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.

Evangelical Exegetical Commentary: 1&2 Samuel

October 12, 2016 randymccracken Leave a comment

Evangelical Exegetical Commentary: 1&2 Samuel

Evangelical Exegetical Commentary on 1 & 2 Samuel — Available at logos.com

The 1&2 Samuel Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (EEC) is the final work of beloved and renowned scholar Harry A. Hoffner Jr. Hoffner, before his recent death in March 2015, was John A. Wilson Professor of Hittitology Emeritus at the University of Chicago. He was an expert on the ancient Near East and, as the above title suggests, specialized in the language, history and civilization of the Hittite empire. One of his greatest achievements was co-editing The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Hoffner’s ancient Near Eastern expertise is one of the great strengths of the Evangelical Exegetical Commenatry on 1&2 Samuel. Nearly every page offers some parallel or insight from his extensive knowledge of Hittite, and ancient Mesopotamian literature. Such a statement might frighten off those less experienced in the study of the Old Testament, and indeed, it is not a commentary for beginners. However, the pastor, the graduate student, the professor, and the more advanced learner will benefit greatly from Hoffner’s exposition. Knowledge of Hebrew is presupposed as the commentary utilizes Hebrew in both its normal alphabetic and transliterated forms.

Before commenting further on Hoffner’s commentary on 1&2 Samuel, let me share the purpose behind the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary series in the words of its creators. “The Evangelical Exegetical Commentary is a brand new, 44-volume commentary series which incorporates the latest critical biblical scholarship and is written from a distinctly evangelical perspective. Published by Lexham Press, the EEC is the next standard commentary on the entire Bible for evangelicals. . . .The publication of the EEC by Lexham Press marks the first time a major Bible commentary series has been published in digital form before its print counterpart—and the first time it has been published with a digital format in mind.” The purpose behind the creation of a digital commentary, in the words of one of the editors of the series H. Wayne House, is so that a commentary can be easily updated. If a new understanding of a word is discovered or some new archaeological information comes to light, it can be added immediately. This is indeed an extremely attractive feature of the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary series! (For a short video explaining the nature and purpose of the series click HERE).

The Introduction to the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary on 1&2 Samuel

Author of the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary on 1&2 Samuel, Harry A. Hoffner, Jr.

The editors of the ECC have apparently put no restrictions on commentary length (another plus of a digital edition!) and Hoffner takes advantage of this by producing a voluminous commentary. Logos has yet to add page numbers to this particular volume (which makes citation challenging!) and so I can only hazard a guess on its size. It is certainly well over 1,000 pages, but how far over I can not tell. With no space limitations, Hoffner begins the commentary by launching into a thorough and lengthy Introduction. The Introduction includes the usual topics of title, authorship, date, historical context and scope, and structure, but it includes much more. Some of the other areas addressed (and there are too many to name them all) include genre, theme, sources, literary analysis (including a lengthy section that summarizes and evaluates many of the characters of 1&2 Samuel), and extrabiblical parallels (which, given Hoffner’s expertise, comes as no surprise).

There are two things that I would like to note from this introductory material that bear on a commentator’s interpretation of 1&2 Samuel. First, Hoffner is not a fan of using the term “Deuteronomistic History,” to describe the books of Joshua-Kings, noting that such language overlooks the many parallels and allusions to the other books of the Torah (Genesis-Numbers) found throughout Joshua-Kings. While he believes that much of the material regarding David and Saul could have been written and preserved in the palace archives, he has no difficulty in seeing a final author or editor putting 1&2 Samuel in its final form during the exilic period. Rather than state firm conclusions on this matter, Hoffner is content to make general observations. Second, Hoffner is not a fan of “the hermeneutic of suspicion.” In his comments on the characterization of Abner and how scholars frequently conclude that David was responsible for Abner’s death, Hoffner remarks, “Typical of this “Damned if you do—damned if you don’t” hermeneutic of suspicion is Paul Ash’s statement: “Although the text does not implicate David in Abner’s murder, some scholars believe that he may have ordered it since 2 Samuel tries so hard to say otherwise.” Obviously, the narrator denies David’s complicity in order to dispel rumors to the contrary—rumors spread by David’s Saulide opponents. Should not the text record this?” (Hoffner, H. A., Jr., 2015. 1 & 2 Samuel. H. W. House & W. Barrick, Eds. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press). Later on in his exposition of 2 Samuel 12:22-23, he takes another stab at the skeptics when he writes, “In the end, as is often the case, the scenarios of skeptics require more leaps of faith than belief in the tooth fairy. If one is permitted to simply ignore large chunks of the tradition and make up others, one can “prove” anything! . . . .We are wise not to second-guess the text.” Any who have read my reviews on 1&2 Samuel commentaries are aware of my own disdain for the hermeneutic of suspicion. I couldn’t be more pleased with these comments by Hoffner because they demonstrate that he takes the text seriously.

