compares Hebrews treatment of Moses to Melchizedek.

Although the remarks in Heb 7:3 are predicated of Melchizedek, this is not to say that the author is necessarily drawing on targumic or midrashic traditions about this figure. Writing about the way Moses was exalted in Hebrews beyond anything found in Jewish traditions, Mary Rose D'Angelo argued that such an overdevelopment of Moses only serves to promote Jesus all the more.(35) So it is with Melchizedek. If he is presented in terms used to describe a deity, the point is not to exalt Melchizedek for his own sake, but to promote Jesus: ". . . resembling the Son of God" (7:3). All of this discussion of eternity, then, should be seen in function of the author's clear and nuanced acclamation of Jesus as a true deity.

 — J. H. Neyrey

Hebrews provides details about Moses which are not found in the Hebrew canon, but nowhere in Hebrews is Moses described in the terminology of "true deity". Moses birth γεννηθεὶς and parents τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ are mentioned.

Heb. 11:23 Πίστει Μωϋσῆς γεννηθεὶς ἐκρύβη τρίμηνον ὑπὸ τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ,
Heb. 11:23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid for three months by his parents RSV.  

Having human parents and a record of his birth disqualifies Moses according to the Hellenistic God-Talk test for "true deity". This line of reasoning about Moses leads to similar questions about Jesus Christ. If the qualifications for "true deity" included having no father, no mother and no genealogy, Jesus Christ fails the test for "true deity" because he had a well documented human mother and genealogy. If the "true deity" qualifications require no death, then Jesus fails because Jesus died. So the Hellenistic God-Talk test for "true deity" when applied to the NT teaching on Jesus Christ comes up negative. Never the less, the author of Hebrews applies all these statements to Melchizedek:  Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life and then turns around and makes the equally baffling statement that Melchizedek was made to resemble (ἀφωμοιωμένος passive participle) the Son of God ... In what sense does Melchizedek resemble the Son of God?

So now we have not one but two big problems raised by J. H. Neyre's proposal. We have a deity on our hands named Melchizedek and criteria for "true deity" which do not fit the NT teaching on Jesus Christ.  Koester 2001:348[3] takes note of these "tensions" in the argument at Heb 7:3 "The author is apparently not comparing Melchizedek to the earthly Jesus, but to the exalted Son of God, who existed before the world was created and who will endure after it has it has ended ([Heb.] 1:2, 10-12)."



[1] Jerome H. Neyrey, S.J. "Without Beginning of Days or End of Life" (Heb 7:3): Topos for a True Deity" CBQ 53 (1991) 439-55.

[2] F. F. Bruce, Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT 1964.

[3] Craig R. Koester. Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 36. New York: Doubleday, 2001

Is Melchizedek "a true Deity"? Hebrews 7:3 — part 2

In the the previous post: Is Melchizedek "a true Deity"? we saw how J. H. Neyrey's[1]  proposal actually creates a problem which did not exist in the more traditional reading of Hebrew 7:3. What we are calling the traditional reading[2] is the understanding that the alpha privatives ἀπάτωρ ἀμήτωρ ἀγενεαλόγητος "without father, without mother, without genealogy" are used in the same manner as Philo refers to Sarah as ἀμήτωρ because she appears in Genesis without a prior mention of her mother, on the principle that "nothing must be regarded as as having existed before the time of its first biblical mention" F. F. Bruce 1964:196, n.18[3].

Henry Alford[4] takes objection with the traditional reading. According to Alford, the solemn language employed in Heb 7:13 would seem "childish" if it meant nothing more than Melchizedek's father and mother were not recorded in the OT. For Alford the examples from Philo do not determine how we should read Hebrews while Neyery uses Philo and other Hellenistic philosophers to develop a refutation of the traditional reading. So Philo can be argued both ways, or better yet, multiple ways.

If we find J. H. Neyrey's[1]  proposal persuasive then we are left with a "true deity" on our hands named Melchizedek and we will need to find some exegetical/theological means of accommodating him who "... resembling the Son of God, remains a priest forever."

Heb. 7:3 ἀπάτωρ ἀμήτωρ ἀγενεαλόγητος, μήτε ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν μήτε ζωῆς τέλος ἔχων, ἀφωμοιωμένος δὲ τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ θεοῦ, μένει ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸ διηνεκές.

Heb. 7:3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.    


[1] Jerome H. Neyrey, S.J. "Without Beginning of Days or End of Life" (Heb 7:3): Topos for a True Deity" CBQ 53 (1991) 439-55.

[2] What we are calling the traditional reading is really only one of several options  which date back to the first few centuries.

[3] F. F. Bruce, Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT 1964. 

[4] Henry Alford, Greek Testament v. IV, pp.129-130.

Is Melchizedek "a true Deity"? Hebrews 7:3

Jerome H. Neyrey, S.J.[1] understands the affirmations concerning Melchizedek found in Hebrews 7:3 as identifiers of "a true Deity" borrowed from "Hellenistic God-Talk".  A true deity is distinguished in several Hellenistic authors from a deified mortal by being eternal; no beginning, no generation, no birth, no death, no end. Neyrey[1] presents the evidence from the Hellenistic authors in English so there is no point in repeating it here. Neyrey argues that the language of Heb 7:3 is unmistakably a definition true deity according to Greek and Hellenistic philosophy: 

1. By examining in great detail the Hellenistic parallels to the statements made in Heb 7:3, this study has shown that the language originates in and reflects the mode of thought found in Greek and Hellenistic philosophical speculation about a true deity. Unmistakably, the author of Hebrews intends his readers to understand the figure described in 7:3 as a true deity, completely in accord with the topoi which describe true gods as fully eternal, uncreated or ungenerated in the past and imperishable in the future. —   Neyrey[1]

Heb. 7:3 ἀπάτωρ ἀμήτωρ ἀγενεαλόγητος, μήτε ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν μήτε ζωῆς τέλος ἔχων, ἀφωμοιωμένος δὲ τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ θεοῦ, μένει ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸ διηνεκές.

