Theology for the Masses

Here is a quiz by Zondervan to see how you understand the NT authors’ use of the OT texts. This is to help promote their new book that highlights three differing views. I fell in line with Darrell Bock’s view, “Single Meaning, Multiple Referents and Contexts.” Take the quiz and see how you fair.

Koinonia: Test Your View of the NT Use of the OT

For a fuller understanding of Bock’s view click here for my blog post. I’m not sure if I actually fall into any of these categories until I read the book.

I thought this post series would be interesting considering Tom’s earlier post on Genesis 1:26-27. While the post did not address the issue of Egalitarianism vs Complementarianism, the issue of the date of the text is very interesting considering previous conversations here at MassTheo. The balshanut blog has been summarizing some interesting articles on linguistic studies and how they impact dating the OT, specifically דמות found in Genesis 1:26-27 speaking of humanity being made in “God’s image/likeness.” The blogger has really put into practice what he has been posting on for sometime recently and I really appreicate that. It helps me see how it works. The post series takes the reader on a journey to see if the Hebrew term דמות is an Aramaic loanword or an Aramaism (the Aramaic word being צלם). The point of this is to see if the presence of this Aramaic rooted word points to a late date or to an early date. The conclusion that is reached is that the evidence leans to a pre-exillic date but not in a conclusive and definitive manner. There just isn’t enough evidence to really come down hard either way and when the periscope was written. I just found these posts interesting and hope you do too. Here they are.

In his דמות and צלם, Part 1.

In his דמות and צלם, Part 2.

In his דמות and צלם, Part 3.

Our very own Hank, from Think-Wink, linked to בלשנות (balshanut), which is a biblical linguistics blog, on the topic of loan words in the Hebrew Bible.  There the claim is made that:

Some scholars have argued that Biblical Hebrew was never a fully spoken language, but was an artificial literary language created by post-exilic scribes. For instance, Ullendorff’s paper “Is Biblical Hebrew a Language?” BSOAS 34 (1971): 241-55, Knauf’s “War ‘Biblisch-Hebräisch’ eine Sprache?” ZAH 3 (1990): 11-23, and North’s “Could Hebrew Have Been A Cultic Esperanto?” ZAH 12: 202-17. In this article, Eskhult argues that if BH is an artificial language created only in post-exilic times, then loanwords ought to be fairly equally distributed throughout the various books and genres contained in the Bible… 

[However], the Akkadian, Egyptian, and Persian loanwords seem to follow the pattern of the political history described by the biblical texts. It is difficult to explain such a connection if the language was artificial and late. Further, Perisan loanwords abound within the books that are obviously late, but do not appear at all in the Pentateuch.

For those of you following along at home, this is important because it suggests the tradition behind the biblical text dates to the periods and cultures from which the text itself claims to be writing, compared to being composed entirely as an after-thought.