Wednesday, April 16, 2008

OT Theology, what to do?


Okay, so I shared with my family that I would like a copy of Gerhard von Rad's Old Testament Theology and knew it would help that CBD has it on sale for $9.99. I do not know if it has been ordered yet or not. BUT, Chris Tilling keeps jawing about how wonderful and categorically imperative it is one go out right now and purchase John Goldengay's (so far) 2 volume Old (First) Testament Theology; Israel's Gospel and Israel's Faith. One is old, the other is newer. Even so, there is also Waltke's new OT Theology that seems like a must read (or even a must have).

So, what do I do? Tell the fam not to get von Rad and get me one of Goldingay's volumes or just skip all that and go with Waltlke? Perhaps let von Rad come and get Waltke too? I really don't need (or have room for) a shelf full of OT Theology books but one or two might be useful...

Oh, what to do??!!

Labels:

Friday, April 11, 2008

Who killed Goliath?

The editors of The New Oxford Annotated Bible Third Edition (p312-313) in discussing the historicity of the Historical books of the Old Testament note that we can still somewhat know the basic sense of the historical periods that they cover but that each text needs to be weighed individually in terms of its date of composition and its likely goals. In this they accept the veracity of the "dry notice in 1 Kings 14:25-26" noting it may come from an archival source. However, in contrast, they assert:
there are good reasons to be suspicious of the historicity of the long, detailed, and embellished story of David slaying Goliath in 1 Samuel 17; this story uses late biblical Hebrew language, comes from a different source that the surrounding material in Samuel, and i structured like a fairy tale, in that the poor, short, unexpected hero gets to marry the tall king's daughter by killing the giant who had vilified God. Additionally, 2 Samuel 21:19 reads, "Then there was another battle with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam." It is much more likely that a short tradition in which Goliath is killed by a relatively unknown figure (Elhanan) would be the source for the long elaborate tale attributing the same event to the well known David, rather than vice versa. Thus, the modern historian must subject each text in these Historical books to the type of internal analysis used on nonbiblical historical texts when external information bearing on the text is lacking.
So the question in my mind becomes "who then, killed Goliath?" If not David, why attribute the event to him instead of Elhanan? Does the writer use the event to thrust David into the limelight as God's chosen King?

How do you feel about the possibility that David may have not actually killed Goliath, that the whole story is in fact embellished and fictional?

What say you?

Labels:

Thursday, April 10, 2008

OT Theology


Welp, I put in for a b-day request (which means it's likely a sure thing-especially since it is a whopping NINE BUCKS!!) for Gerhard von Rad's Old Testament Theology One Volume Hardcover edition put out by Prince Press which is on sale over at CBD.com. Hey, it's HUGE (992 pgs), but its his two volumes put together for a whopping NINE BUCKS!! (I often worry and wonder why something like this is going for so cheap - cheaper isn't always better but... I can't afford the two volume edition of which each goes for roughly $40 Bucks a pop). I don't have an OT Theology and sadly (sort of) I did not take such in seminary (though I did take three Hebrew Exegesis courses (each in the three parts of the Hebrew Bible) and got some theology through those courses)). I will probably want to get Waltke's OT theology and then I'll have a somewhat balanced set (older and newer - there have been some advanced in OT Studies so newer works can be helpful - though not always). Did I say this book is a whopping NINE BUCKS!!??

Labels:

Friday, April 04, 2008

Is the Devil in the book of Job?

For the longest time many have believed that God may have "allowed" "Satan" (aka: the Devil) to test Job as seen in the first couple chapters of Job. However, Tyler Williams posted a blog on what the word "satan" in Job actually means back in March - I just learned of it the other day through Chris Heard's site. Tyler Williams has a good argument - the term "satan" (a transliteration of the Hebrew) does not refer to that creature often known as "the devil" (formerly known as "Lucifer" and seen in the Revelation, as "the Dragon"). HEre is a key Quote to consider:
In the prose prologue to the book of Job we are introduced to “the satan” (‏השטן‎) who is among the “sons of Elohim” (‏בני האלהים‎) (1:6). It is pretty clear that this passage isn’t referring to “Satan” (i.e., the king of demons) since the Hebrew noun “satan” has a definite article. The biblical text refers to “the satan”, not “Satan.” Personal names in Hebrew (as in English) do not take the definite article. I don’t go around referring to myself as “The Tyler” — and if I did, people would think I was weirder than they already think I am.....Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that the figure of “the satan” in the book of Job is not sinister; he does question the motives behind Job’s fear of Yahweh, but he is not the “Satan” found in the New Testament.
One issue that is interesting is how to view the Old Testament - many want to let it speak for itself and say "in context" such and such. Yet we see in the NT, nearly every Gospel writer, Paul and the rest put forth Jewish or Hebrew exegesis of the Old Testament - some seemingly take things out of context and apply them to Jesus for various theological reasons - or at least it is a part of their exegetical method. Interestingly there are some OT folks who might disagree with Paul's interpretation of certain OT texts that he looks at in the light of Christ. One of my NT profs from seminary told me about an OT guy he listened to embarassingly disagree with Paul!

So what do you think? Could "‏השטן‎" refer to the devil or some other angelic being? Does the context support one or the other?

Labels: