Bruce Waltke on Oral Tradition in the Old Testament

Bruce Waltke’s essay on oral tradition seeks to challenge some of the assumptions and principles upon which much of contemporary Old Testament criticism is based.[1]  Two crucial principles which are challenged by Waltke are: “(1) that most of the literature of the Old Testament had a long oral pre-history before being written down, and (2) that during its oral stage, the ‘literature’ was often transposed into new settings with new meanings.”[2]  These two principles are accepted by many who engage in the disciplines of form criticism, tradition criticism, and canonical criticism.  Waltke points to the importance of challenging such principles in that if allowed to stand these principles raise questions about authorial meaning of the text.  A highly fluid oral period calls into question the ability to accurately get at the meaning of the text itself.

            In seeking to “debunk” the two principles of oral tradition listed above Waltke focuses on three elements in his essay. First, he analyzes the ancient Near East evidence to show that the biblical literature had a short oral prehistory and was transmitted conservatively.  Second, Waltke briefly looks at other literature outside the Semitic realm and shows that even here there is little evidence to show that oral traditions were transmitted in a fluid state.  Third, and even more briefly, Waltke turns to discuss the issue of oral tradition in the prepatriarchial narratives.

The bulk of Waltke’s essay (pages 19-27) is taken up examining the evidence from ancient Near East documents and inscriptions. This provides the closest context from which to judge Israel’s literature.  Waltke looks at the early evidence for written texts being used with the goal of keeping one question in mind: “Did the people under investigation preserve their cultural heritage through an oral tradition subject to alteration or through written texts precisely with a view that its heritage not be corrupted?”[3]  Waltke surveys material from Ebla, Mesopotamia, the Hittites, the peoples of Ugarit, the Egyptians, and Northwest Semitic peoples.  Some of this evidence is contemporaneous with the biblical material but some of it, such as the royal archives of Ebla, pre-dates the Hebrew patriarchs by three to five centuries.  This evidence from Ebla shows their culture to be highly literate and that they preserved their culture in writing.  A similar dynamic of literacy and cultural preservation through written sources is found throughout the ANE material.  Furthermore, there is little evidence for a flexible oral tradition in these cultures.  This material from the ANE context comports well with the Old Testament’s witness to its transmission as utilizing written sources.

            Waltke next looks at other literature from non-Semitic speaking peoples, although  he recognizes that these sources “do not carry as much weight in deciding the issues as analogies from the ancient Near Eastern literature or from the Old Testament itself.”[4]  Examination of Homer, the Talmud, the Rig-veda, and the Quran reveals no large-scale textual reformulation over time.  “The best evidence for an oral tradition such as that proposed by modern source critics come from Indo-European peoples of a much later time, especially from Old Icelandic (c. A.D. 1300).”[5]  But here, as Waltke point out, the evidence is so far removed in time and culture so as to be unconvincing.  Thus, Waltke is able to conclude, “Having examined the literatures of the ancient Near East and other literatures as well, no evidence has been found in any Semitic cultures, including Islam, that tradents molded an oral tradition to meet changing situations over the centuries.”[6]

            Lastly, Waltke turns to briefly discuss the issue of oral tradition in the Patriarchal narratives.  He recognizes the case for oral tradition is most strong for the stories in Genesis 1-11.  It is here that Waltke quotes Gleason Archer as he invokes the role of the Holy Spirit:

The legacy of faith was handed down through the millennia fro Adam to Moses in oral form, for the most part, but the final written form into which Moses cast it must have especially superintended by the Holy Spirit in order to insure its divine trustworthiness.[7]

 

By this means Waltke is able to argue for the historicity and reliability of the Patriarchal narratives.

            Waltke’s essay is good at refuting the large-scale adoption of the principles of critical methodologies, especially as those methodologies argue for a lengthy oral period behind the biblical text that has undergone extensive morphing.  Only those predisposed to Waltke’s supernaturalism will follow his argument as he invokes the superintending work of the Spirit of God.  But this is just to recognize that larger worldview concerns always enter into the interpretation of facts and their meaning.  