Heb. 7:3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever. — NRSV

The three alpha privatives ἀπάτωρ ἀμήτωρ ἀγενεαλόγητος "without father, without mother, without genealogy" followed by μήτε ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν μήτε ζωῆς τέλος ἔχων "having neither beginning of days nor end of life" is a formula statement for "true Deity" according to Neyrey, well documented from primary sources in his article. R. Bauckham[2] cites Neyrey favorably in his discussion of Heb. 7:3 and divine identity. Koester 2001:348[3] suggests that the three alpha privatives ἀπάτωρ ἀμήτωρ ἀγενεαλόγητος taken alone might have been used to discredit Melchizedek, suggesting that he had no known father and mother but the following qualification "having neither beginning of days nor end of life" makes it clear that Hebrews is speaking of divinity.

Then how we avoid the obvious? That according to Hebrews Melchizedek is a "a true Deity"? Bauckham[2] claims that the author of Hebrew's had little interest in the historical Melchizedek and that we need not take Hebrews seriously as statement about the Melchizedek of Genesis 14. According to Bauckham, Koester, Ellingworth[4], Hebrews uses an argument from silence. In Genesis 14 Melchizedek arrives without announcement other than he is the King/Priest of Salem and then disappears without a trace. According to Bauckham[2] this lack of historical information is sufficient justification according to the literary customs of (late) Second Temple Judaism to fabricate a imaginary (mythical?) "textual" Melchizedek which has little or no relationship to the historical Melchizedek. This "textual" Melchizedek is made a type of Jesus Christ as High Priest using Psalm 110:4. This sounds to me a lot like the arguments used to dispose of troublesome historical figures in NT epistles like Adam for example in Paul's epistles.
      

[1] Jerome H. Neyrey, S.J. "Without Beginning of Days or End of Life" (Heb 7:3): Topos for a True Deity" CBQ 53 (1991) 439-55.

[2] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel p. 246-47

[3] Craig R. Koester. Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 36. New York: Doubleday, 2001

[4] Paul Ellingworth. Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text.

Melchizedek ὁ θεὸς ὁ ὕψιστος & the Divine Identity — part 2

Did Abram and Melchizedek worship the same God? Does the book of Hebrews compare Jesus Christ to a priest of a Canaanite deity?  
 
In the first post on Melchizedek ὁ θεὸς ὁ ὕψιστος & the Divine Identity  I suggested that the title ὁ θεὸς ὁ ὕψιστος Theos Hypsistos ‏אל עליון El Elyon "God Most High" in and of itself would not provide a unique identifier. Outside the OT the epithet  ‏ עליון Elyon  (or a variant form) is applied to Baal and other deities, DDD[1] pp.295-96. However, in the extant Canaanite literature there are no examples of Elyon attached to El in the form El Elyon. In the Hebrew bible Elyon is used as a epithet for YHWH. Never the less, the referent of El Elyon in Gen. 14:18-22 is a question with some minor difficulties. First of all, the Masoretic Text (MT) of Genesis appears to have an editorial alteration with the problem of El Elyon's identity in view.

Gen. 14:22 MT & LXX

‎MT ‏ ויאמר אברם אל־מלך סדם הרימתי ידי אל־יהוה אל עליון קנה שמים וארץ

But Abram said to the king of Sodom,  “I have sworn to the LORD God Most High, maker of heaven and earth." — RSV

LXX OG εἶπεν δὲ Αβραμ πρὸς βασιλέα Σοδομων ἐκτενῶ τὴν χεῖρά μου πρὸς τὸν θεὸν τὸν ὕψιστον ὃς ἔκτισεν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν

In Gen. 14:22 MT we read יהוה YHWH before ‏אל עליון El Elyon.The LXX OG lacks a translation equivalent for YHWH which most probably indicates that the vorlage for the Greek Genesis did not read יהוה YHWH. The reference to YHWH is also missing from the Syriac, 1QapGen. The SamPent reads ‏האלהים h-Elohim in place of  יהוה YHWH, E.Tov[2]. The shorter reading of the same expression אל עליון קנה שמים וארץ is found if verse 19. 

Speaking on behalf of the LXX OG text, J.W. Wevers[3] states "Abram's oath was taken in the name of Melchisedek's God, God Most High, rather than his own God, the Lord." Wevers doesn't appear to be partial to either reading, demonstrating how the MT might be original and the LXX an attempt to put some distance between the God of Abram and the God of Melchisedek. E.Tov[2] appears to favor the LXX reading. Tov states that the expression found in Gen.14:19 אל עליון קנה שמים וארץ "El Elyon creator of heaven and earth" has close parallels in Canaanite texts where 'Elyon has the function of קנה "creator". He makes note of the theological consequences of adding the single word YHWH to Masoretic Text "thus identifying 'Most High' with the God of Israel, as if Abram is addressing Him." 
‏

The omission of YHWH from the MT would not force us to agree with Wevers that Abram was taking an oath in the name of a different deity.  The "addition" (?) of YHWH to Masoretic Text of Genesis 14:22 appears to be a theologically motivated clarification of the referent of El Elyon. However, the referent of El Elyon was probably not a problem to begin with. Elyon is used elsewhere in the OT as an epithet for YHWH[4]. In the late years of the Second Temple, by the time the author of Hebrews used this text, there was no question that the referent of El Elyon was YHWH.


[1] The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (DDD).

[2] E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd Ed.  P. 282

[3] J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis, p. 200.

