The Historical Jesus as a Myth by Robert Price

Recently I received a review copy of The Historical Jesus: Five Views from Intervarsity Press. The following is a look at the essay contributed by Robert Price as to why he believes that Jesus never even existed as a historical person, as well as some quotes from the responses made to it by the other contributors (John Dominic Crossan, Luke Timothy Johnson, James Dunn, and Darrell Bock).

Price’s essay is entitled Jesus as the Vanishing Point, in which he lays out his case as to why Jesus was not an actual historical person, but rather that he was a concoction based on the “mythic hero archetype.”

In discussing the “first pillar” of the Jesus-mythicist argument, Price makes a rather unsatisfactory comment:

Virtually everyone who espoused the Christ-Myth theory has laid great emphasis on one question: Why no mention of a miracle-working Jesus in secular sources? Let me leapfrog the tiresome debate over whether the Testimonium Flavianum is authentic. [pg. 62]

As Crossan said in his response,

Price’s comment, “Let me leapfrog the tiresome debate over whether the Testimonium Flavianum is authentic” is not an acceptable scholarly comment as far as I am concerned. [pg. 86]

Also, Price does not mention Josephus’ other mention of Jesus which is not part of the Testimonium Flavianum passage (Jewish Antiquities 20), neither does he mention Annals 15 by Tacitus. Also, Price’s first pillar fails to the fact that Jewish tradition marked Jesus as a wonder-working sorcerer (Sanhedrin 43a; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 69).

Price argues that the epistles, which were written prior to the gospels, do not show any evidence of a historical Jesus. He writes,

we should never guess from the Epistles that Jesus died in any particular historical or political context [pg. 63]

However, Dunn points out the absurdity of such a statement:

How can Price actually assert that “we should never guess from the Epistles that Jesus died in any particular historical or political context,” when it is well enough known that crucifixion was a Roman political method of execution characteristically for rebels and slaves? I could go on at some length – “seed of David” (Rom 1:3), “born under the law” (Gal 4:4), “Christ did not please himself” (Rom 15:3). Yet Price is able to assert that “the Epistles … do not evidence a recent historical Jesus,” a ludicrous claim that simply diminishes the credibility of the arguments used in support. [pg. 96]

In dealing with Paul’s mention of “James the brother of the Lord” in Galatians 1:19, Price writes:

…”brethren” of the Lord” (1 Cor 9:5) may refer to a missionary brotherhood such as the Johannine Epistles presuppose, and need not refer to literal siblings of the Lord any more than 1 Corinthians 3:9’s “the Lord’s colaborers” means Paul and Apollos had offices down the hall from God as “the Lord’s colleagues.” [pg. 65]

Dunn says that this argument is “scraping the barrel and has lost its self-respect.” [pg. 97]

Price’s next main argument is the early believers started off with some very vague Savior myth, and they built the gospel stories about him by transferring stories and motifs from the Old Testament onto this mythic Savior. Price writes,

Today’s Christian reader learns what Jesus did by reading the Gospels; his ancient counterpart learned what Jesus did by reading Joshua and 1 Kings. It was not a question of memory but of creative exegesis. [pg. 68]

Price then provides proof of this by giving an overview of how Mark’s gospel illustrates this. However, as Dunn points out, Price ignores the data in the Jesus tradition that isn’t explained by borrowing from the Old Testament material.

The next argument that is used by Price is that of the “dying-and-rising Gods”, in which he tries to link the “resurrection” of such pre-Christian figures as Attis with that of Jesus’ resurrection. This followed by Price’s “mythic hero archetype” argument. He lists twenty-two recurrent features in stories of mythic heroes and how they are also found in the gospel accounts of Jesus. Luke Timothy Johnson succinctly sums up the problem with these arguments in the following words, “In short, appeal to an “ideal type” fails to account for the specific contours of the religion.” [pg. 91]

I will finish my review of Price’s essay with the final words of Dunn’s response to it:

In short, if Price’s essay is a true expression of the state of health of the Jesus-myth thesis, I can’t see much life in it. His essay would be better retitled “The Jesus Myth – a Thesis at Vanishing Point.” [pg. 98]

Review: Common Judaism – Explorations in Second Temple Judaism

Title: Common Judaism – Explorations in Second-Temple Judaism

Editors: Wayne O. McCready and Adele Reinhartz

Bibliographic info: XI +306 +65 pages of Bibliography and Indices

Cover: Hard

Publisher: Fortress Press (2008)

ISBN-10: 0800662997

ISBN-13: 978-0800662998

Buy it from Amazon

Buy it from Augsburg Fortress

With thanks to Fortress Press for the free review copy!

This book is a collection of essays on the concept of a “common Judaism.” The idea of a common Judaism does not deny the fact that there existed different sects within Second Temple Judaism, rather, it merely asserts that despite this there still existed a common underlying faith and practice that defined someone as a Jew, regardless of their “denominational” affiliation.

The book starts off with two introductory essays. The first is by the two editors of the book and gives a concise overview of what is meant by “common Judaism”, as well as to the structure and purpose of this book.The second introductory essay is by E.P. Sanders who authored the well-known book on common Judaism – Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE – 66 CE (Trinity Press Intl, 2002). In the essay he presents here, he lays out his own history in studying Judaism and how his own thinking on this issue has been influenced by others. He then presents four arguments in favor of a common Judaism. He ends the essay with:

Thus, I do not think that I know what the essence of Judaism was. I think that there were basic and common observances and beliefs that served to identify some people as Jews in the ancient world and that gave the group a firm identity. The theology that held these practices and beliefs together was the underlying faith that the God of Israel is the one true God of the world and that his will is found in the Hebrew Scripture (or in its Greek translation). This Scripture includes the history of God’s dealing with his people, including the election of Abraham, the exodus from Egypt, and the giving of the law to Moses on Mount Sinai. The Bible is the basis of common Judaism (though just which parts of it each group of people observed, and precisely how they observed those parts, varied). [pg. 23]

The rest of the essays are divided into three sections:

• Common Judaism in its Local Settings (3 essays)
• Common Judaism / Partisan Judaism (4 essays)
• Common Judaism and Hellenism (5 essays)

The first grouping of essays concern matters of the institutional characteristics of Judaism, such as the synagogues, ritual baths, and purity laws. In the first essay, Lell Levine investigates the similarity and diversity in the Synagogue of the second-Temple (1^st and 2^nd century) and late antiquity (3^rd-7^th centuries) periods and how it contributes to our understanding of what exactly it is that common Judaism entailed. The synagogue was central for Jewish living for various reasons, one being that it is where Jews assembled on Sabbath to worship the God of Abraham and hear the Torah of Moses. Levine considers such aspects as archaeological remains of synagogues, liturgy, and synagogue art. Boaz Zissu and David Amit then discuss common Judaism in light of the Second Temple period Judean miqwa’ot, that is, ritual immersion baths. The essay starts off with a survey on the history of research, followed by a look at six different types of ritual immersion baths, including quite a few photos and blueprints for the various types of ritual baths. The last essay of the first section is authored by Susan Haber. In her essay, Susan connects the dots between synagogues and the ritual immersion baths, showing the relationship between purity and the synagogue.

The second grouping of essays looks at the relationship between the ordinary folk, or laity, of Judaism and the partisanship that existed between the different sects and Jewish authorities. Albert Baumgarten looks at the Pharisees and the authority they exerted. He makes the acute observation that “the Pharisees remain a lightning rod for attracting comment that defines not only the scholarly judgment but also the identity of the commentator.” [pg. 82] In other words, studying the Pharisees is an area that is difficult and the bias of the researcher is easily able to show through. Because of this, he proposes a methodology to sidestep this problem, and applies it to one passage in particular – that of Josephus in Antiquities 17.41-45, as well as Antiquities 15.4 and four other sources. The following essay, by Anders Runesson, also focuses on the Pharisees from the viewpoint of the Matthean community of early Christianity. Essentially, Runesson proposes that even though the Matthean community had enjoyed a parting of ways from Pharisaism, they would still fall under the umbrella of the common Judaism. Cecilia Wassen then contributes an essay on a specific sect of Second Temple Judaism – the Qumran community. She focuses her study upon the principles that community used for the inclusion and exclusion of people within the community. In a nutshell, it revolved around the typical Second Temple Jewish worldview of angelic activity in our world, more specifically, that the holy angels could not look upon human imperfections (like deafness, blindness, leprosy, etc), and so people with those disorders had to be excluded from the community so as to not offend the holy angels and attract the wicked angels (who caused such ailments). The final essay of this section, by Anne Moore, likewise focuses on a specific concept of Judaism that can be experienced and believed on in various and innovative ways in the various sects of Judaism. The idea that she explores is that of God’s kingship and how a common understanding of this idea is found among the different sects of Judaism due to the common Hebrew Scriptures they all shared.

