I have thought about the spiritual life as a battle before. It’s God v. Satan and your soul is the battleground. It makes perfect sense.

But I never thought of the spiritual life as a hunt. (Ok, well, John of the Cross does talk about Christ as the stag that the soul keeps hunting for, but that’s not the same.) In Ezekiel I found this passage where the prophet is prophesying against people who make cultic objects for the worship of false gods and he mentions “the hunt for souls” (Ezek 13:18). Through Ezekiel, God asks these people, “Will you hunt down souls belonging to my people and keep your own souls alive?” Then two verses later he accuses them “You hunt the souls like birds, and I will tear them from your arms, and I will let the souls whom you hunt go free, the souls like birds.”

There are a couple other biblical mentions of the hunting metaphor that I can think of. Ps 91:3 says, “He will deliver you from the snare of the fowler and the deadly pestilence.” (ESV) A “fowler” for all of us without enormous vocabularies is a dude who hunts birds. In Ps 91, he’s hunting with traps. One last hunting reference is 1 Pet 5:8 ESV, “Be sober minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”

In all of these biblical pictures of the hunt for souls, the “hunter” is always the enemy of God and of the soul. God is always rescuing the “quarry” from the clutches of the hunter. But these images remind me of the famous poem by Francis Thompson “The Hound of Heaven.” In the poem, God is hunter, chasing the soul “down the arches of the years.”

I guess the important thing to grasp from all of these hunting metaphors in the Bible is that we are being sought after. Human beings are being chased by the world, the flesh and the Devil AND we are being “chased” by God. It is a competitive hunt and we are the quarry. It’s like an ad-campaign for a specific demographic. We are the human demographic and our souls are being sought for good or for ill. As the quarry, we must flee from temptation and sin (1 Tim 6:11), and then we must run toward our loving “Hunter,” because he is the God who loves us.

Hey, I found this great website which has free public domain audiobooks. Yes, just when you thought you could never listen to another audiobook from the library because you don’t have a tape player anymore…LibriVox to the rescue! I happily stumbled across this site while I was looking for an audio version of Hellen Keller’s Story of My Life. And, well, I found it on LibriVox. I am very happy people are coming up with such wonderful projects to make the Internet a worthwhile endeavor. I hope you can take advantage of LibriVox as I have. I also downloaded Oscar Wilde’s Picture of Dorian Grey. Maybe I’ll even read a book for LibriVox at some point. Hmmm…maybe the New Testament in Greek. We’ll see. They do have a copy of the ASV Bible in audio. Hey, it’s better than nothing. Here’s the link to LibriVox.

Form critics and redaction critics often talk about “material” in the Old Testament. They mention the reordering of material, the change of material, the insertion of material and the deletion of material. Often a “later hand” is mentioned as having redacted, edited, rearranged and removed sections of the so-called “original” text of whatever author or prophet that is under discussion. While I think there are problems with this type of biblical criticism on presuppositional/philosophical grounds and on literary grounds in general, I have a very simple question for these critics: What mechanism would ancient scribes use to perform such re-arrangements?

If our scribes in question lived in the Ancient Near East and wrote on papyrus scrolls and often lived under threat of war, poverty and political unrest…then how could they make the removals, reorderings and other such things necessitated by redaction criticism? Papyrus was expensive, very expensive. I can’t imagine a scribe taking an old scroll and going through trying to copy down the material in a different order than was written on the old scroll. I can imagine pieces of papyri getting out order, but I can’t imagine an intentional rearrangement of a text for theological or hermeneutical purposes. Perhaps I need someone to explain how this process could work in the ancient world.

If I were a scribe, I can imagine making mistakes or even leaving things out that I didn’t like, but excising passages and inserting them elsewhere and then remembering that I had done that so I don’t repeat the passage later seems almost impossible. I would have to literally cut up the old scroll and arrange it like a jigsaw puzzle which would be unthinkable! Or I would have to keep a detailed list of passages that I was “rearranging” without the convenience of verse and chapter numbers. I just don’t get it. It seems a near impossible activity for an ancient scribe.

I can imagine doing such an activity on Microsoft Word. I could just highlight, cut and paste. But that’s a far cry from a beat up scroll, a limited amount of very expensive paper, a feather pen, an ink jar and a candle.

