I found a poignant example of Paul alluding to Divine Providence in Philemon 15. There’s no chapter numbers because the book is so short. Paul is talking about why Onesimus (the slave) was away from Philemon (the owner) for so long. Onenismus had escaped, but that’s not our concern here. The point is that Paul says, “Perhaps this is why he was away from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a brother.” (Phil 15-16) Why do I think this is a big deal? Paul is making a really transparent allusion to the fact that he thinks God himself caused Onesimus to be away from Philemon. God was involved in the situation. The circumstances have a meaning and a purpose behind and beneath them. God was at work to change Philemon’s life for the better.

I think it’s really easy to see tons of circumstances and situations and never connect them to the fact that God is actually working in this world. (Aslan is on the move!) He’s changing things and people. He’s converting people and blessing people, healing and teaching people. God himself is bringing the world to himself through his Son Jesus. Yet much of the time, we cannot see God’s hand at work until after the fact. We look back on an event or a circumstance and realize that he was working and changing things and people without us even noticing in the process. Our God does not sit up in the cosmos and ignore what goes on down here. He is present and ready in every situation to bring grace and help and blessing where there is none.

Today I came across a great article by physicist Michael Disney of Cardiff University in England. (He was one of the scientists who helped design cameras for the Hubble Telescope.) He points out the key weaknesses of current cosmological theories. As a student of the Bible, the issues surrounding creation, age of the earth and cosmology are huge. Many biblical scholars and theologians dismiss the importance of how we interpret Genesis 1-2 assuming that the cosmologists know what they’re up to. I think biblical thinkers should probe the cosmological questions hard because if God really did create the universe, then our scientific observations of the universe should allow for that if not prove it.

Many people are intimidated by the complex mathematics involved in cosmology, so they never bother reading about, assuming that Einstein and his intellectual descendants are all right. But Disney challenges that easy assumption to the core. He explains the basics of current cosmological theory in simple language and shows the faulty, weak basis of the discipline.

People want ultimate answers to ultimate questions and if they do not have an admittedly religious worldview, they will concoct a philosophy of life. Disney explains the theoretical Band-Aids and pseudo-science notions that have been sewn into the fabric of cosmological theory like dark matter, cold dark matter and dark energy. Disney doesn’t offer a new direction for cosmology, but we need revolutionary thinkers like Einstein that will break the mold of current theory and develop observations that actually help us place the data that we have. We don’t need people to feed us more science fiction as fact.

A few important (and differing) books on cosmology:
Albert Einstein’s Relativity
Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time
Hugh Ross’ Creation and Time
D. Russel Humphreys’ Starlight and Time

I’ve been away from the blog for a couple weeks because life has been a little hectic. But I think I will finish up the “Who Wrote What?” chart below before moving on to newer and newer posts. Nailing down the three different perspectives in summary form will be very helpful for all of us.

Rather than arguing for particular authors for each book of the Bible, I think it’s interesting to present three contrasting views: 1.)What the Bible says about itself, 2.) the so-called “traditional” view and 3.)the contemporary critical view. While it is literally impossible to obtain unanimity in either of the second two categories, I’m going to do my best to present a chart showing each biblical book with the author proposed by each of the 3 views.

The Bible doesn’t talk about itself a whole lot, but I’ll assume that if a book is named after somebody or explicitly says it was written by a certain person, then that’s the Bible’s own take on the issue. I’ll be updating the list over the next few weeks, but I think it will make for a fascinating comparison. (I’ll keep the updates in this post.) If I make any mistakes, please comment to let me know and I’ll be happy to correct the oversight.

It is important to remember that when I list any of the three views as calling a certain person an “author” that doesn’t mean that their hand was the last to shape the book. Especially in the case of the Wisdom and Prophetic literature, many editors and compilers were included in the process of codification of the texts. But that does not make the editors the authors of the books. The editors did not write the books, but organized them or inserted headings or collected works together.

<
td>Johannine School

I found this photo on my friend Thomas’ blog and just had to post it.

The Vatican City State launched its own website recently. It has a lot of good content and really detailed information about the buildings, gardens and even the government structure. You can get Vatican stamps and coins by calling the number on the website. Also, you can find the phone number for the Vatican pharmacy and a link to the Vatican observatory.

