Character Studies, Insights from Family Portraits, The Book of Samuel

What King Saul’s Story Can Teach America

November 15, 2016 randymccracken 2 Comments

What King Saul’s Story Can Teach America

Anti-Trump protest in Portland erupts in violence.

It’s been a difficult few years for America. The lines of division have been drawn sharply and the recent Presidential campaign has accentuated that division. Sadly, hateful rhetoric from a bitterly fought campaign, has now spilled out into the streets of America in the form of protests and violence. We are all aware, however, that this violence is not new. The riots sparked by the shootings of black men and the deadly assault on police officers provide the terrible proof that America was already deeply divided. Does division originate from the bottom up or the top down? In other words, what is the source of division? Some maintain that it comes from divided families and communities only to explode on a national level. Others attribute it to leaders. Perhaps apathetic leaders only concerned with keeping the status quo. Or perhaps leadership that uses harsh divisive rhetoric. Interestingly, the story of King Saul in 1 Samuel addresses this question.

A case can be made that division comes from the top and the bottom of society. In fact, the books of Samuel testify to this truth. When values are forsaken, families are damaged and when families are damaged, communities, and eventually the nation, is damaged. However, corrupt leadership also has a profound effect. “As goes the king, so goes the nation,” could be one way of summing up the stories contained in both Samuel and Kings. These truths were brought home to me a number of years ago as I researched and wrote a book on 1&2 Samuel entitled, Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. I was struck through my study that a book about leadership (i.e., kingship) was also a book about families. These two themes interact so closely in 1&2 Samuel that it is impossible to separate them.

What follows is an excerpt from my book Family Portraits. This excerpt is taken from the introduction of Saul’s family (pp. 100-102). It was written long before the recent election but some of the principles in it point to lessons that are timely. What I seek to do here is provide my original words (in italics) which I will then reflect on at the end of this post in light of the recent election.

The Divisiveness of King Saul

Saul's kingship further divided the people of Israel. — Saul’s kingship further divided the people of Israel.

Saul’s family is introduced in 1 Samuel 9:1 with a four-person genealogy, reminiscent of the introduction of Samuel’s family in 1 Samuel 1:1. This similarity, as well as the narrator’s glowing introduction of Saul and his family, leads the reader to expect great things. Saul’s father, Kish, is described as a “man of valor” (“a mighty man of power”—NKJV), while Saul is twice described in positive terms—“handsome” (literally, “good”) and “taller than any of the people” (9:2). If outward appearance can be trusted, then 1 Samuel 9:1–2 holds out great hope. The discerning reader, however, has learned from Eli not to jump to conclusions too quickly.

While there are some storm clouds on the horizon, the story of Saul seems to get off to a good start (1 Sam. 9–11) before things go wrong (1 Sam. 13–31). Saul inspired the fierce loyalty of many, such as the Ziphites (23:19–24) and the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead (31:11–13). On the other hand, he could strike out violently against his own people (the priests of Nob—chap. 22), including members of his family (Jonathan, 20:30–32). As a result, even Saul’s children are torn between loyalty to their father and the “beloved” David (18:1–4, 20). Both Jonathan and Michal struggle with remaining true to their father while protecting David (19:11–17; 20:31–32). However, it must be said that Jonathan remains with his father even in death (1 Sam. 31:2); and, in spite of everything, David’s eulogy is a moving tribute of his loyalty to Saul (2 Sam. 1:19–27). Even those whom Saul pushes away are drawn to him! This tug-of-war, which results in great tensions, is an important theme in the story of Saul. Consequent divisions are not only evident in his family, but also in the nation he ruled. With the death of Saul the nation erupts in civil war (2 Sam. 3:1).

A reader can find him or herself with conflicting emotions about Saul. In spite of his failings, he evokes sympathy. Saul is not so much the sort of character you “love to hate” as the kind you “hate to love.” Interestingly, commentators are as divided over Saul as his own nation was. Some see him as a victim of a predetermined fate, while others see him as a man whose disobedience cost him a kingdom. Saul remains a divisive character to this day! Any treatment of his family must therefore reflect this truth. Saul’s ability to polarize not only extends to Jonathan, Michal and David; division follows his family even after his death. Abner and Ish-bosheth become alienated from one another (2 Sam. 3:6–11), as do Mephibosheth and Ziba (2 Sam. 19:24–27). Another descendant of Saul, Shimei, is a vocal supporter of the division caused by Absalom’s civil war (2 Sam. 16:5–13).

Jesus said, “every…house divided against itself will not stand” (Matt. 12:25). This truth is part of the reason that the house of Saul deteriorates from strength (1 Sam. 9:1) to weakness (2 Sam. 3:1). The main reason, however, is Saul’s failure to honor the Lord.

