Book Notice: Hearing the Old Testament: Listening for God’s Address

July 11, 2012 / Luke Wisley / 1 Comment

A book to keep your eye on if you are interested in theological interpretation is Hearing the Old Testament: Listening for God’s Address (Eerdmans) edited by Craig G. Bartholomew and David J.H. Beldman. In the Preface Bartholomew and Beldman lament that the Old Testament is for the most part unknown by the majority Christians and that there are far too few books to assist Christians to feast upon it as Christian Scripture. Their response to the famine is this edited volume with the goal of listening for God’s address through the Old Testament:

At the heart of the hermeneutic advocated in this book is the belief that our love for the Old Testament and our desire for God will come together only when we make the goal of our interpretation to listen for God’s address. If Scripture is God’s Word, then any other goal is inadequate.

Hearing the Old Testament boasts an impressive collection of contributors beginning with Bartholomew’s opening chapter, “Listening for God’s Address: A Mere Trinitarian Hermeneutic for the Old Testament.” Part II of the volume concerns methods in interpretation and is appropriately named, “Learning to Listen.” Essays from Part III are involve listening to the different sections of the Old Testament. Part IV concludes the volume with, “Hearing and Preaching the Old Testament.”

What stands out about this volume is the careful editorial process. Contributors to Part II, “Learning to Listen” first read Bartholomew’s chapter on Hermeneutics and then were invited to interact either positively or negatively with his essay. Contributors to Part III were asked to write their chapters after reading Bartholomew’s chapter and the chapter’s on “Learning to Listen.” Part IV was then written in light of the Parts I-III. This type of editorial planning should bring a certain type of cohesion that normally lacks in an edited volume. I only hope that future volumes may follow suit.

The List of chapters and authors:

Listening for God’s Address: A Mere Trinitarian Hermeneutic for the Old Testament by Craig G. Bartholomew
History of Old Testament Interpretation by Al Wolters
Philosophy and Old Testament Interpretation by Bartholomew
Literary Approaches and Old Testament Interpretation by David J.H. Beldman
History and Old Testament Interpretation by Tremper Longman III
Biblical Theology and Old Testament Interpretation by Mark J. Boda
Canon and Old Testament Interpretation by Stephen G. Dempster
Mission and Old Testament Interpretation by Christopher J.H. Wright
Ethics and Old Testament Interpretation by M. Daniel Carroll R.
Hearing the Pentateuch by Gordon J. Wenham
Hearing the Historical Books by Iain Provan
Hearing the Psalter by J. Clinton McCann Jr.
Hearing the Old Testament Wisdom Literature by Bartholomew
Hearing the Major Prophets by Richard Schultz
Hearing the Minor Prophets by Heath Thomas
Hearing and Preaching the Old Testament by Aubrey Spears

Paul House and the Theme of the Prophets

March 6, 2012March 5, 2012 / Luke Wisley / Leave a comment

I have been a fan of Paul House’s (Professor of Old Testament, Beeson Divinity School) work ever since I first picked up and read his OT Theology book. Although sometimes a bit rigid, I appreciate the way he works through a single book of the OT on its own right, but thoughtful in the way he sees certain themes being alluded to in other parts of the Hebrew canon. It can be said that he has good canonical sensitivity.

With that, I was pleased to see Justin Taylor highlight House’s essay on the unifying themes of the prophets from his article in the ESV Study Bible. This essay is going to be reprinted in Understanding the Bible Well: A Guide to Reading the Bible Well. According to House a thematic progression can be discerned in the prophets that begins with the prophets belief that God is speaking through them. Second, the prophets operate within the context that Israel has been chosen by God to exist in a covenantal relationship with him. Third, much of the message of the prophets emphasizes that Israel has broken covenantal relationship. Fourth, the continued message of the prophets is that God’s judgement for covenantal unfaithfulness will eradicate sin. And fifth, the prophets see renewal beyond the judgement. You can read Taylor’s full post here.

Ehrman, Canonization, and the OT Prophets

March 5, 2012March 5, 2012 / Matt Emerson / Leave a comment

After teaching through the Latter Prophets and Writings this past quarter, I was continually struck by two things – the fact that the prophets were generally ridiculed, persecuted, and ignored, and the fact that the entire Old Testament canon is a coherent whole, continually tied together textually. Each author appears to relate his work to previous material in the OT and especially to the Torah.

Couple that with the fact that Bart Ehrman has been on my mind recently (I blame Dan Wallace and the Mark fragment), and you know why I’ve been thinking about canonization. Specifically, I’ve been thinking about the entire worldview Ehrman has attempted to construct (or, rather, glom off of Walter Bauer) concerning the formation of the biblical canon. Ehrman would have us believe that the canon is the product of the “orthodox” winning against Gnostics and others whose writings were of a completely different character from what we find in the New Testament. Of course, Ehrman’s focus is on the NT but I would imagine he might say something similar of the OT canon’s formation.