            Waltke’s major point about the writing cultures of the ANE is his most powerful evidence.  Much more could have been written here to further substantiate the argument had he desired.  The literacy of some of these cultures was extensive.  For example,  P. J. Wiseman mentions that there are more than a quarter of a million cuneiform tablets that have been found.  He quotes the German Friedrich Delitzsch:

In truth when we find among the letters which have survived from those ancient times in great abundance, the letter of a woman to her husband in his travels, wherein after telling him that the little one are well, she ask advice on some trivial matter; or the missive of a son to his father, in which he informs that so-and-so has mortally offended him, that he would thrash the knave, but would like to ask his father’s advice first; or another letter in which a son urges his father to send at last the long-promised money, offering the insolent inducement that then he will pray for his father again—all this points to a well-organized system of communication by letter and of postal arrangements.[8]

 

Waltke’s argumentation could also further be strengthened by insights from anthropologists who specialize in analyzing oral cultures.  I agree with Waltke’s appeal to the work of the Holy Spirit in guaranteeing the trustworthiness of the Patriarchal narratives but there can and should be a defense of the historical trustworthiness of oral transmission. The insight of New Testament specialist Kenneth Bailey’s concept of “informal, controlled oral tradition” in which the community plays a preserving role in the transmission is important. Within the oral performance “the audience shares in the responsibility of accurately preserving the essential historical remembrances.  That is, if an oral performer misrepresents the tradition—sometimes in even relatively minor ways—the audience frequently corrects him in the midst of the performance.”[9]  The statement of social anthropologist Elizabeth Tonkin also speaks to this issue: “Oral history is not intrinsically more or less likely to be accurate than a written source.”[10]  Such reasoning and the field studies upon which they are based could be one more way to update Waltke’s argument and further strengthen his conclusions.

 

SOURCES CITED

Eddy, Paul Rhodes and Gregory A. Boyd. The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical 

Reliability of the Synoptic Tradition. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2007.

 

Waltke, Bruce. “Oral Tradition.” Pages 17-34 in A Tribute to Gleason Archer, Walter C. Kaiser 

Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood , eds. Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1986.

 

Wiseman, P. J.  Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas

 Nelson, 1985.

---

     [1]Bruce K. Waltke, “Oral Tradition” in A Tribute to Gleason Archer, Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood , eds. (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1986), 17-34.

     [2]Waltke, “Oral Tradition,” 17.

     [3]Waltke, “Oral Tradition,” 19-20.

   [4]Waltke, “Oral Tradition,” 27.

     [5]Waltke, “Oral Tradition,” 29.

     [6]Waltke, “Oral Tradition,” 29-30.

     [7]Waltke, “Oral Tradition,” 30.  

     [8]P. J. Wiseman, Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis(Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 1985), 50—emphasis added.

     [9]Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Tradition(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2007), 262.

     [10]Rhodes and Boyd, The Jesus Legend, 263.

Old Testament and Higher Criticism: The Priestly Source

* This was a paper I did in seminary.  The goal was to understand and critically analyze the higher critical constructs of the JEDP theory regarding the composition of the Pentateuch. 

REVIEW OF BERNHARD ANDERSON ON THE “PRIESTLY TRADITION”

2014

Bernhard Anderson discusses the concept of the “Priestly tradition” in his book Understanding the Old Testament.[1]  He outlines the nature and formation of this source for the Pentateuch.  He then provides some discussion about the theological perspectives found in this source.

            The Priestly tradition (P) is part of the larger construct of multiple sources alleged to underline the Pentateuch (J, E, D, and P).  Of these four sources P was originally thought to be the oldest of the sources but current critical scholarship has abandoned this idea since, in the words of Anderson, “it is evident that in style and theological outlook this work reflects the worship and theology of the Jerusalem temple.”[2]  This places the final redaction of P after the Fall of Jerusalem, sometime during the Exile.[3]  Anderson is quick to point out that “the date of literary composition does not necessarily provide an index to the age of the material itself.”[4]  The Priestly writers were using oral sources that they built upon and interpreted.[5]  They made these modifications out of a motivation to “authorize the views and practices of Jerusalem priests by showing that they had their origins at Sinai.”[6]  The methodology by which the P source is isolated from other sources is articulated by Anderson 

as follows: “After we take from the Pentateuch the Old Epic tradition (J and E), and after 

