The Sacred Page

Reflections on SBL: Otto gives a stimulating talk on the Pentateuch

2009-11-29T16:44:00.000-08:00

Much of the significance of SBL comes in private interaction between scholars outside of the official sessions. In fact, between the meetings we had with colleagues, it was especially hard this year to take in many of the sessions. One I did get to attend featured Eckart Otto, a very famous "elder statesmen" of Pentateuchal studies. Otto gave an impassioned appeal for greater attention to the Pentateuchal narrative when interpreting Pentateuchal law. He argued that the narrative has an intentional "hermeneutical function" that guides the reader into understanding the relative significance of the various codes of law present in the Pentateuch.

I resonated with Otto's basic message. After all, when Paul says that the "law was added because of transgression" (Galatians 3:19) or Jesus says that "Moses permitted ... for the hardness of your hearts," I think both are examples of allowing the Pentateuchal narrative to supply a hermeneutical (interpretive) function. To wit, both Jesus and Paul observe that some of the law of the Pentateuch was given in response to, or in consideration of, the failures of the people of Israel to live up to God's highest ideals for them. Therefore, not all of these laws are universally binding moral norms.

In any event, I believe it will be a good thing for Pentateuchal studies if more scholars heed Otto's call for greater attention to the narrative context of law.

Back in Steubenville

2009-11-24T08:15:00.000-08:00

SBL is over, Brant is back on the other side of Lake Pontchartrain, and I'm back in Steubenville (see pic at left--Steubenville in its glory days). I imagine we'll have a little material to post about the conference in the next few days. However, today is still a class day. Thanksgiving Break doesn't start until tomorrow.

Sorry, no pics of famous bible scholars from the actual conference. Neither Brant nor I brought a camera.

Having Fun in New Orleans

2009-11-22T19:14:00.000-08:00

Well, Brant and I are here in New Orleans enjoying the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting. This morning we went to mass with a bunch of colleagues at St. Louis Cathedral (picture at right), on the Feast of Christ the King. The church and the liturgy were beautiful, and the homily was solid. What a blessing. Afterwards we tried to get breakfast at the famous Cafe du Monde, but the line was half a block long. We settled for beignets and coffee in a lesser-known but lovely eatery, while a street musician serenaded us with hymns, spirituals, and excerpts of classical pieces on a soprano recorder. Heavenly!

The collegiality has been great. We've caught up with old friends from our Notre Dame days, and colleagues who work in our respective areas of specialization. On the Old Testament side of things, I've been privileged to have great conversations with Michael Lyons, Mark Leuchter, Jefferey Stackert, Matthias Henze, and Richard Averbeck, all top-notch scholars and each a real "Mensch."

Off to New Orleans: SBL 2009

2009-11-20T17:14:00.000-08:00

I'm leaving tomorrow for the Society of Biblical Literature 2009 Congress in New Orleans. The SBL is the guild organization for North American bible scholars. As I mentioned before, I'll be presenting a paper on the relationship of the manumission laws of "H" (Leviticus) and "D" (Deuteronomy) at the Biblical Law session on Monday afternoon (1pm). Brant's already down there since he lives there, obviously. I'm looking forward to some good Cajun food, a chance to catch up with colleagues, and the opportunity to talk over some ideas with top scholars from around the country. Brant and I will probably both be blogging about the experience, although maybe not till next Wednesday.

For Unto Us A Child Is Born--Again!

2009-11-16T19:43:00.000-08:00

It's boy!

Matthew Stephen Barber was born at 2:03pm on 11.10.09. He was 8 lbs. and 7 oz. My wife called it weeks ago: 11-10-09-8-7--a straight! My father-in-law suggested that we play the lottery.

Well, it already feels like we've won it!

Of course, Kim was, as always, amazing. She is such an incredible example of Christian virtue and charity. She totally trusted in the Lord--we prayed together throughout and it was, once again, a very mystical experience. Watching her enter into the mystery of suffering for the sake of our children and being there to pray her through it is a tremendous honor. I love my wife!

It was only last year (July) that we were at the same hospital--same operating room--welcoming little Michael into the world. Being right back there--with the same doctors and nurses was a bit surreal.

Little Matthew is doing well. He is a beautiful baby boy (as you can see from the pictures). He is very sleepy. In a certain way he is notably different from Michael Jr. Michael Jr. would only sleep if he was being held. It was a bit tiring for all of us. Matthew on the other hand sleeps anywhere and all the time--except for 11pm to 3pm!

Thanks so much for all the prayers and well-wishing emails.

And thanks be to God!

Atheists Heap Abuse on Mother Theresa: Scriptural and Theological Reflections

2009-11-16T05:25:00.001-08:00

Altruism is difficult for atheists to explain within their worldview. This can be seen in their reaction to the modern icon of altruism, Blessed Teresa of Calcutta.
The famous sociobiologist E. O. Wilson argued that goodness was the result of “lying, pretense, and deceit, including self-deceit, because the actor is most convincing who believes that his performance is real.” He attributed Blessed Teresa’s altruism to self-interest. She was just “in it” just to get to heaven: “Mother Teresa is an extraordinary person but it should not be forgotten that she is secure in the service of Christ and the knowledge of her Church’s immortality.”

Wilson’s comments are mild compared to Christopher Hitchens recent comment during an interview with Dennis Miller (here). I have edited some of Hitchen’s crudity:

"Mother Theresa spent her whole life saying (that what Calcutta needs) is a huge campaign against family planning. I mean, who comes to that conclusion who isn’t a complete fanatic? She took – and I would directly say stole…millions and millions of dollars and spent all the money not on the poor, but on the building of nearly 200 convents in her own name around the world to glorify herself and to continue to spread the doctrine that, as she put it — when she got her absurd Nobel Peace Prize — that the main threat to world peace is abortion and contraception. The woman was a fanatic and a fundamentalist and a fraud, and millions of people are much worse off because of her life, and it’s a shame there is no hell for your b**** to go to."

As offensive and erroneous as Wilson’s and Hitchen’s remarks are, I think there is some benefit to reflecting on them, especially in this month of November as we contemplate the saints, the faithful departed, the final judgment, and the Last Things generally.

First, the venom of Hitchen’s remarks reminds me of the response Jesus received from the Pharisees with regard to his healing ministry. In the face of direct evidence of divine power and obvious goodness (miracles of healing), the Pharisees attribute Jesus’ powers to Satan. Likewise, Hitchens thinks Blessed Teresa is worthy of hell, if there was such a place. Sometimes the Gospels seem distant from us because we cannot relate to the social dynamic in some of the stories. Hitchens helps us close the gap between reader and text by showing us up close the twisted logic that can lead people to consider some of the clearest examples of goodness as evil.

Both Hitchens and the Pharisees are confronted with people who challenge their worldview, people who—according to their Weltanschauung—ought not to exist and do what they do. The reaction is violent revulsion, because nothing is more threatening to a person than to have their entire worldview threatened.

Secondly, Wilson’s attribution of Blessed Teresa’s goodness to self-interest based on her hope in heaven actually sheds light on a fact that has somewhat distressed me. Many of you know that after Bl. Teresa’s death her memoirs revealed that, in fact, she frequently did not have spiritual consolations nor a sense of the assurance of her salvation. She worked for long periods in spiritual dryness. When this information came to light, I was troubled personally, because I could not understand why God would not have granted such a selfless person the spiritual consolations that I felt she deserved.

The story of Job comes to mind. Like Wilson, Satan in the beginning of the Book of Job attributes Job’s goodness to self-interest. “Does Job fear God for nothing?” (Job 1:9). This is the “hermeneutic of suspicion,” the same hermeneutic Wilson and Hitchens employ. No one does good for goodness sake; everyone is “in it” because of something “for them.” Does any one do good only for the sake of good? Which is the same as asking, does anyone serve God for the sake of God alone?

Perhaps this is why God permitted Blessed Teresa to serve without spiritual consolations: to silence the Adversary. Her diaries showed E.O. Wilson to be wrong. Blessed Teresa was not some sanguine simpleton serving God for “pie in the sky by and by.” She was not continually consoled with assurance of heaven. Yet she continued to love both God and neighbor without guarantee of any return for herself. Thus her love was perfected and purified, because it was enabled to be without any self-interest. Her spiritual dryness enabled Blessed Teresa to make a perfect self-offering. God gave Bl. Theresa the opportunity to make a pure self-gift. We ought not to be surprised if at some point in our walk with God, we are given a similar opportunity.

(I originally wrote this post on All Saints Day, but it has taken a while to get it proofread and online.)

M.I.A.

2009-11-07T00:30:00.000-08:00

I have to apologize for being M.I.A. lately. If you've been trying to reach me via email or phone I realize I may seem to be incommunicado.

Here's what's going on. . . Next week my wife and I are looking very much forward to welcoming our second child into the world. (Yes, pictures will be posted here.) We definitely would appreciate your prayers for mother and child. Please also keep Michael Jr. in your prayers as well--this is going to be an adjustment for him.

