Wesley, Calvin, Lincoln and Internet Quotes

While preparing for my youth group Bible study at River Church, I came across a quote by John Wesley that so beautifully sums up the nature of the topic up for discussion this week. Unfortunately, the web site didn't provide a citation. No problem. I just entered the entire quotation into my favorite search engine and, הִנֶּה (!), out popped a dozen or so additional websites with the same quote. Problem. NONE of these website provided a citation, either.

This reminded me of a similar rabbit trail I followed while writing my first book, Scripture and Cosmology. I had come across a quote by John Calvin on his rather negative views of the Copernican model of the cosmos: "Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?" Wow! Calvin was no fan of the new science, was he?

Like the Wesley quote above, this quote had no citation attached to it. I did some digging...and more digging, until I found the answer. Here's what I wrote in the book:

Until the latter half of the 20^th century, it was commonly thought that Calvin was directly at odds with Copernicus’ ideas. In 1896, Andrew Dickson White, the first president of Cornell University, claimed that Calvin asked indignantly, “Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?”^[1] As it turns out, the quote attributed to Calvin by White has never been verified. Instead, it seems rather apparent that White had put words in Calvin’s mouth to make a stronger case for the ideological divide between science and faith.^[2] These apocryphal sayings of Calvin were then relayed and popularized in 1935 by the philosopher Bertrund Russell in his Religion and Science.^[3] As it turns out, Calvin appears to have offered little, if any, direct response to the new astronomy.

I don't know if the Wesley quote will pan out to be authentic, or not. But, these two little episodes remind us of what Abraham Lincoln once said, "The problem with quotes found on the internet is that they are often not true."

[1] Andew Dickson White, History of Warfare of Science with Theology, Vol. 1 (New York: Appleton, 1896), p. 127.

[2] Robert White, “Calvin and Copernicus: The Problem Reconsidered,” Calvin Theological Journal 15 (1980), p. 234.

[3] Edward Rosen, Copernicus and His Successors (London: Hambeldon, 1995), pp. 161–172.

Pondering the Spade: A Conversation with Dave Schreiner

In my last post (May 13), I invited Lawson Stone to help us understand the value of archaeology study Bibles, as well as provide an overview of the whole archaeological enterprise. That brief foray into the field, got me thinking about digging a little deeper (get it? dig. archaeology.) into the topic.

Last month, my good friend Dave Schreiner, published Ponderingthe Spade: Discussing Important Convergences between Archaeology and Old TestamentStudies (Wipf & Stock). I had the honor of reading a pre-publication copy of the manuscript. Apparently, Wipf & Stock liked what I had to say about the book since my endorsement is right there on the back cover (and website). Here’s what I had to say about it:

In a masterful elucidation of the complexities surrounding ‘biblical archaeology,’ Schreiner invites us on a journey, from pickaxe to publication. Using nine distinct examples as test cases, Schreiner helps the uninitiated not only discover some of the most impressive archaeological finds pertinent to Old Testament studies, but he also permits his readers to eavesdrop on the oft-lengthy process of evaluating its implications for the biblical text.

Although Dave and I are both alumni from Asbury Theological Seminary, we didn’t meet until 2017 when we both presented papers related to the book of 1 Kings in the Early Historical Books session for the Institute for Biblical Research. Dave is an assistant professor of Old Testament at Wesley Biblical Seminary.

Kyleinschriften: That’s enough from me. Dave, why don’t you introduce yourself to those who don’t already know you.

DBS: Well, I grew up the son of a United Methodist minister, along with a mom and two brothers. Dad pastored in the West-Ohio conference, and so that environment really shaped me. Mom was an OB nurse who worked consistently throughout my life. All things considered, it was a great life. I was very fortunate.

After switching my major in college from Criminal Justice to Bible, I eventually got a degree from Indiana Wesleyan University in Biblical Literature. From there, I was off to Asbury Theological Seminary to figure out exactly what the Lord had begun doing in my life during college. There, a Master’s Degree in Biblical Studies allowed me to efficiently move into ATS’s Ph. D. program in Biblical Studies. I finally finished all my formal education in 2012 after writing my dissertation on a particular theological theme that took me through Kings, Deuteronomy, Haggai/Zechariah, and Luke.

Kyleinschriften: Neither Asbury Seminary, where you earned your PhD, nor Wesley Biblical Seminary, where you teach, are especially known for their archaeology programs. So, how did you get interested in the “dirty” side of biblical history?