Deuteronomy is subtracted, the residue belongs to the Priestly tradition…”[7]

            The P source is seen to be marked by a certain theological perspective regarding the divine plan in Israel’s history. Anderson states a central concern of P: “In the Priestly view, the succession of divine covenants represents a history of God’s dealings with the world on the basis of pure grace (sola gratia), unconditioned by human performance.”[8]  Anderson breaks down the text into three periods:[9]

1.    Creation to Flood: climaxing in God’s covenant with Noah

2.    Noah to Abraham: climaxing in God’s covenant with Abraham

3.    Abraham to Moses: climaxing in God’s covenant with Israel at Sinai

The first section (creation to flood) is marked by affinities with other ANE creation stories.  This section also “reflects a long history of liturgical usage and bears the marks of intense theological reflection over a period of many generations.”[10]  The second section (Noah to Abraham) juxtaposes the violence of humanity and the graciousness of God in sparing Noah and making covenant with him.  In the third section (Abraham to Moses) there is an emphasis on the tabernacle, sacrifices and holy days—“everything found between the Old Epic story of the making of the covenant (Exod. 24) and the departure from Sinai (Num. 10:11ff.).”[11]  Anderson notes that these three successive periods were marked by a sequence of names for the deity which is distinctive for each period: (1) ‘Elohim, (2) ‘El Shaddai, and (3) Yahweh.[12]  Thus, the P source has a distinctive formation and theological perspective. 

            Although the P source is a staple of critical Old Testament scholarship it is not beyond criticism.  When the focus is simply on the differing theological nuances contained throughout the Pentateuch then those who engage in this critical scholarship have many exegetical and theological insights.  For example, Anderson’s insights regarding the structure and meaning of the Genesis account that speaks of the “image of God” are worth noting.[13]  The problems arise when the historicity of the Pentateuch is called into question by the use of a lengthy process of development that occurs on the oral traditions being passed down.  This notion of an evolving oral tradition has been called into question by Bruce Waltke.[14]  By examining the literature from ancient Near East documents and inscriptions he has shown that ANE cultures preserved their cultural heritage through written texts and not through oral traditions subject to alteration.  He concludes, based upon this comparative study, that there is very little evidence for a flexible oral tradition in these cultures.

            Sometimes the details of a passage that is alleged to be from the P source fit better within an earlier time period.  One such example is Abraham’s purchase of cave at Hebron for a burial place for Sarah (Genesis 23).[15]  Kenneth Barker mentions how this fits better with the ancient Hittite laws. He writes:

Law 47 stipulates that when a landowner sells only part of his property to someone else, the original and principal landowner must continue to pay all the dues on the land.  but if the landowner disposes of an entire tract, the new owner must pay the dues. Apparently Abraham wanted only the cave, with no complications or further financial or social obligations, but Ephron knew that Abraham had to deal quickly in order to have a place to bury Sarah; so he insisted that Abraham buy the entire lot and assume responsibility for the dues as well.  Abraham evidently agreed to this arrangement for the sake of family needs.[16]

 This leads Barker to conclude: “This is a better and more probable background to the story than the dialogue-document kind of contract known from the late eighth century B.C. and chiefly in the Neo-Babylonian period.”[17]

          Although the “Priestly source” is affirmed by many, there are reasons to be skeptical. Those who affirm P can, at times, have genuine exegetical and theological insights but there is no need to follow them in their denials of the historicity of the Pentateuch in favor of an evolutionary view of Israel’s history.

---

     [1]Bernhard W. Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 4^thed. (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1986), 449-466.

     [2]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 451.

     [3]See the chart on page 453 of Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament.

     [4]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 452.

     [5]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 453.

     [6]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 452.

     [7]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 451.

     [8]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 455.

     [9]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 455.

     [10]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 456.

     [11]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 463.

     [12]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 463-464.

     [13]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 458.

     [14]Bruce K. Waltke, “Oral Tradition” in A Tribute to Gleason Archer, Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood , eds. (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1986), 17-34.