Because I know things are going to get really crazy, I've been working hard on finishing my dissertation. I'm done writing. Now I'm basically going through and finishing the bibliography. Of course, I would greatly appreciate any prayers for this project as well.

So I've got my head down and my eyes on the prize. If you've been trying to reach me, I'll be getting back to you, but it's going to take a little while. Thanks for your patience!

Who Are the 144,000 in Revelation 14?

2009-11-06T08:07:00.000-08:00

Well, I'm off to the 5th annual Letter & Spirit conference at St. John's Seminary. This year's theme is "Priesthood and Blessing," and I'll be doing a presentation on "The Priestly Identity of the 144,000 in Revelation 14." The conference is a response to Pope Benedict's designation of this year as the "Year for Priests." It's also a lead up for Volume 5 of the Journal Letter & Spirit, which is coming out this week!

If you want the full paper, you'll have to come to the conference. But if you want a taste, I'll be looking at the Old Testament and ancient Jewish background of each the images used to describe the 144,00 in Revelation 14:

Then I looked, and behold, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven like the sound of loud thunder; the voice I heard was like the sound of kitharists playing on their kitharas, and they sing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the one-hundred and forty-four thousand who had been ransomed from the earth. It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins; it is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes; these have been redeemed from mankind as first fruits for God and the Lamb, and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are blameless. (Revelation 14:1-4)

In the paper, I argue that each of the key images used to describe the 144,000 are priestly images:

1. They wear the "name" of God on their foreheads (cf. Exodus 28; Sirach 45);

2. They have the exclusive right to sing the "new song" of the heavenly liturgy with "kitharas" (2 Chronicles 9; 1 Maccabees 4; Antiquities 20)

3. They abstain from sexual relations with women (Exodus 19; Leviticus 15; 1 Samuel 21);

4. They are sacrificial "first-fruits" who have been "ransomed" (Numbers 3)

5. No lie was found in their mouths (Malachi 2, the ideal priest).

It should go without saying that such a paper raises all kinds of questions about the biblical origins of priestly celibacy. But more on that anon; I've got to go catch a plane.

The Beatitudes (Video on Sunday's Readings)

2009-10-29T20:53:00.000-07:00

Sunday, November 1, 2009: Liturgy Reflection from JP Catholic University on Vimeo.

Happy Birthday, Scott Hahn!

2009-10-28T21:47:00.000-07:00

This post is not about the new book.

I just wanted to write a note wishing my dear friend a very happy birthday, which is today.

Words will fail to express the deep debt of gratitude I owe to him. Of course, Scott's work has shaped my thought more profoundly than any other contemporary scholar.

But even more importantly, Scott has taught me about the love of Christ by the witness of his life. And I learned from him about it up-close and personal. Scott and his family took me in as a graduate student and allowed me to live with them during the years I studied at Franciscan University in Ohio. It was a truly blessed time of my life and I can honestly say that I don't think a day goes by even now--many years later--that I don't thank God for them. I truly consider the Hahn family my second family.

Scott, thanks for everything--for your generosity, your wisdom, and your example. May God bless you on this day.

I know I speak for Brant and John when I say: Happy Birthday!!!

Scott Hahn's new book on Pope Benedict's Biblical Theology

2009-10-28T20:57:00.000-07:00

The picture on the right is of Scott Hahn's brand new book, Covenant and Communion: The Biblical Theology of Pope Benedict XVI (Brazos).

The book deserves a post all its own but I'm absolutely swampted and knowing I probably won't get to doing one any time soon--we've got a new baby coming any day and I'm writing the conclusion to my thesis!--I wanted to mention it here.

It's remarkable. Any serious student of the Bible should check it out. Benedict's insights are profound and Scott Hahn synthesizes them and brings them all together amazingly well.

More than that, the book is extraordinarily well-written. It is more than just a summary of Pope Benedict's thought. It's a thoughtful overview of the basic principles and issues involved in doing Biblical Theology. The chapter on Benedict's view of historical criticism is simply worth the price of the book! Benedict insists that historical-critical study is necessary but he also stresses that this must be with a hermeneutic of faith.

What does that look like? Well, you've got to read the book.

Notice by the way that the book is published by Brazos. I especially hope non-Catholic Christians interested in biblical studies and theology will check this work out. What they will find in Pope Benedict will no doubt be surprising for them. I know that because I've already heard from them!

Check out some of the endorsements:

"A superb introduction to the way in which the theology of Pope Benedict XVI has been shaped by the Bible. Hahn's crisp and clear analysis puts the reader at the very center of this remarkable pope's thought." --Gary Anderson, University of Notre Dame

"Scott Hahn offers us a lucidly written and trenchant study of the biblical theology of Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict. He shows how one of the most important theologians of the twentieth century gently but firmly corrected the historical critics who dominate much of contemporary academic Scripture study. Hahn further demonstrates how, in making this correction, Ratzinger/Benedict allowed for the recovery of much of the richness of patristic biblical interpretation, including typology, an integrated understanding of the Old and New Testaments, a sense of Jesus as the interpretive key for the whole of revelation, and the deep rapport between kingdom and Church. This is a beautiful and thought-provoking text, one that will prove helpful to any serious student of the sacred page." --Robert Barron, Francis Cardinal George Professor of Faith
and Culture, Mundelein Seminary, University of St. Mary of the Lake

"The increasingly painful bankruptcy of the historical-critical method in
our time has created a vacuum precisely at the point where the living Church
requires substantial nurture. Pope Benedict XVI has spoken into this crisis like
no one else, and his best expositor, Scott Hahn, has done us a tremendous
service by synthesizing Benedict's erudite and prayerful biblical theology into
a lively, readable, and intellectually reliable conspectus. This excellent
volume will be indispensable for all Christians who seek to be more maturely
grounded in Scripture."--David Lyle Jeffrey, distinguished professor of
literature and the humanities, Baylor University

Go here for many more.

Pondering Psalm 1 on an Ordinary Day

2009-10-22T14:05:00.000-07:00

The Psalm for today, Thursday of the Twenty-Ninth Week of Ordinary Time, is the short and beautiful Psalm 1.

Psalm 1 serves as an introduction to the entire psalter. It is a Psalm of the "wisdom" genre--that means, it has literary ties to the wisdom literature. By introducing the psalter with a wisdom psalm, the sacred author means to suggest that the psalter is, among other things, a book of wisdom. Wisdom was a practical rather than theoretical enterprise for the ancient Israelites. Wisdom was knowing how to live rather than knowing various abstractions. However, the psalter is by and large not didactic--it's not full of instructions, like most wisdom literature. Instead it consists of prayers and songs of praise. How do these compositions teach "wisdom"?

Psalm 1 compares the righteous man to a tree planted by streams of water, which stays green and regularly yields its fruit. In the Near East, water is scarce. Many locations cannot count on rain for moisture. I tree with deep roots to a source of water, that could be counted on to produce fruit, was and is a precious thing.

The point of the analogy is fidelity. The wise, righteous man, in the view of the psalmist, is one who is consistent and faithful, one who can be counted on. It is not necessarily the person with a "flashy" spirituality, who has dramatic spiritual experiences and draws the attention of others. These things are good in themselves, but they can be counterfeit and do not necessarily indicate maturity.

On a rather dull day in the liturgical calendar, during the doldrums of the academic semester, it is good to be reminded that the man blessed in God's eyes is the faithful one, who consistently bears fruit no matter what the "weather" is.

Healing of Bartimaeus (Video and Post Sunday's Readings)

2009-10-22T09:49:00.000-07:00

Sunday, October 25, 2009: Liturgy Reflection from JP Catholic University on Vimeo.

So much could be said about this reading it is difficult to know where to start! Here I want to highlight Jesus' role as the Davidic healer.

Healing and the Eschatological/Messianic Age

The story of the healing of Bartimaeus clearly links Jesus’ role as healer to his identity as the Son of David. In fact, all of the Gospels link Jesus’ ability to heal to his role as the Davidic messiah (cf. Matt 9:27; 20:31; Mark 10:48; Luke 18:38–39). Indeed, a number of prophetic texts, Second Temple sources and later rabbinic writings specifically associate the arrival of the eschatological age with the idea of healing.[1] Here I will only list a few:

Isa 29:18: “In that day the deaf shall hear the words of a book, and out of their gloom and darkness the eyes of the blind shall see.”
Isa 35:5: “Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; 6 then shall the lame man leap like a hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing for joy.”

Numerous other biblical texts could also be cited (cf. Isa 19:22; 30:26; 53:5; 57:18–19; 58:7; Jer 30:17; 33:6; Ezek 47:12; Hos 6:1; 7:1; Mal 4:2). In addition, the eschatological age is also linked with healing in non-biblical Second Temple sources.

Jubilees 23:29–30: “And all of their days they will be complete and live in peace and rejoicing and there will be not Satan and no evil (one) who will destroy, because all of their days will be days of blessing and healing. And then the Lord will heal his servants, and they will rise up and see great peace.”
1 Enoch 96:3: “But you, who have experienced pain, fear not, for there shall be a healing medicine for you.”