The third grouping of essays considers the impact that Hellenism had on common Judaism. The essay of Tessa Rajak examines a major aspect of the common Judaism – the Greek Bible. The importance of this in regards to the idea of common Judaism is quite understandable seeing as the Jewish world  was largely a text-based society. The following essay by Eliezer Segal mulls over the legends that arose about the origin of the Greek Septuagint Bible, as evident in the alleged letter of Aristeas. The next essay is written by David Miller and it focuses upon Josephus’ view of the Maccabean revolt and the Jew’s submission to Rome, as well as the “sign” prophets who were people that were associated with miracles that were going to play a role in delivering the Jews from Rome. The following essay, by Seth Schwartz, also focuses upon Josephus, except his angle is the Hellenistic heavy emphasis on the practices of memorialization and benefaction and whether the Jews rejected or embraced this practice. Ian Scott delivers the final essay of this section which discusses the concept of epistemology as expressed in two texts – that of the Book of Jubilees and the Letter of Aristeas. The author asserts that although these two texts were written at the same  period, they present different views on religious knowledge, yet despite this there still exists a commonality between them and the Second Temple groups that they represent.

The essays are followed with a conclusion by the two editors, endnotes, bibliography, and three indices (ancient sources, modern authors, and subjects). Overall, I think the essays in this volume did an impressive job of supporting Sanders exposition on a common Judaism that encompassed all the varying Jewish sects. This book is a valuable and notable volume for anyone interested in Second Temple Judaism, and even on early Rabbinic Judaism.

Early Church Quote – Hippolytus on the Word of God

But some one will say to me, ‘you adduce a thing strange to me, when you call the Son the Word, for John indeed speaks of the Word, but it is by a figure of speech.’ Nay, it is by no figure of speech! For while thus presenting this Word that was from the beginning, and has now been sent forth, John said below in the Apocalypse, ‘And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse, and He that sat upon him was Faithful and True. And in righteousness He does judge and make war. And His eyes were as flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns, and He had a name written that no man knew but He Himself. And He was clothed in a robe dipped in blood: and His name is called the Word of God.’

Hippolytus, Fragments, Part 2.3, Chap 15 (Circa AD 200-235)

The Great Angel: Israel’s Second God (Part IV)

Chapter Six: The Evidence of the Name

A continuation from my previous post, here, looking at Margaret Barker’s book The Great Angel: Israel’s Second God.

The gist of this chapter seems to be that the Deuteronomist reformers changed the significance of the Name, although as she states, “…exactly what was meant by ‘the Name’ before and after their influence is not entirely clear.” [pg 97]

Essentially, she sees Yahweh and the name of Yahweh as being virtually synonymous, in other words, the Name was a synonym for Yahweh, and not a substitute like the Deuteronomist reformers turned it into. I did not quite fully understand how this chapter was meant to support Barker’s thesis of what pre-exilic Judaism believed in. Here are a couple of quotes though that might flesh things out a bit:

The Name in it visible aspect is the Son and the role of the Name/Son is to rule the heavenly powers. The Father cannot be known in himself, i.e. in essence, but his existence can be known through the Name. The original picture of Elyon and his sons has here been clother with later ideas of existence and essence, but the gist remains recognizable. There was the High God whose sons could be manifested in the created order and one Son in particular was deemed to be their ruler. This must have been Yahweh, here described as the Son and the Name. Another gnostic text preserved by Clement of Alexandria says that Jesus’ invisible part was ‘the Name which is the only begotten Son’ (Excerpts from Theodotus 26.1). [pg. 103]

The Name is probably the most obscure and inaccessible of all the concepts used in the royal theology, and any attempt to synthesize such information as there is into a coherent system would probably distort more than it clarified. The Name was the nature, the power, the presence of Yahweh. [pg. 111]

Chapter Seven: The Evidence of Philo

In this chapter, Barker examines the Judaism of Philo in an attempt to trace the remaining vestiges of pre-exilic Judaism theology. The basic crux of the argument in this chapter is:

Philo’s Judaism chiefly remarkable for the fact that it has a second God, the Logos. It has always been assumed that this second God, the Logos, was something unique to Philo, something which he adopted from contemporary philosophers and grafted into his Judaism, but this is unlikely. Could Philo have altered the fundamental monotheism of Judaism and still remained the leader and spokesman of his community? Or do we have in his writings evidence for a substantial Jewish community which was not monotheistic in the generally accepted sense of that word? [pg. 114]

Chapter Eight: The Evidence of the Jewish Writers

This chapter largely discusses the Targums and what they say in regards to Barker’s thesis. This, naturally, involves the issue of whether the Memra of the Targums and the Logos of Philo and John are referring to the same thing. The issue comes down to whether the Memra was meant to be personal or impersonal. Barker then lists some arguments that are used to argue that the Memra was thought of as an impersonal “buffer” idea, to make God less personal with men and the world. She then counters these points with her own as to why the Memra was more of a personal “second” god as per her thesis. She also believes that the Memra of the Targums is indeed essentially the same thing as the Logos of Philo.

