Theology for the Masses

The first of the two prophetic oracles initiates the interpreter into the enthronement ritual. Here the prophet announces that Yahweh has extended to the king a position of prestige at his right hand. This imagery is incomparable; in the Psalter a king is regularly represented as sitting (bvy) before God’s face (ynEåp.li),[1] but rarely at His right hand (ynI+ymiyli(). This subtle shift and its similarities with Egyptian symbolism has led some scholars to suggest that the image is “imported from Egypt, as an invitation for the king to ‘dwell’ rather than ‘sit’ at the right hand of God.”[2] The imperative (bveî) is not merely a command but an invitation which permits the king to inhabit Yahweh’s presence.[3]

Yahweh’s invitation has three implications. First, the authority of kingship and the victory over enemies is entirely derivative. The enthronement ceremony involves an “actual transferral of authority,”[4] which occurs by divine decree (~aun>) spoken by a prophet, but God is the real King and the earthly ruler rules “as a co-regent and representative, deriving his authority from his divine counterpart.”[5]

Second, the summons assumes the king shares in the life and actions of the divine King. The king has dominion over his foes, not as a passive agent,[6] but as a sovereign who subjugates enemies in a manner that concedes he is deriving his power from and participating in the larger purposes of the God of Israel. Yahweh will make his enemies a footstool for his feet.[7] Subdued enemies becomes the theme of vs. 2 in explanation of the extent of the king’s authority which expands from Zion[8] right into the midst of his enemies (br<q<åB.). The metaphor employed here is an extended scepter (hJ,m;), an emblem of world dominance, martial authority, and national glory (Jer. 48:17).[9] The phrase dealing with world dominance is controlled by an imperative (hdEªr>÷) that involves an element of promise: the prophet assures the king that the vanquishing of his rivals will most certainly take place in the future.[10]

Finally, the transmission of authority and the promises of world dominance and divine protection are intimately connected in history and ritual with the king’s divine Sonship: an idea which speaks nothing of ontological realities, but rather of status and adoption. In the ceremony of conferral of authority, the prophet enacts a legal transmission whereby the king is declared the adopted son of God.[11] The designation of divine sonship finds its roots in Ps. 2:7, the parallel text to 110:3.  110:3 has long been deemed “mysterious”[12] and the “most obscure verse in the whole Psalter.”[13] Understanding the verse entails considering a fair amount of textual alteration and thus this text has fashioned numerous scholastic constructions and explanations. The factors are numerous but here are a few. First, the verse contains two nominal clauses which offer the interpreter no indication of time. Second, a textual variant in 3b might be rendered either “holy majesty” (MT) or the minority reading, “on the holy mountains.” Here I will retain the MT reading primarily because the majority rendering of vd<qoß-yrEd>h;B. provides a fitting transition between the discussion of kingship and the discussion of priesthood. Third, due to the corruption of the Hebrew text and its lack of verbs, the LXX offers the most likely route for interpretation by inserting evxege,nnhsa,. This makes the most sense, especially in light of Ps. 2:7. Fourth, a hapax legomenon (rx’v.mi) occurs in the second phrase creating the usual interpretive difficulties associated with such an anomaly.[14]

Verse 3 begins with the imagery of the king’s subjects eagerly offering themselves to his military service, then moves to a three line description of the king’s Sonship which occurs in mixed-metaphor. The first metaphor, as already noted, has two possible Hebrew constructions. The majority reading used here portrays the king as “arrayed in holy splendor (Ps. 29:2).” The word vd,qo places his kingly majesty in a cultic context and creates a nice transition into vs. 4.[15]

The metaphor shifts at this point into two lines describing how the king was begotten of God “from the womb of the dawn (rx”+v.mi ~x,r<äme).”[16] Employing the LXX reading, which provides the word evxege,nnhsa,, the final line carries the metaphor of birth by asserting that Yahweh is the progenitor of the king. The king is the son of God through divine decree and a decisive transformation “of the kings essential nature (Ps. 2:7)”[17] through the set of legal acts previously footnoted[18] This proclamation legitimizes the kings rule. By the time of the Psalter’s compilation, this psalm had clearly taken on messianic, eschatological significance, but at the time this particular psalm was written, it would have served the political ideologies of “that segment of society (urban elite) who benefited from a centralized government”[19] because of its exaltation of the king to the status of sharing in divine glory and receiving divine power with Yahweh’s “unconditional commitment to protect and prosper Israel.”[20] Centralizing political power into one figure is now accompanied by centralizing religious power in the same figure.

—————————————————————————————–

---

[1] Ps. 61:7

[2] Bvy can mean both “to sit” and “to dwell.” Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 263. Keel provides other evidence for this suggestion by citing the fact that certain reconstructive models of the temple have placed the royal palace on the right side of the temple, threshold to threshold with God’s dwelling place. The other option is that the ark may have been processed into the Gihon spring and the throne of the king placed beside it. Allen, 80.

[3] Bill T. Arnold & John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 63.

[4] Kraus, 112.

[5] Allen, 86.

[6] Some scholars have suggested that the psalm is so Yahweh-centered that it depicts the king as a relatively passive agent who sits protected as Yahweh goes to war for him. While this is largely true, the psalm is concerned primarily with Yahweh’s actions, it misses the evidence of verse 3 where the king has troops who offer themselves as free will offerings as they rally around the king for battle.

[7] Such imagery has parallels in ancient Egpyt. Certain iconographic archeological discoveries depict adversaries situated underneath the feet of Egyptian rulers. At times the imagery in these discoveries depicted other deities being dominated by the superior, Egyptian deities. (Keel, 255) The implications of such a reading for Ps. 110 are staggering. Yahweh subdues the enemies of Israel, not merely as secular enemies but as enemies which are such because they have devoted themselves to false deities who are also defeated and possess no authority of their own.Greg Boyd, God at War. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 243. Aside from the possible Egyptian parallels, the Old Testament uses the footstool metaphor repeatedly in reference to Davidic kings and Yahweh’s defeat of their enemies (I Kings 5:3).

[8] The place of the kings coronation according to Ps. 2.  “It is the city of Jerusalem in its political and historical existence, particularly in the realm of cultic language and thus religious thought: it is concerned with the city of Yahweh. Zion in the place where Yahweh dwells or at least may be reached.” Randy G. Haney, Text and Concept Analysis in Royal Psalms. (New York: Peter Lang Publishers, 2002), 123.