One particular text is worth mentioning here. One of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q521, which draws from the passage from Isaiah 35 cited above and links it with Isaiah 61, reveals that the Messiah will be a healer. The fragment begins: “1 [for the heav]ens and the earth will listen to his anointed one, 2 [and all th]at is in them will not turn away from the precepts of the holy ones. . .” The fragment then continues to explain that the Lord

“will honour the pious upon the throne of an eternal kingdom, freeing prisoners, giving sight to the blind, straightening out the twis[ted.]… And the Lord will perform marellous acts such as have not existed just as he sa[id,] [for] he will heal the badly wounded and will make the dead live, he will proclaim good news to the poor and […]…[…] he will lead […] … and enrich the hungry.” (4Q521 2 II, 7 and 11-13).

Jesus' Role as the Healer Messiah

The tradition linking healing to the eschatological age is especially present in Matthew and Luke, where Jesus appeals to his ability to heal lepers as evidence that he is the Messiah. One particularly important passage is found in both Matthew and Luke. When John the Baptist’s disciples come asking him whether he is “the one to come,” Jesus states, “the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them” (Matt 11:5//Luke 7:22). As is well-known, in this saying Jesus conflates Isaiah 35 and 61, mirroring 4Q521. Strikingly, both the Qumran text and Jesus insert a statement about raising the dead prior to the task of preaching to the poor.[2]

Jesus' Role As the Davidic Healer

Of course, the Gospels link Jesus’ role as healer precisely to his role as the Davidic messiah. What is interesting about this is that there really is no clear pre-Christian text describing the Davidic messiah as a healer. There is at least one text that should be mentioned here: Ezekiel 34. There the Lord promises to help the sheep who are weak and crippled (cf. Ezek 34:4, 16) within the same context in which he promises to send a Davidic Messiah (cf. Ezek 34:23–24).[3] But even here the connection is rather ambiguous.

So how did Jesus’ role as healer come to be associated with his role as the eschatological Son of David? Well, certainly given the fact that the messiah was already linked with healing in 4Q521 it is not surprising that Jesus’ role as the Davidic Messiah would be connected with his healing. Yet we might also point out that the ink could have been established in connection with the fact that David was remembered for having exorcistic and healing abilities (cf. 1 Sam 16:14–23; Josephus, A.J. 166–68; 11QPsa XI, 2–11; L. A. B. 60:1). Even more descriptive are the numerous texts relating Solomon’s abilities as an exorcist and healer (cf. Josephus, A.J. 8:42–49; Apoc. Adam 7:13; cf. also Wis 7:20).[4] It is therefore easy to see how Jesus’ healing abilities could have been linked with his exorcistic powers and how these together could be have been linked with his role as the eschatological “Son of David.”

In fact, as Meier explains, that a Solomonic reference is present here is strongly suggested by the fact that, with the exception of one occurrence where it is linked with Absalom (cf. 2 Sam 13:1), the term “Son of David” is normally used as a referent to Solomon (cf. 1 Chron. 28:22; 2 Chron 1:1; 13:6; 30:26; 35:3; Prov 1:1; Eccl 1:1). [5] In light of this Bartimaeus cry is not at all surprising―“Have mercy on me, Son of David!”

NOTES

[1] See also Apocalypse of Moses 2:275. For an excellent overview of biblical texts dealing with healing, see Michael L. Brown, Israel’s Divine Healer (SOTBT; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995); Lidija Novakovic, Messiah, the Healer of the Sick: A Study of Jesus as the Son of David in the Gospel of Matthew (WUNT 2.170; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 152–83.
[2] Novakovic (Messiah, the Healer of the Sick, 180) writes: “In contrast to the Jewish texts which are only thematically related to 4Q521, the Q passage preserved in Matt 11:2–6 and Luke 7:18–23 contains the closest known parallel to this document, because both texts go beyond their common scriptural basis in Isa 61:1 by adding the reference to the resurrection of the dead in front of the reference to preaching good news to the poor.” Likewise see M. O. Wise and J. Tabor, “4Q521 ‘On Resurrection’ and the Synoptic Gospel Tradition: A Preliminary Study,” JSP 10 (1992) 161 [149–62]: “Although it is unlikely that Luke knew the Qumran text directly, it seems that he shares with its author a common set of messianic expectations.”
[3] Puesch has argued that the messianic figure in 4Q521 is a royal messianic figure, finding a reference to a “scepter” in 4Q521 2 III, 6. However, the text is unclear. See Émile Puech, “Une apocalypse messianique (4Q521),” RQ 15/60 (1992): [475-522]; Collins, “The Works of the Messiah,” 103. See also David Aune, “The Problem of the Messianic Secret,” NovT 11 (1969): 39 [1–31]. We might also mention L.A.B. 60:3, where the exorcistic song sung by David has him telling the evil spirit, “But let the new womb from which I was born rebuke you, from which after a time one born from my loins will rule over you”. The passage is admittedly obscure. In favor of a messianic reading is the fact that the language bears close similarities to 2 Sam 7:11 (LXX), which is cited as a messianic prophecy in 4Q174. The passage also echoes Psalm 132:11 (LXX) and T. Levi 18:12, which may also signal messianic hopes. For those who advocate such an approach see Dennis C. Duling, “Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of David,” HTR 68 (1975): 240; Paul Riessler, Altjüdisches Schrifttum ausserhalb der Bibel, übersetzt und erläutert (2d ed; Darmstadt; Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1966), 1318; Marc Philonenko, “Remarques sur un hymne essénien de caractère gnostique,” Sem 11 (1961): 52 [43–53].
[4] Especially important is the combination in Josephus’ account of Solomon’s exorcistic abilities with his role as healer (cf. A.J. 8.45: “[He was enabled] to help and heal human beings”). See also the discussion in Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:689. In addition, see the exorcistic connections made with Solomon in the Aramaic magical texts discussed by Loren Fisher, “Can This Be the Son of David?,” in Jesus and the Historian: Written in Honor of Ernest Cadman Colwell (ed. F. T. Trotter; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 82–97; J. A. Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur (Philadelphia: The University Musueum, 1913), 232; Cyrus H. Gordon, “Aramaic Magical Bowls in the Instanbul and Baghdad Museums,” ArOr 6 (1934): 319–34, 466–74; C. D. Isbell, Corpus of the Aramaic Incantation Bowls (SBLDS 17; Missoula, Mont.; Scholars Press, 1975), 108-111, 114-115.
[5] Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:737 n. 47. explains that a Solomonic reference is strongly suggested by the fact that, with the exception of one occurrence where it is linked with Absalom (cf. 2 Sam 13:1), the term “Son of David” was regularly used for Solomon (cf. 1 Chron. 28:22; 2 Chron 1:1; 13:6; 30:26; 35:3; Prov 1:1; Eccl 1:1; cf. also Fisher, “Can This Be the Son of David?,” 90). See the discussion in Duling, “Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of David,”235–52; idem., “The Therepeutic Son of David: An Element in Matthew’s Christological Apologetic,” NTS 24 (1977-78): 392–410.

O Happy Day: SBL Paper on "H" and "D" Finished

2009-10-20T16:37:00.000-07:00

And there is much rejoicing at the Bergsma household because Daddy has finished his "big paper" for the November SBL Conference, entitled "The Manumission Laws: Has the Dependence of H on D been Demonstrated?" Sounds fun, huh? I knew you'd think so. Anyway, now Daddy can play--well, at least after he finishes grading seventy more midterms.

The Request of James and John and the Ransom Saying (Video on Sunday's Readings)

2009-10-16T15:42:00.000-07:00

Sunday, October 18, 2009: Liturgy Reflection from JP Catholic University on Vimeo.

Here I want to tease out a few themes related to the request and the ransom saying. Once again, a huge word of thanks goes out to Nate--this was a long video (sorry again, Nate!). So much could be said, but here’s just a little further scholarship on the material in the video. One thing I especially wanted to touch upon, given that this is the Year for Priests, is the priestly language implied in Jesus' allusion to Isaiah 53 (see below). Of course, I will be drawing a lot from my earlier video and post on Jesus' role as the Suffering Son of Man.

The Apostles’ Sitting With Jesus
The request of James and John in fact seems to reflect their understanding that Jesus was coming to establish the kingdom of God. In fact, elsewhere Jesus makes it clear that the apostles will share in his reign―the image of them “sitting” (καθίζω) on “thrones” as judges over the tribes of Israel is attested in both Matthew and Luke (Matt 19:28; Luke 22:28–29)―in Matthew the saying comes shortly before this episode! The idea is mirrored in the Dead Sea Scrolls which associates the eschatological age with the institution of “twelve chiefs” who will govern over the twelve tribes of Israel (e.g., 1Q33 2:1–3). Especially interesting is one of the fragments in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 11Q19 57:12–13, which describes how the future royal figure will be joined with twelve princes, twelve priests and twelve Levites “who shall sit together with him for judgment.”