(2 paragraphs omitted from original)

Along with David, Saul and his family dominate the narrative of 1 Samuel chapters 9–31. David and his family are the main focus of 2 Samuel, yet Saul’s family continues to play an important role. Although a lot of material is devoted to the reign of Saul, we learn of God’s rejection of his kingship and dynasty rather quickly (1 Sam. 13:14; 15:28). This means that a major portion of the story focuses on how Saul and his family deal with this rejection, and how they treat his future replacement. This theme raises an important question that everyone must confront at sometime. How should we respond when someone is chosen or favored over us, especially when that person ends up in the position we once occupied? In Saul’s case it is not simply a matter of David being favored over him, but one in which he disqualified himself through sin. The narrative teaches us that a response of pride, envy, and a refusal to repent, leads to a dead end for Saul—quite literally!

This kind of attitude can lead one to strike out blindly against his own family (1 Sam. 20:33), contributing to its breakdown and destruction. Not only can such a mindset affect an individual, it can permeate a family. Thus all those who follow in Saul’s footsteps—Abner, Ish-bosheth, Michal, Shimei, and other descendants of Saul—meet a similar fate. Saul’s obsession to destroy David leads to the destruction of many in his family, not to mention the political chaos and destruction that accompanies it. How true it is that the one consumed with hatred ends up destroying him or herself as well as the ones he or she loves.

Hatred and bitterness will destroy a family (and a nation); but just because a family becomes consumed with animosity does not mean that every member must conform. The books of Samuel continually affirm our freedom to choose. No matter what the circumstances in which we find ourselves, our attitude and response are still our choice. While Samuel has godly parents and follows the Lord, and David’s sons have a godly father but do not follow the Lord, Jonathan stands alone in these books as a godly son with an ungodly father. Ungodly parents are no excuse for children to continue down the same path. Each must make his or her own choice. Jonathan is an example to all that the cycle of ungodliness can be broken. This beautiful example, followed by his son Mephibosheth, is the silver lining in a family clouded with self-assertion and pride. While it is true that Jonathan’s loyalty leads him to die beside his father, his humility and selflessness point the way to a future for Saul’s family. Jonathan’s love and devotion to David turn the family’s fortunes from a path of hatred and death to one of life and hope. Jonathan’s example points the way for us as well.

Reflections

Unlike King Saul, America has a tradition of the peaceful transfer of power.

Although I certainly have strong political opinions like most Americans regarding the recent election, my aim here is to note some of the principles enunciated above. These biblical principles can help guide our response to, not only this election, but future behavior.

Don’t judge a book by it’s cover. Saul looked good for the nation but turned out to be a disaster. The lesson of not being deceived by first impressions is an important message in 1&2 Samuel (I have written about it elsewhere on this blog. See HERE). Just because someone “looks good,” doesn’t mean they are. Conversely, sometimes people who make unfavorable impressions can surprise us. Admittedly, neither candidate in this recent election made a good impression. It was frequently stated that no matter which candidate won the presidency, they would go down in history as the most unpopular president ever elected. Now that the election is over, I suggest that we not jump to conclusions, but allow our judgment on the future president to be based on his performance. Does he keep his campaign promises? Does he treat others fairly? Does he seek justice? Does he promote the welfare of the country? Only the days ahead can give us clear answers to these questions.
There are two reactions to losing power. One reaction is the Saul reaction–cling to power no matter what the cost. Even with a divine word to the contrary, Saul held tenaciously to power. The result was violence against individuals (David) and families (the high-priestly family), and eventual civil war among the nation. One of America’s great traditions is the peaceful transfer of power. We were reminded of this the day after the election in President Barak Obama’s speech congratulating President-elect Trump on his victory (if you haven’t seen it or need a reminder, click HERE). This peaceful transfer of power was further symbolized by President Obama’s invitation to Donald Trump to visit him at the White House the following day. For those who believe Scripture, we know that God puts kings (or leaders) in positions of power (e.g., Daniel 4:17). The books of Samuel clearly announce this at the outset in the prayer of Hannah in 1 Samuel 2:6-8. A peaceful transfer of power is best for all. It is far superior to Saul’s way, and it recognizes that a Greater Power has ordained the earthly powers. America would do well to continue this tradition.
Corrupt government harms a nation (I know how obvious this statement is, but you wouldn’t know it was obvious by the way most governments are run!). Saul is pictured as a leader who begins humbly and achieves a certain amount of success (1 Sam. 11). However, as Saul becomes more self-consumed his actions and policies prove detrimental to the nation of Israel. No human government is perfect, this is why Christians look forward to the rule of Christ. However, leaders should strive for “justice for all” as the America pledge of allegiance puts it. In fact, it is likely this American slogan is derived from biblical statements about the just king (e.g., 2 Sam. 8:15; Ps. 72).
We need more Jonathan’s! Jonathan wasn’t worried about “what he deserved.” His humble approach was more about what was best for the nation. He was content with the position God had placed him in. His concern wasn’t winning or losing, but seeing justice and righteousness prevail. Americans would do well to follow this example and relinquish the “entitlement mentality.” As John Kennedy once said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” As a Christian, it goes beyond even this, asking ourselves how we can reflect God in our attitudes and actions.
Beware of hateful intentions, words, and actions. Saul’s hateful response to those around him destroyed his family and caused havoc and destruction within the nation. Ironically, Saul struck out in hatred even toward those who were on his side! David was a loyal follower but became public enemy number one. Saul even threw a spear at his own son because Jonathan refused to condemn an innocent David (1 Sam. 20:32-33). All of this is evidence that hatred blinds people to the truth. Hatred destroys all in its path. If our nation is to survive, then we must be a nation that puts hatred behind us, seeking reconciliation and peace.