     [15]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 461.

     [16]Kenneth L. Barker, “The Antiquity and Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives,” in A Tribute to Gleason Archer, Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood , eds. (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1986), 134.

     [17]Barker, “The Antiquity and Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives,” 134.

Old Testament and Higher Criticism: Deuteronomistic History

* This was a paper I did in seminary.  The goal was to understand and critically analyze the higher critical constructs of the JEDP theory regarding the composition of the Pentateuch. 

REVIEW OF “DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY” IN ANCHOR BIBLE DICTIONARY

2014

 

Steven McKenzie has written the entry “Deuteronomistic History” for the Anchor Bible Dictionary.[1]  McKenzies traces out the origins and development of the concept of Deuteronomistic History (DH) which is the name used to denote the section of the Old Testament consisting of Deuteronomy through 2 Kings.  

The theory of DH finds its genesis in the 1943 work of Martin Noth.  Noth argued that the DH was the composition of a single author who lived in the middle 6^thcentury B.C.  The DH is to be dated to around shortly 562 B.C. and, although it uses some sources, there is no evidence of a history of redaction in the DH.  The purpose for which the DH was written is found in the needs of the exiled community.  “The Dtr [the author of the DH] addressed his contemporaries in Babylonian exile, his purpose being entirely negative: to show them that their sufferings were fully deserved consequences of centuries of decline in Israel’s loyalty to Yahweh.”[2]  The author of the DH selected various traditions appropriate to his purposes and structured his writing in such a manner so as to suit his theological purposes.  Noth’s view of the DH accepted the prevailing regarding the non-Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy and its attendant belief that Deuteronomy was composed sometime around the reign of Josiah in the 7^thcentury.  As will be noted below, some of Noth’s theses regarding the DH have been modified but his main thesis regarding the literary unity of Deuteronomy—Kings has achieved “almost canonical status” in Old Testament studies.[3]

Subsequent scholars have modified Noth’s views on the DH.  Whereas Noth saw the author of the DH’s purpose as exclusively negative others themes of grace (von Rad) or a more sophisticated pattern of apostasy, punishment, repentance, and deliverance (H. W. Wolff).  Other scholars have challenged Noth’s views on the composition and date of the DH.  Noth attributed the DH to a single author but others have seen a larger number involved in what is called the “Deuteronomistic School” encompassing various stages of development in the DH over the course of about a century. Another variation is to posit various editors (redactors).  One proponent of this redactional viewpoint, W. Dietrich, alleged three redactors all dated in the 6^thcentury B.C.  

Some more recent scholars have gone back to Noth’s view regarding a single author of the DH.  Both B. Peckham and J. Van Seters argue for this perspective but they also reduced the vast amount of the DH to “essentially a fictional history of Israel’s cult by an exilic or postexilic author.”[4]  Although this is the most radical view in terms of failing to recognize a historical reality behind the narrative all the views building on Noth in support of the DH render the writing of the book of Deuteronomy a 6-7^thcentury creation rather than a 15^thcentury document from the time of the events it purports to narrate.

Some of the scholars holding to the idea of the DH as a distinct literary unit have done valuable work in pointing out the common themes across this wide array of books.  There are intra-canonical themes and echoes that are readily apparent.  Whether this justifies denying an earlier dating of the book of Deuteronomy is another matter. A number of indicators demonstrate that the dating of the book of Deuteronomy fits an earlier date than that posited by the defenders of the DH.  Only a few such indicators will be broached here.

First, the book of Deuteronomy has greater affinities with Hittite treaty structure stemming from the 14^thcentury B.C. than is does the Assyrian treaty of Esarhaddon which is dated around 700 B.C.  As Gordon Wenham writes,

It is again striking how the arrangement of material in Deuteronomy resembles early collections of law rather than the later Middle Assyrian laws or neo-Babylonian laws, both admittedly incomplete.  However, this would again appear to point to the antiquity of Deuteronomy rather than its lateness.[5]

 

            Second, Bruce Waltke has shown that ANE cultures preserved their cultural heritage through written texts and not through oral traditions subject to alteration.[6]  This by itself does not prove an early date for Deuteronomy but it does provide a historical context which makes such a date reasonable.