The Danielic Imagery
In the last line Jesus identifies himself as the Son of Man. As I have already explained, Jesus’ passion prediction in Mark 9:31 seems to evoke Danielic imagery―in fact, there he also identifies himself as the “Son of Man”. It is not surprising then that Jesus links the idea of his “giving his life” with “Son of Man” terminology.

However, it should be pointed out that imagery from the Son of Man vision in Daniel 7 actually dominates the passage. The point is especially underscored by my good friend and co-blogger Brant Pitre (Happy Birthday, buddy!) in his marvelous book on the historical Jesus and the tribulation.[1] Here I want to draw upon Brant’s excellent treatment.

The language of the request (“Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory”) bears marked similarities to Daniel 7, which in fact describes the Son of Man’s coming and his reception of “glory” (v. 14) in connection with “thrones” being set up (v. 9) and a court “sitting” (καθίζω) in “judgment” (v. 10). Imagery from Daniel 7 can also be found in Jesus’ response. First, Jesus’ reference to his “cup” depicts his suffering in terms of the sharing in the eschatological tribulation[2]―something we have already seen described by Daniel 7 (especially v. 23–25). Moreover, Jesus’ language in Matthew 20:25–27//Mark 10:42–44 referring to the rulers as “the great” (οἱ μεγάλοι) among the “Gentiles” (τῶν ἐθνῶν) who “lord it over” (κατακυριεύουσιν) those under them, reminds the reader of Daniel 7 where four Gentile kings are represented by “great (μεγάλα) beasts” (cf. Dan 7:17) who “lord it over many” (κατακυριεύσει αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ πολὺ; LXX Dan 7:3-11; 11:39 Theod.).[3] Furthermore, Jesus’ emphasis on “service,” particularly his insistence in the final verse that the “Son of Man has come not to be served but to serve (διακονῆσαι)” would seem an attempt to adjust the vision of glory the disciples likely inferred from Daniel 7, where all peoples serve (δουλεύσουσιν) the Son of Man (v. 14).[4] The use of the term “Son of Man” in verse 45 thus rounds out the Danielic which has permeated the discussion throughout the episode―it is not simply a saying haphazardly tacked on as an ending. Indeed, these overlapping themes strongly supports seeing the pericope as a single literary unit.[5]

The Motivation Behind the Request

Of course, the basic motivation behind the request is not hard to grasp. As Hooker explains, “No sooner is the end in sight, than the disciples begin to ask for a share in Jesus’ future kingly power.”[6] Specifically, it appears significant that the request appears just prior to Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem. As others have noticed, it seems to indicate that the disciples expected that Jesus would somehow usher in the eschatological kingdom there.[7] By asking to sit on his right and left however the disciples are asking not merely for a participation in Jesus’ messianic reign but for the status of most exalted in the kingdom.[8] That Jesus has to go on to contrast the way Gentile rulers govern with a teaching to the other disciples that “it shall not be so among you” also probably implies that their vision of the kingdom also was in error.[9] Where James and John have gone critically wrong is imagining that Jesus’ eschatological kingdom will consist in a merely triumphalistic vision. For Jesus, the kingdom is not merely about reigning over one’s enemies from an exalted position―the kingdom is also linked with his death.[10]

The Ransom Saying
Jesus teaching that “the Son of Man has come not to be served but serve and to give his life as a ransom for many” seems to draw from the Suffering Servant song of Isaiah 53. Indeed the teaching has numerous points of contact with this prophecy, particularly as it stands in the MT [Masoretic Text, e.g., Modern Hebrew Bible]. Davies and Allison[11] list a number of parallels:
1. The terminology of “the many” (רבים) plays an especially important role in Isaiah 53:11–12. 2. The language of “for many” (ἀντὶ πολλῶν) evokes Isaiah 53:11, where the Servant is said to “make many [לרבים] to be accounted righteous.”
3. Jesus’ words about “giving his life as a ransom” (δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον) is similar to the language in Isaiah 53:10, “when he makes himself an offering for sin” (אם־תשים אשם נפשו) in Isaiah 53:10 (cf. 53:12).[12]
4. Jesus explanation that he has come “to serve” (διακονῆσαι) evokes the imagery of the “servant” (עבד; Isa 52:13; 53:11).
In fact, Davies and Allison point out that Romans 4:25 reveals that the connection between Jesus’ death and Isaiah 53 was forged early on. Page puts it well:

“The link between the πολλῶν ("many") and rabbîm ("many"), which appears in Isa. 52:14, 15 and 53:11, 12, has often been pointed out, but it has not always been appreciated that what makes it significant is the occurrence in both Mark 10:45 and Isaih 53 is the notion of one dying in the place of the ‘many’. The similarities of detail, along with the fact that the general ideas of service and vicarious death are held in common, lead us to the conclusion that the ransom saying was formed in conscious dependence upon the Isaianic picture of the Suffering Servant.”[13]

Thus, while other Isaianic texts also seem to have connections with Jesus’ teaching,[14] the connection with Isaiah 53 therefore appears quite strong.[15]

Although it may at first seem strange that Jesus’ links his role as the Danielic Son of Man with imagery from the Isaianic Suffering Servant passage, it should be noted that elsewhere the book of Daniel itself appears to specifically describe the righteous of the eschatological age with imagery drawn from Isaiah 52–53 (cf. Dan 11:33; 12:1).[16] In addition, 1 Enoch also appears to link Isaianic imagery to the “Son of Man” figure.[17] The connection between “Son of Man” language and the Isaianic Servant is thus not lacking precedent.

Priestly Imagery
Given that this is the Year for Priests, I thought I also ought to highlight the priestly dimension of the saying.

Of course, that Jesus appears to allude to Isaiah’s Suffering Servant is especially significant for our purposes since the Isaianic figure is specifically linked with cultic imagery. The Servant serves as a cultic sacrifice, offering his life as a guilt offering (cf. Isa 53:10). Of course, implicit in this is a priestly role―he is the one who presents a sacrifice for sin.[18] Indeed, other cultic imagery also occurs within the passage. In particular, the Servant is said to “bear” (נשא) the iniquities of the people―an image not only linked with the scapegoat of Yom Kippur (cf. Lev 16:22) but also connected with the priests (cf. Lev 10:17: “that you may bear [נשא] the iniquity of the congregation”). That Jesus associates himself with the Suffering Servant would thus seem to imply that he perceives himself as in someway taking upon a priestly role.

In fact, that Jesus specifically identifies himself with the language of "ransom" (λύτρον) would also seem to point in the direction of some sort of priestly self-identification. What is virtually universally ignored by scholars is the fact that the only instance in Jewish literature in which humans are described as functioning as a "ransom" (λύτρον) is Numbers 3 and 8 where Moses is told to “present” the Levites before the Lord in the place of the first-born. Thus one can make the case that the idea of a human serving as a “ransom” is a priestly one.[19]