Consider Purchasing Family Portraits as a Gift This Christmas. Available at WestBow Press, Amazon USA / UK and various other internet outlets.

Book Reviews

The Structure of Romans

November 10, 2016 randymccracken 1 Comment

The Structure of Romans

Romans: Letter or Letter-Essay?

Once in awhile a book comes along that revolutionizes your understanding of a particular subject. Such is the case with The Structure of Romans by Paul B. Fowler. Fowler’s thesis is that Romans is a letter, not a letter-essay as is commonly assumed. The difference lies in the interactive nature of the correspondence. Simply put, a letter-essay is an essay framed as a letter. While the outer material may interact with the readers circumstances (chs. 1 and 15-16), the body of the material is believed to conform to ancient rules of rhetoric which often are less interactive with the reader. The effect of such rhetoric resembles an essay more than a letter.

An example of such rhetoric is the use of diatribe. Diatribe involves an author arguing with an imaginary questioner (interlocutor). The purpose is to convince or instruct the listener through argumentation. Most commentators on Romans believe that Paul used this rhetorical method. Fowler states, “Whether he [Paul] used a diatribal style at times is not at issue. He did. But to what degree does his style conform to its use in Hellenism? (p. 101). Fowler notes that, “Objections focus on opponents and create a tone of tension and argumentation, intended or not” (p. 114). He believes that Paul is using a question-and-answer method. The questions interact directly with his audience and guide the flow of the letter. Thus, Paul is not engaging an imaginary objector, but directly addressing his audience. Fowler contends, “We are caught up in the idea that. . .diatribal rhetoric. . . serves only to defend Paul’s gospel against an imaginary Jewish objector. Quite the opposite is the case. The question-and-answer in Paul, rather than answering criticisms, is providing answers; rather than confronting an imaginary interlocutor, the question-and-answer is informing and exhorting believers” (pp. 113-114).

The Structure of Romans: Purposes and Content

The following presents the big picture of The Structure of Romans. Fowler begins by giving 7 purposes for his book.

To provide a fresh look at Romans and help those studying it to understand its nature.
Pulling together arguments which demonstrate that Romans is a letter addressing major circumstances in Rome.
Challenging the consensus that Romans is a letter-essay.
Correcting misunderstandings about Paul’s use of the question-and-answer method employed in Romans. The understanding that Paul is using diatribe to debate objections is wrong. Such an approach leads to viewing Romans more as a theological argument rather than an interactive discourse.
Paul is not debating Jews in Romans (i.e., the imaginary Jewish objector).
Paul is primarily addressing circumstances in Rome. In particular, he is addressing the division between Jewish and Gentile believers.
The letter’s rhetoric and grammar is essential for interpretation. It is the key to the organization of the letter. (the above purposes are found on pp. vii-ix).

Fowler organizes the content of his book as follows:

Chapter 1, Assumptions of This Study–Fowler’s thesis is: “Romans is a carefully constructed letter from Paul to the church in Rome, written to address a specific set of circumstances in Rome” (p. 1). He begins by addressing the purposes of Romans. He deals with what he considers to be false assumptions and concludes that there was a two-fold purpose for Romans: 1) To secure a mission base (for a future trip to Spain); and 2) to deal with issues involving Jews and gentiles in the Roman church. Fowler then deals with the audience of Romans. Although the letter is addressed to both Jew and gentile, its primary focus is to “bring about the obedience of faith among all the gentiles” (Rom. 1:5).

Chapter 2, The Structure of Romans–This helpful chapter looks at the outlines of other major Romans commentators. Fowler points out that most of these outlines of Romans are thematic. Even those commentators who stress the importance of ancient rhetoric use the same basic thematic outline and simply plug in ancient rhetorical terms (e.g., exordium or propositio). Fowler argues that if Romans is a letter “there will of necessity be interaction with” the readers (p.29). The thematic approach fails in this regard as it approaches the body of Romans like an essay.