DBS: Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark….of course!

But seriously, I have always been attracted to history, particularly ancient history. And, you know this, if you spend enough time in ancient history you will hear people talk about archaeology. However, I really got interested in its importance during my graduate work. I remember hearing my professors talk about archaeology. But the way they were able to synthesize it with the content of the Old Testament was something to behold. Then I had an opportunity to take a formal class and go on a dig. Once I spent time at Tel Rehov and was able to experience the daily grind of archaeology, I was hooked.

Kyleinschriften: Why did you decide to write the book? Were you bored? Didn’t have enough to do with 2 small daughters, a newborn, and multiple jobs?

DBS: Yeah…I was getting too much sleep. I figured trying to put a book together would bring me down to about 4 hours a sleep a night, which is ideal, right?

But it was a practical concern more than anything. I always ask my students to consider general issues of archaeology and specific cases in the Old Testament courses I teach. However, to accomplish this, I would have to pull from several resources. For example, to discuss Kuntillet Ajrud I would send them over here, but to discuss Mari or the Gilgamesh Epic I would have to send them over there. It was annoying. Moreover, there was always the problem of accessibility. Many of the articles would get too technical too quickly.

So, I wanted to put them in one location, in an accessible manner, many of the most important finds unearthed by archaeology and discuss why it was important to consider them in a pursuit of understanding the Old Testament. You know, a one-stop-shop for really getting an understanding of this convergence.

Kyleinschriften: We'll get to this idea of convergences shortly, but first I want to tell me about what it was like to find inscribed potsherd while you were washing pottery!

DBS: Yeah…and if there is one thing that I could point to that represents my interest in archaeology, it’s this find.

So, as I describe in my book, I pulled it out of a wash bucket on one of the final afternoons. Now what I don’t really describe too much is the hoopla that surrounds the finding of the inscription. People are yelling, scrambling to find a camera and data logs. It’s really kind of funny. You don’t realize just how important writing is for archaeology—how rare it was in antiquity—until you see what happens after someone finds an inscription. But then you get your picture taken with it and that’s really it. It’s gone. The dig directors scoop it up, catalog it, and then lock it up for storage.

But I have to say that there is a certain level of irony here. I don’t agree with Mazar and Ahituv’s reading of it, and I may be in the minority. I’ve exchanged emails with them on the subject. I’ve even given a paper on my reading of the ostracon. I did that a few years back, making a typological argument with the Samaria Ostraca.

Kyleinschriften: Your book is organized around the topic of convergences, either broad or narrow. What do you mean by “convergence” with respect to archaeology?

DBS: As I explain, the notion of convergence is something I picked up from William Dever. I have always appreciated his candid methodological discussions, particularly his willingness to call out any sort of short-sided invocation of archaeology for any apologetic purpose. According to Dever, essentially, Archaeology and Biblical Studies should be understood as distinct disciplines that move to intersect with each other when certain variables are present. The phenomenon when Archaeology and Biblical Studies move toward each other and inform the conclusions of each other is what he calls a “convergence.”

My contribution to the discussion, at least as far as I am aware, is to categorize the phenomenon through two types of convergences: broad and narrow. Narrow convergences refer to those instances when the results of archaeology come to bear on a specific topic or passage. Conversely, broad convergences don’t speak to a specific text, word, or issue. Rather, broad convergences speak to macro-level social, historical, or theological issues, issues that appear in multiple contexts.

For example, a broad convergence is how the textual archives at Mari have illuminated the prophetic institution. A narrow convergence would be the silver amulets of Ketef Hinnom or the Taylor Prism.

Kyleinschriften: In your humble opinion, what do you think has been the most significant archaeological discovery with respect to Biblical Studies? Why?

DBS: Gosh man…I knew you were gonna ask that….

So, if you put me in a corner—and this is gonna speak to my personal interests as a lover of Israelite history—it’s got to be a combination of the Tel Dan Stele and the Taylor Prism. In fact, this is really why I placed my discussion of these two finds back-to-back in my book.

I think that Christians generally have a poor understanding of what history writing is. As a genre, what are its characteristics, what is it trying to do, and how is it accomplishing that goal? What makes this particularly troublesome is that so much of God’s revelation is tied up with Israel’s historical experiences and historical reflections. In other words, a predominant percentage of Scripture is associated with a genre that is—again generally speaking—poorly understood. And when you throw in the differences between ancient and modern history writing, it’s an even more pressing issue.