[4] Psa. 18:14 ‏ וירעם בשמים יהוה ועליון יתן קלו ברד וגחלי־אש

Melchizedek ὁ θεὸς ὁ ὕψιστος & the Divine Identity

After several days of reading secondary literature about Melchizedek I decided it might be worthwhile to take another look at Gen. 14:18-20 in the MT and LXX OG[1].

How do you suppose that Abram and Melchizedek mutually understood that they worshiped the same Elohim ‏אלהים θεὸς? What do we see in the text that signifies the Divine Identity? It should just jump off that page, if you are looking for it.

Gen. 14:18‏ ומלכי־צדק מלך שלם הוציא לחם ויין והוא כהן לאל עליון

‎Gen. 14:19‏ ויברכהו ויאמר ברוך אברם לאל עליון קנה שמים וארץ

‎Gen. 14:20‏ וברוך אל עליון אשר־מגן צריך בידך ויתן־לו מעשר מכל


Gen. 14:18 And Mel-chizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High.
Gen. 14:19 And he blessed him and said,  “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth;
Gen. 14:20 and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” And Abram gave him a tenth of everything.
         — RSV

Gen. 14:18 καὶ Μελχισεδεκ βασιλεὺς Σαλημ ἐξήνεγκεν ἄρτους καὶ οἶνον ἦν δὲ ἱερεὺς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου  19 καὶ ηὐλόγησεν τὸν Αβραμ καὶ εἶπεν εὐλογημένος Αβραμ τῷ θεῷ τῷ ὑψίστῳ ὃς ἔκτισεν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν  20 καὶ εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς ὁ ὕψιστος ὃς παρέδωκεν τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποχειρίους σοι καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ δεκάτην ἀπὸ πάντων

Verse 18 tells us that Melchizedek was a priest of τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου Theos Hypsistos ‏אל עליון El Elyon "God Most High" and that he invoked God by that title when he blessed Abram but not by that title alone, he also appended ‏  קנה שמים וארץ which the LXX OG renders with a relative clause ὃς ἔκτισεν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν "who is the made/founded/created[2] heaven and earth". The title ὁ θεὸς ὁ ὕψιστος אל עליון "God Most High" in and of itself would not provide a unique identifier. The qualifying clause is the key to the Divine Identity. What exactly the qualifying clause says needs some further exploration. Note that ESV renders it differently than the RSV.

Gen 14:19  And he blessed him and said,
“Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
Possessor of heaven and earth;
20  and blessed be God Most High,
who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” 

It looks like the RSV followed the LXX OG ἔκτισεν where as the ESV has followed the older English translation tradition of the KJV, ASV, NASB (1970). A quick glance in HALOT ‏ קנה — it looks like the evidence for create is substantial and J.W. Wevers (Notes on Greek Text Gen) states without qualification that the Greek translators got it right. Both G. Wenham (Gen. WBC) and V.P. Hamilton (Gen. NIOTC) appear to agree with Wevers, Hamilton presents some detailed evidence from Ugaritic. 

[1]LXX OG, Septuagint Old Greek


[2] LEH κτίζω o found, to build, ... to make, to create  [τι] Gn 14:19; 
 A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, ed. by J. Lust, E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie, in cooperation with G. Chamberlain.
© 1992, 1997 by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart.

Melchizedek in 11QMelch (aka 11Q13, 11QMelchizedek)

 As promised I am going to present the evidence found in 11Q13 with a few comments. All the Hebrew is from Martin Abegg's electronic text  (ver. 2.0) and the English translation is from Abegg, Wise and Cook.


11Q13 2:5‏ מוריהמה החבאוׄ וׄסתר[ו] ומנחלת מלכי צדק כי[א -- ] והמה נחל[ת מלכי צ]דק אשר
‎11Q13 2:8‏ לכפר בו על כול בני [אור ו]אנש[י ]גׄורל מל[כי ]צדק[ .  -- ]ם עלי[המ]ה הת[ ]לפ[י ]כ[ול עש]ותמה כיא
‎11Q13 2:9‏ הואה הקץ לשנת הרצון למלכי צדק ולצב[איו ע]ם קדושי אל לממשלת משפט כאשר כתוב
‎11Q13 2:13‏ ומלכי צדק יקום נקם משפטי א[ל ביום ההואה.  ויצי]ל[מה מיד ]בליעל ומיד כול ר[וחי גורלו]. 
‎11Q13 2:25‏ [ -- מלכי צדק אשר יצי]ל[מה מי]ד בליעל.  ואשר אמר והעברתמה שו[פר ב]כוׄל [א]רץ.
  — Martin Abegg

11Q13 2:8  when he shall atone for all the Sons of [Light] and the peopl[e who are pre]destined to Mel[chi]zedek. […] upo[n the]m […] For
11Q13 2:9  this is the time decreed for “the year of Melchiz[edek]’s favor” (Isaiah 61:2, modified), [and] by his might he w[i]ll judge God’s holy ones and so establish a righteous ki[n]gdom, as it is written
11Q13 2:13  Therefore Melchizedek will thoroughly prosecute the veng[ea]nce required by Go[d’s] statu[te]s. [Also, he will deliver all the captives from the power of B]elial, and from the power of all [the spirits predestined to him.]
11Q13 2:25  [Melchizedek, who will del]iv[er them from the po]wer of Belial. Concerning what scripture says, “Then you shall have the trumpet [sounded loud; in] the [seventh m]o[nth …” (Leviticus 25:9).]
  —  Abegg, Wise and Cook

Those who are not able to read Hebrew should still be able to make a note of  fragmentary nature of the evidence. The brackets represent holes or broken lines. In the Hebrew text only, all the letters inside the brackets are missing from the fragment, nothing there at all, not even a trace of a letter. The letters outside the brackets are present, at least some trace of a letter. What doesn't come across in the unicode script is the markings on letters outside the brackets that indicate a letter which is questionable. There are broken letters and also letters which are hard to read for other reasons. Any broken or ambiguous letter is less probable to be correctly read. I counted about forty letters which were marked with some level of uncertainty. If you to go to the trouble of counting the letters outside of brackets this will give you some feel for the magnitude of the problem involved in reading these fragments. These are just the mechanical problems with reading the fragments;  nothing to do with language, just extracting the "code" from the media is a major task fraught with difficulties and uncertainties. I have done quite a bit of this with Greek papyri and some in Hebrew/Aramaic.     