Review: Manuscripts, Texts, Theology. Collected Papers 1977-2007 (D.C. Parker)

Title: Manuscripts, Texts, Theology: Collected Papers 1977-2007

Author: D.C. Parker

Bibliographic info: XII + 353 + 24 pages of indices

Cover: Hard Cloth

Publisher: Walter de Gruyter (2009)

ISBN-10: 3110211939

ISBN-13: 978-3110211931

But it from Walter de Gruyter

Buy it from Amazon

With thanks to the fine people at Walter de Gruyter for the free review copy!

Anyone who has an interest in New Testament textual criticism has surely heard of D.C. Parker. He has authored many, many writings on various aspects of New Testament textual criticism for the past few decades. This book is a collection of 25 articles (some slightly revised and updated) that he has written for various journals, books, etc, during the period of 1977-2007.

This collection of essays are divided into three sections – manuscripts, texts, and theology. There are twelve essays on manuscripts, each of which focuses on actual manuscripts of the New Testament, three of which are on Codex Bezae. There are six essays on texts, each of which deals with textual criticism in general. And finally there are seven essays on theology, which deal with the relationship between New Testament textual criticism and theology.

The first essay is on the dictation theory of Codex Bezae and was Parker’s first essay on Codex Bezae, and was originally published in 1982. In this essay, Parker takes a look some passages in Codex Bezae which have been used as evidence of phonological errors due to the scribe copying the text down from oral dictation.

The next is a short essay on the Vulgate gospel manuscript Codex Mediolanensis, which dates from about late sixth century. Parker gives a description of the leaves of the Codex and presents reasons as to it being a copy of the Codex itself and not a restoration of the original Codex (which still contains that passage complete).

This is followed by an essay on the Old Latin gospel manuscript Codex Bobbiensis. This Codex is currently “kept unbound, with each bifolium stretched and mounted in its own cardboard frame.” (pg 25) Parker’s essay looks at the ordering of the leaves and believes that the sheets should be renumbered to take into account the missing leaves.

The fourth essay is Parker’s contribution to the book The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research. Essays on the Status Quaestionis (Eerdmans, 1995). This essay is on the Majuscule (a.k.a. Uncial) manuscripts of the New Testament and their importance for the text critical study of the New Testament.

The next essay is on the Magdalen papyrus of Matthew (a.k.a. P64) and whether it establishes a pre-50 AD date for Matthew’s gospel, which is looked at from a paleographical perspective.

The sixth essay is on Codex Bezae, as well as other Greek New Testament manuscripts that are kept in the Cambridge University library. The last paragraph of this essay was interesting:

While the majority of its readings are not original, and although the text continued to be freely altered, Codex Bezae is a key witness to the most widely used text of the second century. And, apart from the age of the text, the manuscript’s value rests in its character. For it manifests that freedom in copying which typified the early Christian attempt to honour not the wording of the tradition but its spirit. [pg. 72]

This essay is followed by one on P117 (P. Oxy. 4499), which is a new oxyrhynchus papyrus of Revelation. In this essay, Parker describes the contents of the papyrus as well as some palaeopraphical comments on it. P117 is supposedly older than Sinaiticus but not quite as old as P47.

The eighth essay is a description on some relatively unknown Greek New Testament manuscripts held in Boston and Cambridge. The next essay is another on Codex Bezae. In this one, Parker gives a detailed look at the history of the manuscript, and what it means for the significance of this Codex in our present studies of New Testament textual criticism. This is followed by an essay which focuses upon the dating of Codex Zacynthius, in which Parker proposes dating it to the seventh century. The next essay is on manuscripts of the Gospel of John which contain hermeneiai. The final essay of the “manuscripts” section of the book is on the Greek gospel manuscripts that are kept in Bucharest and Sofia which Parker has personally examined.