I came across a painting of “The Prodigal Son” by contemporary artist, John Hrehov, a professor at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne. Take a look at it.
I like how the Prodigal Son is looking at the feed with a vacuous desire. He almost looks like one of the pigs, just staring hungrily. The little piglet in his shadow seems to function as the Prodigal Son himself, expressing his hungry desire for the filth that the pigs eat. The moment seems to fall right after he has thrown down the contents of his slop bucket, but right before the pigs have begun eating it. Even the pigs are staring! The painting makes you wonder what’s cooking at the back of the Prodigal’s mind. He’s asking himself those all-important questions, “What am I doing here? How did I get here and how do I get out? What have I done wrong? What is my life all about anyway?” Perhaps right after this little scene, he throws up his hands, drops his slop bucket and runs home.

Ten Commandments Movie 2007 Trailer – The most amazing home videos are here

Promenade Pictures is coming out with a new animated film called The Ten Commandments. I hope you enjoy the trailer for it. Christian Slater does the voice of Moses. It is done in 3D animation, but the characters don’t look like they are textured quite right. They seem smooth like action figures rather than like real people. I dunno, judge for yourself. It is certainly encouraging to see Bible-based movies still coming out. But it seems funny to me that we would get another Exodus movie (anyone remember Prince of Egypt?) rather than a movie that tells a different great Bible story. I mean, how many movies are out there about Abraham or Jeremiah or even Job? But I’m still going to watch The Ten Commandments. It looks visually impressive and well-presented. Let me know what you think of it!

(Make sure to notice the consonantal Hebrew on the tablets in the trailer. Not bad for Hollywood. Though any written Hebrew in Moses time would be written with a much different script…whatever.)

Walter Brueggemann has some sharp comments about Bible commentaries in his article “Recent Scholarship: Intense Criticism, Thin Interpretation,” in Like Fire in the Bones: Listening for the Prophetic Word in Jeremiah, Augsburg Fortress, 2006. (The article is from 1988.)

But he mentions Bernhard Anderson’s criteria for a good commentary, which I found extremely helpful in terms of planning my own writing about the Bible and in evaluating the writing of others.

According to Anderson, a good commentary should:
1. Be reflective of and responsive to the history of interpretation.
2. Be reflective of a “double loyalty” to the scholarly community and the community of faith.
3. Provide necessary information “without becoming tediously detailed or burdensomely lengthy.”
4. Take a firm stand on current hermeneutical debate.
5. Draw the reader into the world of the text without being didactic or moralistic. (Brueggemann, Recent Scholarship, 33)

I think these criteria deserve discussion and adherence!

Later in his essay, Brueggemann offers his own “prophetic word” in reference to his generation of Bible scholars he says, “In the very long run, one wonders if a verdict will be given about us, that we let the text have its powerful say in ways that mediated faithful human options in our time; or if we will be judged to have kept the text at such a distance that the larger questions from these texts were not permitted and the daring hints of resolution were not made available.” (40)

His musing touches the nerve of literary criticism in general. Do people who spend their lives studying and writing books about books magnify the power of the original literature or dampen its effect? Do Bible scholars help the Bible speak to people or inhibit its message? I think the temptation to many scholars is to see the vastness of the Bible–the most important book in history–and despair that no one can really get the message of the Bible unless he is an expert. While there is something to be said for expertise, the Bible has a transformative power that transcends human expertise. The Bible is not just a book, it is God’s Word and it changes people’s lives.

I think scholars can assist the Bible’s voice by providing fresh translations, readable commentaries and critical insight on tough questions. But it is very easy for scholars to slide into cataloging scholarly opinions, amassing data, getting lost in minute details and totally missing the fact that the Bible has a powerful message which people urgently need to hear.

A friend directed me to this quote. I’m not sure if there are different versions of it, but I’ll keep looking. This one is from Thomas Taylor’s translation of Story of a Soul from Project Gutenberg

“In Heaven only shall we be in possession of the clear truth. On
earth, even in matters of Holy Scripture, our vision is dim. It
distresses me to see the differences in its translations, and had
I been a Priest I would have learned Hebrew, so as to read the
Word of God as He deigned to utter it in human speech.”