Chapter 3, The Rhetoric of Romans–By examining various rhetorical features, Fowler demonstrates that the body of Romans is filled with more epistolary features than is normally recognized. He argues that it is important to pay attention the questions and grammar of Romans in order to determine its structure. Since Romans was primarily “heard” by its initial audience, it is the questions and grammar that guide the hearers through the letter.

Chapter 4, The Surface Structure of Romans–According to Fowler’s count, there are eighty-two specific questions in Romans (p. 55). By examining the function and purpose of these questions, he presents the reader with a skeletal outline of Romans. He contends that the key set of questions which introduces the body of the letter are found in Romans 3:1-9a. He argues that these questions are not a digression, as some commentators view them, but rather set the table for the body of the letter. which ends with chapter 11. The questions in 3:1-9a are answered in reverse order forming a chiasm around chapters 3-11. I will not “spill the beans” here by giving his outline. I suggest purchasing the book for this and other details.

Chapter 5, Issues to Be Resolved–This chapter deals with 3 main issues. Fowler discusses the relationship of Romans 5 with the surrounding material. Many connect Romans 5 with chapters 6-8, seeing an inclusio between Romans 5:1-11 and Romans 8. Fowler agrees with a minority of modern commentators in seeing chapter 5 as a continuation of chapters 1-4. His argument is based on linguistic and grammatical grounds. He contends that the transition to the next segment of the letter occurs in 5:19-20. Next, he tackles the issue of diatribe with which I began this post. This is followed by the closely related topic of whether Paul is debating the Jews in Romans (the imaginary interlocutor).

Chapter 6, The Circumstances of Romans–Here Fowler draws together all the historical background related to Romans. His discussion is similar to that found in many commentaries. He notes the Jewish expulsion from Rome due to the dispute over “Chrestus,” as well as the socialogical factors contributing to Jew/gentile hostility. While there is nothing new here, this chapter is helpful in two ways. First, it draws together the background information into one clear and succinct chapter. Second, Fowler does an excellent job emphasizing gentile hostility toward Jews. This is important for his thesis which involves admonishing gentile Christians for their arrogance toward their Jewish brothers and sisters. Although other commentaries note this hostility, Fowler’s treatment is especially clear and enlightening. Fowler also believes that persecution (previous, present, and future) is an important ingredient in understanding the historical situation of the Roman churches. He takes Paul’s words in Romans 8:18-39 as suggestive of persecution, not simply sickness and other life difficulties. This observation also includes Romans 5:1-11 and 12:17-13:14.

Chapter 7, The Coherence of Romans–In this final chapter, Fowler brings everything together and presents a complete outline of Romans. In this chapter, Fowler explains how Romans 1-2 function as the introduction to the letter. He also notes that the ending exhortations are particularly applicable to the circumstances in Rome. In other words, the exhortations in Romans 12:1-15:13 are not general, as some have suggested. In conclusion Fowler reiterates that Romans was a letter and the questions are not a diatribe to “transform” students or “answer” Jewish critics. Instead, the questions serve “to guide the narrative and to point to the issues that were driving the narrative” (p. 186). The main question of Romans is “What advantage has the Jew?” Fowler concludes by stating, “If one really wants to know the answer to that question, then read Romans!” (p. 187).

Appendixes–Finally, The Structure of Romans concludes with 4 helpful appendixes. These include: “Epistolary Formulas within the Body of the Letter”; “Rhetorical Devices in Romans”; “The Question-and-Answer of Romans 3:27-31”; and “The Question-and-Answer of Romans 3:1-9”.

Evaluation and Conclusion

Fowler confesses that his approach is not new and that he has relied heavily on others, especially William Campbell (p. 85). It’s somewhat comforting to know that Fowler is not coming up with a completely new way of looking at Romans. One always has to wonder about the legitimacy of an approach that no one else in 2000 years of scholarship has recognized.

Nonetheless, Fowler’s view is certainly not the approach of the majority. A few features definitely divert from the norm. For example, Fowler argues that Romans 1:8-18 composes a section. Normally, 1:16-17 are set apart as the theme (or propositio) of the letter while verse 18 is seen as the beginning of the next section (1:18-32). Fowler argues convincingly, from a close inspection of the grammar, that 1:13-18 is the propositio and verse 19 begins the next section. I have already mentioned that he connects chapter 5 with chapters 1-4, which is a minority position among recent scholars. Once again, grammar guides his decision. The most significant difference of course is Fowler’s insistence that Romans 3:1-9a operates as a guide for the rest of the letter. Most would not consent to breaking up 1:18-3:20 as a major section. These are all excellent examples of how Fowler avoids the usual thematic approach.