The thirteenth essay in the book, which is the first essay of the “texts” section, is a survey on the development of New Testament textual criticism since B.H. Streeter (who lived 1874-1937).  The next essay is on the translation of ουν in the Old Latin Gospels. The interesting point behind this essay was:

…to ascertain the degree of inconsistency with which the version [Codex Bezae] used one Latin word to translate one Greek one, in order to find differences between the manuscripts, to assess their usefulness in supporting Greek readings, and to place the relation between the two [Greek and Latin] columns of Codex Bezae in a new light. The advantages in choosing ουν were, first its frequency, second its insignificance, with the implication that a reviser would pay little or no attention to it. The disadvantage is that it is not used uniformly, being shunned by Mark but embraced by John. [pg. 167]

The next essay in the book is Parker’s review of the book, The Principles and Practice of New Testament Textual Criticism, which was a volume of collected essays by G.D. Kilpatrick. This is followed by an essay which gives a fascinating look at the development of the critical Greek text of the epistle of James. The essay surveys the development from the time of Lachmann to the relatively recent appearance of the Editio Critica Maior.

The seventeenth essay of the book is a comparison between the methods and results that the Institut für Newtestamentliche Textforschung’s (INTF) and the International Greek new Testament Project’s (IGNTP). This is done by comparing the work done on Luke by the INTF and IGNTP.

The final essay in the “texts” section is called, “The Quest of the Critical Edition.” Here, Parker discusses such issues as the user of the critical edition, the goal of the critical edition, the use of the critical edition, and the medium of the critical edition.

In the nineteenth essay in the book, which is the first essay of the “theology” section, Parker discusses the important, but often overlooked, fact that our New Testament text is itself a tradition. This essay is somewhat akin to ideas in his book The Living Text of the Gospels.

The next essay I found quite intriguing. It was a discussion of Jesus’ sayings on divorce in the synoptic Gospels, and the textual variations that arose in them. This is followed by an essay on the use of computers in textual criticism. The essay after that is on the contribution that New Testament textual criticism has had on the study of Jesus.

The twenty-third essay of the books consists of a thought-provoking discussion of the nature of the New Testament text, or “living text” as Parker calls it. He provides an analogy between the nature of the New Testament manuscript tradition and the incarnation of the Word of God in Jesus, a part of which I will quote:

The incarnation provides a precise analogy to the Gospels which exist only as manuscripts, as ink and papryus. … Just as in the incarnation the Word accepts the contingencies of human history such as growth and change, decay and death, confusion, misunderstanding and conflict, so the Gospels cannot escape the realities of scribal error, orthodox corruption, damage by accident or intent, total destruction, false emendation, and so on. The concept of a perfect original is false, in that the text only exists as imperfect copies. [pg. 314]

Parker’s next essay is on the relationship between textual criticism and theology. In this essay, he discusses four claims about textual criticism which must be rejected.

1. The restoration of the original text as the goal of textual criticism
2. The claim that textual variation is not theologically motivated
3. The concept of a linear development of orthodoxy
4. Making theological statements about the text without reference to the nature of the text and the way in which it has been received, and ignoring the realities of textual criticism.

The final essay of the book is a discussion about the character of John Calvin’s biblical text. More specifically, “is he working with a Greek or a Latin text,? and what is the base text which he is using?” [pg. 335]

Overall, I found this collection of essays to be great. I especially appreciated the fact that it presented a variety of topics and so wasn’t just essays on specific manuscripts or something. The essays in the final section on theology and textual criticism were the best, and even people who are not fond of textual criticism would definitely benefit from reading those ones. In short, some great essays by one of the of the most well-known and respected New Testament textual critical scholars of the past century. A great collection to have!

Review: 1 Enoch – A New Translation

Title: 1 Enoch – A New Translation

Authors: George Nickelsburg and James VanderKam

Bibliographic info: IX +170

Cover: Soft

Publisher: Fortress Press (2004)

ISBN-10: 0800636945

ISBN-13: 9780800636944

Buy it from Amazon

Buy it from Eisenbrauns

With thanks to Fortress Press for the review copy!

The book of 1 Enoch (a.k.a. Ethiopic Enoch) developed over the three centuries before the time of Christ, and is a collection of five main books and two short appendices which claim to be accounts from the books namesake. It is a very important extra-Biblical book from to study as it contains a lot of information about the traditions and folklore that developed in Judaism. 1 Enoch presents a common worldview in second-Temple Judaism of apocalyptism, which considers the world to be evil and in imminent danger of divine judgment. Another reason for the importance of this book in Biblical studies is its influence on the New Testament authors and writings. Just how much the influence of the 1 Enoch type of worldview and beliefs influenced the New Testament authors is debated, but there can be no doubt that one New Testament epistle, Jude, directly quotes 1 Enoch.