The Layout of the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary on 1&2 Samuel

Sample page from the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary on 1&2 Samuel

Hoffner breaks the commentary down into literary sections. Each section begins with an overall summary and introduction. This is followed by a more detailed outline of the section which provides the basis for the verse-by-verse commentary. A bibliography accompanies the detailed outline and is then followed by the Hebrew text itself with Hoffner’s accompanying notes on the text. Since the Hebrew text is noticeably absent from the Esther volume in this series (although there are notes on the text), it appears that it is up to the authors to determine the format of their commentary, at least to some extent. Hoffner’s english translation follows the textual notes which then leads to the verse-by-verse exposition. There is always a short summary of the portion of the text under examination followed by a discussion of the verses themselves. The commentary is frequently punctuated with other features such as sections entitled: “Exegetical note,” or charts comparing features of the text, gray panels that set apart a special discussion (e.g., one on siege warfare at the beginning of 1 Sam. 11), and from time to time a concluding section entitled, “Application and Devotional Implications.” Following each smaller section of exposition is yet another bibliography. One of the strengths of this commentary is its prolific bibliography, which of course can be updated as new works appear. The screen shot above shows a sample page of the commentary in which you can see the selected bibliography, Hebrew text, and textual notes features.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Lexham Press is the publisher of the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary Series

Among the many strengths of this commentary, I have already noted Hoffner’s knowledge of the ancient Near East (besides the many parallels he introduces, I would also include his fresh translation of the Hebrew text), the bibliographic resources, the comprehensive nature of the commentary, and its update-ability. Although the commentary may not suit a novice, I am also impressed with the attention that Hoffner pays to character development in 1&2 Samuel and his attempts at sharing application and devotional thoughts. Some examples of his devotional application include his comment on 1 Samuel 24:7-8 (David’s men are encouraging him to kill Saul), where he notes that we should not interpret things in our favor when they violate God’s law. Another timely example (considering the upcoming US election) are Hoffner’s introductory comments on 2 Samuel 13:39-14:33. He states, “As readers, we are invited to consider the full weight of sin, to see the social and public consequences of David’s personal adultery and murder.” This dimension is often lost sight of when media arguments are made against considering the personal sins of leaders in political debates. It is unwise to keep the personal and the public lives of leaders separate” (Hoffner, H. A., Jr., 1 & 2 Samuel, 2 Sa 13:39–14:33). These types of applicational interpretation will certainly be welcome material for a pastor or Bible-study leader. The fact that this commentary series is published by Lexham Press and is available on Logos is yet another bonus. The ability to quickly read Scripture references, or footnotes by simply hovering over them with the mouse, or to pull up other commentaries or Bible Dictionary articles referred to by the author which are automatically linked to the resources in your Logos library, are just some of the wonderful benefits available to Logos users. As with any book, you can highlight important comments, take notes, or paste quotes into a folder for future use. Logos users will be familiar with all of these advantages, and many others, which make study easier and more profitable.

unknown — The entire series of the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary will consist of 44 volumes including both Old and New Testament. Many volumes are now available. See this link at logos.com