I find Fowler’s overall structure convincing. For one thing, it solves the nagging problem of 3:1-9a and trying to determine its purpose. In my teaching of Romans I have frequently noted how Paul seems to return to previous discussions. Fowler’s chiastic outline not only makes sense of this repetition, it reveals Paul’s purposeful structuring so that his hearers could follow his reasoning.

The Structure of Romans is most suited for one who has spent time studying Romans. The more familiar one is with the background, themes and rhetoric of Romans, the more one will appreciate Fowler’s insights (even if you disagree!). I highly recommend The Structure of Romans and it will certainly impact my teaching of the Epistle to the Romans in the future.

Thanks to Fortress Press for sending a copy of The Structure of Romans, in exchange for a fair and unbiased review.

The Structure of Romans is available at Fortress Press, Amazon USA / UK, and other outlets.

Archaeology, Biblical Artifacts

New Dead Sea Scrolls Revealed

November 2, 2016 randymccracken Leave a comment

New Dead Sea Scrolls Revealed

Cave 4 near Qumran where many Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are considered to be the most sensational archaeological discovery of the 20th century. A young bedouin’s discovery of the first scrolls in 1947, touched off a frantic search that lasted until 1956. During that period thousands of fragments were discovered in 11 caves consisting of more than 900 documents. Today, thanks to The Digital Dead Sea Scrolls website, several of these manuscripts are available to the public.

Scholars have always suspected that more scrolls existed in the caves in the Judean Wilderness. Two factors have revived the fervour to renew the search. First, is the recent publication of two books presenting 25 new Dead Sea scrolls. Second, is the fact that nearly 70 new Dead Sea scroll fragments have appeared on the antiquities market since 2002. History.com reports, “the cabinet minister in charge of Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) joins a number of scholars in the belief that looters in the Judean caves are finding even more undiscovered scroll fragments. With that in mind, the IAA is sponsoring scientific surveys and excavations in the hopes of getting to these historic artifacts before the looters do.”

The Contents of the New Dead Sea Scrolls

This new Dead Sea scroll fragment is from the Book of Leviticus. Credit: copyright The Schøyen Collection, Oslo and London, MS 4611.

Live Science reports, “Between 2009 and 2014, Steve Green, the owner of Hobby Lobby, a chain of arts and crafts stores, purchased 13 of the fragments, which he has donated, along with thousands of other artifacts, to the Museum of the Bible.” These fragments have been studied and published by a team of scholars in a new book entitled, “Dead Sea Scrolls Fragments in the Museum Collection” (Brill, 2016). One of the most interesting fragments in this collection is from Nehemiah 2:13-16. This is the first time the Book of Nehemiah appears among the Dead Sea scrolls.

Martin Schøyen, from Norway, began collecting biblical manuscripts in 1986. The other fragments from the Dead Sea scrolls come from his collection. According to history.com, “In the end, the collector ended up with about 115 fragments from 27 different scrolls.” These have recently been published in “Gleanings from the Caves: Dead Sea Scrolls and Artefacts from The Schøyen Collection.” The Book of Leviticus is particularly highlighted in this collection. The photo above pictures one of the fragments from Leviticus. All combined the list of biblical books includes, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Nehemiah, Proverbs, Psalms, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Joel, Jonah, and Micah.

Certainty vs. Forgeries

Unfortunately, all of these new Dead Sea scrolls have been recovered from the antiquities market. Of course some of the original Dead Sea scrolls were acquired this way as well. However, since antiquities are big business, this leaves open the possibility of forgeries. Thus, scholars are in the process of studying all of the fragments to determine their authenticity. This is another reason for the IAA to step up the search of discovering future scrolls. Rather than leave it to looters and antiquities dealers, how much better to discover them in their original archaeological context. This all means that the near future may hold more fascinating discoveries!

In Photos: Rare Hebrew Papyrus from Judean Desert

Bible Backgrounds

Ancient letters and False Assumptions

October 26, 2016 randymccracken 4 Comments

Ancient letters and False Assumptions

This image of Paul the letter writer is full of incorrect assumptions. — This image of Paul, the writer of ancient letters, is full of incorrect assumptions.

Stop for a moment and imagine the composition of one of Paul’s letters. How did Paul write a letter? We might imagine a scene like the picture on the right. Paul is alone in a room, sitting at a table with pen in hand. He writes on sheets of parchment or papyrus. In a matter of a few hours, he rises from the table having produced another one of his theological masterpieces. This would be a logical modern scenario of letter writing. The problem is that, according to E. Randolph Richards, everything in this imaginary scenario is wrong. In his book, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing, Richards debunks modern myths regarding the process of composing ancient letters. The purpose of Richard’s book is to look at “the actual mechanics of the letter-writing process” (p. 19). He believes, “the image we hold of Paul as a letter writer carries with it certain assumptions which do affect how we interpret Paul’s letters” (p. 23).