Back to the Latter Prophets – I just don’t see how Ehrman’s view of canonization fits, especially with the prophets. The prophets were not popular, and even after the exile their message probably would not have been especially well received. This doesn’t fit with Ehrman’s view that the “popular crowd” wins out in canon battles.

More importantly, though, I simply don’t see how Ehrman’s view fits given the organic growth of the canon. Scholars like Brevard Childs, Stephen Chapman, and Christopher Seitz have demonstrated again and again that the Old Testament was formed through continually re-appropriating the received text in light of new situational circumstances. The people of God continued to receive a fresh word, but it was always a fresh word tied to the word that had already been received.

Furthermore, I don’t see why we shouldn’t view the New Testament’s formation this way as well. It wasn’t as if the NT authors’ message was wildly popular among the larger Roman population, and though it was much more accepted by the time of Athanasius’ festal letter, evidence suggests that the canon was quite stable well before that point (see David Trobisch, The First Edition of the NT).

Additionally, I understand that Seitz argues that the New Testament canon was formed in much the same way as the Old in his new book (although I haven’t been able to get to it yet). And by studying the way the New Testament uses the Old I think this makes abundantly more sense than saying that a council 400 years (or 600 if you want to take Ehrman’s most ridiculous proposal) after the fact chose the 27 books of the NT. The NT clearly uses OT texts, narratives, and themes to interpret Christ’s life, death, resurrection, ascension, commissioning of the Church, and eventual return. The books of the NT were written for the same reason and using the same approach as the OT. God had done something new, this time decisively and finally, in Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit inspired the authors to interpret that event in light of the received word of the Old Testament.

So the fact that both the OT and NT are the products of organic growth flies in the face of Ehrman’s assertion that the canon is a disparate group of writings that fit with what the “orthodox” felt needed to be included.

Patristic Reception of the book of the Twelve Prophets

January 31, 2012 / Luke Wisley / 1 Comment

The last few years has shown a great interest in the reception history of single texts, biblical books, and even entire portions of the canon. There have been great books and commentary series devoted to such studies. Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers by Chris Hall, the Ancient Christian Commentary Series edited by Thomas Oden, and the new Reformation Commentary Series edited by Timothy George are a couple examples. These and other such work highlights that interpreters through history were asking different questions than those asked of the present and can help show our interpretive “blind spots.”

This post involves the early church’s reception of what many call the Minor Prophets. In my research I was interested in the reception of the collection of the Minor Prophets. So, did the early church recognize the Minor Prophets as a single book or are the Minor Prophets twelve individual books? I have around 60 pages worth of notes regarding the early church and the Minor Prophets found in the Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene Fathers edited by Philip Schaff, below is a brief sampling:

Of these and such like words written by the prophets, O Trypho,” said I, “some have reference to the first advent of Christ, in which He is preached as inglorious, obscure, and of mortal appearance: but others had reference to His second advent, when He shall appear in glory and above the clouds; and your nation shall see and know Him whom they have pierced, as Hosea, one of the twelve prophets, and Daniel, foretold (Justin’s Dialogue Chapter XIV).

And Zechariah also, among the twelve prophets, pointing out to the people the will of God, says: “These things does the Lord Omnipotent declare: Execute true judgment, and show mercy and compassion each one to his brother (Irenaeus Against Heresies Chapter XVII).

For it is expressly said by Joel, one of thetwelve prophets, “And it shall come to pass after these things, I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy” (Clement of Alexandria The Knowledge of God a Divine Gift, According to the Philosophers Chapter XIII).

The prophecy of Isaiah is not in the book of the twelve prophets, who are called the minor from the brevity of their writings, as compared with those who are called the greater prophets because they published larger volumes (Augustine Chapter 29.—What Things are Predicted by Isaiah Concerning Christ and the Church).

And this is in common language so unprecedented, or at least so rare, that we are only convinced that the twelve Prophets made one book, because we read in like manner, “As it is written in the book of the Prophets.” There are some too who call all the canonical Scriptures together one book, because they agree in a very wondrous and divine unity.…(Augustine On the Psalms–Psalm CL).

Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras (Eusebius Pamphilus 206, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers).

The majority of what I found was that the early church recognized the Minor Prophets as a unity, some going so far calling it a single book despite the lack of any type of codex existing. At this point I have not seen in the Fathers an approach to read the Minor Prophets as a book but I was intrigued by how many references there were to the entire collection.