Here is the text again, all the uncertain letters are underlined.

11Q13 2:5‏ מוריהמה החבאוׄ וׄסתר[ו] ומנחלת מלכי צדק כי[א -- ] והמה נחל[ת מלכי צ]דק אשר
‎11Q13 2:8‏ לכפר בו על כול בני [אור ו]אנש[י ]גׄורל מל[כי ]צדק[ .  -- ]ם עלי[המ]ה הת[ ]לפ[י ]כ[ול עש]ותמה כיא
‎11Q13 2:9‏ הואה הקץ לשנת הרצון למלכי צדק ולצב[איו ע]ם קדושי אל לממשלת משפט כאשר כתוב
‎11Q13 2:13‏ ומלכי צדק יקום נקם משפטי א[ל ביום ההואה.  ויצי]ל[מה מיד ]בליעל ומיד כול ר[וחי גורלו]. 
‎11Q13 2:25‏ [ -- מלכי צדק אשר יצי]ל[מה מי]ד בליעל.  ואשר אמר והעברתמה שו[פר ב]כוׄל [א]רץ.
  — Martin Abegg

To really appreciate what it means to be an uncertain letter you need to see high quality images of the fragments. Editors are not all the same. Some are quite optimistic about their ability to read a mere dot of ink as a letter. I ran into a lot of this sort of thing in certain editions of the NT papyri but I haven't had the opportunity to evaluate the quality of this text which I assume came from the electronic version of the editio princeps.

The Third Category — part three

This topic is very threatening to some people so I thought it would be worthwhile to explain how I was introduced to it. I first encountered the Ancient Near Easter combat cosmology in 1975 in the form of a published series of Lectures Creation & Chaos, by B. K. Waltke at Western Seminary in the fall of 1974. At that time Waltke was a known factor. I grew up next door to the late Thomas J. Graham who was a Waltke fan extraordinaire. I had been hearing stories about this brilliant OT scholar since I was in my early teens. So to pick up a copy of his lectures was a thrill of sorts. I read the booklet without much comprehension since I had no knowledge of Hebrew. The fact that I could not understand it increased its value as a cult object. The key issue here is Waltke was considered safe, so anything he said was supposed to be OK, approved by the evangelical establishment. That is history.

Decades later after picking up some knowledge of Hebrew syntax and being able to read the LXX at sight, I started working on Ancient Near Easter combat cosmology, the theme of Creation and Chaos. I started with F. M. Cross[1] , Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (1973) and worked forward in time. At that time I was attending a mega church in Wallingford district of Seattle. I got embroiled one evening after the service in a discussion of this reasearch with a graduate student. He listened, asked a few questions and later went to the elders and the pastor and reported that I was heretic. That was more or less the last nail in the coffin for that church and I quit attending.

A few years later I was participating regularly on the biblical Hebrew forum (b-hebrew) and occasionally I would say something when Genesis One came up in discussion which was frequent. Without out a doubt the most often discussed text on the forum was Genesis One. There was very well educated scholarly British Pastor who was a perfect gentleman as well as a competent exegetic in both Hebrew and Greek. I had nothing but the highest regard for this man, just couldn't hardly believe that there pastors who were also scholars. However, the subject of ANE combat mythology was a tripwire with this gentleman. Whenever it came up, and I brought it up frequently, this gentleman scholar pastor very politely took issue with the discussion. So it isn't just the ignorant and clueless folks that get excited when this topic comes up.

I will state plainly without qualification that I do NOT agree with the current exegetical positions taken by either Bruce Waltke, Peter Enns,  or  Tremper Longmann III, on Genesis One. So if anyone thinks that is where I am headed with these posts you can relax. I am ultra orthodox on creation. My questions have to do with understanding ancient near eastern literature in its historical setting.

The purpose of this post is to give the heresy hunters reason to look elsewhere. Your not going to find it here.


[1] B. K. Walke's doktorvater

The Third Category — part two

I have been thinking about this question for a long long time. My current position is to accept theologically Bauckhan's two categories. At the same time, there are literary similarities to Baal hymns found in the OT text. These can be read at different levels. One reading suggests that Baal is being mocked by the language other readings don't see any connection with Baal other than literary form, a third option is that a Baal hymn has be taken over to be used in praise of YHWH without out any polemic intent[1]. 

Psalms 29 ESV:
1  Ascribe to the LORD, O heavenly beings,
ascribe to the LORD glory and strength.
2  Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name;
worship the LORD in the splendor of holiness.
3  The voice of the LORD is over the waters;
the God of glory thunders,
the LORD, over many waters.
4  The voice of the LORD is powerful;
the voice of the LORD is full of majesty.
5  The voice of the LORD breaks the cedars;
the LORD breaks the cedars of Lebanon.
6  He makes Lebanon to skip like a calf,
and Sirion like a young wild ox.
7  The voice of the LORD flashes forth flames of fire.
8  The voice of the LORD shakes the wilderness;
the LORD shakes the wilderness of Kadesh.
9  The voice of the LORD makes the deer give birth
and strips the forests bare,
and in his temple all cry, “Glory!”
10  The LORD sits enthroned over the flood;
the LORD sits enthroned as king forever.
11  May the LORD give strength to his people!
May the LORD bless his people with peace!