[9] Allen, 86. Furthermore, it seems possible that the hJ,m; is reference back to the Exodus where Yahweh rescued Isreal from Egypt with a shepherds staff.

[10] The action itself is still dependent upon Yahweh’s prior actions because such ends lie “outside the power of the [king].” Arnold & Choi, 64.

[11]Referring to Ps. 2:7, Kraus notes, “The prophetic and procedural declaration, ‘You are my son, today I have begotten you,’ is disclosed as a creative word that establishes new existence. The divine choice is reflected in adoption. The chosen king is placed at god’s side by adoption. He is elevated to the position of representative of God’s sovereignty and of heir to his power. Thus it is that in the Old Testament the king was not “son of God” by nature, nor did he by his ascending the throne necessarily enter into the sphere of the divine, but by a decision of Israel’s God he was declared to be son at his entry into the office of king.” Kraus, 113.

[12] Ibid., 114.

[13] Allen, 80.

[14]Some have seen here a reference to the Canaanite deity Shahar in the word rx’v.mi, but this is entirely unlikely because the imagery in this verse is one of giving birth and Shahar was a male, not a female, deity. Also, Isaiah 14:12 describes the king of Babylon as rx;v’_-!B, (a son of the dawn), which seems to be a clearer connection with that Shahar.  Robert Davidson, The Vitality of Worship. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Col, 1998), 365. Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004), 64.

[15]If the minority text is employed, “on the holy mountains,” the phrase would then describe “the location and process of begetting to the heavenly sphere. The king comes forth from heights beyond the world, from the world of God…Thus in Ps. 110:3 on the day when the ruler ascends the throne he is ascribed miraculous origin from on high and the hope of a dawning light, birth from the ‘heavenly world.’” This, of course, would flow nicely with the following assertion of divine sonship in the last two lines of this verse and the reference to the morning dew. Kraus, 114.

[16] The other attractive option at this point in this terribly difficult verse, is that the writer continues to speak of those who volunteered for the kings military service. The metaphor of the dew describes the vast number of warriors at the kings disposal. In this reading the entire army of Israel is dressed in holy attire, not just the king. Haney, 124.

[17] Kraus, 113.

[18]Taken in the larger military context of this passage, it seems plausible that Yahweh’s begetting of the king in the womb of the dawn is an indication that the king is Yahweh’s tool for helping Israel in her time of need, events often associated with the morning (Ps. 46:5-6). Such a reading also places this assistance nicely within the immediate context of the king having a zealous army at his side .Again, however, it should be remembered that the kings military might is derived from Yahweh not his own strength or military prowess.

[19] Brueggemann, 606.

[20] Brueggeman, 606.

If you wanna join in a conversation on theological loan words and equating the will of the Lord with the Bible, come on over!

The 110^th Psalm’s structure is anchored within two prophetic pronouncements (vs. 1 and 4). Though scholars have espoused various structural breakdowns, a two section division seems most sensible. Parallelisms between verses 1-2 and 4-5 are too numerous to ignore. These include the repetition of the name hwhy and repetition of His acts of pronouncing a future reality.[1]

The entire psalm is a particularization of the phrase “until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet (^yl,(g>r:l. ~doåh] ^yb,ªy>ao÷ tyviîa’-d[;).” This particularization occurs by means of numerous contrasts: hands and feet; sitting and moving; Zion and the nations; my right hand and your right hand.

The first pronouncement proclaims that the king will sit on Yahweh’s right hand until the time at which his enemies become a footstool for him. As noted, this idea is then particularized in the four subsections that follow, essentially announcing “how” hwhy will bring this reality about. The second pronouncement (vs. 4) connects the king with the priestly lineage of Melchizedek, a feature which might seem out of place if we were discussing Aaronic priests, but because Melchizedek’s Genesis context is being blessed by Abraham after the defeat of the kings of Sodom, the psalmist’s connecting him to military imagery seems natural. This pronouncement is, like the first, accompanied by four subsections which serve to particularize verse 4.[2]

Finally, one of the more interesting features of the psalm involves a stylistic connection, at points, with prophetic oracles. Each of the two statements anchoring the structure of the psalm stylistically reflects prophetic discourse.[3] Examples of prophetic discourse and the importance of the structure of this psalm will be discussed in the following post in this series.

---

[1] There are also other occurrences which indicate this two fold division, namely the repeated use of certain elements in the one section with no reference to the element in the other section. For example, Allen astutely notes the first strophe is characterized by the eightfold repetition of the pronominal suffix ^ (your) in vs. 1-3, while the second is marked by the fourfold repetition of the preposition l[;. Neither of these elements occur with the same frequency in the alternative strophe.

[2] Other notable features involve an inclusion that moves from the first verse with there reference to the kings enemies being placed under his feet (lg<r,) to the final verse which references his head (varo,) being lifted up. The alliterative aspect of this inclusion highlights another prominent feature of this psalm.

[3] One example will suffice here. The “Day of Wrath” rhetoric occurs in numerous prophetic books. It is a day in which Yahweh is viewed as a divine warrior warring against pagan nations and intervening to protect the king and His people. Is. 5:15, Jer. 9:21, Ez. 32:5-6

Yahweh has been acknowledged as the universal sovereign over all creation in verse 1-2, an unambiguously kingship oriented statement. Now, His title as “king” is officially announced. Again, His kingship cannot be separated from His having founded the world upon the sea. Creation and kingship belong together. Furthermore, the general setting in this final section belongs to the return of the Ark from war – the return of God’s presence to Jerusalem.

The final section begins with two imperatival statements, the first commanding the anthropomorphized gates to lift up their heads and the second commanding anthropomorphized ancient doors to be lifted up.[1] This call to lift up and be lifted up reminds the reader again of Yahweh’s mighty acts in creation by reflecting Baal’s words to other deities prior to defeating Yam, “Lift up your heads, O gods.”[2] Here, it is not pagan deities, but the gates and doors of the temple which respond to Yahweh’s return from battling the forces of chaos (vs. 2). The gates and doors are anthropomorphized so that they become persons who are capable of response to Yahweh’s approach, “courtiers awaiting the return of the Divine Warrior.”[3]  Their response is a repeated inquiry, “Who is He, this King of Glory?”