NOTES
[1] Brant Pitre, Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 384–455. See also Brant’s article, “The ‘Ransom for Many,’ the New Exodus and the End of the Exile: Redemption as the Restoration of All Israel,” Letter and Spirit 1 (2005):41–68
[2] The image of drinking from the “cup” is used an a metaphor for suffering the eschatological judgment of God (cf. Isa 51:17; Jer 25:15–29; Ezek 23:31–34; Zech 12:2; Ps 11:6; 75:8; Lam 4:21). Noteworthy is also the fact that the Targums speak of drinking of the cup of death (cf. Tg. on Gen 40:23; Deut 32:1). There is a fascinating parallel in the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah, where prior to being sawed in half the prophet tells his disciples, “for me alone the Lord has mixed this cup” (Mart. Ascen. 5:13). Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:90 write, “So the cup that Jesus will drink (cf. 26.39), and that his disciples should be prepared to drink (cf. Mk 9.49; Gos. Thom. 82), is the cup of eschatological sorrow, which will be first poured out upon the people of God (cf. Jer 25.15–29).”
[3] The four beasts are said to not only be four kingdoms but four kings (Dan 7:17:מלכין). The idea of an individual tyrannical king is especially present in Daniel 7:24–25.
[4] See Pitre, “The ‘Ransom for Many,’” 49: “Indeed, Jesus appears not only to be overturning the expectations of James and John regarding the messianic kingdom, but conclusions that could be drawn straight from the visions of the ‘one like a son of man’ in Daniel itself. In so doing, he is directly tying his (and possibly) the disciples’ imminent suffering to the eschatological tribulation described in Daniel 7.”
[5] See the extensive discussion in Pitre, Jesus, the Tribulation and the End of the Exile, 386–90. In addition, we should note that Ched Myers (Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Story about Jesus [Maryknoll: Orbis, 1988], 279) suggests that the language of the request of James and John stems from Psalm 110. However, this is unclear. See the critique in Gundry, Mark, 583.
[6] Hooker, Gospel of Mark, 247.
[7] See Collins, Mark, 495: “The saying probably presupposes that Jesus will be enthroned as the king and judge of the new age as God’s agent.” In addition, see Nolland, Gospel of Matthew, 818: “. . . what is being related to is not the anticipation of suffering, but the prospect of divine vindication and establishment of Jesus as messianic king.” Still also see Lane, Gospel of Mark, 378; Morris, Gospel According to Matthew, 509. Furthermore, it can also be noted that Matthew has the woman coming to Jesus and “worshipping” (προσκυνοῦσα) him. For more on this language see the discussion above in n. 126 in chapter 3.
[8] Of course, such a self-seeking petition clearly runs counter to Jesus’ earlier teaching in Matthew 18:1–4 and Mark 8:33–35 that to be the greatest in the kingdom one ought to humble oneself.
[9] This is recognized by most commentators, e.g., Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:92; Luz, Matthew, 544; Nolland, Matthew, 8:22; Lane, Gospel of Mark, 382-83; France, Gospel of Mark, 418; etc.
[10] For further discussion between the relationship between the cross and Jesus’ coming as the Son of Man see Michael F. Bird, “The Crucifixion of Jesus as the Fulfillment of Mark 9:1,” Trinity Journal 24/1 (2003): 23–36; Kent Brower, “Mark 9:1-Seeing the Kingdom in Power,” JSNT 6 (1980): 17–41; Paul Barnett, The Servant King (Sydney, NSW: AIO, 2000), 171–74; Ched Myers, Binding the Strongman: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1994), 248, 391–92; N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 650–51.
[11] See the discussion in Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:95–97.
[12] Here Davies and Allison cite Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 292 n. 3: “the further definition of the phrase ‘give’ or ‘take life’ by a predicative accusative is only evidenced in Isa 53:10 MT [ʾāśām], IV Macc 6.29 [ἀντὶψυχον] and Mark 10.45 [λύτρον].”
[13] Sydney H. T. Page, “The Authenticity of the Ransom Logion (Mark 10:45b),” in Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels (eds. R. T. France et al; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), 140 [137–61].
[14] See, for example, the articles by Morna Hooker, Rikki E. Watts and N. T. Wright in William H. Bellinger, Jr. and William R. Farmer, ed., Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998). In particular Isaiah 43 appears related given that it uses ransom language (cf. Isa 43:3). Some have argued that it is primarily this passage and not Isaiah 53 which accounts for the language in Matt 20:28//Mark 10:45. See, e.g., Volker Hampel, Menschensohn und historischer Jesus: Ein Rätselwort als Schlüssel zum messianischen Selbstverständnis Jesu. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990), 326–33. However, the problem with such a view is that the “ransom” that is paid in Isaiah 43:3 is Gentile nations, not a figure who was likely understood as messianic. For an excellent critique of this view, see Gundry, Mark, 592. See also J. B. Higgins, Jesus and the Son of Man (London: Lutterworth, 1964), 56–57; France, Jesus and the Old Testament, 117–121; W. J. Moulder, “The Old Testament and the Interpretation of Mark x.45,” NTS 24 (1977): 121–23.
[15] For further arguments in favor of the Isaianic backdrop of the ransom saying see Rikki Watts, “Jesus’ Death, Isaiah 53 and Mark 10:45,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant, 136–47; Peter Stuhlmacher, Reconciliation, Law, and Righteousness (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 19–20; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:95-97. See also Craig Evans (Mark, 123) who is probably right to see Jesus combining both Isaiah 53 and Daniel 7 imagery: “[T]he Danielic elements do not necessarily compete with or contradict the underlying elements from Isaiah. The two scriptural traditions complement each other, with the Suffering Servant of Isa 53 redefining the mission and destiny of the ‘son of man’ of Dan 7. Indeed, the ‘son of man’ will someday ‘be served,’ but he first must serve, even suffer and die, as the Servant of the Lord.”
[16] For example, scholars have argued that the use of the terminology in Daniel 11:33 and 12:13 seems to draw on the language used in the Suffering Servant prophecy of Isaiah 53. See John J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 385, who, commenting on Daniel 11:33 [“ And those among the people who are wise [ומשכלי] shall make many understand, though they shall fall by sword and flame, by captivity and plunder, for some days”], wrties, “The designation משכילים is taken from the ‘suffering servant’ of Isa 52:13 (הנה ישכיל עבדי יָרום), who is said to ‘justify’ the רבים (Isa 53:11; cf. Dan 12:3).” Later, commenting on Daniel 12:3, Collins goes on to state, “As noted in the Commentary above, at 11:32, the maskîlîm take their name from the servant in Isaiah 52―53. The allusion is made all the clearer here when they are called מצדיקי הרבים (cf. Isa 53:11). The motif of exaltation is found in Isa 52:13. It is notworthy here the wise make the common people righteous, whereas in 11:33 they made them understand. The two notions are evidently closely related, if not equivalent.” See also Harold L. Ginsberg, “The Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering Servant,” VT 3 (1953): 400–404; Geroge W.E. Nickelsberg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (HTS 26; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972), 24; Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 589 n. 190.
[17] For example, the language of the “Chosen One”, which is associated with the Son of Man figure is clearly taken from Isaiah 42:1. See George Nickelsburg, in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (eds. J. Neusner, W. S. Green and E. Frerichs; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 61, who, after citing 1 Enoch 49:4 [“He is the Chosen One before the Lord of the Spirits”] states, “Here the allusion is to the presentation of the Servant in Isaiah: ‘Behold my Servant, whom I uphold, my Chosen One in whom my soul delights. . .’” See also Black, Book of Enoch, 189: “The term ‘the Elect One’ points as unequivocally to the elect Servant of Second Isaiah, as does the term Son of Man to Dan. 7.”
[18] In addition, see 4Q541 (4QApocryphon of Levib) IX 1:2, which describes a coming figure who will “atone for all the children of his generation.” Scholars have seen allusions to Isaiah 53 here. This is of course significant since there the servant “makes himself an offering [אָשָׁם] for sin” (Isa 53:10). The word here is used for a sacrificial offering elsewhere (cf. Lev 5, 6:10; 7, 14, 19:21, 22 Num 6:12; 18:9; Ezek 40:39; 42:13; 44:29; 46:20; Ezra 10:19). Though the text in 4Q541 (4QApocryphon of Levib) contains no trace of the idea of an expiatory self-offering of the priest, it is nonetheless significant that here the figure of Isaiah 53 is linked with a priestly figure. For a fuller discussion see Émile Puech, “Fragments d’um apocryphe de Lévi et le personnage eschatologique: 4QTestLévic-d(?) et 4QAJa,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991 (eds. J. T. Berrera and L. V. Montaner; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 467–70; George J. Brooke, “4QTestament of Levid(?) and the Messianic Servant High Priest,” in From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology in Honour of Marinus de Jonge (ed. M. C. De Boer; JSNTSup 84; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 83–100; idem., The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 144–57; Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 123–26; Chester, Messiah and Exaltation, 257.
[19] LXX Numbers 3:12 reads: Καὶ ἐγὼ ἰδοὺ εἴληφα τοὺς Λευίτας ἐκ μέσου τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ ἀντὶ παντὸς πρωτοτόκου διανοίγοντος μήτραν παρὰ τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ, λύτρα αὐτῶν ἔσονται καὶ ἔσονται ἐμοὶ οἱ Λευῖται. See Jacob Milgrom, Numbers (JPSTC; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1990), 18, who notes that the LXX relates the imagery here with “ransom” language. In light of this Fletcher-Louis writes, “That the Son of Man should act as a lu/tron is therefore fitting if he is of priestly (or Levitical) pedigree” (Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis, “Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah: Part 2,” JSHJ 5/1 [2006]: 60 [57–79)]. “Jesus as High Priestly Messiah: Part 2,” 60). In addition, see the closely related passage in Numbers 8:19 which describes the giving of the Levites for the purpose of making atonement: “And I have given the Levites as a gift to Aaron and his sons from among the people of Israel, to do the service for the people of Israel at the tent of meeting, and to make atonement for the people of Israel. . .” Here the giving of the Levites is closely related to their role in making atonement for the people.

Do Atheists Really Want a Fair Debate?

2009-10-15T13:39:00.000-07:00

I while ago I posted about the aftermath of the New Orleans Word of God conference, and various actions by the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association that could be interpreted as indications that they are not serious about a debate with a well-prepared proponent of a different perspective.

Apparently this is not a unique phenomena within the neo-atheist movement. It now comes to light that Richard Dawkins, über-atheist across the pond, is refusing to debate Stephen Meyer, a philosopher of science who has recently published a major contribution to origins research called Signature in the Cell. This is not the first time Dawkins has refused to debate. Christian apologist D'nesh D'Souza long ago issued a standing invitation to debate with him, but was refused. Eventually Dawkins accepted--but just once, and it was only covered by Al-Jazeera, ensuring that no one in the Western world would see it.

Why won't Dawkins debate Stephen Meyer. He says he won't debate "creationists" because it gives them "respectability" they don't deserve.

Stephen Meyer is not a "creationist," a term commonly reserved for those who believe in a young earth and a literal six-day creation. Dawkins knows this, but is engaging in name-calling.

Secondly, when you trounce someone in a debate, it humiliates them, not lends them respectability. Folks only gain respectability in a debate when they win or at least hold their own.