There have been many translations of 1 Enoch over the decades. Perhaps the most well-known and used have been the translations of Laurence (1821) and Charles (1893, 1906, 1912), both of which have had numerous reprints. However, there are also other translations available, such as those by Schodde (1882), Knibb (1978), and Black (1985). However, this translation by Nickelsburg and VanderKam is without a doubt the best one available. Both Nickelsburg and VanderKam are specialists on 1 Enoch, with Nickelsburg having written the definitive commentary on 1 Enoch in the Hermeneia series (my review of which is here). In fact, this translation of 1 Enoch is in large part based on the work of Nickelsburg’s Hermeneia commentary. The translation has text critical and translational footnotes on every page which takes into account the Ethiopic, Aramaic, and Greek fragments of 1 Enoch (some of which were found at Qumran). There is also an 18-page introduction to 1 Enoch for those largely unaware of its content. One last great aspect of this translation is its very cheap price.

I believe that a translation of 1 Enoch is necessary for anyone involved in Biblical studies, and I would definitely recommend this inexpensive book as the translation to get. It is the yardstick of all 1 Enoch translations.

Jesus’ Letter to the King of Edessa

In Eusebius’ History of the Church, written in the early fourth century, he tells a story of written correspondence between King Abgar and Jesus. Apparently, King Abgar of Edessa was afflicted with an incurable disease, and hearing of the wonders performed by Jesus, he wrote to Him and asked for His healing touch. Jesus wrote back to him with the reply that He could not come see him, but that He would send someone to him and his family who could heal him.

A copy of a letter written by King Abgarus to Jesus, and sent to him by Ananias, his footman, to Jerusalem, 5 inviting him to Edessa.

Abgarus, king of Edessa, to Jesus the good Saviour, who appears at Jerusalem, greeting. I have been informed concerning you and your cures, which are performed without the use of medicines and herbs, for it is reported, that you cause the blind to see, the lame to walk, do both cleanse lepers, and cast out unclean spirits and devils, and restore them to health who have been long diseased, and raisest up the dead; All which when I heard, I was persuaded of one of these two, viz: either that you are God himself descended from heaven, who do these things, or the son of God. On this account therefore I have wrote to you, earnestly to desire you would take the trouble of a journey hither, and cure a disease which I am under. For I hear the Jews ridicule you, and intend you mischief. My city is indeed small, but neat, and large enough for us both.

(The answer of Jesus by Ananias the footman to Abgarus the king, declining to visit Edessa.)

Abgarus, you are happy, forasmuch as you have believed on me, whom ye have not seen. For it is written concerning me, that those who have seen me should not believe on me, that they who have not seen might believe and live. As to that part of your letter, which relates to my giving you a visit, I must inform you, that I must fulfil all the ends of my mission in this country, and after that be received up again to him who sent me. But after my ascension I will send one of my disciples, who will cure your disease,  and give life to you, and all that are with you.

Eusebius then goes on to say that the apostle Thaddeus eventually ran into King Edessa, healed him, and converted his entire household. It is generally thought that the account was a forgery, but Eusebius got his hands on it and believed it to be true. Still an interesting apocryphal story though.

Review: Learn to Read New Testament Greek

Title: Learn to Read New Testament Greek (Third Edition)

Author: David Alan Black

Bibliographic info: XIV + 258

Cover: Hard

Publisher: B&H Academic (2009)

ISBN-10: 0805444939

ISBN-13: 9780805444933

Buy it from Amazon

With thanks to B&H Acadamic for the review copy!

David Alan Black is a Professor of NT and Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in North Carolina.

This introductory New Testament Greek grammar is divided into 26 chapters, each of which is a lesson on a particular aspect of learning to read New Testament Greek. Each chapter includes a list of vocabulary to learn, as well as a section of exercise questions, which thankfully have the answers in the appendices. This New Testament Greek primer is relatively concise compared to other ones out there, like Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek.

The lessons start off with such essentials as learning the Greek alphabet, and then moves onto the present and future active indicative verbs. Next up are nouns of the second and third declensions, followed by adjectives of the first and second declensions. Imperfect, aorist, perfect, and pluperfect indicative verbs are next, as well as a chapter on prepositions. Black then moves onto pronouns, middle and passive indicatives, followed by an overall review of the indicative system. Nouns of the third declension are next, as well as adjectives and pronouns of the first and third declensions. The final chapters cover such topics as contract and liquid verbs, participles, infinitives, the subjunctive, imperative, and optative moods, and finally, the conjugation of –mi verbs.