As with any commentary, there are going to be questions over particular interpretations. Some of my disagreements include the significance of Eli’s chair, which Hoffner sees as a sign of Eli’s old age, rather than (what I would interpret as) a clear allusion to royalty. At times I quibble with his estimation of a character. For example, like many scholars Hoffner is aware of Joab’s brutality, but insists on his complete loyalty to David. I have written extensively elsewhere on my disagreement with this assessment of Joab (see Family Portraits, pp. 258-300). One shortcoming I note is that Hoffner sometimes seems reluctant to let the reader know where he stands on ambiguous or difficult passages. For example, he states that the longer text of 1 Samuel 11 (found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and LXX) suggests “a long period of brutal oppression.” But his only comment is “if we accept the longer text.” There is no further discussion as to whether he accepts or rejects the longer text or what his reasons might be. The story of David and Goliath (1 Sam. 17) introduces an even more thorny textual issue (the LXX version is much shorter than MT) which Hoffner dismisses by stating that Chisholm has convinced him that the MT makes sense as it stands and is not hopelessly contradictory. Granted, not every textual issue can be discussed ad nauseam, but given the length of this commentary, and Hoffner’s expertise, it is surprising how frequently he opts for no discussion. Furthermore, he does not offer anything new on the interpretive difficulties of 1 Samuel 17:51-53, 55-58 and, in fact, dismisses these difficulties by simply stating, “There is no lack of competing explanations for what appears to be a jarring contradiction between this present passage and what has preceded” (Hoffner, H. A., Jr., 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 Sa 17:55–58). Finally, once in awhile, Hoffner appears to contradict himself. For example, in 1 Samuel 13:3-4 Hoffner states that it is unlikely that Saul is stealing the glory from Jonathan by claiming victory over the Philistines. Yet in 1 Samuel 17:38 he states, “Previously, Saul had claimed some of the glory due to his son Jonathan’s courageous attack on the Philistine outpost.” Another example may be found in the commentary on 1 Samuel 25. In his introductory comments Hoffner disagrees with the theory of some that the Abigail mentioned here may be his sister by the same name. However, later (in the commentary on 25:3) he notes others who hold this view and quotes Youngblood at length. By not restating his disagreement with this view, one could get the impression he is agreeing.

The above may seem like quite a laundry list of “weaknesses” and yet, given the size of this volume, they are not serious threats to the value of this commentary. In fact, I have to admit I am being quite picky. For those desiring an in-depth look at the books of Samuel, Hoffner’s commentary offers plenty to chew on. The Evangelical Exegetical Commentary on 1&2 Samuel will be an indispensable resource for years to come for those who desire to delve deeply into the message of these books. I heartily recommend it for your library.

Purchase the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary on 1&2 Samuel at Logos/FaithLife

(Thanks to Logos for supplying a copy of this commentary in exchange for an unbiased review)

Archaeology, Biblical Sites

Tel Lachish in the Toilet

October 5, 2016 randymccracken Leave a comment

Tel Lachish in the Toilet

Ancient toilet found at Tel Lachish, Sept. 2016. Photo by:Igor Kreimerman

Actually, our title is slightly misleading. Tel Lachish is not literally “in the toilet,” but there is a toilet in Tel Lachish! Recent discoveries at Tel Lachish, including a temple and (of all things!) a toilet, provide further confirmation of the religious reform of King Hezekiah of Judah mentioned in 2 Kings 18:4-6 and 2 Chronicles chapters 29-31. It also provides interesting confirmation of 2 Kings 10:27 which mentions the destruction of the temple of Baal and how it was defiled by being turned into a “latrine” or “refuse dump.” There are a number of ways of desecrating a temple, but certainly turning it into a lavatory is one of the most humiliating. I know what you’re all thinking: “Was the toilet ever used for it’s natural purpose?” Laboratory tests return a disappointing “no.” It appears the toilet was more symbolic than functional.

The Monumental Gate at Tel Lachish

The large 6-chambered gate at Tel Lachish can be clearly seen in this arial photo. — The large 6-chambered gate at Tel Lachish with the main street of the city running between 3 chambers on each side can be clearly seen in this arial photo. Photo by Guy Pitossi IAA.

Our “bathroom curiosity” actually gets us ahead of the story however, and so we need to backtrack in order to understand how this discovery came about. Tel Lachish, a city of Judah about 30 miles southwest of Jerusalem in the area known as the Shephelah, is mentioned 24 times in the Old Testament. The Tel is one of the largest in Israel measuring about 31 acres. It was one of the fortified cities of Judah and considered to be second in importance, only to Jerusalem. Tel Lachish (also known as Tel ed-Duweir) has frequently seen teams of excavators since the 1930s. The site was first excavated by a British team from 1932-1938. This was followed in 1966 and 1968 with a small scale expedition by the famous Israeli archaeologist Yohanan Aharoni. Another famous Israeli archaeologist, David Ussishkin of Tel Aviv University, excavated at Tel Lachish from 1973-1994. Recently, a team under Yosef Garfinkel (formerly the lead archaeologist of the dig at Khirbet Qeiyafa, see my post HERE), as well as the IAA (Israeli Antiquities Authority) have been digging at Tel Lachish. Although the gate was discovered decades ago, it was only fully uncovered this year by the IAA. According to an article in history.com, “The gate, now exposed and preserved to a height of four meters (around 13 feet), consists of six chambers, measuring some 80 by 80 feet in total. Three chambers are located on each side, with the ancient city’s main street running in between them.” It is the largest gate ever uncovered in Israel that dates to the First Temple Period (the time of Solomon to the exile).