Therefore, what Dawkins means is, he won't debate Meyer because he thinks Meyer will win the debate or at least do well.

Jesus and the Rich Man (Video for Sunday's Readings)

2009-10-08T22:33:00.000-07:00

Sunday, October 11, 2009: Liturgy Reflection from JP Catholic University on Vimeo.

Here's the video on this Sunday's lectionary readings. I'll be adding a little more in a brief post tomorrow. . . stay tuned!

First Steps!

2009-10-05T21:15:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was a huge day for my little boy, Michael Jr.--he took his first few steps! I'm sorry I don't have pictures or video of that, but in honor of the big accomplishment here are some pictures of him with his mom and dad.

An Atheist at the Cajun Catholic Bible Conference: The Epilogue

2009-10-04T12:12:00.000-07:00

As I posted here before, back in August we had a visit from an officer of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association to our Word of God conference in Cajun country, who was evidently confused by our advertising campaign. Although we billed the conference as an educational event for Catholics concerning the sacraments of marriage and priesthood, some evidently received the impression that it was going to be a value-neutral free exchange of alternative worldviews. Our friend from NOSHA was disappointed when Michael, Brant, and I began to consistently argue for a Catholic and biblical approach to various human realities. In particular he challenged me to a debate in a NOSHA-sponsored venue on the topic of marriage. I declined, as I am primarily a (unfrozen caveman) bible scholar, not a marriage-and-public-policy guy, but I offered to get him in contact with Brian Brown, one of the leaders of the National Organization for Marriage. Brian immediately jumped on the offer to debate and contacted NOSHA. Unfortunately, NOSHA wanted him to come and debate, but would not pay for any of his expenses, neither travel nor lodging.

For those who don't do public speaking professionally, let me make clear that no one pays their own way to come and speak. If you're serious about having a speaker--especially a nationally-recognized one--you pay expenses plus stipend. Would Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, or Daniel Dennett pay their own way to come to Franciscan University to debate with us? That's an easy question to answer.

Everyone can draw their own conclusions about how serious the interest in debate really was.

(For those who don't recognize him, the headshot is everyone's favorite British atheist, Richard Dawkins)

For Your Hardness of Heart: Understanding Jesus' Teaching on Divorce

2009-10-03T08:43:00.000-07:00

In the video I posted for this Sunday's readings, I mentioned that some ancient writers believed that the concession for divorce was made by Moses out of the desire to prevent wife-murder.[1] I want to explore yet another avenue which might help us further understand Jesus’ teaching here. Specifically, I want to highlight the fact that the so-called commandment for divorce is only found in Deuteronomy. Now, in his new volume, Meier has actually shown that the widespread acceptance of divorce in Second Judaism seemed to make more out of the Deuteronomic legislation than is actually there. Here I want to focus on a slightly different issue.

It is noteworthy that the concession for divorce is found only in the Deuteronomic legislation. In fact, the book makes other concessions not found in the laws of Exodus–Numbers. Indeed, it seems that Ezekiel himself referred to this book when he spoke of how God had given Israel “laws that were not good”. That Ezekiel had the Deuteronomic legislation in mind has been persuasively argued by Scott Hahn and, my co-blogger, John Sietze Bergsma.[2]

“Laws that Were Not Good”
The Ezekiel passage in question is found in Ezekiel 20. The chapter contains three panels (20:5–9; 20:10–17; 20:18–26), which each contain five common elements: “I lifted my hand” (20:5: ואשׂא ידי ; 20:15, 23: נשׂאתי ידי); “I am the Lord” (20:7, 12, 20: אני יהוה); an account of Israel rebelling against God (20:8, 13, 21); the threat of divine wrath being unleashed (20:8, 13, 21); God’s explanation that he withheld judgment because “I acted for the sake of my name” (20:9, 14, 22; וָאעשׂ למען שׁמי [14: ואעשׂה]. Clearly, the three panels are meant to describe the experience of the Exodus and Israel’s wilderness experience.

In the first panel, Ezekiel 20:1–9, we have a description of Israel in Egypt. The second panel, which begins in 20:10, begins with an account of how the Lord led the Israelites out to the wilderness. This is followed by a description of God giving his law to Israel in the wilderness, which is almost certainly meant to be taken as a reference to Sinai (20:11-12). The revolt that is described next and the following account of how God threatened to pour out his wrath upon the people should therefore be linked to the episode of the sin of the Golden Calf (20:13–15; cf. Exod 32–33). The final panel then, which describes the revolt of the second generation in the wilderness, should thus be linked with the disobedience associated with them in Numbers 22–36. The laws described as “not good” then are most likely a reference to those given to them in Deuteronomy.

That Deuteronomy is in view in the latter panel is further evident from a close examination of the words used for the divine legislation in 20:25. Significantly, the word used here for the “laws” that were “not good” in 20:25 is חקים, a male plural. A different form of the word, the feminine plural form, חקות, is used everywhere else in the chapter to refer to divine legislation (e.g., 20:24). The male plural is especially associated with the Deuteronomic laws. It is the male plural which introduces the Deuteronomic laws in Deuteronomy 12:1. In fact, the male plural form dominates the book of Deuteronomy. Significantly, the male plural appears only twice in all of Leviticus (10:11; 26:46), while the female plural occurs eleven times (18:4–5, 26; 19:19, 37; 20:8, 22; 25:18; 26:3, 15, 43). In addition, Ezekiel 20:25 also uses the term משׁפטים, which occurs only in Deuteronomy.

Distinguishing between the legislation at Sinai and that given in Deuteronomy is thus key to understanding the reference to these “laws that were not good” and the difficult statement in 20:26: “I defiled them through their very gifts, in their offering up all their firstborn, in order that I might horrify them, so that they might know that I am the Lord.” While some have interpreted this last verse as a reference to Molech worship due to the fact that the word העביר appears here, a word which is elsewhere associated with the Molech cult (cf. Ezek 20:31), it should be noted that the word was also frequently used for offerings which had no association with Molech at all (cf. 5:1; 14:15; 20:37; 37:2; 46:21; 47:3-4; 48:14). It should also be noted that Molech worship was never linked to the offering of firstborn children. Rather, the “defiling” nature of the sacrifices appears related to the priestly perspective of the author of Ezekiel. The Deuteronomic laws permitted something which was expressly condemned by the Levitical legislation: the killing and spilling of blood of animals in the land. While Leviticus requires one to bring all animals to be killed to the central sanctuary (cf. Lev 17:1–8), Deuteronomy only requires an annual sacrifice of the firstlings (cf. Deut 12:6, 17; 15:19, 20). It seems that it is this “defiling concession” to which 20:26 refers. See the article by Hahn and Bergsma for further arguments in favor of this interpretation and further interaction with other approaches.

Understanding Jesus’ Teaching on Divorce
I believe that Ezekiel’s prophetic explanation of the Deuteronomic laws as “laws that were not good” is helpful for understanding Jesus’ teaching on divorce. Of course, though Ezekiel seems to attribute God’s allowance of the Deuternomic “defiling concessions” to Israel’s sinfulness, there divorce is not specifically mentioned. Yet it is also important to note that nowhere in Deuteronomy is Israel’s “hard heartedness” explicitly stated as the cause for the concession to divorce. Where does Jesus’ teaching come from then? Well, first it is clear that divorce is criticized in other prophetic traditions. In Malachi, for example, the Lord does state “I hate divorce” (Mal 2:16). When combined with the recognition that Deuteronomy made defiling concessions―something clearly recognized by at least Ezekiel―we can begin to form a backdrop for understanding the prophetic matrix out of which Jesus’ teaching flows.

[1] Early Christian writers suggested that Moses allowed for divorce because he was concerned to prevent a greater evil―the murder of unwanted wives (cf. John Chrysostom, De virginitate 41.1; idem., Hom. 17 Matt. 4; Theodore of Mopsuestia, Comm. Mal. 2:14-16; Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Interp. Mal. 2:14-16;[Anonymous] Opus imperfectum in Matt. 19:8; Jerome, In Math. 3 (19:8).
[2] “What Laws Were ‘Not Good’? A Canonical Approach to the Theological Problem of Ezekekiel 20:25-26,” JBL 123/2 (2004): 201–218

Jesus' Teaching on Divorce & Re-marriage (Video for this Sunday's Readings)

2009-10-02T18:11:00.000-07:00

Sunday, October 4, 2009: Liturgy Reflection from JP Catholic University on Vimeo.

See the corresponding post here with much more discussion.

Should Christians Abandon B.C./A.D.?

2009-09-30T13:28:00.001-07:00

I'd like to add my two cents to the interesting discussion by Bob Cargill and Daniel McClellan about whether Christians should abandon the customary "B.C." (Before Christ) and "A.D." (Anno Domini) dating system and adopt the "B.C.E." (Before the Common Era) and "C.E." (Common Era) in widespread use now in the academy.

Anyone who's ever taught or taken a class in biblical studies, much less published a book or article in the field, will have run into this question: Which dating system to use? And why?