But the coolest thing is the webcam page. It’s only viewable with MS Explorer. It has five webcam views: St. Peter’s Square, the basilica’s facade, the Governorate building and the tomb of John Paul II. It’s a really cool supplement to the Vatican’s website. So, check it out!

I have hauled sand
I have carried salt
But nothing is heavier than debt.
-Ahiqar

Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend.
-Shakespeare

The rich rules over the poor,
and the borrower is the slave of the lender
-Proverbs 22:7 (ESV)

Painful to a sensitive man
are abuse at home and insults
from his creditors.
-Sirach 29:28 (NAB)

Debt is the slavery of the free.
-Publius Syrus

Update! 9/21/07
Ok, so this quote isn’t ancient, but it’s really good:

What can be added to the happiness of a man who is in health, out of
debt, and has a clear conscience?
– Adam Smith (1723-1790)

If you ever read anything about the differences between the Protestant and Catholic canon, you will most likely see mention of the Council of Jamnia. At this council, the first century AD Jewish leaders are supposed to have thrown aside the deutero-canonical books (Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach and parts of Esther and Daniel) as non-Scriptural since they were preserved only in Greek and Aramaic, not in Hebrew.

But what if the Council of Jamnia never happened?

I asked myself this question and went to the Anchor Bible Dictionary to take a look. I found a great article by Jack P. Lewis who explains the intellectual history of the Council of Jamnia hypothesis. Yep, hypothesis! The Council of Jamnia has always been a hypothesis.

Here’s the scoop: A German scholar, Heinrich Graetz, introduced the idea in 1871 based on a tiny passage in the Mishnah, m. Yadayim 3:5. Yadayim is one of the last sections in the sixth order (part) of the Mishnah, called Tohorot. Since then, tons of scholars have repeated over and over and over that the exclusion of the deutero-canonical books relies on the Council of Jamnia’s decision. But very few scholars go back to Graetz’s work and take a look at m. Yad. 3:5. I was curious, so I took a look.

Guess what I found? Nothing. Exactly, nothing.

m. Yad. 3:5 presents a few rabbis’ arguments about whether Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs are canonical or not. That is, whether they “render unclean the hands.” (If a book is canonical then it “renders unclean the hands.”) After a few arguments are presented, then votes are cast and both books are considered canonical. That’s it. There is no discussion of the deutero-canonical books. There is no definitive list of the canonical books. There is nothing that indicates they made more decisions. It only presents two sides of an argument over the canonicity of Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes.

So what the heck is going on? Why do people use this tiny passage to make a huge argument when the two have nothing to do with each other? And what happened at Jamnia anyway?

After the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD and before the Bar-Kochba rebellion of 135 AD, Judaism underwent huge changes. There was no Temple, so Judaism had to be re-thought. Some Jewish scholars, scribes, priests, rabbis and theologians lived in Jamnia (a.k.a. Yahvne)–a small coastal town in Judah. They formed an academy of sorts which had theological discussions and began many of the traditions in the Mishnah. They helped re-create Judaism without a Temple. But there was nothing official. They were scholars, not officials. None of them were voted in by other communities. And they did not have a formal system for establishing orthodoxy. They voted on certain things, but were free to disagree. But most importantly, they did not fix or establish a canon of Scriptures. They had a debate over the canonicity of Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, but we have no record at all of them debating or establishing the canonicity of ANY OTHER BIBLICAL BOOK. There were no official sessions, no formal power. Just scholars trying to rethink Judaism. That’s it.

So, yes, Jewish thinkers were gathered at Jamnia, but not for a “Council.” They were there for an academy, a school, a community of scholars not a body of official decision makers. And we have no record of them working on the canon except for the two books mentioned above. THEY DID NOT ESTABLISH A CANON. They did not throw out the non-Hebrew books and repetition of the saying will not make it so. For all intents and purposes, the so-called “Council of Jamnia” never happened. It is a fiction proposed by a nineteenth century scholar. There is no historical basis for the claims made about it.