Combined, these two finds force Christians to wrestle with the nature of history writing in an ancient context. If we don’t, then a situation is created that implies the need to make a hard decision between two pools of data. As if it’s either “Team Bible” or “Team Archaeology.” I just think that such a stark dichotomy is neither necessary nor healthy. 

Kyleinschriften: What I found to be especially helpful in Pondering the Spade is that you invite your readers to join the process of interpretation. You help us realize that artifacts don’t often tell us why—or how—they deserve our attention. Why did you think it was important to take us through that process?

DBS: If the goal of the project was to enlighten people to the nuanced relationship between Archaeology and Biblical Studies, then it stands to reason that walking the reader through the process of figuring it all out was the best way. Archaeological data has to be interpreted, and its importance isn’t just gonna smack us in the face or become immediately obvious.

For example, I talk about the Tel Dan Stele. If there’s a textbook case of a find’s importance evolving through time, it’s this one. At first it was trumpeted as a silver bullet to loud statements that David was essentially a mythical figure. However, through time it’s become clear that the importance of this find is more than answering the question of whether or not David existed. While it verifies that David was a historical figure and founder of a formidable dynasty in Iron Age Judah, its importance is historiographical. It forces us to wrestle with the dynamics of ancient history writing and consider whether or not the Old Testament’s historical books can be trusted as legitimate historical resources. I’ve already mentioned this.

Kyleinschriften: Why do you think a book like yours is needed, and who do you think would most benefit from reading it?

DBS: I hope that whoever reads it will begin to understand the nuanced relationship between Archaeology and Biblical Studies. Archaeology is not some magical key that presents answers to the historical difficulties of Scripture. I mean, it can identify the necessary roads to travel, and it can even verify a few things along the way. But we must understand the intentions of Archaeology as a discipline and let it speak into the conversation in a way that does not compromise it as a discipline. This is an important discussion for any serious student of Scripture, and I wrote it as such. However, seminary students and any student serious about the history of Israel will get a fair amount of mileage out of it. 

Kyleinschriften: Thanks, Dave. Great stuff! If you any interest in archaeology, the world around the Old Testament, or you want to better understand the ranges of significance of archaeology on Old Testament studies, be sure to pick up a copy of Pondering the Spade. It’s an accessible book, and even the more technical aspects of the book are recounted in conversational tone.  

What's all the Fuss About Archaeological Study Bibles?

Christianity Today recently released their 2019 Book Award winners. I rarely get very excited about the winners—or the finalists. Mainly because they usually aren’t the kinds of books I’ll find at the Society of Biblical Literature mega-book display, which means they usually are of limited valued for my research interests. But, that’s OK, because the readers of Christianity Today aren’t the readers of Vetus Testamentum or the Journal of Biblical Literature. So, CT’s annual Book Awards provide an authoritative stamp of approval, giving its readership a perceived confidence in their Christian book selections.

But, this year’s winner in the Bibles category really caught my attention. The ESV Archaeological Study Bible piqued my interest because I understand how archaeology is often used and abused in evangelicalism. It is used to provide irrefutable evidence for the biblical account, often ignoring places where archaeology actually raises questions or even poses challenges to our understanding of the biblical narratives.

So, what value do archaeological study Bibles have for the average layperson? To help us understand the issues and provide some expert insight, I’ve asked one of my former seminary professors, Lawson Stone, to join me in a conversation on the matter.[1]

Lawson (PhD, Yale), is professor of Old Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary, where he has served since 1987. He is a specialist on the Late Bronze/Early Iron Age in ancient Israel, having written several commentaries on Joshua and Judges. He has led numerous groups of Asbury Seminary students on excavations in Israel, established the G. Herbert Livingston Archaeology and Israel Studies Learning Lab at ATS, and coordinates Asbury’s Israel Summer Studies program.

So, let’s get started!

Kyleinschriften: Tell me a little bit about how you got interested in archaeology.