The answer to the question of the gates and doors is that zWZæ[i hw"hy> is the King of Glory. The identification of their deity with kingship is not uniquely Israelite. No, “the conception and designation of the deity as King are primitive Semitic practice, of which incontestable evidence is afforded by the large number of personal names compounded by melek going back to the most ancient period.”[4]

That said, the title “King of Glory” is entirely unique within the Old Testament, but we can be sure that, assuming an exilic composition, this title would have been quite subversive.[5] To proclaim Yahweh’s kingship in the midst of exile would be to call into question the claims of authority and sovereignty of mere earthly rulers, who themselves were viewed as deities. “As long as Yahweh is kin, his faithful followers can live under the human rulership of any number of foreign monarchs and still maintain their loyalty and allegiance to the one true king, Yahweh.”[6]

The answer to the question is the identity of Yahweh as the zWZæ[i hw"hy. The idea here is that Yahweh is a divine warrior who has, by virtue of his victories, maintained his kingship. The title “LORD of Hosts” is “the throne name of Israel’s God (Is. 6:5)…and refers to the hosts who surround the LORD’s heavenly throne and who praise and consult him and carry out his decisions as sovereign over the world.”[7] The name was associated with the Ark, which was identified as the throne of Yahweh, and which has been connected by the author to Yahweh’s activities in creation.  

CONCLUSION

I have demonstrated here that, though the kingship metaphor of Yahweh plays such an integral part of this psalm, it is subsumed under the idea of Yahweh as creator. The first two verses are particularized in both of the following sections and provides the foundation for His worship and His kingship. In the end, however, I do not intend to draw a sharp disconnect between the elements (even though the structure and flow of the psalm could arguably suggest such a disconnect). Rather, it is important to see the entirety of the psalm and its claims as a whole. Creation, holiness, and kingship are intimately tied together in this psalm. Each of them informs the other and demonstrates the universal sovereignty of Yahweh and His moral claims on the world.

---

[1] Both of the words have the same root, which occurred earlier in verses 4 and 5.  The first of  afn in this verse 7 is a standard, active Qal, but the second is a passive Niphal. This seems to have no significance beyond poetic variation.

 

[2] Cragie, 214. The LXX is slightly different, calling for the princes to lift up their heads: a;rate pu,laj oi` a;rcontej u`mw/n.

[3] Richard J. Clifford, Psalms 1-72. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002), 136.

[4] Eichrodt, 194.

[5] Even in a pre-exilic setting, the title still relativizes all claims to power by any earthly ruler, especially Israelite ones, who were prone to think to highly of themselves and forget Yahweh.

[6] Wilson, 454.

[7] Mays, 123.

 The second section moves the passage from chaos and creation to morality[1] and immorality, thus establishing a connection between order and ethics.[2] It also serves as a movement from the larger setting of creation to particular sacred space and from the inhabitants of the earth to those who wish to approach Yahweh in worship.[3] It cannot be forgotten here that any conception of justice or morality derived from this psalm is connected with the ordered world of verse 1-2. This ordered world exists as such primarily because Yahweh has subdued the forces of chaos. Thus Torah obedience is intimately connected with creation theology.

Controlling this segment, primarily, is two questions, “Who may ascend to the hill of Yahweh?” and “Who may stand in His holy place?” Essentially, the questions stem from the first two verses; they desire to know the identity and characteristics of the creature who desires to be in the presence of the Creator. As the worshipers flock into the sacred space, the priests ask these questions to motivate repentant meditation.[4] They serve as a reminder of the otherness of the Creator and the following requirements serve as a reminder of the immorality of the creatures.

            The requirements[5] of these worshippers who wish to enter Yahweh’s presence are four-fold[6] and communicated in chiastic fashion:

A. Clean Hands (External)                                B. Pure Heart (Internal)

B. Does Not Lift Soul to an Idol (Internal)      A. Does Not Swear by What is False (External)

  The first requirement is clean hands. The Hebrew yqin” means “innocent,” a term often associated in the OT with possessing hands that are free from having shed innocent blood. No innocent blood cries up to Yahweh from the ground against this person.

            The second requirement is the internal compliment of the first: a pure heart. The one who approaches Yahweh must not only keep from outward sins, but he must also possess an internal character that is without flaw. His character must be rB; , reflecting the commandments of God (Ps. 19:9).

            The third element brings with it the first verb of verse 4, afn . afn is a Qal, Experiential Perfect, which carries with it the idea of a present state of mind.[7] Thus, at the time in which the worshiper desires to stand in Yahweh’s presence, he must not be in a state of idolatry. The translation “soul” (NIV) is insufficient. The idea of vp,n< is “self” and in the present context involves the idea of lifting up one’s very life and personhood to a afn,[8]  that is, offering one’s life and existence to the very gods (literally or figuratively) who have no claims of sovereignty (vs. 1-2), instead of the God who gives life and vp,n< (Ps. 25:1).[9]

            The final moral requirement moves back to an external action – swearing deceitfully (hm’(r>mil. [B;äv.nI), that is, having taken an oath upon himself which he had no intent to execute.[10] The term is quite easily attached to the previous requirement of lifting one’s being to an idol. Only here, the subject has created his situation by virtue of verbal falsity. The Stative Niphal of [B;äv.nI describes a state produced by means of the verbal action[11] – the subject speaks falsehood into existence.

            The person who meets these requirements will receive blessings from Yahweh. Instead of lifting (afn) his soul to an idol, this person will bear (afn) a blessing from God. The imperfect form of this verb (aF’äyI) indicates an enduring blessing and an enduring righteousness. The blessing and righteousness refer “to both the practice and consequence of participating in the worship of God in his place.” In other words, they are the ones worthy to ascend the hill of Yahweh and to stand in his holy place. They receive a public vindication (hq’d’c.)[12] of their character that originates in the will of the God of their salvation.[13]

            Two shifts occur within the final verse of this section. First, there is a shift from a singular person to a generation of those who seek Yahweh’s face. Second, there is a shift from the third to the second person, whereby the psalm becomes a speech addressed to Yahweh for just a line.