People use it as an argument because they’ve heard about it. They’ve read it. But that doesn’t make it true. People use it because it’s ancient. It sounds credible, but it’s not. So next time you hear someone cite the “Council of Jamnia” to support a Hebrew-only Old Testament canon, just remember Heinrich Graetz and m. Yad. 3:5.

Wikipedia articles:
-Council of Jamnia
-Mishnah

**Update**
I tracked down the place where Graetz makes his claim. J.P. Lewis points to Graetz, Heinrich. Kohelet, oder, Der salmonische Prediger. Leipzig, 1871. Unfortunately very few libraries in the United States have this book and my German is poor. But I did find Graetz making the same claim in his History of the Jews, vol. II, Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society of America, 1893, p.343-4.

Graetz is narrating the events at Jamnia based on m. Yad. and he states, “The second question concerned the holiness of the two writings ascribed to King Solomon, Ecclesiastes (Kohelet), and the Song of Songs (Shir Hashirim). The school of Shammai had not recognized them as holy. This old contest was now taken up by the College of the Seventy-two, which had not approved of the decisions of Hillel, but it is not clearly known with what result. Later on these Halachas were included in the collection (Canon) of the Holy Writings, after which the Canon was completed and several writings in the Hebrew language were rejected as Apocrypha, such as the proverbs of Sirach, the first book of the Maccabees, and several others.”

There are no citations or footnotes in the book. Clearly, Graetz is relying on m. Yad. 3:5, but he offers no back-up for his huge claim that the Canon–capital “C”–was established at Jamnia. There is no back-up. Period.

I came across a relief at the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City that was taken from Persepolis. It depicted two men carrying gifts–a lamb and a loaf of bread–to the Persian king Darius. After 2500 years, it’s not in great shape. I didn’t take a picture of it, but here’s a picture of part of the same relief.

You might be thinking, “Hey! I thought this blog was about the Bible, not ancient art.” And you would be right. Persia was one of the many empires that dominated Ancient Israel in Biblical times. Here’s a super brief overview of the empires: Assyria–> Babylon–> Persia–> Greece–> Rome.

Persepolis was supposedly chosen by Cyrus (yep, the same one who’s all over the book of Isaiah). Two kings later, the palace complex was constructed under Darius, the guy who threw Daniel into the lions’ den. Of course, Daniel lived at Persepolis and as one of Darius’ officials. Both Ezra and Nehemiah lived at Persepolis under Artaxerxes I who reigned there and sent both of them to Jerusalem at different times, 458 and 445 BC, respectively.

The complex itself is amazing. It’s in ruins today, but very impressive ruins! Check out the wikipedia article and some pictures. You can just picture Ezra and Nehemiah walking among the pillars of the palace and thinking about the plight of Judah.

Manasseh was king of Judah a few generations before the fall of Jerusalem and the beginning of the exile to Babylon. He is a “micro-type” of Israel. That is, he embodies in his life the spiritual path that Israel and Judah take into and out of exile.

He begins his reign as an evil king, practicing the most abominable forms of pagan worship including child sacrifice (see 2 Chr 33:6). He even boots worship of the Lord from the Temple and sets up pagan idols there. His evil is so extreme that the Lord lets the Babylonians carry him off into exile with a hook in his nose. Yet there in Babylon, a change occurs. Manasseh is so humbled that he prays to the Lord for deliverance. The Lord has mercy on him and brings him back to Jerusalem to be king again. Then the Chronicler presents the most profound statement in his story: “Then Manasseh knew that the LORD is God.” (2 Chr. 33:13)

Manasseh’s story closely parallel’s the nation’s. Over the generations, Israel fell deep into sin, breaking its obligation to keep the Lord’s covenant over and over. Finally, the Lord fulfills his promise of punishment for their sins by bringing the nation into exile in Babylon. But after 70 years, the people are humbled, praying, fasting and asking the Lord to return them to the land of Judah. The Lord hears their prayers, brings them back and even helps them rebuild the Temple (Ezra) and the walls of Jerusalem (Nehemiah).

Manasseh engaged in his own reconstruction projects. First, he rebuilt the wall of Jerusalem, then he cleaned the pagan idols out of the temple. One man, one king foreshadows the fate of the nation.

[The picture is from Michaelangelo’s Hezekiah – Manasseh – Amon on the Web Gallery of Art.]