On the inside back cover of the book, there is a large fold-out Greek verb chart sheet which for the sake of completeness contains some forms that do not even occur in the New Testament. Needless to say it is a quite large chart, though it is very helpful. I remember trying to make a similar chart when I first started learning Greek, though mine was nowhere near as nice and tidy as this one.

There are nine appendices to this book:

1. The Greek Accents
2. The Greek Alphabet Song
3. Key to the Exercises
4. Noun Paradigms
5. Case-Number Suffixes
6. Person-Number Suffixes
7. Summary of Prepositions
8. Words Differing in Accentuation or Breathing
9. Principal Parts of Selected Verbs

This book also arrived in my mailbox with the workbook by Ben Gutierrez and Cara Murphy, Learn to Read New Testament Greek Workbook: Supplemental Exercises for Greek Grammar Students.

This workbook is full of questions that will really help one to put into practice what was learnt from the textbook. I especially like the fact that the questions are not just all about translating from Greek to English, but that it also contains a lot of translating from English to Greek questions. My one gripe with the workbook is that I really think that it should have an answer key provided, because a lot of people teach themselves Greek and so will not have the benefit of a classroom setting where a teacher can provide them with the answers. Although, I recently learned that one can apparently email the publisher and they will provide a pdf copy of an answer key.

Overall, I thought that Black’s primer on New Testament Greek is a great way to start learning to read New Testament Greek. Though, I would strongly recommend getting the workbook with it as well, as it will really help cement in your mind all of the things you learn from the textbook.

Jude 3

αγαπητοι πασαν σπουδην ποιουμενος γραφειν υμιν περι της κοινης ημων σωτηριας αναγκην εσχον γραψαι υμιν παρακαλων επαγωνιζεσθαι τη απαξ παραδοθειση τοις αγιοις πιστει

Dear friends, although I have been eager to write to you about our common salvation, I now feel compelled instead to write to encourage you to contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. [NET]

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. [ESV]

Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. [NASB]

Noticeable in verse 2 of Jude is the start of the author’s usage of paronomasia for literary effect, which is the repetition of a sound effect such as the recurrence of a word-stem, or similar sounding words, or even just a play on words. This verse has a recurring usage of the “p” sound which can be seen in the following transliteration: Agapētoi, pasan, spoudēn, poioumenos, peri, grapsai, parakalōn, epagōnizesthai, hapax, paradotheisē, pistei.

This verse also contains the first of many hapax legomena in Jude. The Greek word επαγωνιζεσθαι, rendered as “contend earnestly”, only occurs here in the New Testament.

The appeal of Jude “to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” has been the main reason for the claim that this epistle comes from the post-apostolic and early Catholic era, and thus is pseudepigraphal. The “faith” is seen as a reference to an unalterable deposit of sound doctrine that has been handed down and is therefore the remedy against heresy.

However, the epistle of Jude is missing the real markers of the post-apostolic and early-catholic era. Strong pointers to early-Catholicism are the fading hope of the Parousia, the increased institutionalization of the church, and the emergence of the faith into more concrete set forms.

However, in Jude, the Parousia  is not spoken of as some far away event in which we can place no hope, instead, it is portrayed as an imminent living hope where Jesus would return and judge all the ungodly and provide salvation for His own. Jude also shows no signs that it was written during a time of increased institutionalization of the church. For instance, the epistles of Ignatius (c. A.D. 108) place a strong emphasis on the laity obeying the office of the bishop, but nothing like this is apparent in Jude. Rather, the readers are told that they are to build themselves up, instead of an emphasis on obeying an episcopal office. Lastly, I believe it is quite telling that Jude exhorts the readers in verse 17 to remember what the Apostles had “said” (lego) instead of what they had “written” (grapho). The latter is what one would expect to be present in Jude if it was truly written in an early Catholic setting.

Finally, there is no reason to think that “the faith” of verse 3 is a reference to a set body of doctrine handed down. Instead, “the faith” is likely synonymous with the “gospel”. The same use of this expression is found in epistles believed to have been written in the 50’s (Galatians and Corinthians), and in the 60’s (assuming the pastorals are authentically Pauline).