There are two different words for “seeking” employed here: vrd and vqb.[14] The second, a Frequentive Piel participle (yve’q.b;m.), pluralizes the action of the first verb and implies a repeated, busy action – the seeking of God’s face[15] is an intentionally active and repeated event. Interestingly, Yahweh, the one whose face is sought, is merely called “Jacob.” The LXX assists us at this juncture with tou/ qeou/ Iakwb.[16]

---

[1] I choose “morality” intentionally here because the ideas of rB; and yqin” are not part of the purification texts of the OT, but are terms related to moral activity. Neither word appears in the context of purification rituals in Torah.

 

[2] “Human conduct that enacts justice is a counterpart to Yahweh’s own work of justice. For that reason, Israel’s worship life has an ethic of justice at its core and never imagines being in God’s presence except as those who have justice as their identifying agenda.” Walter Brueggemann, “Justice: The Earthly Form of God’s Holiness.” The Covenanted Self. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), 56.

[3] Kraus rightly notes that this movement starts with the distinctive event of the promise of the land and the occupying of it, in which Israel came to know Yahweh’s right to a possession of the land of Canaan. The expansion to universal dimensions in creation theology is possible only because of the particular history of Israel in its land, the land of Yahweh. Hans-Joachim Kraus, Theology of the Psalms. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 62.

[4] Wilson identifies the congregation receiving the question as “exilic or post exilic pilgrims, reaching them end of their long journey through treacherous lands and over dangerous seas to arrive at this moment of communal worship with an international fellowship.” Wilson,  450. While this setting creates a strong connection between Yahweh’s defeat of the “natural” forces of chaos and the treacherous journey of these people through those forces, he may be reading too much into the actual evidence of the passage. If nothing else, the psalm indicates nothing in the way of journeying peoples or multi-national worship. This is not to say there is no pilgrimage aspect to the psalm, only that an international pilgrimage goes beyond the evidence within the text.

[5] Brueggemann notes here that when reading these moral requirements “it is important to recall that this spiritually reflects only the well-oriented community, on that has not yet addressed a theologically ambiguous or morally disruptive world.” Walter Brueggemann, The Message of the Psalms. (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984), 42. Brilliant as Brueggemann is, I think his suggestion is unfounded. First, strict Torah obedience as a religious requirement need not be restricted to well-oriented communities. Indeed, sociologically speaking, communities in ambiguous contexts may very well draw such sharp lines. Second, the evidence of the psalm suggests that this is not a well-oriented community. It is a community that has first hand struggles with the forces of chaos (1-2) and lives in a time of warfare (7-10), which always raises ethical questions regarding religion and conduct.

[6] This four-fold list is a shortened form of what is found in Psalm 15. Peter C. Cragie, “The Word Biblical Commentary.” Vol. 19. Psalm 1-50. (Waco: Word Books, 1983), 213.

[7] Arnold & Choi, 55.

[8] afn literally means “emptiness/vanity.” Connected with the verbal idiom “raised mind,” the idea here “implies an attitude of adoration and worship.” Cragie, 213.

[9] I wondered, as I worked through this passage, if in the larger context of this Psalm, the connection between afn and vp,n< and creation is a reflection of Genesis 1, even though the exact same words are not employed.

[10] Cassiodorus, quoted in Thomas C. Oden, “Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture.” Vol. VII. Psalms 1-50. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 186.

[11] Arnold & Choi, 41.

[12] This is a legal term “that denotes a ruling by a judge regarding what should have occurred in a case under judgment…What one is declare saddiq, then one received sadaqah, a public acknowledgment of compliance with the expectations in the case.” Wilson, 452.

[13] Konrad Schaefer, Psalms. (Collegville: The Liturgical Press, 2001), 61.

[14] Kraus understands these two words to be associated with yearly pilgrimage to the sanctuary Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1-59. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 314.

[15] That Yahweh’s face is sought communicates that those who live holy lives are also seeking holiness. The face of God is unambiguously a reference to His holiness in the OT. Thus, it is reinforced that the means to God’s holiness is holy living.

[16] A similar use occurs in Ps. 75:10, only there is ~yhil{a/ present. This provides us with precedence to follow the LXX here.

Section 1: Yahweh as Sovereign Owner of All Creation

            The first verse is composed of a synonymous parallelism, the effect of which is to proclaim Yahweh’s absolute ownership of everything in creation, particularly “all who live in it” (Hb’( ybev.yOæw>)). The Hebrew stresses the divine name hwhy by situating it at the front of the sentence; the earth belongs to Yahweh and no other. This emphatic declaration becomes more significant with the substantiatory claim of verse two. 

            The yKi indicates the subsequent statement serves as a substantiation of the preceding assertion. He is the sovereign owner because He has subdued the forces of chaos in the world, establishing the world upon (l[;) them.[1]

Like the first, the second verse is composed of a synonymous parallelism. The first line of the parallelism proclaims that Yahweh founded the world upon ~y”, a Canaanite deity and cosmic opponent which Yahweh elsewhere is said to have subdued (Ps. 8:27-29). In Canaanite mythology, Baal defeats ~y” in a cosmic battle for sovereignty. But here the claims given to Baal are transplanted to Yahweh. The claims of Baal and ~y” to sovereignty are denied and neither is given authority, neither will threaten Yahweh’s sovereignty. Yahweh, not Baal, defeats ~y” and retains kingship (7-10).[2]

The Qal verb (Hd”_s’y>) is a Complete Perfect, indicating an accomplished action with the entire sequence of events in view.[3] The significance of this is brought to light by the main verb in the parallel statement, h’n<)n>Aky>, a Progressive[4] Imperfect, which indicates the action of “establishing” is still underway. In other words, there is an already-not-yet aspect to the psalm. From “already” standpoint, the world is already founded upon the waters and Yahweh is, therefore, the owner of all things. From the standpoint of the “not yet,” the forces of chaos are still be subdued, but Yahweh owns all things based on the inevitability of that defeat.

The first verse, substantiated by the second, serves as the general assertion that governs and is particularized in the final two sections of the psalm. In other words, Yahweh’s sovereignty over all creation signifies, first, that creation is not morally neutral because Yahweh is not morally neutral. Therefore all creatures who wish to approach Yahweh must possess moral perfection. Second, Yahweh’s sovereignty over all creation naturally moves into the kingship metaphor which is connected in this psalm with a title of warfare.