The picture here depicts a storm god, YAM the sea appears in v. 3

‏קול יהוה על־המים
The voice of the LORD is over the waters;

In verse 10 we have another reference to water but a different word

‏יהוה למבול ישׁב
The LORD sits enthroned over the flood;

The flood ‏מבול  is found only in Genesis 6-11 in reference to the flood of Noah and in Psalm 29. The flood of Noah has a thematic connection with the primeval state of Genesis 1:2. The flood is an uncreation event, a return to tohu wa-bohu. In Genesis 9:15, the covenant of Noah:

‏
‏ולא־יהיה עוד המים למבול
καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι τὸ ὕδωρ εἰς κατακλυσμὸν
and the waters shall never again become a flood

Which tells us that "the waters" המים (of chaos) will never again become a flood למבול which represents the precreation state of tohu wa-bohu.

[1] A summary of the different readings can be found in: Carola Kloos, Yhwh's Combat With the Sea: A Canaanite Tradition in the Religion of Ancient Israel, page 95.

The Third Category

The Third Category

Richard Bacukham claims[1] that the predominate[2] worldview of Second Temple Judaism divided all reality into two categories, YHWH alone, is in the first category and all other reality is in a second category. More than one of Bacukham's critics have found fault with this representation of Second Temple Judaism.

The second category, all that is outside the divine identity is equated with anything and everything that was created. At this point it seems that Bacukham's runs into some difficulty. There seems to be a third category lurking in the shadows. Something which is outside outside the divine identity but not specified in the biblical creation accounts among the things created. We don't have to go any further than Genesis 1:2 to discover a reference to the third category.

‏ והארץ היתה תהו ובהו   Gen. 1:2

I do not intend to review the history exegesis from Hermann Gunkel, W. F. Albright, U. Cassuto, F. M. Cross, C. Westermann,  B. W. Waltke, P. E. Enns  ... and so forth. I will just suggest — not affirm, not conclude, only suggest — that there seems to be third category represented by תהו ובהו tohu wa-bohu. What this third category represents has been the source of endless controversy in the secondary literature.  

If we understand the Genesis account of creation in the Hebrew Bible as limited in scope to the things that can be observed[3], then the realm of spiritual reality outside the divine identity is another aspect of Bauckham's second category. The existence of the spiritual realm doesn't require a third category since the spiritual realm is a part of the created realm.

The third category, if there is one, includes not only tohu wa-bohu but also the primeval waters, the sea Yam in the Psalms, Job, Isaiah. It appears to me that Bauckham's two categories proposal runs the risk of oversimplification when it is measured against the textual evidence.    


[1]  Bauckam restates this over and over again, but here is a concise example:

These characteristics make a clear and absolute distinction between the true God and all other reality. God alone created all things; all other things, including beings worshipped as gods by Gentiles, are created by him.

 Richard Bauckam, Jesus and the God of Israel, p. 183. This citation is from  Chapter 6 - Paul's Christology of Divine Identity  which is also found as a separate article here.

[2] I struggled to find a word here, predominate is probably the wrong word.


[3] ... observed, not by the human eye, but things that are there in a physical sense; open to observation by some means.

YHWH Divine Identity Nehemiah 9:6 - Examining the Evidence

Once again we are looking at Richard Bauckham's[1] evidence that YHWH in Second Temple Judaism was identified as the one and only creator of all things which are outside the divine identity.

Nehemiah 9:6[2]  You are the LORD, you alone. You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them; and you preserve all of them; and the host of heaven worships you. ESV

2 Esdras 19:6  And Esdras said: “You yourself are the Lord alone; you made heaven and the heaven of heaven and all their position, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them, and you give everything life, and the armies of the heavens do obeisance to you. ..." [2]

2 Esdras 19:6 καὶ εἶπεν Εσδρας σὺ εἶ αὐτὸς κύριος μόνος σὺ ἐποίησας τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν στάσιν αὐτῶν τὴν γῆν καὶ πάντα ὅσα ἐστὶν ἐν αὐτῇ τὰς θαλάσσας καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐταῖς καὶ σὺ ζωοποιεῖς τὰ πάντα καὶ σοὶ προσκυνοῦσιν αἱ στρατιαὶ τῶν οὐρανῶν 

The statement "You are the LORD, you alone ..." ESV translates
‏אתה־הוא יהוה לבדך את, language used in prayer offered to YHWH, is laden with pronouns and modifiers which gives it majesty. The LXX has  σὺ εἶ αὐτὸς κύριος μόνος σὺ ἐποίησας ... which demonstrates formal equivalence [3]. Similar language is found in other prayers offered to YHWH.

Jer. 14:22 ‏הלא אתה־הוא יהוה אלהינו
Jer. 14:22 Are you not he, O LORD our God? ESV

2Sam. 7:28 ‏ ועתה אדני יהוה אתה־הוא האלהים
2Sam. 7:28 And now, O Lord GOD, you are God ESV

The expression יהוה לבדך the LORD alone is found in Psalm Psa. 83:19 and several places in Isaiah.

Psa. 83:19 ‏  וידעו כי־אתה שׁמך יהוה לבדך עליון על־כל־הארץ
Psa. 83:18 that they may know that you alone,
whose name is the LORD,
are the Most High over all the earth. ESV

Is. 2:11,17 ‏ ‏ונשׂגב יהוה לבדו ביום ההוא
Is. 2:11,17 and the LORD alone will be exalted in that day. RSV

Is. 37:20 וידעו כל־ממלכות הארץ כי־אתה יהוה לבדך
Is. 37:20 that all the kingdoms of the earth may know
that thou alone art the LORD. RSV

This language evidence appears favorable to Bauckham's thesis that YHWH in Second Temple Judaism was identified as the one and only creator of all things  outside the divine identity.