            Third, some of the specific legislation in Deuteronomy fits an early date better than a later date.  Gordon Wenham specifically mentions various marriage laws:

However the large group of laws on sex and marriage in Deuteronomy 22 do seem closer to second-millennium legal requirements than to what we know of Jewish practice in the late fifth century BC.  This is strange if Deuteronomy were only written a century or two earlier.[7]

 

            Fourth, Deuteronomy omits key details that would have been timely and important to mention if the book is written during the time of Josiah.  Eugene Merrill mentions the crucial issue of Jerusalem as the central sanctuary in this connection:

Deuteronomy is striking by not only what is says, but also what it omits or covers over.  A notable example is the lack of any reference at all to Jerusalem, to say nothing of its being the location of the central sanctuary… A scribe writing in the seventh century B.C.E. could hardly resist the temptation to mention Jerusalem as the Mosaic cult center if he was trying to fabricate a “Mosaic” document.”[8]

 

            For these and other reasons the case for the DH and its attendant corollary of a late date for Deuteronomy is not sustained.  The DH as a scholarly construct ought to be looked upon with suspicion and handled with critical care lest some of its unjustified assumptions be too easily ingested. 

---

     [1]Steven L. McKenzie, “Deuteronomistic History,” ABD2:160-168.

     [2]McKenzie, “Deuteronomistic History,” 161.

     [3]McKenzie, “Deuteronomistic History,” 161.

     [4]McKenzie, “Deuteronomistic History,” 165.

     [5]Gordon Wenham, “The Date of Deuteronomy: Linch-pin of Old Testament Criticism,”Themelios 10 (1985), 19.

     [6]Bruce K. Waltke, “Oral Tradition,” in A Tribute to Gleason Archer(ed. Walter C. Kaiser and Ronald F. Youngblood; Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1986), 17-34.

     [7]Gordon Wenham, “The Date of Deuteronomy: Linch-pin of Old Testament Criticism [part two]”, Themelios11 (1985), 17.

     [8]Eugene H. Merrill, “Deuteronomy and de Wette: A Fresh Look at a Fallacious Premise,” JESOT1 (2012), 35-36.

Old Testament and Higher Criticism: Understanding the "J" and "E" Sources

 * This was a paper I did in seminary.  The goal was to understand and critically analyze the higher critical constructs of the JEDP theory regarding the composition of the Pentateuch.  

UNDERSTANDING “J” AND “E” SOURCES

2014

 

The articles in The Anchor Bible Dictionary on the “Yahwist (‘J’) Source” and the “Elohist” source are basic overviews of critical scholarship regarding sources for the Pentateuch.[1]  This paper will summarize both of these articles as well as provide some brief comments of critical interaction.

            The Yahwist (J) and Elohist are considered both the anonymous author(s) and the sources developed by these author(s). The J and E sources are considered literary hypotheses that seek to explain both the phenomena and history of the Old Testament.[2]  The contemporary understanding of these sources is founded in the work of those scholars in the early 19^th-century who noticed that the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 utilize different names for God—Yahweh and Elohim.  Based on this it was thought that this was the result of two different sources. Besides the use of different names for God these sources were also thought to have different styles and theological emphases.

            The J source was originally thought to be the oldest source but the least discernable among all the sources. The main components of J were considered to be (a) the primeval history, (b) the patriarchal saga, and (c) the “national saga” which consisted of the birth of Israel, the exodus, and the entry into the land.  “J” eventually came to “designate the remaining text material once the more easily recognizable layers… been subtracted.”[3]  Later von Rad would develop the idea of J and date it during the Solomonic reign (c. 950-930 BC).  Subsequent to this scholars such as Rose and Van Seters would date J during the post-exilic time period.  