Exactly What’s Wrong with Our Assumptions?

Richards' book is available at Amazon USA / UK — Richards’ book is available at Amazon USA / UK

Our first wrong assumption is thinking that Paul would be alone when writing. Richard notes, “Recent sociological studies suggest that modern Western values such as privacy and individualism not only color our reconstructions but also have no real equivalent in Paul’s world” (p. 26). He continues, “Not only is there no privacy in most of the East; they cannot imagine why one would want it” (p. 27). The importance of a group mentality, rather than an individual mentality is essential in understanding the ancient East. Richard points out that Paul was the leader of a team. Although the team did not consist of equal collaborators, still their input “further defined the group’s thought” (p. 27). According to Richards, “Paul’s letter was the expression of the group’s consensus reached by dialogue” (p. 27). Richards notes that many of Paul’s letters list a co-author (1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, 1&2 Thessalonians, and Philemon). While we cannot know how much a co-author contributed to these letters, Richards argues convincingly that they had a role.

A second wrong assumption is that Paul physically wrote each letter himself. The evidence shows that Paul always (or almost always) used a secretary. Richards makes the interesting point that literacy in the ancient world primarily meant the ability to read. Being able to read did not necessarily mean that one had the ability to write, especially to write well. We know that Paul had the ability to write. A number of his letters mention him writing certain things in his own hand (e.g., Gal. 6:11; Phil. 19). But this doesn’t mean that his writing ability was up to the standards necessary to pen one of his letters. A secretary wrote with a trained hand. Richards notes other aspects that we as moderns would not think of when it comes to ancient letters. I quote him here at length. “. . . secretaries required skills with the writing materials beyond what the ordinary individual possessed. Papyrus was sold by the individual sheet or by the standard roll. Paul’s letters did not fit either size. Additional sheets needed to be glued on to lengthen a roll (or trimmed off to shorten it). A secretary needed to mix his own ink and to cut his own pens. A secretary also needed to draw lines on the paper. Small holes were often pricked down each side and then a straight edge and a lead disk were used to lightly draw evenly-spaced lines across the sheet. A secretary also needed a sharpening stone to keep his pen sharp and a knife to cut new tips as necessary” (p. 29).

This picture represents the Apostle John dictating a letter to his secretary Prochorus. Note that the customary position for writing was to use one's lap for writing (not a desk). — This picture represents the Apostle John dictating a letter to his secretary Prochorus. Note that the customary position for writing was to use one’s lap for writing (not a desk).

The use of a secretary (amanuensis is the Greek term), presents other important insights (and questions). Secretaries could take word for word dictation (which was agonizingly slow unless they were proficient in shorthand). If they knew their employer well enough and it was a form-letter, they could compose the letter entirely themselves. Of course, the employer checked it before he sent it. Now, no one is suggesting that Paul turned his letters over completely to a secretary to compose, but the point is that secretaries had a range of freedom. It is possible that Paul allowed a secretary to make grammatical improvements. Secretaries would also be familiar with rhetoric and form and, thus, could influence the style and flow of a letter (if asked). Using a secretary usually meant the making of a rough draft. The rough draft was checked and edited if necessary. Next, several copies were produced. The sender kept one copy, and sent one or more copies to the recipients. Many mistakingly think there was only one copy of a Pauline letter (called the “autograph”). But ancient practice suggests that at least two copies (and sometimes more) were made. This was the better part of wisdom. If an original was damaged or lost “in the mail,” it could be recopied from the sender’s original copy. Given the expense of ancient letters (see below), having only one copy of an important letter would be careless. This entire process also suggests that a letter of any length would require days or weeks to complete. This is different than thinking Paul dashed off a letter to the Romans within the space of a few hours. Richards states, “Paul’s writings show clear evidence of careful composition. They were not dashed off one evening in the flurry of mission activity” (p. 31). (For an excellent article on secretaries–although I do not agree with all of his conclusions–see “The Secretaries of Peter, Paul and John,” by Taylor Marshall).

The Cost of Paul’s Letters

The cost of producing ancient letters the size of Paul's epistles is sobering, to say the least. — The cost of producing ancient letters the size of Paul’s epistles is sobering, to say the least.