With all due respect to Bob and Daniel, I wholeheartedly disagree with the specific proposal that Christians should abandon the B.C./A.D. system for the sake of following "the scientific community."

The primary reason is that "B.C.E." and "C.E." are vacuous: they don't mean anything. What actually is the "common era"? Can anyone actually tell me what is "common" about the years 1-the present? And what was it that happened "before the common era" so as to make it, well, 'un-common'?

It seems to mean the terminological shift is nothing but a rather facile attempt to take a dating system which clearly places the Incarnation at the center of human history and secularize it. But the attempt ultimately fails, since whether you use B.C.E/C.E. or B.C./A.D., the Incarnation is still at the center of the system. There's no other identifiable historical event that marks the transition from one age to the other, whatever one concludes about the chronological controversy regarding exact calendar date of Jesus' birth.

Second, as a Catholic, I actually believe that all human history does revolve around the Incarnation of Christ. While Bob Cargill may be right that the "use of B.C. and A.D." is not "the central identifier of a person as a christian," historically, the confession of faith in the Incarnation stands at the very heart of the Gospel. As 1 Timothy states: "the mystery of our religion" is that "He was manifested in the flesh" (1 Tim 3:16). If others find this confession of faith in the Incarnation offensive, then it seems to me that the consistent thing to do would be to create entirely different system, a secular system of dating that is based on some other event--rather than cloaking a Christocentric calendar in secular clothes.

So, until such a system is created and forced upon me, I will happily continue to use B.C. and A.D., as well as other such unfashionable terms like "Old Testament" and "New Testament," and hope that my respect towards people of different faiths will be judged on other grounds.

P.S. This is, of course, exactly what Bob said members of the Catholic Church would do ;).

P.P.S.

As a sidenote, it's also worth pointing out the origin of the linguistic inconsistency in the B.C./A.D. dating system: Have you ever wondered why "B.C." derives from English ("Before Christ") and "A.D." from Latin (Anno Domini)? Pick up an old Catholic Bible, and you'll find no such inconsistency: in bygone days, the designation for the age before Christ was abbreviated "A.M." (Anno Mundi)--that is, "In the Year of the World." In this system, the dating was counted from creation to the Incarnation, following the biblical timeline, in a way similar to orthodox Jewish calendars.

Jesus, Hell, the Seventy and Much More (Video+More on Sunday's Readings)

2009-09-23T10:16:00.000-07:00

Sunday, September 27, 2009: Liturgy Reflection from JP Catholic University on Vimeo.

Moses, the Seventy and Jesus
In the first reading, Moses commissions 70 elders to prophesy. Notably, nowhere are we explicitly told that these elders were Levites. Here then it seems then that we have a kind of charismatic role which is extended to lay Israelites (i.e., non-priests), who exercise a prophetic responsibility which compliments the divinely established office of the priests.

We might also add here that, while the details are a bit sketchy, it seems that Sanhedrin, the governing Jewish body in Jesus’ day, was associated with this tradition. In the Mishna we are told that the Sanhedrin that there were two Sanhedrins, a greater and lesser one. The greater Sanhedrin was composed of “one and seventy judges” (m. Sanh. 1.6). Why seventy? The Mishna directly quotes from Numbers 11―Moses appointed seventy elders.

Finally, we might also note that there is a certain New Testament fulfillment of Moses’ commissioning of the seventy. In the Gospel of Luke we read that Jesus himself appointed seventy. Since this was not the Gospel this week I decided to focus on other things in the video, but I thought I'd elaborate on the significance of Jesus' appointment of seventy in Luke here. In fact, my co-blogger, New Testament scholar Brant Pitre, presented an incredible paper at last year’s Society of Biblical Literature annual meeting in which he showed the parallels between the arrangement of Israel under Moses and the description of the concentric circles of disciples Jesus gathers.[1] Here I want to recap what Brant presented.

First, we can note that Peter’s prominence―he is also listed first among the apostles. Second, we note that among the twelve three are typically singled out: Peter, James and John (cf. Mark 5:36; 9:2; 14:33). In fact, these three are the only ones ever explicitly said to be renamed by Jesus (cf. Mark 3:14, 16–17: “And he appointed twelve. . . 16 Simon whom he surnamed Peter; 17 James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James, whom he surnamed Bo-anerges, that is, sons of thunder”). Third, of course, there are the twelve disciples themselves. Fourth, as noted above, Luke tells us that Jesus appointed seventy disciples (Luke 10:1).[2]

As Brant explained in his paper, these concentric circles around Jesus seem to correspond with the description of Israel's leadership under Moses. In particular, Brant highlighted Exodus 24. There, as elsewhere, Aaron seems to have a kind of prominence. Likewise, as Jesus singled out three, God tells Moses to specifically take with him Aaron and two brothers, Nadab and Abihu (cf. Exod 24:1, 9). Interestingly, Jesus also takes aside Peter and two brothers, James and John. Furthermore, Moses has young men offer sacrifices on twelve pillars--it seems possible that here twelve are here envisioned (cf. Exod 24:4-5). Finally, in Exodus 24 Moses is specifically told to bring with him seventy elders (cf. Exod 24:1, 9). The parallels with the arrangement of disciples around Jesus is really quite amazing. Look forward to read about all of this with even greater depth and sophisitication in his new book on the Last Supper, which is due out next year. (I can't wait!) If you can't wait for the book, I suggest obtaining the audio from his Eucharistic Theology class lectures--they're dynamite.

The parallels here would all seem to underscore Jesus’ role as the New Moses, through whom the New Exodus is realized.

What the Hell?
As I explain in the video, the term originated as a reference to the “Valley of Hinnon” (גֵֽי־הִנֹּם֙, cf. Josh 15:8; 18:6), which was known as the site where children were offered as human sacrifices to the god Molech (2 Chron 28:3; 33:6; 2 Kgs 16:3). Because of its association with Molech worship the prophets had uttered condemnations of the valley and described how it would be a place of carnage and devastation in the coming divine judgment (Jer 7:30–33; 19:1–13; 32:34–35; cf. also Isa 31:9; 66:24; 2 Kgs 23:10; Lev 18:21). In later Jewish literature it is identified as the place of God’s eschatological judgment (cf. 1 En. 27:1–5; 54:1–6; 56:1–4; 90:26) and as the place of torment for the wicked dead (Apoc. Abr. 15.6; Sib. Or. 1.100–103; 2.292–310; 4.184–86; 4 Ezra 7:36; m. ʾAbot 1:5; 5.19; b. Šabb. 33a; 39a; 104a; b. ʿErub. 19a; b. Beýah 32b; b. Taʿan. 5a; b. Hag. 15a; b. Yebam. 63b; b. Sotah 4b; 41b; 10b; b. Qidd. 40a; b. B. Bat. 74a; 84a; 78b; b. ʿAbod. Zar. 18b; b. B. Meýiʿa. 59a) from which no one ever escapes (b. Roš. Haš. 16b-17a; b. B. Meýiʿa 58b), and even as the place of everlasting torment (Josephus, A.J. 18.14; B.J. 2.163; Sib. Or. 2.292–310; though see m. ʿEd. 2.10; b. Šabb. 33b; b. Roš. Haš. 16b-17a). In the Gospels, Jesus uses the term to describe the place to which the wicked will be condemned, emphasizing that those who are sent there will experience bodily punishment (cf. Matt 5:29; 10:28).[3]

NOTES
[1] Brant Pitre, “Jesus and the Messianic Priesthood” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, 2008).
[2] There is a textual difficulty here. Some sources describe Jesus appointing “seventy-two”. As Marshall explains, the confusion may have emerged because in the Old Testament it is unclear if Moses simply appointed seventy or seventy-two, since Eldad and Medad, who were not enrolled with the seventy elders who were taken outside the camp were still given the gift of prophecy. Indeed, the LXX has Moses appointing seventy-two. Moreover, it should be noted that there number seventy is significant in that according to Genesis 10 the world is comprised of seventy nations. Again, the LXX diverts from the MT here, indicating that there were seventy-two nations. The mission of the seventy then can be taken as a prefiguring of the Church’s mission to evangelize the world. For further discussion see I. Howard Marshall, Gospel according to Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 415.
[3] For a fuller discussion, see J. Lunde, “Heaven and Hell,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (eds. J. B. Green, S. McKnight, I. H. Marshall; Downers Grove; InterVarsity Press, 1992), 310–11 [307–21]; Joachim Jeremias, “γέεννα,” TDNT 1:657–58.

Proud of My Alma Mater's Huge Purchase!

2009-09-19T13:14:00.001-07:00

So I realize that I am a little late in covering this, but I've got to post on this news story here. . . Azusa Pacific University has purchased five Dead Sea Scroll fragments!

Of course, it's big news whenever a university makes such a purchase. The story I link to below states--and I believe it's correct--that there are only three American universities that own any of the Dead Sea Scrolls. That one of them would be in Southern California is huge.

That one of them would be my alma mater is especially exciting!