While I always thought it was important, an early disappointment in my teen years in which I thought Jericho’s destruction had been “proven” by archaeology, per Halley’s Bible Handbook, and which I later found to be a discredited finding, left me a little suspicious of the claims made by many for archaeology. But obviously to be a fully competent interpreter one has to be conversant with archaeology. So in 2006 I joined the Asbury crew excavating at Tel Dan. Then in 2008 I went to Tel Rehov and there is where the fire really got lit for me. In the meantime, also starting in 2006, I starting going with students to Israel to study historical geography, which naturally involves archaeology. When we launched the Livingston Archaeology and Israel Studies Learning Lab at Asbury, we had a nice, but small collection of artifacts about which I knew very little. I spent about 18 months intensively studying archaeology and pottery in order to put those items in some kind of context. The result has been gratifying.

Kyleinschriften: So, how much time have you spent on digs? Where all have you excavated?

I worked at Tel Dan for almost 3 weeks in 2006 but the war with Lebanon, which involved artillery firing literally over the tel, cut that short. Then in 2008 I joined the ATS group at Tel Rehov, which was a fantastic experience. My next excavation was in 2015 when I took a few students to dig with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem excavation at Tel Abel Beth Ma’acah. We went back in 2016, 2017, and 2018, and in June this year (2019) 14 students will make up our ATS team there. We plan to return to TABM every year for a 3 week experience for as long as they are working the site. The leadership is excellent, the site is incredible, the working environment is great. I’ve also visited many sites, having spent a semester on sabbatical in Israel in 2012. I think the people at Tel Es Sultan (Jericho) are going to start charging me rent. I like to take a bag of books and just park on that site trying to figure out what I’m seeing.

Kyleinschriften: You’ve been busy! I’ve heard some Christians, even professors at Christian institutions say that the primary tool for Levantine archaeology is the Bible. They also tend to call this type of work “biblical archaeology.” First, what do you make of the term “biblical archaeology”, and what about the idea that an archaeologist begins with the Bible, rather than a trowel?

There are two sides to this. No archaeologist would wisely choose to ignore any documentary material about a site being excavated. That would involve choosing to be ignorant, which is just silly. But all documentary sources, the Bible and otherwise, involve perceptions, interpretations by the authors, and the framing of material toward whatever purpose the writer has. Even for evangelicals who affirm the trustworthiness and reliability of the biblical narrative, we still shouldn’t use the Bible as a filter or grid to sift the evidence of excavation. We have to interpret material culture as disclosed by archaeology in a manner consistent with the material culture record. Likewise, filtering or judging the Bible in light of the limited results of archaeology is not fair to the Bible. We need to study both on their own terms and then seek legitimate points where each discourse can enrich the other. “Enrich” can mean everything from reinforce to challenge. So I see a place for “biblical archaeology” meaning simply the study of archaeology that is pertinent to the interpretation of the Bible. I don’t see that as a search for confirmation, but simply information. 

Kyleinschriften: Another sentiment I’ve heard expressed is that if archaeology hasn’t yet confirmed something in the Bible, “keep digging.” Is this an accurate assessment, is it simply naïve, or is it something far worse?

I tend to think the biblical narrative is more often right than wrong, but I don’t hunt for confirmation of the Bible in archaeology. I just want to learn about the cultures and history, the actual life and experience, of the ancient people whose lives were swept up in the biblical story. So it’s possible, for example, that if the narrative isn’t “confirmed” by archaeology, it might be that we’ve misread the Bible. Or we could misunderstand the genre and intention of the text so that we’re looking for something that even the biblical authors didn’t assume would be there. We have to get free of agendas to prove or disprove, confirm or debunk, and engage both archaeology and biblical study for the learning and insight they offer on their own terms. Convergences certainly happen, but so do divergences and sometimes just “skew lines” where both discourses are just going their own way. It’s out of our control, and as scholars our first obligation is to fit our mode of inquiry to the contours of our subject matter. I don’t consider that “objectivity” in the sterile sense, but something more like “justice” and fairness. We have to be fair to each discipline.

Kyleinschriften: OK, let’s get into the main topic of conversation here—archaeological study Bibles. I imagine that for some lay people this type of tool can help bring the Bible to life and help them see just how much information has been gleaned through archaeological excavations. Would you agree with that assessment? What do you see as some of the benefits an archaeological study Bible can offer?

First of all… I absolutely hate the phrase “bring the Bible to life.” The Bible is plenty alive enough already. It is we who are dead, dull, ignorant, and insensitive. We are the ones who need to be brought to life so we can discern the life that has always been present in the Bible.

Okay. I feel better now.