 

---

[1] It should be noted that the psalm does not indicate any sort of cosmic battle. Though the metaphor of Yahweh as warrior arises within the third section of the psalm, there is no indication, as in Canaanite religion, that Yahweh created the world in the aftermath of battles with other gods. There is some indication elsewhere of a cosmic battle, but the other gods lose their power in Hebrew theology, not only because Yahweh is said to have subdued them, but more particularly because He does so in a way that demythologizes and disarms them, demonstrating  they have nothing more than false claims to ownership and authority.

 

[2] This comment also serves to relativize the claims of kingship by earthly rulers, including Israelite ones. James Luther Mays, Psalms. (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1994), 120.

[3] Bill T. Arnold & John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax.( New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 55.

[4] The other possibility here, and maybe the more likely one, is that this Qal Imperfect with the was consecutive is a Preterite, which would suggest that the Imperfect is merely a stylistic change for the poet, but the meaning would essentially be parallel to that of the previous Qal verb.

From our favorite KJV-only Pastor, Steven “Jack-from-Lost” Anderson:

(LINK)

You can’t make stuff like this up, folks. Click on this link to read Mike Heiser’s take on the video :: Another Great Moment in Pulpit PaleoBabble.

If you are looking for a web-based Bible reading service, consider YouVersion.  YouVersion is a site similar to BibleGateway hosted by LifeChurch.tv. The special thing about the site is that is acts as one stop shop for Bible study.  If you are an avid notetaker when you read the Bible, this may be the perfect site for you.

LifeChurch.tv just installed some major updates.  As a occasional user, I can attest that they considerably improve the user experience.  The site is quicker, the organization is better, and the parallel readers feature is pretty useful. 

YouVersion is an interesting tool which could really improve communal reading projects.  Imagine an entire small group or Sunday School class reading through the Gospel of John and entering in their questions, thoughts.  I think such a thing could really improve communication and education.

Question: If we are to accept the insertion of 1st Corinthians 11:3-16, then who did the inserting?

Hypothesis: It was most likely the Weak faction in the Corinthian Church because it most closely identifies with their worldview, both metaphysical and ideological.

Reasoning: If we are to accept the interpolation of 1st Corinthians 11:3-16; then who were these redactors? The answer lies within Martin’s argument: it most likely was the Weak at Corinth who interjected their own solutions to questions they were having at Corinth. We know from an analysis of Paul’s letters to Corinth that the community was in upheaval and the divisions among members were threatening the very existence of the assembly there. [1] While many have tried to reconstruct the various factions, I follow Martin in imaging the conflict in terms of the Strong and Weak, as detailed above. Under my hypothesis, Martin is correct in his interpretation of verses 3-16, but he is incorrect as to who is writing.

The Corinthian correspondence is not a naked reproduction of Paul’s letters, but the end result of a publication process which represents final editing and processing of Paul’s correspondence with the Corinthians. Adopting such a view of 1st and 2nd Corinthians detracts from pristine Pauline authorship, correcting an idealistic view of the texts. The voice of the Corinthian community resides in the two letters as we have them today, if only by virtue of the letter’s existence.

We have to remember that the “Publisher” of these letters was the Assembly at Corinth, not the Apostle Paul

If this is correct, then the lack of direct manuscript evidence of the insertion of verses 3-16 actually bolsters this view. The manuscripts must have been edited very early and very completely because there are no surviving manuscripts that are absent 11:3-16. [2] If the Corinthian community itself did the editing, then we would expect this to be the case. By reading the surviving pieces of the letters that comprise 2nd Corinthians, which were also edited together very early, we can tell that the situation improved. However, not all of the differences between the Weak and the Strong were negotiated by Paul; as such we can expect that they did some negotiating on their own. One could not hope to have a single man smooth out and declare the synthesis of the two opposing views. One can see that Paul acted as a mediator, but not dictator in dialogue between the two groups.

I want to suggest that what one finds in verses 3-16 is another piece of that negotiation apart from Paul, one that happened under the guidance of, but not directed by Paul. Thus, the Weak’s views on the body, angels, and ontological views of gender show up in the interpolation. We should expect the Weak’s views on these matters so shine through this section of text, for they were the more numerous group in Corinth. Throughout the letter, Paul philosophically agrees with the Strong, but advocated the Weak’s position. Here, however, the opposite happens. The philosophical positions of the Weak are assumed, but the hierarchical positions common to the Strong are aspired to. This hypothesis can only be sketched out here, but needs more careful consideration.

Up next: If someone else, who was in opposition to Paul, wrote this section, what do we, as Canonical Christians, do with the text?

1. Calvin J Roetzel, The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context, 4th ed (Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 83-95. [↩]
2. Walker, “1 Corinthians 11,” 98. [↩]

Earlier I talked about the authorship of the Pauline letters.  For those of you wanting a brief introduction to these issues, check out the following on Google Books:

The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context, pages 133-143

I know some of you might not agree with his or the majority of scholarship’s conclusions, but it is at least helpful to understand from where the the other is coming.

Synopsis:

Paul did not write 1 Cor 11: 3-16.  Read on for my reasons why.  I’ll post who I think wrote it and what we should do with it later this week.  I know this is not a popular interpretation around these parts.  I resisted it at first, thinking it was a cop out.  But it is the best conclusion I have come up with, given the data available.  I’d love to get your thoughts, especially on the manuscript and rhetoric sections.

Recap:

So far in our examining of 1 Corinthians 11, we have discussed the problems with standard interpretations, the bizarre appeal to angels, ideological considerations, the general purpose of the letter, and the body in antiquity. Now, I am going to set the stage for working towards a newer interpretation of the chapter, one that will seem deconstructionist at first, but I promise I’ll put things back together by the end of the series.

The Hypothesis:

It is quite possible to consider verses 3-16 of 1 Corinthians 11 as an interpolation. Under this view, someone in the later Pauline community inserted verses 3-16 that crystallized their solution to problems of public worship. There are several arguments supporting such a view. First, the theological content and word use in 3-16 is unique in all of genuine Paul. Secondly, the removal of the verses recovers the tight argumentative style typical of Paul. Thirdly, the proposed interpolation hooks show signs of textual smoothing. Lastly and most importantly, removal of the section will restore the unity of Paul’s philosophical underpinnings of the body and Parousa of Christ.