How much did a letter cost in Paul’s day? We might falsely assume that there was no great expense. It is also important to remember that Paul’s letters were unusually long. Although there is great difficulty in transferring ancient costs into current costs, Richards takes an admirable shot at it. Even if the figures are not quite accurate, the impact on a modern reader like myself is worth the effort. Richards breaks the cost down into the following categories (listing ancient costs for each): 1) Number of lines of text; 2) Percentage of a “standard” papyrus roll needed per copy; 3) Cost of papyrus per copy; 4) Cost of secretarial labor per copy; 5)Total cost for finished letter; and 6) Cost in today’s dollars. To mention a few results, the letter to Philemon (Paul’s shortest letter) would cost approximately $101. (This amount is based on the value of the dollar in 2004, the publishing date of Richards’ book). An letter of intermediate length such as Ephesians would cost $770. Paul’s longest letter (Romans) would cost a whopping $2,275! The figures may not be exact, and perhaps Paul and his team did not pay market prices on everything. However, these estimates demonstrate the incredible expense potentially involved for the letters included in our New Testament. If nothing else, this should give us an appreciation for the value of the works that make up our Bibles.

The Writing of Ancient Letters: Implications and Conclusion

Richards’ book is full of interesting and provocative details like the ones mentioned above. It is not possible for me to do it justice in this short post. I would encourage those interested to obtain a copy. It will not only fill in the details above, but allow the reader to gain many other valuable insights. My purpose here is simply to cause us to reflect on our modern assumptions regarding New Testament letters. I have enumerated some of the implications of Richards’ research below.

According to Richards, New Testament letters were a collaborative effort. This does not mean that we should stop calling Paul’s letters “Pauline”. Paul is the obvious leader of his team. He is clearly also the main author. The contents of any letter going out bearing his name would have to meet with his approval. It simply means that we should not force modern Western 21st century understandings on the composition of ancient letters. It also means we should take seriously the mention of a co-author as a contributor to the letter. Furthermore, we should be aware that the way a secretary wrote had an impact on the letter. Examples include, rhetorical style, and grammatical influence, among other possibilities. This is significant in explaining why certain Pauline letters, or sections of certain Pauline letters, may not “sound” Pauline. Some scholars designate certain letters as “deutero-Pauline“. This suggests that Paul did not write them. Instead, later disciples wrote in his name. The Pastoral Epistles (1&2 Timothy, & Titus), among a few others are so designated. However, if we recognize that co-authors and secretaries can influence style and content, it becomes much more difficult to say that something is not from Paul (and his team).
The suggestion that Paul edited his letters has implications for the meaning of inspiration. Richards briefly addresses this subject in his final chapter, but more thought and work is needed on this point.
Paul’s use of a secretary and the production of multiple copies of a given letter is important. The discovery of ancient libraries demonstrates that copies of manuscripts can last hundreds of years. (On this topic, see my post HERE). Multiple copies and their preservation suggests that the reliability of New Testament manuscripts is greater than some skeptics allow. The production cost of these copies is another reason the early church valued and protected them. Put another way: if you had a copy of a book (i.e., letter) that cost hundreds or thousands of dollars, written by a well-known, authoritative leader of your movement, don’t you suppose you would take good care of it?
Besides the cost, the time investment necessary to produce one of Paul’s letters should give each of us a greater respect for their contents. Of course, those who believe in inspiration will already approach these letters with reverence. However, knowledge of the above facts demonstrates that inspiration can involve an investment of time and resources.

The writing of ancient letters is one example (among others) of how we can take things from the ancient world and impose our own cultural meanings on them. Of course this is not done intentionally, but it is a mistake made all too frequently. Reading the writings of Scripture, it is imperative that we do not ask, “What does it mean to me?,” but “What did it mean to them?”

Archaeology, Biblical Artifacts, Biblical Sites

Temple Mount Sifting Project Discoveries

October 21, 2016 randymccracken 2 Comments

Temple Mount Sifting Project Discoveries

Brief History of Temple Mount Sifting Project Beginnings

The Temple Mount Sifting Project was a direct result of the illegal bulldozing of the Temple Mount by the Islamic Waqf in 1999.

Want to go to jail or start WWIII? Try doing an archeological excavation on the Temple Mount! Although such an excavation is currently impossible, there is a project that has been going on for the past 12 years that is bringing to light objects from the Temple Mount that date to the 1st and 2nd Temple periods. This project, known as the Temple Mount Sifting Project (TMSP), was originally inspired by a young archaeology student named Zachi Dvira. The story begins in 1999 when the Islamic Waqf (the trust that manages the Islamic structures on the Temple Mount), decided to illegally bulldoze a section in the southeast corner of the Temple Mount to create a stairway that would provide access to the Al-Marwani Mosque. This project was performed without archaeological supervision, a clear violation of the law. The dirt from the project (over 9000 tons) was then unceremoniously dumped into the Kidron Valley. Inspite of the careless and illegal operation by the Waqf, the dirt from the Temple Mount has turned out to be an archaeologist’s dream. Through the foresight and effort of Zachi Dvira, and his former professor at Bar-Ilan University Gabriel Barkay, a new archaeological enterprise known as the Temple Mount Sifting Project was birthed in 2004. The Temple Mount dirt is hauled to a nearby site inside the Tzurim Valley National Park on the southern slopes of Mount Scopus. There, volunteers sift the dirt in a process developed by Dvira and Barkay known as wet sifting. Since the project began, over 500,000 artifacts have been discovered by nearly 200,000 volunteers! Below I look at some of the most fascinating discoveries.