In regards to textual variation of this passage:

• 81 and 88 are the main manuscripts in agreement with the given Greek text.
• p72 has an alternative aorist ποιησαμενος instead of ποιουμενος
• p72 and 02 have the imperative επαγωνιζεσθε
• 01, 044, and p72 have του before γραφειν
• 01, 044 have και ζωης after κοινης ημων σωτηριας
• 01, 044 have the present infinitive γραφειν instead of the aorist infinitive γραψαι
• 018 and 020 read κοινης σωτηριας

The only major textual variation found in this passage is the variant readings of κοινης ημων σωτηριας, with the main variant being the words και ζωης being attached to it by 01, 044 and 2627Z (a miniscule from 1202). The other main variant is the omission of ημων in 018, 020, and the Majority text. However, the pronoun is found in p72, 01, 02, 03, 044, 81, 88, some Vulgate mss, Syriac, Sahidic, Cyril of Alexandria (5th C), and Lucifer (4th C). Also, a case could be made for the inclusion of ημων on internal grounds, due to the author’s fondness for triplets. In the exordium, the author uses υμιν three times:

• “Mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you.”
• “…I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation…”
• “…appealing to you to contend for the faith…”

Including ημων in this passage provides a similar triplet:

• “…our common salvation…”
• “… the grace of our God…”
• “…our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.”

Note:

p72 is the earliest witness to Jude and dates from the 3^rd century.
p74 dates from around the 7^th century.
p78 dates from around the 3^rd-4^th century. Contains verses 4-5, 7-8.
01, א, Sinaiticus, 4^th century.
02, A, Alexandrinus, 5^th century.
03, B, Vaticanus, 4^th century.
04, C, Ephraemi, 5^th century.
018, K, Mosquensis, 9^th century.
020, L, Angelicus, 9^th century.
044, Ψ, Athous Laurae, 8^th-9^th century.
81 is dated from 1044.
88 is dated to about the 12^th century.

The text critical information is taken from Wasserman’s book The Epistle of Jude: Its Text and Transmission, as well as from the apparatus of the NET-NA27 Diglot.

The Great Angel: Israel’s Second God (Part III)

A continuation from my previous post, here, looking at Margaret Barker’s book The Great Angel: Israel’s Second God.

Chapter Four: The Evidence of Wisdom

In this chapter, Barker attempts to show that pre-exilic Israel believed in the ancient goddess, although not as a separate deity from Yahweh (the son of El-Elyon), but rather simply as the female aspect of Yahweh. She sees this in passages and tradition regarding Wisdom, the Queen of heaven, and Asherah.

I found Barker’s attempt to make New Testament passages to fit her thesis in this chapter to be quite forced:

…the new Jerusalem of John’s vision was the bride of the Lamb (Rev. 21.9-14) and the woman in labour (Isa. 66.7) became the woman clothed with the sun (Rev. 12.1-6), which must surely indicate that John envisaged her as a divinity. She was later identified with Mary, the mother of the Son of God. Similarly Yahweh in his city was read as prefiguring the incarnation in his mother (Zeph. 3.16-17; Zech. 2.10-11 came to be read in this way). The woman who appears as the Bride of the Lamb and the bearer of the heavenly child is evidence that even as late as the first century the Christian visionaries were in touch with the ‘goddess’ of the ancient cult who ‘was’ her city and was also the bride of its God and the mother of its king. [pg. 53]

Barker concludes the chapter with,

It is only by recognizing this double aspect of the ancient Yahweh that we can begin to understand the writings of the first Christian centuries with their trinity of El Elyon, Yahweh and Wisdom. [pg. 67]

Chapter Five: The Evidence of the Angels

In this chapter Barker discusses the role that the Angels had in Judaism religion before and after the Deuteronomic reform. She says,

The great confusion over the archangels’ names in the post-exilic period has been caused by the fact that only one group within Israel had accepted the fusion of El Elyon and Yahweh. The returned exiles, influenced by the monotheism of the Second Isaiah and the Deuteronomists’ blueprint for the restored nation, recognized that Yahweh was El, but they did not abandon the idea of a patron angel for Israel. He acquired a new name and appeared mainly as Michael, the Prince of Israel, pre-eminently a warrior as Yahweh had been. The roles of Yahweh were divided among all the archangel, who had formerly been known as the seven eyes of Yahweh (Zech. 4.10) or the four presences (Ezek. 1.1,5). …

Those who had not accepted the new monotheism had no need to rename their patron angel. For them, El Elyon remained El Elyon and the Angel remained the Angel. Sometimes he was unnamed, sometimes he had a secret name, which must have been the sacred name, and sometimes he had a name formed from Yahweh. [pg. 71]

Something apparent in this chapter, which I completely disagree with, was that Barker seemingly believes that very late texts like 3 Enoch (written AD 5th century) and Kabbalistic traditions have managed to retain some aspects of what she believes that pre-exilic Judaism believed.