To your point: sure, a handy source of information that is keyed to the canonical flow of the biblical material is very helpful. I am not sure a “Bible” is the best approach. The Zondervan set of commentaries focused on biblical backgrounds is, to my mind, a better format. The study Bible format seems to demand comment and notes for passages that might not need it, and at the same time requires a brevity that makes weighing alternative views hard. I find the discussion of Jericho in Joshua, for example, very thin because it simply side-steps the whole debate and reproduces several common misunderstandings about the Jericho evidence, generally reproducing the views of Bryant Wood which have only found acceptance in a very small circle and have never been presented in a peer-reviewed, general scholarly setting. So that’s a danger: we pick the most congenial view and then boil it down to a couple hundred words for a side-bar or note. Then when the user of this Bible hits the differing views of Jericho even by solid, reliable conservative writers like Richard Hess, they are confused and discouraged. Such a source is at its best in bringing depth to the text by illuminating everyday life, such as how altars looked and were used, the peculiar types of houses in Israel, etc. 

Kyleinschriften: I love what say about the Bible already being plenty alive, and I gladly accept your rebuke! One of the problems I see in study Bibles in general is that the editors only tell you what they want you to know. I know you’ve touched on this already, but how is this especially true with archaeological study Bibles, and what are the hazards in that?

I probably hit that above, but I’d say you’re right. First of all, we can’t cover all the legitimate diverse points of view emerging from archaeological study in the format of a study Bible’s notes and sidebars. Second, yes, the editorial perspective will color things and I fear editors might skew the content to match what they think their audience will want—that goes for the “left” as well, of course. Another point, though, is that a study Bible format does not allow us to ask the exegetical questions. In my work on the Joshua volume for the NICOT series, I am constantly realizing my archaeological opinions had assumed a certain reading of the text, but when I actually drill down into the text, that reading begins to be questionable just on exegetical grounds. So a study Bible format does not really do that part very well.

Another issue I have with the Zondervan effort, which is actually the finest and best-executed example of this type of work I’ve ever seen, is that I can’t find who wrote each section. That’s essential to me, to know who wrote the relevant material for each section. Related to that is that a study Bible format doesn’t allow you to point to reference literature, even very basic stuff.

Kyleinschriften: Can you think of any egregious errors or overstatements you’ve encountered in an archaeological study Bible? What made it so problematic?

Just at random, in the Discussion of the walls of Jericho in the Zondervan volume, they list all the comparisons between the urban destruction at Jericho and the Bible, but do not clarify that many of these comparisons come from widely different periods on the site, some early bronze, some middle bronze, and none viewed by any consensus as deriving from the Late Bronze Age (Joshua’s era). It’s all captured by the comment “Dating issues aside, much of the archaeological data corresponds with the Biblical account.” Dating issues aside? Seriously, an Early Bronze Age destruction that corresponds in every detail to the Joshua narrative means nothing with regard to the Joshua story. The dating is everything when we are talking about historical study. Another example of perpetuating a confused and inaccurate view is the discussion of Rahab’s house. By contrast, the discussion of the possible dates for the “Conquest of Canaan” is quite even-handed, though more critical scholars might scorn the entire topic and some options they list there are only held by a tiny sliver of scholars.

Kyleinschriften: I think it’s fair to say that both of us want to help our students and parishioners better understand the world of the Bible. If archaeological study Bibles aren’t the best option to that end, what are some tools you would recommend, especially for the lay person.

I wouldn’t scorn a tool like the archaeological study Bible as long as its limitations are understood. For lay people, they need to realize you aren’t going to just read a half-page note or a paragraph of a commentary and be up to speed on archaeology. This is a large enterprise and it’s full of all kinds of different people and its glory is it’s multiplication of approaches and possibilities. Archaeology does not tend to narrow down the possibilities, but to open up all kinds of new ones.

So first I’d suggest reading a solid, brief introduction to how archaeology in the biblical lands actually works. I like Mattiew Richelle’s The Bible and Archaeology (Hendrickson, 2018). It’s clear, well informed, and the endnotes have a lot of resources. Another resource is Eric Cline’s Three Stones Make a Wall and a lot of Christian college and seminary teachers like John Currid’s Doing Archaeology in the Land of theBible. The point is to know how archaeology works and how archaeologists think. Second, the lay person needs a solid grasp of the basic biblical story in the context of world history. The volume you and I contributed to [Ancient Israel’s History; Baker, 2014] might be too technical on that point. We are needful of a nice 250 page solid volume on biblical history aimed at the folks you and I serve. With a solid sense of archaeological process, and a good sense of the biblical history in context, people would be better prepared to use specific archaeological resources. I like James Hoffmeier’s The Archaeology of the Bible for a nice overview that is lavishly illustrated with high-quality photographs. Hoffmeier is a reliable scholar with a good sense of what matters. Of course, our friend David Schreiner’s new book Pondering the Spade is another source for looking at specific examples of the interaction between biblical interpretation and the interpretation of archaeological findings.