We should also note that Nehemiah 9:6 mentions the seas as an object of creation הימים וכל־אשר בהם "the seas and all that is in them" RSV[4].
‏
‏ 
[1] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, p. 183 n1. This citation is from  Chapter 6 - Paul's Christology of Divine Identity  which is also found as a separate article here.

[2] 2 Esdras, tr. R. Glenn Wooden A New English Translation of the Septuagint, as published by Oxford University Press in 2009

[3]  for "pedantic" see R. Glenn Wooden, translator of  2 Esdras NETS

The Greek 2 Esdras is arguably the most pedantic of the translations of biblical books found in “the Septuagint” and is possibly the best representative of an “interlinear translation.” — R. Glenn Wooden

[4] There is a lingering question about the status of the primeval waters sometimes referred to as YAM the sea which should not be confused with YAM when it refers to the gathered waters of Genesis 1:10. In Neh. 9:6 the referent is the gathered waters not the primeval waters. The plural form may or may not be relevant to the question of reference. I suspect the plural can be used for both (e.g. Psa. 65:7).

the waters and the sea

Gen. 1:7 καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ στερέωμα καὶ διεχώρισεν ὁ θεὸς ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ὕδατος ὃ ἦν ὑποκάτω τοῦ στερεώματος καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ὕδατος τοῦ ἐπάνω τοῦ στερεώματος  8 καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ στερέωμα οὐρανόν καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς ὅτι καλόν καὶ ἐγένετο ἑσπέρα καὶ ἐγένετο πρωί ἡμέρα δευτέρα  9 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός συναχθήτω τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἰς συναγωγὴν μίαν καὶ ὀφθήτω ἡ ξηρά καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως καὶ συνήχθη τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς αὐτῶν καὶ ὤφθη ἡ ξηρά  10 καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ θεὸς τὴν ξηρὰν γῆν καὶ τὰ συστήματα τῶν ὑδάτων ἐκάλεσεν θαλάσσας καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς ὅτι καλόν

Psa. 95:3 [94:3 LXX] ὅτι θεὸς μέγας κύριος καὶ βασιλεὺς μέγας ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς θεούς  4 ὅτι ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ τὰ πέρατα τῆς γῆς καὶ τὰ ὕψη τῶν ὀρέων αὐτοῦ εἰσιν  5 ὅτι αὐτοῦ ἐστιν ἡ θάλασσα καὶ αὐτὸς ἐποίησεν αὐτήν καὶ τὴν ξηρὰν αἱ χεῖρες αὐτοῦ ἔπλασαν 

In the last post we noted that the ocean/sea was treated somewhat differently in 2 Enoch 47, 66 and I made a comment "I would not read waters in 'the earth he solidified above the waters' as coreferential [having he same referent] with the sea or the ocean."  In Genesis 1:7-10 the first thing we see is a division of the waters τοῦ ὕδατος below and the waters above, seperated by a firmament  τοῦ στερεώματος. Following that, we see the waters below gathered together which results in dry land appearing. These gathered waters are called seas  τὰ συστήματα τῶν ὑδάτων ἐκάλεσεν θαλάσσας. The terminology or Genesis One is not always followed elsewhere. Ocean and Sea are often used to represent the primeval waters of Genesis One as we see in Psalm 89:

Psa. 89:8     O LORD God of hosts,
        who is as mighty as you, O LORD?
        Your faithfulness surrounds you.
Psa. 89:9     You rule the raging of the sea;
        when its waves rise, you still them.
Psa. 89:10     You crushed Rahab like a carcass;
        you scattered your enemies with your mighty arm.  NRSV

On the other hand, when we read text like Psalm 95:5 where it says "The sea is his, for he made it; for his hands formed the dry land." RSV; the sea  ἡ θάλασσα in here is being used in the same manner as Gen. 1:10 "and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas" RSV.

In Genesis the sea YAM was the name applied by the Creator to the gathered waters. The language of Genesis does not substantiate the notion that the Sea YAM as it is used in Psa. 89 is created. The sea YAM of Psa. 89 has a different referent from the Sea YAM in Psalm 95:5 and Gen. 1:10. The sea YAM of Psa. 89 is the primeval waters which I understand as the probable referent of "waters" in 2 Enoch 47

2 Enoch 47

The LORD is the one who laid the foundations upon the unknown things, and he is the one who spread out the heavens above the visible and the invisible things. And the earth he solidified above the waters, and the waters he based upon the unfixed things; and he (alone) created the uncountable creatures.

 F. I. Andersen [1]

 2 Enoch 66

... If you look upon the sky, behold,
the LORD is there;
for the LORD created the sky.

If you look upon the earth,
then the LORD is there;
for the LORD founded the earth,
and placed upon it all his creatures.

If you meditate upon the depths of the ocean
and on all that is beneath the earth,
then the LORD is there.
Because the LORD created all things. 

F. I. Andersen [1] 

Why in 2 Enoch 66 do we not see a statement that YHWH made the ocean? The term ocean here cannot refer to the primeval waters of Psa. 89, but rather to gathered waters of Genesis 1:10. So why do we not read "the LORD created ocean"? The probable answer is the parallelism is not ridgid. It develops from first stanza to the third stanza. The three lines of the first stanza are matched by the first three lines of second stanza, but a fourth line is added with an additional statement about creation of "all his creatures". In fourth stanza the view is now directed at two objects, the ocean and "all that is beneath the earth" These two objects of meditation are included in the final statement "Because the LORD created all things". So we have a dynamic parallelism, with transitions at each new stanza. [read this cum grano salis, since I have not even laid eyes on the text used for translation].