A young lady sits on the bench in the gate at Tel Lachish, leaning on the armrest. Photo by Sa'ar Ganor IAA — A young lady sits on the bench in the gate at Tel Lachish, leaning on the armrest. Photo by Sa’ar Ganor IAA

The first chamber in the gate revealed benches with armrests, a vivid reminder of the Bible’s description of the judges and elders of a city sitting in the gate (e.g., Gen. 19:1; Prov. 31:23). Gates of ancient cities were also known to have temples or shrines to their god contained in them. An example of this is recorded in 2 Kings 23:8 which tells us that King Josiah of Judah, “broke down the high places at the gates.” The rest of the verse goes on to describe one of these high places being at “the entrance to the gate.” So we should not be surprised to hear that the IAA discovered one of these “temples” within the city gate of Tel Lachish. Here is a description of the discovery by Sa’ar Ganor, the director of the IAA excavation: “Steps to the gate-shrine in the form of a staircase ascended to a large room where there was a bench upon which offerings were placed. An opening was exposed in the corner of the room that led to the holy of holies; to our great excitement, we found two four-horned altars and scores of ceramic finds consisting of lamps, bowls and stands in this room” (read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.744861). The altars had the horns broken off; another sign of temple desecration. Watch Sa’ar Ganor’s explanation of the discovery at the following youtube link HERE. Other items discovered included jar handles labelled “lmlk” (belonging to the king) with a depiction of a four-winged beetle (scarab). Both of these markings are commonly associated with the reign of Hezekiah, being found in other excavations of this time period.

Other Notable Facts About Tel Lachish

One of the wall panels depicting the conquest of Lachish by Senacherib. The entire panel is on display in the British Museum. — One of the wall panels depicting the conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib. The entire panel is on display in the British Museum.

Tel Lachish has long been famous since the discovery of a wall panel in the palace of Sennacherib, the Assyrian king, depicting its conquest in 701 BC. For a 3D depiction of the entire panel watch the short youtube video HERE. The Assyrians built a very impressive ramp in order to scale the walls of the city which can still be seen today at Tel Lachish. Numerous pieces of armor, arrowheads, and stones (from slings) have also been recovered, a reminder of the ferocity of the battle. It would be expected that the excavation of the large gate complex by the IAA would also yield evidence of the battle and indeed it has with the discovery of more arrowheads and sling stones.

A replica of one of the Lachish letters.

Lachish was rebuilt after the destruction by the Assyrians only to be laid waste a second time by the Babylonians. One of the most famous discoveries at Tel Lachish dates to this period. A cache of letters written on broken pieces of pottery known as ostraca were discovered in a guardhouse inside one of the city gates in 1935 and 1938. The letters, known as the Lachish Letters (or ostraca), include correspondence between a subordinate and the commander of Lachish as the siege with the Babylonians nears. One of the more famous letters reads as follows:

Salutation (lines 1)
May Yahweh give you good news at this time.

General Statement (lines 2–4)
And now, your servant has done everything my lord sent (me word to do). I have written downj everything you sent me (word to do).

Report on Bet-HRPD (lines 4–6)
As regards what my lord said about Bet-HRPD, there is no one there.

The Semakyahu Situation (lines 6–12)
As for Semakyahu, Shemayahu has seized him and taken him upk to the city. Your servant cannot send the witness there [today]; rather, it is during the morning tour that [he will come (to you)]. Then it will be known that we are watching the (fire)-signals of Lachish according to the code which my lord gave us, for we cannot see Azeqah. (Hallo, W. W., & Younger, K. L., 2003. Context of Scripture (p. 80). Leiden; Boston: Brill.)

The last few words of the letter state that the fires of Azekah can no longer be seen, which many interpret to mean that the Babylonians had destroyed Azekah, and thus would be marching on to attack Lachish. This statement recalls a passage in Jeremiah 34:7 which reads as follows: “When the king of Babylon’s army fought against Jerusalem, and all the cities of Judah that were left, against Lachish and Azekah; for only these fortified cities remained of the cities of Judah” (emphasis mine). A comparison of this text with the Lachish letter above sends a chill up the spine as the reader realizes that contrary to Jeremiah 34:7, this letter asserts that only Lachish is now left!