The key here is simply to start envisioning the biblical events as involving actual people living very concrete lives. In biblical study, context is king. And in the realm of context, archaeology is certain a powerful resource.

Kyleinschriften: Thanks so much for taking the time to “sit down” with me and share your expert thoughts on archaeology and the Bible!

---

[1] Lawson does not comment directly on the ESV Archaeological Study Bible. Rather, his comments are directed at the genre more broadly, with some references made to the NIV Archaeological Study Bible. 

Canaan, Corinth, and the Death of Death - Part IV

In the last post, I argued that resurrection in the OT was not anything anyone hoped for for themselves. It was sort of a pipe dream. For Isaiah and Daniel, for Job, for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, death was the end. Death was still an enemy yet to be defeated.

The Death of Death
So, when will death be defeated, or has it already been defeated? The verb katargeitai in 1 Corinthians 15:26, translated as “defeated” is a present active indicative verb. As a present tense verb, one thing we can say is that Death’s defeat has not already happened, which is why your modern translations render this verb something like “to be defeated” or “will be defeated.” But, as a present tense verb, it also means it pertains to contemporary time, hence NOT the future, in which case we could translate 1 Corinthians 15:26 as “death is being defeated.” Both translations, though, imply the same thing. Death is not yet defeated at the time of Paul’s letter. Roman 6:9 affirms that Jesus has conquered death: “death no longer has dominion over him.” Throughout the remainder of 1 Corinthians 15, though, Paul seems pretty clear that the dead in Christ have yet to be raised. While Death suffered a crippling blow with the resurrection of Christ, Death remains the last enemy to be defeated.

Paul confirms this a few paragraphs later, as he concludes his excursus on the resurrection.

What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When this perishable body puts on imperishability, and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” (1 Cor. 15:50–55 NRSV)

While there is much to unpack here, let me just draw your attention to three points. First, Paul clearly thought he was living in the last days and expected the Second Coming of Christ to happen during his lifetime. Second, when the trumpet sounds, Paul’s expectation was not that he would be taken up or raptured away to the heavens, but that his body would be changed from mortal to immortal. Finally, and to the thrust of this blog series, the resurrection of the dead at the Second Coming of Christ will conclusively and completely signal the death of Death.

The Resurrection of the Redeemed is not just a wishful hope to get us through days of uncertainty and insecurity. It is at the very core of the Christian faith. “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” In the Christian world two things said be said for certain: death and the death of Death.

Canaan, Corinth, and the Death of Death - Part III

Resurrection in the Old Testament

The notion of a resurrection is not foreign to the Old Testament, but it is rarely attested, appearing just four times: Isaiah 26, Ezekiel 37, Daniel 12, and Hosea 6. Another passage that is often assumed to contain a reference to the resurrection is Job 19:25–26.The NIV renders these verses as follows:

“I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.
And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God”

There is much to investigate here, and it would be worth an entire [blog post] to commit to these verses alone. But, let’s cut to the chase by putting these verses in the context of the book of Job. Throughout the book, Job has had one primary objective: to maintain his innocence before God and his friends. Both he and his friends believed that people got what they deserved. If they sinned against God or humans, they should suffer. If they have been upright (as the narrator tells us Job has been), they should prosper and be healthy. Since Job was suffering, the only conclusion Job’s friends could draw was that Job had sinned. Job declared his innocence before his friends and wanted the opportunity to declare his innocence before God himself. Job’s declaration in Job 19 is not for some future after-life experience, but the recognition that the only one who can vindicate him before his friends is God himself. Nearly every modern translation of these verses misses this point, and too quickly assumes a New Testament perspective to understand them. My own translation of these verses is this:

“As for me, I know that my vindicator is alive. At last, he will rise above the dust. After my skin had been destroyed like this, from my flesh I will see God.”