            The source J is said to contain distinctive theological elements.  Yahweh is presented as a universal Lord and yet at the same time gracious to humanity.  “Whatever good happens to the chosen of YHWH is not due to their own merit, but to the gracious and hidden forbearance of God.”[4]  

            The understanding of J has undergone change from its original inception in the early 18^th-century. Rendtorff argued:

“J” is a very fragile construction.  The substance of J is traditionally obtained by way of subtraction of the more easily recognizable other sources, and there are no positive criteria for the attribution of a single text to the J source.[5]

 

De Pury highlights the current situation when he asserts that, “No new scholarly consensus is yet in sight.”[6]

            Similar to J the scholarly understanding of the Elohist (E) source has undergone development and modification. Originally dated to the 8^thcentury, this dating is still held to by many but other dates from the 9^thand 10^thcenturies also are considered by some. There has been debate as to how to delineate E from other sources—especially the J source. One of the ways offered to specify the E source as well as to ascertain its theological features is by noticing the “double narratives” in Genesis: Gen 12.10-21//20.1-18; 16.4-14//21.8-21; 26.26-33//21.22-34.  In each of the pairings listed the second is considered to have come from the E source.  Jenks summarizes the importance of these narrative parallels:

These parallel narratives constitute the most important source information about the characteristic traits of E, for here the E narratives can be analyzed in contrast to similar J traditions.  Characteristically, the E versions of these triple and double narratives use Elohim instead of Yahweh; they focus on the nature of divine revelations or disclosures to humanity, which in E generally occur in dreams; they include reflections on problems of sin, guilt, and innocence; and they emphasize the “fear of God.”[7]

 

            These characteristics culled from the double narratives are then used to isolate other sections of the Pentateuch, which also belong to E.  This, in turn, allows for an even greater reconstruction of the overall theological perspectives and emphases of E.  Jenks mentions four such themes: prophetic leadership, the fear of God, covenant, and a theology of history.  These perspectives all serve to push forward a prophetic agenda that seeks to correct Israel and her leaders.  “E’s urgent plea in time of decision is not only for a correct institutional balance between kings and prophets, but for a deeply-felt religious response to loyalty and awe before God.”[8]

            The positing of multiple sources for the Pentateuch, of which J and E are a part, disallows for the traditional view of an essentially Mosaic authorship of the first five books of the Bible. Although these sources have become standard fare among critical scholars they are not above criticism.  First, it will be remembered that the entire idea of multiple sources finds its beginnings in the use of the different names for God found in Genesis 1 and 2.  This has always been a dubious method as Gleason Archer argues:

The documentarians assume that Hebrew authors differ from any other writers known in the history of literature in that they alone were incapable of using more than one name for God; more than one style of writing, no matter what the difference in subject matter; more than one of several possible synonyms for a single idea; more than one theme-type or circle of interest… The whole structure of source division has been erected upon exclusivist assumptions demonstrable for the literature of no other nation or period.[9]

 

Even some critical scholars recognize the “weakness of the traditional argument based on the distinction between the divine names YHWH and Elohim.”[10]

            Second, the multiple source hypothesis rests upon crucial assumptions about oral tradition.  Jenks argues, “The most important development in 20^th-century Pentateuchal criticism has been the realization that the Pentateuchal sources derive from oral traditions, and that oral traditions continued to play a part in the development of narratives until a relatively late date.”[11]  This understanding of oral tradition has been called into question by Bruce Waltke in his analysis of ANE writings.[12]  He concludes that there is little evidence for a flexible oral tradition. Furthermore, in light of the literacy levels displayed in these ANE cultures there is little reason to believe that Israel would not keep its history in a stable written form.

            The division of the Pentateuch into multiple sources is common understanding within critical Old Testament scholarship. Once certain assumptions are made regarding the basis of division then the process of dividing the text into various sources begins.  Critical scholarship shows very little interest in critically probing its foundational presuppositions about the text.  Conservative evangelical scholars have looked at this critical methodology and have offered various avenues of response.

SOURCES CITED

 

Archer Jr. Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament, rev. ed. Chicago, Ill.: Moody, 1974.

de Pury, “Yahwist (‘J’) Source.” Pages 1012-1020 in vol. 6 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary 6 

vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.            

 

Jenks, Alan W. “Elohist.” Pages 478-482 in vol. 2 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary 6 

vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

 

Waltke, Bruce K. “Oral Tradition.” Pages 17-34 in A Tribute to Gleason Archer.  Edited by 

Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood. Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1986.