Unique Among Paul:

1 Corinthians 11:3-16 contains several unique ideas to Paul. First is the ideological subordination of women under men. Occasional theology aside, in real life Paul worked closely with and offers praises to women leaders in the local assemblies. [1] Nowhere else does Paul advocate“any form of male priority and female subordination” [2] As mentioned several times above, this is a far cry from the clear subordinate relationship between men and women that is outlined throughout the section. Even in 1 Corinthians this is the case; in chapter 7 Paul acknowledges explicit authority of married partners over each other in relation to conjugal rights. Additionally, Paul sees baptism as the means by which “the removal of the body of flesh” occurs. [3] Additionally, when Paul concerns himself with specific practices, he always elevates the practical over the theological. [4] The sentiments expressed in 11:3-16 are much more at home in the deutero-Pauline letters and the Pastorals such as Col 3:18-19 and Eph 5:22-33 than in the genuine Pauline Corpus.

Several key words are used uniquely in the passage. When Paul speaks of the “δοξα” of god elsewhere, it is never framed in terms of man in his present existence. [5] In fact, glory in places such as Romans appears as a concept lost to the whole of humankind until the Parousa. Additionally, the use of κεφαλὴ, or head, is odd. In the deuteron-Pauline Ephesians and Colossians, the writer twice uses κεφαλὴ the same way as in 1 Corinthians 11:3 and 5. In Col 1:18, 2:10 and in Eph 1:22, 4:15 and 5:23 κεφελὴ is used to refer to hierarchically based authority claims. This is not so in the genuine Paul. The only time it shows up in genuine Paul is 1 Cor 12:21 and the context here is hardly hierarchical; head here is placed on equal footing with the other organs of the social body of the community.

Restoring the Rhetoric:

Second, when 3-16 are removed, verses 2 and 17 suddenly leap out as a continuous thought. Under the unified view, Paul begins chapter 11 with a command to imitate him and sets the stage for a light admonishment by means of praise followed quickly by rebuke. However, he quickly abandons this line of reasoning for the moment in favor of a theoretical discussion about the ordering of creation. Given the use of rhetorical forms that Paul employs through his writings, this is out of character for Paul. However, if we connect verse 1 and 2 with verse 17, then we see the return of highly structured rhetoric parallel praise and rebuke:

1) μιμηταί μου γίνεσθε καθώς καγὼ Χριστοῦ. 2) Ἐπαινῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς ὅτι πάντα μου μέμνησθε καί, καθὼς παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, τὰς παραδόσεις κατέχετε. 17) τοῦτο δὲ παραγγέλλων οὐκ ἐπαινῶ ὅτι οὐκ εἰς τὸ κρεῖσσον ἀλλὰ εἰς τὸ ἧσσον συνέρχεσθε.

Become imitators of me just as I am of Christ. I praise you all because you all have remembered all of my things and just as you all hold fast to the traditions I have handed to you. But in this instruction I do not praise you because you all come together not for the greater, but for the worse. [6]

This restores the elements of paraenetic and admonishment letters that are lost in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. Paul uses the example of his modeling of Christ’s behavior and then mildly rebukes them for the purpose of correcting their behavior. He approaches them as a father would his children, establishing a firm, but positive relationship. Paul attempts to “expose and constructively criticize” the behavior of the Corinthian assembly so that they can amend their behavior. [7] The mere presence of paraenetic features is by no means evidence of genuine or pseudo-Pauline authorship as the Pastoral Epistles contain elements of paraenesis. [8] However, when one inserts verses 3-16, the tight admonishment of Paul vanishes. Two verses separated by a self contained unit, the removal of which leaves a smooth connection between the two verses, is often evidence that there has been an editor at work. [9] As such, the unity in thought between verse 2 and verse 17 in light of the self contained rhetoric of 3-16 is evidence for the insertion of verses 3-16.

Hook!  Hook!  Hook!

Third, Walker proposes that there is strong manuscript evidence for such an insertion, saying:

Furthermore, there is strong manuscript evidence suggesting that some alteration of the text has occurred. Vs. 2 reads: ἐπαινῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς ὅτι πάντα μου μέμνησθε καὶ καθὼς παρέδωκα ὑμῖν τὰς ταραδόσεις κατέχετε, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.” Vs. 17, according to the RSV, begins But in the following instructions I do not commend you because…” (τοῦτο δὲ παραγγέλλων οὐκ ἐπαινῶ ὅτι…). This reading follows ﬡ, G and a the majority of MSS, but A, C*, and the Latin and Syriac versions have τοῦτο δὲ παραγγέλλω οὐκ ἐπαινῶν ὄτι…, while B has τοῦτο δὲ παραγγέλλων οὐκ ἐπαινῶν ὅτι…, D* and a minuscule have τοῦτο δὲ παραγγέλλω οὐκ ἐπαινῶ ὅτι…. [10]

He says that the proposed “hooks” for the interpolation show signs of smoothing in the manuscript record. [11] The alterations he lists in the blockquote strongly indicate that later editors and copyists were attempting to smooth out the rough transition from verse 16 to 17. [12]

Conclusion:

Given the above, we have strong reasons to suspect the work of an editor in the text. If we separate this 1 Corinthians 3-16 from the rest of the text we find two separate and, most importantly, consistent arguments for gender relations. Genuine Paul no longer has any place where there is an ontological priority assigned to either male or female which blatantly contradicts the fundamental ontological equality peppered all throughout his letters. In addition to this, we rescue the logic of 1 Cor 11:3-16 from its blatant contradiction of the rest of Paul. By removing and setting it aside (for now) we allow for the passage to stand out for its internal logic and to be heard, instead of being swept under the rug and only allowed to speak when it agrees with the interpreter’s views.

If verses 3-16 are an interpolation, then most of our problems with the passage fall away, because Paul no longer has to live up to them. Under this view, the problems that arise only do so because they are the thoughts of someone else. However, from whence did interpolation come? We will address this question in the next post, though we have alluded to the answer earlier.