Job had faith that God had not abandoned him. Job’s flesh was falling off; it was scabbed and peeling, but even in his deteriorated flesh he had hope that he would see his Vindicator.

Ezekiel 37 and Hosea 6:2 both speak of resurrection, but only figuratively, in the sense that the nation would be restored after its figurative death of the exile.

[Ezekiel's Vision of the Valley of Dry Bones, 

Dore's English Bible, (c) WikiCommons]

The only examples of bodily resurrection in the Old Testament, then, are found in Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2. However, it’s important to recognize that even in these verses resurrection or the after-life is not seen as being imminent, but only will take place “in that day,” a prophetic reference to the Day of the Lord, the day when God finally and ultimately accomplishes his purposes.

On that day, Isaiah says, God will defeat “Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent,” “the dragon that is in the sea” (Isa 27:1). Isaiah employs language that is strikingly similar to the Baal Epic, representing Yahweh’s adversary as the sea serpent who wreaks havoc on Yahweh’s plans. In THAT day, Isaiah says, God “will swallow up death forever” (Isa 25:8). For Isaiah and for the ancient Israelites, death’s defeat was a future hope, not a present reality.

They clung to the hope that the horrors of imperialistic oppression would one day end, but they lived in a world where oppression was part of daily existence. But in THAT day, Leviathan would be struck down by God’s great and strong sword. In THAT day, death would die forever. In THAT day, the dead shall live, corpses shall rise, and those who sleep in the dust will wake up and sing for joy (Isa 26:19).

But that day had not yet come. For Isaiah and Daniel, for Job, for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, death was the end. Death was still an enemy yet to be defeated.

Canaan, Corinth, and the Death of Death - Part II

Death and After-death in the Old Testament

The Old Testament has a great deal to say about life, but little, if anything about the afterlife. It does, however, speak of two important aspects of death: burial practices, and the location of the deceased.

While there is some disagreement regarding the precise nature of burial practices in ancient Israel, the Bible does provide us with enough information to lay out a general outline of the customs and practices. We see this most explicitly in the phrase, “slept with his ancestors,” pointing to the ancient Israelite belief that a proper burial was necessary so the deceased could be reunited with their families in the grave, despite the manner in which they died. Ecclesiastes 6:3 reflects this concern, stating that it is better to be born dead than to not receive a burial. Deuteronomy 21:22–23 commands that even executed criminals deserve a proper burial, so as not to invoke God’s wrath.

The concern for a rightful burial is evident with both Ahab and Jezebel who both died inglorious and dishonorable deaths, yet Ahab “slept with his ancestors,” (1 Kings 22:40) and an attempt was made to provide Jezebel a proper burial even though she was thrown from a wall and trampled by horses (2 Kings 9:34). Even Saul, who died in battle and whose corpse was decapitated and cremated, was given a proper burial beneath the tamarisk tree in Jabesh (1 Sam 31:8–13). A proper burial was essential to the ancient Israelite view that if one did not receive a proper burial their ghosts would haunt their surviving family members.

["Death of Jezebel" by Gustave Dore; (c) Wikicommons]

This is why it was essential for Abraham to buy a plot of land to bury Sarah (Gen 23), and why the bones of Joseph were carried back from Egypt and buried in Shechem, the site of the family grave. It is also why it was such a huge commitment on Ruth’s part to not only leave Moab, but to pledge to be buried where Naomi was buried (Ruth 1:17).

The other area where the Old Testament speaks at length about the dead is the location of the deceased. The destiny of the deceased goes by several names in the Old Testament: Sheol, the Pit, the Grave, Shades, Deep Shadow, Abaddon, earth, and the land of no return.  But they all refer to the same place. When the Bible speaks of Sheol, it speaks of it as the polar opposite of the cosmos’s upper extremity, as in the heights of heaven and the depths of Sheol (Job 11:7–8; Ps 95:3–5). For the biblical authors, Sheol was a land of deep darkness located in the depths of the earth, it was guarded by gates, and those who descended there could not escape.

The nature of Sheol in the Old Testament corresponds quite closely with the Mesopotamian view of the KUR.NU.GI.A, “the land of no return.” The idea that Sheol was the eternal abode of the dead permeates the book of Job, but is most clearly articulated in Job’s first response to Eliphaz.