---

     [1]Albert de Pury, “Yahwist (‘J’) Source,” ABD 6:1012-1020; Alan W. Jenks, “Elohist,” ABD2:478-482.  

     [2]de Pury refers to these sources as “a scientific hypothesis” (p. 1013) but this is surely a misnomer.  The canons of scientific methodologies are not in play in understanding or testing the J and E sources.

     [3]de Pury, “Yahwist (‘J’) Source,” 1013.

     [4]de Pury, “Yahwist (‘J’) Source,” 1015.

     [5]de Pury, “Yahwist (‘J’) Source,” 1017.

     [6]de Pury, “Yahwist (‘J’) Source,” 1018.

     [7]Jenks, “Elohist,” 479.

     [8]Jenks, “Elohist,” 482.

     [9]Gleason L. Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament, rev. ed. (Chicago, Ill.: Moody, 1974), 110.

     [10]de Pury, “Yahwist (‘J’) Source,” 1017.

     [11]Jenks, “Elohist,” 479.

     [12]Bruce K. Waltke, “Oral Tradition” in A Tribute to Gleason Archer, Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood , eds. (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1986), 17-34.

Living in an Alien Culture: Daniel 7

Living in an Alien Culture

Daniel 7

1.    Relationship of chapters 1-6 to 7-12

a.    Chapters 1-6: Stories about Daniel

b.    Chapters 7-12: Visions of Daniel

c.     “Daniel’s message about God’s control requires both the stories of the first six chapters and the visions of the last six.  The stories give us comfort, the visions a sense of our finitude. Without the latter, the stories would lead us to believe in a false relationship between human works and God’s grace—if we do certain things, God must provide.  Without the stories, the visions could lead us to an impractical, disembodied mysticism.  With both, this book offers a helpful confidence that God is indeed in control.”[1]

d.    “While children resonate with the lessons of Daniel 1-6, seasoned Bible scholars scratch their heads over Daniel 7-12 with the move from simple stories to obscure apocalyptic visions… Even though there is a dramatic contrast in genre between the two halves of the book, however, the overall message of the book is uniform: In spite of present appearances, God is in control.”[2]

e.    Hebrew and Aramaic in Daniel

                                               i.     1.1-2.4a: Hebrew

                                              ii.     2.4b-8.1: Aramaic

                                            iii.     8.1-chapter 12: Hebrew

                                            iv.     Chapter 7 is pivotal: vision but still in Aramaic

2.    Some thoughts on the nature of “Apocalyptic” literature[3]

a.    Usually reserved for when things were so bad for the people of God only an outside intervention in terms of a cataclysmic display of God’s power could remedy the situation.

b.    Take the symbolism and numbers seriously but not literally.

c.     Observe the prophet’s pastoral concern for his audience.

                                               i.     God controls history

                                              ii.     Brings comfort to God’s suffering saints

d.    Move beyond details and see the main points of the text.  The key question: What is the text about as a whole.

e.    Application should derive from the text’s main points.

f.     Read Old Testament apocalyptic in connection with the New Testament apocalyptic (i.e., Revelation)

g.    Image oriented

                                               i.     Apocalyptic is a metaphor-rich genre

                                              ii.     “Images evoke powerful feelings in readers. Again, because the original readers had a more immediate understanding of these images, the feelings would be more potent and natural in them.”[4]

                                            iii.     “As such, images speak truly and accurately, but not precisely.”[5]

3.    Outline of chapter[6]

a.    (1-8): Horror by the Sea

b.    (9-14): Heavenly Power

c.     (15-28): Divine Victory

4.    Relationship between Daniel 2 and 7

Daniel 2 Statue	Daniel 7 Beasts	Kingdom	Years
Head of gold	Lion with wings of an eagle	Babylon	605-539
Chests & arms of silver	Bear	Medo-Persia	539-330
Middle & thighs of bronze	Leopard with wings of a bird	Greece	330-63
Legs of iron, feet of clay	Beast with iron teeth	Rome	63-

o   Chart from: James M. Hamilton Jr., God’s Glory in Salvation Through Judgment: A Biblical Theology(Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2010), 330.