1. See Margaret Y. MacDonald, “Reading Real Women Through the Undisputed Letters of Paul.” [↩]
2. Wm. O. Walker, “1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and Paul’s Views regarding Women,” Journal of Biblical Literature 94, no. 1 (March 1975): 104. [↩]
3. Wayne A Meeks, The First Urban Christians (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2003), 155. [↩]
4. Walker, “1 Corinthians 11,” 106. [↩]
5. Ibid. [↩]
6. – 1st Corinthians 11:1-2;17. [↩]
7. Stanley Kent Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Westminster John Knox Press, 1988), 127. [↩]
8. Ibid., 97. [↩]
9. Wayne A. Meeks, Writings of St. Paul (W. W. Norton & Company, 1972), 41. [↩]
10. Walker, “1 Corinthians 11,” 98. [↩]
11. Ibid. [↩]
12. Ibid. [↩]

I was reading/journaling Genesis this afternoon and came across the genealogies of Cain and Seth.  As I am sure several of you have noticed, there are some striking similarities between several names in the lists. [1]

 

Is there anything to the similarities?  I am sure it can easily be chalked up to naming practices. [2]   Just seeing if anyone had heard any other way of reading the similarities.

1. An Ellipsis denotes genealogical records omitted from the biblical record by myself [↩]
2. see Henry Francis Imler, Henry Leon Imler, Henry Michael Imer, Henry Thomas Imler, and Henry Reed Imler [↩]

A few months ago, I was working on a post series that examined the early Christian tradition that sprung up around a woman called Thecla. I never finished posting the series because I was too uncomfortable with the conclusion I had come to using the best historical data I had available. I’ve decided to post it anyway and it might launch another series of posts. We’ll see if I have the time and energy to continue down this road.

Let’s begin with a quick recap. According to the tradition, she was an apostle of Paul who worked around Seleucia in Asia Minor. In the post series, I have been steadily working backwards in time, moving from the Cult of Thecla in the 4th century back to the writing of the Acts of Thecla [1] in the 2^nd century. So far the tradition, both in its early and later forms critiqued contemporary gender roles. The tradition seemed to have hooked itself on to the Pauline tradition, but did not have a problem with critiquing Paul. Paul starts out at the active, masculine hero and incrementally morphs into a passive, feminine observer while Thecla moves in the opposite direction. This creates an interesting problem. What exactly was the relationship between the Pauline tradition and the Theclan tradition? This post will explore one possible solution to this problem which appeals to Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza’s take on early Christian history.

Fiorenza, in In Memory of Her describes the expansionist movement that sprang up around the figure of Jesus as the Early Christian Missionary Movement [2] as a community of equals yoked together through baptism. She sees Paul, neither as the originator nor central figure of this movement, [3] but instead as a principle contributor who gained the most notoriety in the movement due to the success of his letters.

Paul’s use of an early baptismal rite in his letter to the Galatians [4] and what an anonymous Christian wrote in Second Epistle of Clement [5] embodied the ECMM stance on gender. [6] While Gal 3:28 Paul’s spoke of baptism, the first century writing also a statement on the ECMM’s self-definition. It was through the doorway of baptism that Christians became neither male nor female. [7] Second Clement 12:6 expounds on this point, saying, “…`[M]ale with the female neither male nor female’ means this: that when a brother sees a sister he should not think of her sex any more than she should think of his.” Paul and the movement also privileged celibacy, but not to the point of excluding marriage and equal sexual relations within marriage. [8] Fiorenza also discusses the problems Paul and students of Paul caused for the movement. Paul wished to ensure the survival of the movement by minimizing its public defiance of social norms. Thus, alongside the radical egalitarianism in Gal 3:28, we see conformance to social standards in places like 1 Corinthians 11. Paul’s strategy here is understandable; he fears that the movement will likely be crushed by the Romans if they are too bold in their flaunting of social standards. [9] Additionally, later followers of Paul took this a step farther in the Pastoral Epistles. [10] Consequently, Paul was a mixed bag for the movement. Fiorenza comments on this, saying

Thus Paul’s impact on women’s leadership in the Christian missionary movement is double-edged. On the one hand he affirms Christian equality and freedom. He opens up a new independent lifestyle for women by encouraging them to remain free of the bondage of marriage. On the other hand, he subordinates women’s behavior in marriage and in the worship assembly to the interests of Christian mission, and restricts their rights… as women…” [11]

If Fiorenza is correct, then this may illuminate our problem. The ECMM was radically egalitarian but, by Paul’s time, was already beginning to allow the surrounding patriarchal culture seep into its thinking. Some of this was survival strategy; some was simply enculturation. If this is the case, then the Theclan tradition preserves the ECMM’s stance on gender far better than the canonical tradition has.

We can see parallels between the ideals of the ECMM and the Thecla tradition. As argued earlier, the Acts of Thecla’s critiques standard notions of gender – both male and female alike – thereby demonstrating their futility. Thecla must move out of the category of the feminine and takes on some masculine aspects. However, males are also critiqued at every turn in the narrative. The same thing happens in the Theclan Cult. As such, both the Acts of Thecla and the resulting tradition embody the spirit found in undisputed Paul and 2^nd Clement. Ties to the ECMM also explain why the texts and the movement have such an ambivalent stance towards Paul. He is at once appealed to as an authority and critiqued. Therefore, it is quite possible that the Thecla tradition had its roots in the Early Christian Missionary movement centered on Paul and its message of radical egalitarianism.

The Acts of Thecla was likely written down as a defense of the community from the pressures of the state and the patriarchalizing tendencies of Christian theological and social development. MacDonald argues for this connection in his work, The Legend and the Apostle. [12] This work by MacDonald constructs two opposing interpretations of the Pauline tradition, the Thecla tradition and the Pastoral tradition. These two warred over who had the correct interpretation of Paul. The Pastorals won out in the canonization process [13] while the oral tradition of Thecla won out in terms of popularity among the common folk. [14]

The vitality of the Thecla tradition from its roots in oral legends through its crystallization in the 250s and on through the development of Hagia Thekla demonstrates the pull this message had on its adherents and spoke to the power of the void created by the Early Christian Missionary movement’s conceptions of egalitarianism. If this is the case, then the Thecla tradition maintained the Jesus tradition of radical egalitarianism that the proto-orthodox movement, which retained the majority of Jesus’ theological aims, rejected through their adoption of the Roman Household codes (see Origen, and the Pastorals).