Discoveries at the Temple Mount Sifting Project

This seal was recently discovered at the Temple Mount Sifting Project. Photo taken from templemount.wordpress.com

Among the most recent discoveries is a 3,000 year old seal dating to the time of Kings David and Solomon (10th century B.C.). The seal was discovered by 10-year-old Matvei Tcepliaev (a young volunteer from Russia). Although small in size (see photo on the left), the seal has significant implications. It was most likely used to seal letters. According to the co-directors, this provides evidence that, “administrative activity … took place upon the Temple Mount during those times.” This is important because some scholars/archaeologists in the 90s suggested that the biblical portrayal of Jerusalem from the time of David and Solomon was inaccurate. Their view, known as the “minimalist” view, maintains that Jerusalem was only a small village in the 10th century B.C. and that it did not extend up to the Temple Mount area. The seal, along with other discoveries in the Temple Mount area, is providing evidence “that the descriptions found within the Biblical text relating to [the] expansion of Jerusalem may, in fact, be authentic” (templemount.wordpress.com). The seal itself depicts two animals, one on top of the other (perhaps suggesting its prey). Similar seals, dating to the same time period, have been discovered at other archaeological sites in Israel including, Tel Beit Shemesh, Tel Gezer, and Tel Rehov. Because none of the items in the Sifting Project are found “in situ” (in their original archeological context), dating is established by similar objects from other sites and by experienced archaeologists familiar with such ancient objects. Other artifacts recovered from the time of King Solomon include, a bronze arrowhead (a rare find according to the co-directors) and pottery shards (see the photos below).

Bronze arrowhead from the 10th century B.C.

Pottery shards dating to the 10th-9th centuries B.C. (All photos from Temple Mount Sifting Project) — Pottery shards dating to the 10th-9th centuries B.C. (All photos from the templemount.wordpress.com)

Clay impression bearing the name of a member of the priestly family of Immer.

Speaking of seals, one of the most significant finds from the Temple Mount Sifting Project, discovered in 2006, is a seal impression dated to the 6th century B.C. It is believed the clay impression was used to seal a fabric sack (one side of the impression has fabric lines on it). The seal impression bears a name, but it is only partially visible. It reads: “(Belonging to) […]lyahu (son of) Immer,” The Immer family was a priestly family, and one of its members, “Pashhur son of Immer” is known to us from Jeremiah 20:1 which states that Pashhur was “chief governor in the house of the Lord.” Pashhur was an opponent of Jeremiah’s who had the prophet locked in stocks. Jeremiah predicted the severe judgment that would befall him (Jer. 20:3-6). The seal impression does not belong to Pashhur, but it does belong to a family member. Barkay suggests it may be a brother.

Reassembled stone floor tiles from the Herodian Temple.

Another significant discovery (this one relating to Herod’s temple) are hundreds of fragments of colorful stone floor tiles. Recently, some of these fragments were pieced together forming an impressive display of what some of the flooring on the Temple Mount looked like during the 1st century B.C. – A.D. According to Josephus, “Those entire courts that were exposed to the sky were laid with stones of all sorts” (Jewish War 5:2). By using geometrical principles and comparing floor designs in some of Herod’s other buildings, the floor tiles were able to be reassembled. For further information, see the related articles below at the bottom of the page.

Besides the discoveries detailed above, the Temple Mount Sifting Project has recovered over 6,000 coins and numerous pieces of jewelry. According to Bible History Daily, “The finds range in chronology from the Middle Bronze Age II (1950–1550 B.C.E.) to the present day, but most date from the 10th century B.C.E. onward.” See the photos below. According to Dvira and Barkay, about 70% of the debris has been sifted. If you’re planning a trip to Jerusalem and have 2 hours to spare, you may want to volunteer to do some wet sifting at the Temple Mount Sifting Project. For information on how to sign up click HERE. Who knows, you may make the next significant discovery. Thanks to the efforts of Dvira and Barkay (and thousands of volunteers), what once looked like an archaeological nightmare, has become a treasure-trove of information about the first and second Temple period. We look forward to when all of the artifacts have been examined and Dvira and Barkay publish their findings.

temple-mount-sifting-project-coins — Photos from templemount.wordpress.com.

temple-mount-sifting-project-jewelry — Photos from templemount.wordpress.com.

If you’d like to watch a short video (under 8 minutes) click HERE. Dvira and Barkay explain the past, present, and future of the Temple Mount Sifting Project.