I completed my undergraduate degrees in Theology and Philosophy at Azusa Pacific, minoring in New Testament Greek. I had an excellent experience there and look back at my time there fondly. APU is sort of a small school and so it doesn't really get the attention it deserves. You don't find reactionaries or second rate thinkers there but honest, thoughtful, faith-filled professors who really know how to inspire students. Of course, as a Catholic I had my share of theological differences with professors and fellow students. Nonetheless, we had far more in common than we had in disagreement. Indeed, APU was instrumental in helping me learn the value of authentic ecumenism. While I sometimes had theological disagreements with certain things I may have heard from professors and students I never found them to be disagreeable. In fact, I can honestly say that the school's faculty and students were models of Christian virtue and charity. And, of course, I learned a lot from them too!

I treasure my memories of APU. Hopefully the purchase of these scrolls will help raise the school's profile--it deserves it!

For more, see the story in the LA Times here. Bob Cargill also had a good post on this that deserves mention.

Jesus as the Suffering Son of Man (Video+More on Sunday's Readings)

2009-09-17T10:09:00.000-07:00

Sunday, September 20, 2009: Liturgy Reflection from JP Catholic University on Vimeo.

This Sunday we hear Jesus’ passion prediction in Mark 9:31: “The Son of man will be given over the hands of men, and they will kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he will rise”. As I mention in the video there seem to be echoes of Daniel 7 in Jesus’ words. Here I thought I’d give a little more on that since I can’t get into all of the technicalities involved in the short video we do. By the way, I want to thank Nate Sjogren again for putting this together. He's just a Sophmore, but he's really an amazingly talented student. (And he's got the fiery enthusiasm of a new convert--he came into the Catholic Church at this year's Easter Vigil!)

As an aside I should note that, of course, all of our lectionary videos draw extensively from recent scholarship. In fact, I’m often pained that I cannot get into some of the subtleties I’d like to explain. My plan then is to post a little more on the videos here as often I can, giving some more background for what is said. That having been said, let’s look at Jesus’ prediction in Mark 9:31.

The Son of Man as Corporate Symbol and Eschatological Figure

In receiving the kingdom the Son of Man is closely identified with the saints, who, after undergoing the period of eschatological suffering, are vindicated by God. However, I think it is wrong to suggest that the figure is merely to be read as a corporate symbol. [1] For one thing, it seems clear that the Son of Man is some sort of divine figure―e.g., his coming on the clouds is an image reserved for God in Israel’s Scriptures (cf. Deut 33:6; Ps 68:5; 104:3). Moreover, it is well-known that certain figures in the ancient world such as kings were understood as rerepsentatives of their people, i.e., “corporate personalities.”[2]

That the latter phenemonen is going on elsewhere in Daniel 7 is abundantly clear since the imagery of the beasts is said to describe both four kingdoms and four kings (cf. Dan 7:17-18). Since the four beasts are described as both four kings and four kingdoms (cf. Dan 7:17, 23) it stands to reason that “son of man” could likewise be interpreted as both an eschatological figure and the representative of the nation.[3] In fact, not only kings but also priests were known as serving as corporate symbols. Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis has taken this in some interesting directions which we cannot explore here.[4] In fact, this is an area I spend a lot of time on in my dissertation project―you’ll have to read it all there! Suffice it to say, the high priest wore both the twelve stones symbolizing the twelve tribes and the divine name (cf. Exod 28).

Jesus’ Passion Prediction and Daniel 7

Aside from Jesus’ use of “son of man” language, as I explain in the video, scholars have caught other allusions to Daniel 7 in Jesus’ passion prediction. Indeed, the language there of Jesus’ being “given over” (παραδίδοται, paradidotai), “into the hands” (εἰς χεῖρας, eis cheiras) to be killed, and rising “after three days” (μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας, meta treis hēmeras) appears to have strong ties to Daniel 7:25, which describes how the saints, who are represented by the “son of man”, “shall be given” (OG.: παραδοθήσεται, paradothēsetai; Theod.: δοθήσεται, dothēsetai)” “into the hand (OG.: ἐν χειρὶ, en cheiri; Theod.: εἰς τὰς χεῖρας, eis tas cheiras) [of the beast] for a time, two times, and half a time.” It seems hard to believe the similarities are simply coincidental.[5]

In fact, as I explain, some scholars even think the frame of “after three days” corresponds to Daniel’s vision.[6] For example, Davies and Allison write, “if the pre-Easter predictions were eschatological in content, there is an intriguing parallel with Dan 7. Just as, in that important text, the saints of the Most High, who are identified with the one like a son of man, are delivered into the hands of their enemy, only to receive the kingdom after a time, the representative and head of the faithful community, will be delivered into the hands of men, only to be resurrected after three days.” [7] Rather, it seems as though Jesus formulated such a prediction using Daniel 7.

In fact, I think that it is abundantly clear that Daniel 7 was understood as describing a figure who represented the saints who suffer during the tribulation―in Matthew 20:28//Mark 10:45 Jesus explains that “the Son of Man came to give his life as a ransom for many.” That’s another passage I’ve spent a lot of time on in my dissertation project. It’s also a passage we will be looking at soon in the Sunday readings. I’ll wait until then to offer further comment.

On the Apostles’ Lack of Understanding

One other interesting note about the Son of Man: the Old Greek version of Daniel describes the “son of man” coming not “to” but “as [ὡς, hōs]” the Ancient of Days.[8] The author of the book of Revelation seems to have been aware of this reading.[9] It would seem then possible that some saw the figure as truly a divine individual. If the apostles were aware of this reading of Daniel―which is of course something we have no way of knowing for sure―it would go a long way to explaining why they are so shocked to hear that “the Son of Man” will be killed. It would also explain why when Jesus applies the term to himself before Caiaphas, he is accused with blasphemy.

NOTES
[1] See Christopher Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1982), 180: “If the Son of Man figure had merely been a symbol of the Saints of the Most High, we might have expected to find the same kind of identification between the Son of Man and the saints which we find in respect of the beasts and the kings in v. 18, but this is lacking.” See also, Collins, Daniel, 305: “The Ancient One is assumed to exist outside the dream, and there is no more appropriate or familiar language by which he might be described. Accordingly, we are subsequently given no identification of the Ancient of Days by the angel. It is highly significant that the ‘one like a human being’ is not interpreted either. He is associated with ‘the holy ones of the Most High’ insofar as they too are said to receive the kingdom, but there is no one-to-one equation, such as we have with the beasts and the kings.” Collins contrasts Rowland’s argument with the assertion made for the opposite position (i.e., that the Son of Man is merely a corporate image of the righteous) by Maurice Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London: SPCK, 1979), 25: “if the author had viewed him as a real being who would lead or deliver the Saints, he must have mentioned him here.”
[2] See, e.g., H. W. Robinson, “The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality,” in Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 25–26; Joel S. Kaminksy, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup 196; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 16, 109.
[3] See Pitre, Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile, 54-55; Seyoon Kim, “Son of Man” as the Son of God (WUNT 30; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), 18.
[4] Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis, “The High Priest as Divine Mediator in the Hebrew Bible: Dan 7:13 as a Test Case,” SBLSP (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997): 161–93; idem., “The Revelation of the Sacral Son of Man: The Genre, History of Religions Context and the Meaning of the Transfiguration,” in Auferstehung–Resurrection. The Fourth Durham-Tübingen-Symposium: Resurrection, Exaltation, and Transformation in Old Testament, Ancient Judaism, and Early Christianity (ed. H. Lichtenberger & F. Avemarie; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2001), 247–298.
[5] Scott McKnight, Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus and Atonement Theory (Waco: Baylor, 2005), 234, writes: “I continue to be amazed by scholars who refuse to think Daniel 7 could be the context for a suffering Son of Man. Daniel predicts suffering in the following words: ‘He shall speak words against the Most High, shall wear out the holy ones of the Most High, and shall attempt to change the sacred seasons and the law; and they shall be given into his power for a time, two times, and half a time.' The Son of man of Daniel 7 is vindicated precisely because the Son of man, a figure for the saints of the Most High, has suffered.”
[6] See, e.g., J. Schaberg, “Daniel 7, 12 and the New Testament Passion-Resurrection Predictions,” NTS 31 (1985): 208-22, especially 210; Morna Hooker, “Is the Son of Man problem really insoluble?,” in Text and Interpretation (ed. E. Best and R. M. Wilson; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 166.
[7] Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:661. In addition, see C. Caragounis, The Son of Man: Vision and Interpretation (WUNT 2/38; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1986), 197-201. Moreover, it could also be pointed out that the language of “resurrection” also appears in Daniel 12:1-2.
[8] Some dismiss this as a scribal error (cf. Collins, Daniel, 311). It should be noted, however, that such a view conveniently dismisses one of the major criteria for textual criticism, lectio difficilior potior.
[9] In Revelation 1 we read about the “son of man” who is identified with imagery evocative of the “ancient of days”, i.e., his hair is said to be white as “wool” and “snow” (cf. Rev 1:14 with Dan 7:9). See, e.g., G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 210 who suggests the influence of the Old Greek reading.