5.    Horror by the Sea (1-8)

a.    Time: First year of Belshazzar 552/551 BC: 50 years since Daniel’s deportation to Babylon 

b.    The sea (2-3): place of chaos and destructive evil

c.     Four beasts

                                               i.     “These beasts are bizarre, they are mutants, perversions of what God intended by his creation.  As such, they evoke not only horror in the original reader, but also revulsion.”[7]

                                              ii.     First beast: “… lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a man; a human mind also was given to it.” (v 4)

1.    Q: When was the last time we saw a beast become more human in Daniel?

2.    A: Chapter 4: Nebuchadnezzar coming out of his animal-like stupor

                                            iii.     Beasts are kings/kingdoms: vv 17 and 23

                                            iv.     Beasts are under the power of God

1.    First is humanized (v 4)

2.    Second is commanded to eat (v 5)

3.    Third, dominion is given to it (v 6)

4.    Fourth, slain and thrown into fire (v 11)

5.    Remaining three, dominion is taken away and extension granted (v 12)

6.    Heavenly Power (9-14)

a.    “In essence, we have gone up the chain of being.  Evil human kingdoms were described as horrifying hybrid animals; the divine realm is imaged as human beings.”[8]

b.    Majestic throne room scene 

                                               i.     Ancient of Days

                                              ii.     Fire around and flowing from the throne

                                            iii.     Thousands of beings surround the throne

                                            iv.     Books (of judgment) opened 

c.     Beasts and their kingdoms destroyed (11-12)

d.    “Yahweh’s rule is not arbitrary; it is morally determined.  In the vision of Daniel 7:9-14 the Ancient of Days judges the earthly powers that have become subhuman, bestial, in their arrogant, self-centered exercise of sovereignty.  He deprives them of their sovereignty and gives it to ‘one like a human being.’  It is in God’s kingdom, under his sovereignty, that humanity reaches its full potential.  Salvation history culminates in the achievement of the purpose that God had when creating the world, a world in which humans exercise sovereignty as his representatives (Gen 1:26-28).  This is the significance of the ‘one like a son of man’ receiving sovereignty in Daniel 7:13-14.”[9]

e.    Son of Man

                                               i.     “He is riding the cloud chariot, which is the prerogative of God alone.”[10]

                                              ii.     Human: the fulfillment of Genesis 1-2 and what humankind should be

                                            iii.     He is given dominion, glory, and a kingdom that all peoples might serve him.

                                            iv.     Son of Man: Individual, Collective, both?

7.    Divine Victory (15-28)

a.    Verses 17-18: summary of the visions

                                               i.     Verse 17: Beasts rage and war against the saints

1.    See v. 21: “… waging war with the saints and overpowering them.”

2.    Beasts overpower and devour: not everybody escapes the fiery furnace

                                              ii.     Verse 18: “But the saints of the Highest One will receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, for all ages to come.”

1.    See v. 27: “Then the sovereignty, the dominion and the greatness of all the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the people of the saints of the Highest One; His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all the dominions will serve and obey him.”

2.    What is spoken of the Son of Man in v. 14 is applied to the people of God in verses 18 and 27

---

     [1]Terry C. Muck in the “General Editor’s Preface” to Tremper Longman III, Daniel—NIVAC (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1999), 14.

     [2]Tremper Longman III, Daniel—NIVAC (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1999), 19.

     [3]See William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation—Revised and Expanded (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 2004), 385-387.

     [4]Tremper Longman III, Daniel—NIVAC (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1999), 178.

     [5]Tremper Longman III, Daniel—NIVAC (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1999), 178.

     [6]Tremper Longman III, Daniel—NIVAC (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1999), 179.

     [7]Tremper Longman III, Daniel—NIVAC (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1999), 183.

     [8]Tremper Longman III, Daniel—NIVAC (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1999), 186.

     [9]E. C. Lucas, “Daniel: Book of” in Dictionary of the Old Testament Prophetsedited by Mark J. Boda and J. Gordon McConville (Downers Grove, Ill: Intervarsity Press, 2012), 121.

     [10]Tremper Longman III, Daniel—NIVAC (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1999), 187.