Postscript:

Now for the hard part – this means that some of the statements found in our canon, most specifically the Pastorals, contain deviations from God’s will on gender. You have no idea how hard it was for me to type that last sentence. I firmly and unwaveringly believe that the Pastorals are in the canon by God’s will. However, I also find they deviate from the Christianity’s early roots. What the heck do you do with that? There are a variety of ways we can go from here, such as the Pastorals contain a cultural allowance that God deemed necessary for the survival of His kingdom on Earth and that it was to be later corrected. I hope to explore them in the future.

I’ve made a lot of assumptions above. Such as: that ESF is correct in her construction of Christian development; that the Pastorals are anti-egalitarian; that the Pastorals represent a later interpretation of the Pauline tradition; that the Pastorals are influenced by Roman household codes; etcetera. I might explore these and other assumptions in later posts. I have good reasons for making them. If you wanna challenge them, check out the books I have listed above and make your own judgment of their arguments. I don’t necessarily have the time to regurgitate them here. Does not mean they are to be uncritically accepted, just that I don’t have the space nor the time to do so here.

Thoughts? Out of everything I have ever written here, spoken to others, this is the closest to heresy that I have come. I don’t know what to do with the available evidence. I am not allowed to question the inclusion of something in the canon nor can I just ignore the data.

1. Hereafter AThecla [↩]
2. hereafter ECMM. She makes a distinction between this movement and its predecessor, the Jesus Movement, which was a Jewish renewal movement, which shared its radical egalitarianism with the ECMM. I am not prepared to argue for the nuances of both communities – see In Memory of Her, Chapters 4 and 5 [↩]
3. See Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 163-65. Fiorenza argues that it was Barnabas, not Paul, who was the primary instigator of this movement. However, this does not diminish the importance of the Pauline epistles for the ECMM. [↩]
4. Gal. 3:28. [↩]
5. 2^nd Clement 12:6 [↩]
6. Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 208, 12. [↩]
7. Race and class divisions are also spoken of in Gal 3:28, but we are limiting our study to gender here. [↩]
8. Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 223-24. [↩]
9. Ibid., 236. [↩]
10. See Ibid. Chapter 7. For a wonderful discussion on the Pastorals as the second generation of Pauline interpretation, see Calvin J. Roetzel’s The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context chapter 5. [↩]
11. Ibid. 236 [↩]
12. The Legend and the Apostle relies on dated understandings of oral traditions and how they worked. However, this merely is a function of the dating of this book; it does not detract from the value, but is something the reader should be mindful of when reading. For a more modern understanding of the role, composition, and transmission of oral traditions, see Richard A. Horsley, Oral Performance, Popular Tradition, and Hidden Transcript in Q (Society of Biblical Literature, 2006). [↩]
13. MacDonald, The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon 83. [↩]
14. Ibid., 91. [↩]

Strauss presented a particularly interesting paper at ETS this year entitled “Why the English Standard Version (ESV) should not become the Standard English Version.” (for a page with all 13 parts, click here) I am currently reading through it.  He is claiming that the ESV is not ready for prime time for a variety of reasons, saying:

So I like the ESV. I am writing this article, however, because I have heard a number of Christian leaders claim that the ESV is the “Bible of the future”—ideal for public worship and private reading, appropriate for adults, youth and children. This puzzles me, since the ESV seems to me to be overly literal—full of archaisms, awkward language, obscure idioms, irregular word order, and a great deal of “Biblish.” Biblish is produced when the translator tries to reproduce the form of the Greek or Hebrew without due consideration for how people actually write or speak. The ESV, like other formal equivalent versions (RSV; NASB; NKJV; NRSV), is a good supplement to versions that use normal English, but is not suitable as a standard Bible for the church. This is because the ESV too often fails the test of “standard English.”

  He makes his claims, not to bash the ESV, but to encourage people to improve it.  You can find Bill Mounce’s responce to his paper here.

 

Magneto, after skewering Xavier in Ultimate Origins 5.  No relation to the post, I just thought it was a cool pic.

Conservative scholars and practitioners have a lot invested in biblical prophecy.  For them it is a great confirmation that the Bible was divinely inspired.  After all, if your God tells you what is going to happen in 30 or 200 years, and it happens, then that can only bolster your claims. 

For many scholars and practitioners [1] if a text is written ex eventu, then the implication is that the text is somehow less inspired.  After all, you can’t really make the appeal to prophecy then, now can you? 

For this reason, when it comes to the dating of texts such as Daniel, Jeremiah, and Mark, conservative scholars are beholden to forcing the texts to be written before the events in the prophecies. [2]     Ironically, this approach actually neuters the text they are wanting to save.

You have to remember that just about all ancient texts are propaganda.  I don’t mean that in a negative sense, only that these texts are being written for a specific purpose – to influence people to buy into their message.  Nothing, not even so-called “histories” are just reporting the facts, ma’am.  Prophecies are huge in terms of their rhetorical effects.  As Mark Goodacre puts it, “The prediction only gains traction because the reader is saying, ‘Hey, yes! I know what that’s about!’”  It is a powerful argument in favor of the text in the reader’s eyes.  The writers of the text know this and skillfully employ the use of fulfilled prophecy to this end.

Now, lets assume that the text is written down and disseminated before the event in question happens.  The once powerful effect of prophecy loses its power.  Now, in the reader’s eye, doubt is summoned and laid over the text.  Here, our imaginary reader says to herself, “Man, Jesus is saying that the temple is going to be destroyed, but… just look at it!  It is still standing!”  Prophecies only gain rhetorical power after they are fulfilled.  Thus, in forcing the writers to pen unfulfilled prophecies, scholars deny the texts their original power over the reader.

Now, notice what I am not saying.  In no way does this assume that the writers are inserting fake prophecies onto their characters.  From a position of faith, I believe that Jesus, Jeremiah, Daniel and others uttered their prophecies beforehand.  However, this is a different question than when the texts were written.  And when we are dating texts, we need to let the evidence speak louder than our theological preconceptions which may or may not be artificial.  If we date from a position of theological comfort, then we need to reevaluate our methods.

For more reading on this topic, see NTWong’s Scholarly dating of Daniel to After the ‘Prophecies’ were ‘Fulfilled’ and Mark Goodacre’s Dating Sacred Texts on the Basis of Fulfilled Prophecy. 

1. at least ones I have heard in lectures at Central Christian College of the Bible and others in person and in print [↩]
2. And really, as a person of faith, this is attractive, even if I think it prejudices this theological implication over other more concrete forms of evidence. [↩]