Anyone looking for a clear statement that YHWH created the primeval waters will have find that elsewhere. It isn't found in this text.

YHWH Divine Identity 2 Enoch - Examining the Evidence

  2 Enoch 47

... For there is no other besides the LORD, neither in heaven, nor on the earth, nor in the deepest places, nor in the one foundation.
The LORD is the one who laid the foundations upon the unknown things, and he is the one who spread out the heavens above the visible and the invisible things. And the earth he solidified above the waters, and the waters he based upon the unfixed things; and he (alone) created the uncountable creatures. |And| who is it who has counted the dust of the earth or the sand of the sea of the drops of rain of the dew 〈of the clouds〉 or the blowing of the wind? Who is it who has plaited the land and the sea together with indissoluble bonds, and cut the stars out of fire, and decorated the sky and put in the midst of them…

F. I. Andersen [1]

 2 Enoch 66


... If you look upon the sky, behold, the LORD is there; for the LORD created the sky. If you look upon the earth, then the LORD is there; for the LORD founded the earth, and placed upon it all his creatures. If you meditate upon the depths of the ocean and on all that is beneath the earth, then the LORD is there. Because the LORD created all things.
Do not bow down to anything created by man, nor to anything created by God, so committing apostasy against the LORD of all creation. ...

F. I. Andersen [1]

Richard Bauckham cites 2 Enoch 47 & 66 as evidence that YHWH in Second Temple Judaism was identified as the one and only creator of all things which are outside the divine identity. Our quote from 2 Enoch 47 begins with  "... For there is no other besides the LORD ... The LORD is the one ... he is the one ... and he (alone) ...", language which could be used to support Bauckham's thesis.

In 2 Enoch 47 that F. I. Andersen puts alone in parentheses "and he (alone) created the uncountable creatures" which I would understand as inference. In other words, alone does not represent a word found in the manuscript nor is it a restoration where the text is broken. What sort of inference is involved here is difficult to access without having translation notes. It would appear the supplied  |And| in the next in line is a different sort of translation procedure. Someone with hard copy of Charlesworth[1] could probably answer this.

It  2 Enoch 66 the depths and the sea are mentioned but there is no explicit statement that YHWH created the ocean. Look at the structure of these three statements about the sky, the earth and the ocean. 

 2 Enoch 66

... If you look upon the sky, behold,
the LORD is there;
for the LORD created the sky.

If you look upon the earth,
then the LORD is there;
for the LORD founded the earth,
and placed upon it all his creatures.

If you meditate upon the depths of the ocean
and on all that is beneath the earth,
then the LORD is there.
Because the LORD created all things.

What is lacking is a specific statement that the LORD created the "ocean". We have "the LORD created the sky" and "the LORD founded the earth" and we would expect to read "the LORD created the ocean" but we don't see it.

In 2 Enoch 47 where we have "Who is it who has plaited the land and the sea together with indissoluble bonds" but no explicit mention of the creation of the sea. I would not read "waters" in "the earth he solidified above the waters" as coreferential with the sea or the ocean. I am not making any sort of case here for the sea or the ocean as eternal or uncreated. But in light of ANE cosmologies which portray the hero god as a conqueror of chaos who is represented as the sea or the ocean, it is always worthwhile to pay close attention to comments about the sea or the ocean.


[1]  2 Enoch [Longer recension, ms. J,] F. I. Andersen in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983)

[2] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, p. 183 n1. This citation is from  Chapter 6 - Paul's Christology of Divine Identity  which is also found as a separate article here.

YHWH Divine Identity in Isaiah - Examining the Evidence for Richard Bauckam's proposal Isaiah

God alone created all things; all other things, including beings worshipped as gods by Gentiles, are created by him

Richard Bauckam[1]

To establish the feasibility of a theological proposal it is necessary to examine the evidence offered in the citations from primary sources. In this post I will look at citations from Isaiah used by R. Bauckam[1] to illusrate one key element in YHWH's divine identity, "God alone created all things" with a special emphasis on the word "alone".  

Is. 40:26 ἀναβλέψατε εἰς ὕψος τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὑμῶν καὶ ἴδετε τίς κατέδειξεν πάντα ταῦτα ὁ ἐκφέρων κατὰ ἀριθμὸν τὸν κόσμον αὐτοῦ πάντας ἐπ᾿ ὀνόματι καλέσει ἀπὸ πολλῆς δόξης καὶ ἐν κράτει ἰσχύος οὐδέν σε ἔλαθεν

Look up on high with your eyes, and see:
     Who has exhibited all these?
He who brings out his ornamentation by
            number,
    he will call them all by name;
because of abundant glory
    and by might of strength,
    nothing has escaped you. NETS [2]

Is. 40:28 καὶ νῦν οὐκ ἔγνως εἰ μὴ ἤκουσας θεὸς αἰώνιος ὁ θεὸς ὁ κατασκευάσας τὰ ἄκρα τῆς γῆς οὐ πεινάσει οὐδὲ κοπιάσει οὐδὲ ἔστιν ἐξεύρεσις τῆς φρονήσεως αὐτοῦ

And now, have you not known? Have you
       not heard?
God everlasting,
   God who prepared the ends of the earth,
will not hunger or grow weary—
   nor is there searching of his
        understanding—  NETS [2]

Is. 42:5 οὕτως λέγει κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ποιήσας τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ πήξας αὐτόν ὁ στερεώσας τὴν γῆν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ καὶ διδοὺς πνοὴν τῷ λαῷ τῷ ἐπ᾿ αὐτῆς καὶ πνεῦμα τοῖς πατοῦσιν αὐτήν