With a large portion of the Tel yet to excavate, we await further findings of this fascinating city. Meanwhile work is being done at Tel Lachish to make it more tourist friendly by turning it into a National Park. For more on Tel Lachish, check out the following links. For an aerial view of the Tel click HERE. For another short video of the recent discoveries (without commentary) click HERE. For more about past work at Tel Lachish you can see the website at Tel Aviv University. Finally, my cyber buddy Luke Chandler is currently working with the excavation at Tel Lachish and shares an article about the recent discoveries HERE.

Uncategorized

Biblical Studies Carnival September 2016

September 30, 2016 randymccracken 7 Comments

Biblical Studies Carnival September 2016

Welcome to the September issue of the Biblical Studies Carnival! With the dog days of summer behind us (well at least for those of us who live in cooler climates), the Fall Carnival schedule is ready to kick into high gear. For the upcoming months the Carnival will travel to the following locations:

October 2016 (November 1) – Bob MacDonald, @drmacdonald, Dust, http://meafar.blogspot.com/

November 2016 (December 1) – Jim West, @drjewest, Zwinglius Redivivus, http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/

December 2016 (January 1) – Jennifer Guo, @jenniferguo, http://jenniferguo.wordpress.com/

Cassandra Farrin at Ethics and Early Christianity https://www.westarinstitute.org/blog/ has also got January covered. The rest of the year is wide open however. So if you’d like to host a Biblical Studies Carnival in 2017 please contact Phil Long at @plong42 or plong42atgmail.com. This month’s Carnival comes to you from the ancient city of York (England). Yes (all you Church History lovers), the very city where Constantine himself was proclaimed Emperor. So without further delay, let’s begin!

Statue of the young Constantine the Great in front of York Minster

Old Testament

To get this party started check out Michael J. Kok’s “General Survey of the Hebrew Bible,” and also his post entitled, “The Christian Appropriation of the Old Testament,” at jesusmemoirs. Lindsay Kennedy has an interesting article on “Psalm 2:6 and the transformation of Zion.” George Athas asks, “Genesis 19: Has Lot Lost the Plot?” Continuing with the Genesis theme, I have written a post entitled, “Are the Seven Days of Creation Literal?” I also concluded a series on Biblical Numerology entitled, “Symbolic Numbers in the Old Testament,” (although I must confess I actually look at the Bible as a whole).

Language Studies and Textual Criticism

In his most recent post, Bob MacDonald offers his translation of Esther 1. In other September posts Bob shares translations from Job, Jeremiah and Zechariah (click HERE and scroll down). Mike Aubrey announces that the new book “The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis,” will not only be available at Logos Bible Software, but you can also purchase a hard copy at Amazon. Brian Davidson notes than even modern “scribes” can make errors in his “Ancient Errors, Modern Scribes,” post. He also emphasizes the significance of word order in “The Word Order Hurdle.” Looking at the Didache, David Corder examines Aaron Milavec’s preference for the most difficult reading. Peter Gurry asks a challenging and provocative question in his post, “Does Scripture’s Self-Attestation Apply to Textual Criticism?” Although we could put “Jens Schröter, Galatians 1.6-7 and the Greek Scholars,” by Wayne Coppins in the New Testament category, it seems best suited here. Finally, for all you Hebrew lovers, Todd Scacewater at exegeticaltools has posted a humorous video on learning Hebrew based on Abbot and Costello’s “Who’s on First?” routine. You’ll love it!

New Testament

Todd Scacewater has produced another interesting title sure to draw readers in. Check out his, “Think You Understand Crucifixion? Think Again,” post which compares and contrasts 3 new books on crucifixion. Phil Long is working his way through Romans and has a whole host of articles. His latest as of this writing is “God Shows No Partiality.” Check out his blog at readingacts to see other posts on Romans. Marg Mowczko asks, “Did Jesus Address Only Men in Luke 14:25-27?” Julia Blom at jewishstudies.eteacherbiblical continues a series on Luke 24. The latest is entitled, “Key Number Five: And Their Eyes Were Opened.” Michael J. Kok has an article on Hebrews and Subsequent Christian Supersessionism.