Remember that my life is a breath;
my eye will never again see good.
The eye that beholds me will see me no more;
while your eyes are upon me, I shall be gone.
As the cloud fades and vanishes,
so those who go down to Sheol do not come up;
they return no more to their houses,
nor do their places know them anymore. (Job 7:7–10) 

For Job, and the rest of ancient Israel, the grave was literally the final resting place for all humanity. There was no anticipation of an afterlife, and there was no expectation of an ascent to heaven. In fact, the only person to have ascended to heaven in the Old Testament was Elijah, and this happened while he was living.

In the next post I'll take a quick look at the notion of the resurrection in the Old Testament.

Canaan, Corinth, and the Death of Death - Part I

In his 1726 classic, The Political History of the Devil, Daniel Defoe observed, “Things as certain as death and taxes, can be more firmly believed.” Ben Franklin, of course, popularized the saying, spinning it into a modern proverb: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” I am a Bible scholar, not a Political Scientist, so while taxes do affect me (both positively and negatively), my concern here is the certainty of death. [1] 

First Corinthians 15:26 says that “the last enemy to be destroyed is death.” The word used for enemy here is the same word used throughout the New Testament in reference to both human and cosmic adversaries. So, how can death be an enemy? Isn’t death just the absence of life, the natural end to one’s earthly existence? 

Furthermore, katargeitai, the word translated “to be destroyed” is used elsewhere in the New Testament to mean “ineffective, powerless, nullified, abolished, ceasing to exist, passing away.” How can one of life’s certainties no longer exist? How can a non-entity be destroyed?

To answer these questions, let's turn to an unlikely source, the religious writings of ancient Canaan. In 1928 a Syrian farmer accidentally opened a tomb that would later be identified as belonging to the ancient and forgotten city of Ugarit. Since excavations first began in 1929, thousands of texts have been unearthed, chief among them are religious texts with close affinities to the language, culture and religious practices of ancient Israel. The longest and most impressive of these texts is the Baal Epic, whose primary protagonist is one and the same with biblical Baal, the divine antagonist of the prophets of Yahweh in the Old Testament. 

(Baal Epic, Louvre; (c) WikiCommons)

The epic consists of six clay tablets and over 900 lines of Ugaritic text. The Baal Epic tells the tale of how the young storm god Baal overthrew the older god El, the father and creator god, as king of the Ugaritic pantheon by defeating his rival Yamm (deified Sea), sometimes called Judge River and personified by the seven-headed serpent Litan, known in the Bible as Leviathan. As the newly enthroned king, the craftsman god Kothar-wa-Hasis built a palace-temple for Baal and sent messengers to the god called Mot, whose name means “Death,” to brag about his palace and inform Death that Baal was refusing to pay Death his dues. Death responded first with a threat, then with action. Putting one lip to the earth and one lip to the heavens, Death swallowed Baal. Taking revenge on the death of her brother, the goddess Anat brings back Baal from the netherworld, the realm of the dead, and conquered death (in a rather gory fashion). This would appear to be the demise of Death, but seven years later, Death returns, saying

Baal, because of you I experienced shame:

because of you I experienced splitting with a sword;

because of you I experienced burning with fire;

because of you I experienced grinding with millstones;

because of you I experienced winnowing with a sieve;

because of you I experienced scattering in the fields;

because of you I experienced sowing in the sea.

Give me one of your brothers that I may eat, 

and my anger will turn away

If you do not give up one of your brothers…

then I will swallow humans, 

I will swallow the multitudes of the earth.”

In the Baal Epic, Death has an insatiable appetite and a ravenous hunger. Death swallowed Baal and Death seeks to devour all humanity. Death was defeated, but only temporarily. His appetite was too rapacious to control, and too voracious to starve.

Death is an all-too-familiar acquaintance with humanity, which is why Death is not only a villain in the Baal Epic, but also a common character in the biblical drama. In Jeremiah 9:21 Death is depicted as a thief in the night who enters through windows to take life prematurely.

Death has come up into our windows,

he has entered our palaces,

to cut off the children from the streets

and the young men from the squares.

It is no coincidence that in the Baal Epic when the craftsman god laid out the blueprint for Baal’s palace-temple, Baal only allowed windows in the structure after some persuading, not wishing to give Death access to his abode. As it turns out, Baal’s concerns were justified. Death did enter Baal’s house and steal young Baal’s life.

[to be continued...]

[1] This blog series was first delivered as a chapel address at Colorado Christian University, March 3, 2016.