Thus says the Lord God,
  who created heaven and established it,
  who bolstered the earth and the things
          that are in it
and who gave breath to the people upon it
     and spirit to those who tread on it: NETS [2]

Is. 44:24 οὕτως λέγει κύριος ὁ λυτρούμενός σε καὶ ὁ πλάσσων σε ἐκ κοιλίας ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ συντελῶν πάντα ἐξέτεινα τὸν οὐρανὸν μόνος καὶ ἐστερέωσα τὴν γῆν τίς ἕτερος 

Thus says the Lord, who redeems you,
   who forms you from the womb:
I am the Lord, who accomplishes all things;
   I alone stretched out heaven,
   and I bolstered the earth. NETS [2]

Is. 45:12 ἐγὼ ἐποίησα γῆν καὶ ἄνθρωπον ἐπ᾿ αὐτῆς ἐγὼ τῇ χειρί μου ἐστερέωσα τὸν οὐρανόν ἐγὼ πᾶσι τοῖς ἄστροις ἐνετειλάμην

I made the earth
     and humankind upon it;
I bolstered heaven with my hand;
     I commanded all the stars. NETS [2]

Is. 45:18 οὕτως λέγει κύριος ὁ ποιήσας τὸν οὐρανόν οὗτος ὁ θεὸς ὁ καταδείξας τὴν γῆν καὶ ποιήσας αὐτήν αὐτὸς διώρισεν αὐτήν οὐκ εἰς κενὸν ἐποίησεν αὐτὴν ἀλλὰ κατοικεῖσθαι ἐγώ εἰμι καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι

Thus says the Lord,
    who made heaven—
this is the God who displayed the earth
             and made it;
    he himself marked its limits;
he did not make it to be empty
    but to be inhabited:
I am, and there is no other. NETS [2]

Is. 48:13 καὶ ἡ χείρ μου ἐθεμελίωσεν τὴν γῆν καὶ ἡ δεξιά μου ἐστερέωσεν τὸν οὐρανόν καλέσω αὐτούς καὶ στήσονται ἅμα 

And my hand laid the foundation of the
             earth,
    and my right hand bolstered heaven;
I will call them,
    and they will stand together. NETS [2]

Is. 51:16 θήσω τοὺς λόγους μου εἰς τὸ στόμα σου καὶ ὑπὸ τὴν σκιὰν τῆς χειρός μου σκεπάσω σε ἐν ᾗ ἔστησα τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ἐθεμελίωσα τὴν γῆν καὶ ἐρεῖ Σιων λαός μου εἶ σύ

I will put my words in your mouth
    and shelter you under the shadow of my
             hand,
by which I established heaven
    and laid the foundations of the earth.
And he will say to Sion,
    “You are my people.”

Bauckham's citations from Isaiah all make reference to YHWH as creator. However, the critical criteria in Bauckham's thesis is that YHWH acted alone in the creation. Language which might support that notion is found most explicitly in Is. 44:24 ἐξέτεινα τὸν οὐρανὸν μόνος "I alone stretched out heaven" M. Silva. In Is. 45:18 we see ... ἐγώ εἰμι καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι "... I am, and there is no other"  M. Silva. This statement probably applies to creative activity which precedes it. The repetition of the first person pronoun ἐγώ Is. 45:12  probably serves as rhetorical underling to emphasize  that YHWH acted alone. The possessive pronoun μου as in Is. 48:13 καὶ ἡ χείρ μου ἐθεμελίωσεν τὴν γῆν "And my hand laid the foundation of the earth"  M. Silva, is another means of calling attention to the same idea.  


[1] Richard Bauckam, Jesus and the God of Israel, p. 183 n1. This citation is from  Chapter 6 - Paul's Christology of Divine Identity  which is also found as a separate article here.

[2] NETS, A New English Translation of the Septuagint, Esaias tr. Moisés Silva.

Septuagint rendering of Isaiah 52:7 MT

Take a look at the LXX rendering of Isaiah 52:7:

Is. 52:7 ...‏ ‏אמר לציון מלך אלהיך   

λέγων Σιων βασιλεύσει σου ὁ θεός

The pronominal suffix for אלהיך Elohim when it is rendered in the Septuagint (LXX) normally follows the substantive: ὁ θεός σου. I set up a search of MT for all occurrences of Elohim with a pronominal suffix. I set up another search of the LXX for  [ὁ] θεός preceded by a personal pronoun limited to the contents of the first search. I found 24 matches. I attached a window with E. Tov's MT-LXX database and looked at all of them. Only in Isaiah 52:7 did I find this pattern. MT-LXX database had an attached note to σου ὁ θεός for  Is. 52:7 indicating that the MT sequence was reversed in the LXX.

This text Isaiah 52:7 was brought to my attention because it is used by the author of  11Q Melchizedek (aka 11Q13, 11Qmelch).

In the LXX [ὁ] θεός renders different names for God so I decided to do a search for [ὁ] θεός preceded by a personal pronoun and exclude all the matches from the first search. This isn't bomb proof but I figured it was good enough. I am not writing a dissertation.

The only text of interest was Ex. 15:2, poetry:

Ex. 15:2 βοηθὸς καὶ σκεπαστὴς ἐγένετό μοι εἰς σωτηρίαν οὗτός μου θεός καὶ δοξάσω αὐτόν θεὸς τοῦ πατρός μου καὶ ὑψώσω αὐτόν

οὗτός μου θεός renders ‏ זה אלי

E. Tov in the MT-LXX database tagged μου θεός as a different sequence from the the MT. I looked through

What this does not cover is words other than [ὁ] θεός used to render a divine title or name in the LXX. On the other hand, we do see a pattern, that a Greek pronoun rendering a Hebrew  pronominal suffix normally follows the [ὁ] θεός which is just what we would expect from looking at other substantives.