Theology

Michael Patton has written his observations in a provocatively entitled article, “Why Arminianism Won’t Preach (and Calvinism Won’t Sell).” Continuing with the theme of Calvinism, Bobby Grow offers, “A Different Way: A Calvinism Where God is Love Rather than Law.” For the philosophical theologians among us, Grow also writes about “Hypostatic Grace: A Response of Sorts to Tom McCall and Substance Metaphysics.” Marg Mowczko looks at “Tertullian on Equality and Mutuality in Marriage.” Andy Goodliff has an interview with Tim Carter regarding his latest book, “The Forgiveness of Sins.” Cassandra Farrin, in her “Understanding Religion Series,” examines “Testimony.” Finally, Dr. Mariottini offers some sage counsel in “Do Women Really Want to Go Back to Patriarchy?“

Archaeology

At theoutwardquest David Corder has a host of articles dealing with various topics including a series on Amihai Mazar’s book, “The Case of the United Monarchy.” Click HERE for the latest in that series. Dr. Claude Mariottini reports on the discovery of the “Scale Weights of the High Priest, and, in case you haven’t seen it before, Dr. Mariottini has a number of free ebooks available on his site including Israel Finkelstein’s, “The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel.”

Church History

In her latest post, Cassandra Farrin draws our attention to the upcoming 500th anniversary of the Reformation (coming in 2017) and seeks to demonstrate how some of its themes can speak to the modern situation in America. At Zwingliusredivivus Jim West shares two short posts. The first is a quote from Calvin regarding his “Explanation of the Nones,” and the second is regarding the legitimization of the worship of images by the 7th Ecumenical Council.

Plagiarism

OK, I confess. I stole this from google!

Normally, posts about plagiarism would not merit a separate heading, but it’s definitely a topic that’s been “trending” this month and so this separate category seems justified. Scot McKnight has some very good thoughts on “Plagiarizing Sermons.” Warning: this is not a “How To…” article! At Crux Sola, Christopher Skinner questions Stan Porter’s defense of Peter O’Brien’s plagiarism in 3 of his NT commentaries in the Pillar series by Eerdman’s. For an opposite view one can read “Plagiarism Hunters,” by Fred Butler. Although I’m in danger of violating Carnival protocol, (this next post actually appeared in August), Brian Renshaw offers some very constructive “Thoughts on Research and Note Taking After O’Brien and Eerdmans.”

Book Reviews

At the Dustin Martyr Blog the book review series on “A Man Attested By God,” by Daniel Kirk continues. At corinthianmatters you’ll find a review by David Pettegrew of “People Under Power: Early Christian and Jewish Responses,” by Lebahn and Lehtipuu. Lindsay Kennedy balances Old and New Testaments with a review on “Psalms By the Day” (Alec Motyer) and a review of “A Biblical-Theological Introduction to the New Testament,” (ed. Michael J. Kruger). Both reviews are available at mydigitalseminary. For Bible backgrounds lovers, Spencer Robinson looks at the new “NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible.” Over at hipandthigh you can read Fred Butler‘s review of ” Truth Or Territory: A Biblical Approach to Spiritual Warfare” by Jim Osman. Jennifer Guo reviews Eugene Merrill’s commentary on 1&2 Chronicles in the Kregel Exegetical Library, as well as “The Acts of the Apostles: Interpretation, History, and Theology,” by Osvaldo Padilla. Her most recent post reviews Frank J. Matera’s “New Testament Theology.“

If you get tired of reading book reviews you may want to get some cotton candy, put your feet up, and check out the youtube interviews with Larry Hurtado on his new book, “Destroyer of the gods,” at the christianorigins blog. Now that you’ve recovered with a good sugar rush you can check out Nijay Gupta’s post on “Do We Need More Commentaries?,” or his review of “Kingdom Ethics” by Gushee and Stassen. While you’re there, check out what Gupta’s website partner Christopher Skinner has to say about Estes’s and Sheridan’s book entitled, “How John Works: Storytelling in the Fourth Gospel.” J.K. (a.k.a. Kevin Turner) reviews Kent Hughes’s “Disciplines of a Godly Man,” and offers advice on Bible reading plans. Finally, Andy Goodliff lists “11 Books Every Christian Should Read Before They Turn 25.” It’s a good looking list but the problem for me is none of these books were around when I was 25! I’ll bet Andy would encourage me to read them anyway. 🙂

That’s it for this month. The Biblical Studies Carnival has packed up and is moving on to it’s next destination. Once again, remember if you’d like to host a Carnival, contact Phil Long at at @plong42 or plong42atgmail.com. Happy Reading and Blogging until next month!