-St. Therese of Lisieux

As I study Greek and Hebrew, Pope Pius XII provides a nice kick in the right direction to stimulate some serious study. Check out what he says in Divino afflante Spiritu, sec.15. (I added the bold.)

“On the contrary in this our time, not only the Greek language, which since the humanistic renaissance has been, as it were, restored to new life, is familiar to almost all students of antiquity and letters, but the knowledge of Hebrew also and of their oriental languages has spread far and wide among literary men. Moreover there are now such abundant aids to the study of these languages that the biblical scholar, who by neglecting them would deprive himself of access to the original texts, could in no wise escape the stigma of levity and sloth. For it is the duty of the exegete to lay hold, so to speak, with the greatest care and reverence of the very least expressions which, under the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, have flowed from the pen of the sacred writer, so as to arrive at a deeper and fuller knowledge of his meaning.”

-Pope Pius XII

After my post on the so-called “Council of Jamnia,” I’ve been turning the canon question over and over in my head. Today I read a great article that questions the historical rationale of the Protestant OT canon. It is “The Protestant Old Testament Canon: Should it Be Re-examined?” by A.C. Sundberg, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28(1966): 194-203. Sundberg gives a decently detailed history of the formation and defense of the Protestant OT canon from Luther to Metzger. He argues that the early Church inherited from pre-70 Judaism a very defined Pentateuch/Torah and a very defined canon of Prophets, but a very ill-defined collection of “Writings” which basically included wisdom literature, apocrypha and pseudepigrapha (199). Thus the formation of the Palestinian canon of the Hebrew Bible which arose after the destruction of the Temple was a Jewish process that occured after the Christian and Jewish communities had gone their separate ways. So the formation of the Christian OT canon was actually a distinct process, and a long-fought one considering it wasn’t finished until the Council of Trent.

Sundberg references the “Jamnia doctrine of inspiration” which “limited inspiration from the time of Moses to the time of Ezra-Nehemiah” (202). As we’ve discovered, trying to associate anything concrete with what happened at Jamnia is like trying to grab a wet fish. But Sundberg points out that the “Jamnia doctrine” is first found in Josephus, Against Apion 1,8. And he says it “appears to be reflected in 4 Esdras” (202).

So, for some Catholic Bible Student action, here’s the relevant section from Josephus:

• For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, (8) which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them. (Against Apion 1,8 from Project Gutenberg)

A few things are important for this discussion. 1.) The earliest Christians did not inherit a well-defined canon, 2.) The Palestinian Canon of the Hebrew Bible arose after 70 AD through an unknown process.

One thing I find very helpful in understanding this whole issue is that a couple terms we have become comfortable with are no longer appropriate. We often speak of the “Hebrew Bible” and the “Greek Septuagint.” But the Septuagint was never codeified during the early years of Christianity. It gets its name from the 72 scholars at Alexandria who translated the Pentateuch (yep, ONLY the first five books) from Hebrew into Greek according to the Letter of Aristeas under the reign of Philadephus, 285-247 BC. The rest of the books were translated, well, we’re not really sure when or by whom, but the translator of Sirach clues us in that many of the OT books had been translated into Greek by the time he published his translation around 117 BC (On the date see Di Lella/Skehan, Anchor Bible vol. 39, 8). And most scholars think that a few chunks were original Greek compositions like the prayers of Mordecai and Esther and the whole Book of Wisdom. So it may be better to speak of “septuagints” or something because there was no defined Greek Old Testament in the 1st Century AD. And the collections of ancient Greek Bibles often included different varieties of books. Some don’t include all the deuterocanonicals and some include other things like 4 Esdras and the like.

But the term “Hebrew Bible” is also problematic from a canonical perspective. Often people identify the Protestant OT Canon and the Palestinian canon with those books which have been preserved in Hebrew. But recent finds of Hebrew sections, most significantly, of Tobit and Sirach, change the value of the term “Hebrew Bible.” Tobit and Sirach aren’t included in the “Hebrew Bible” even though we have much of them in Hebrew. Ok, that’s an overstatment. We have about 2/3 of Sirach in Hebrew and 1 fragment of Tobit in Hebrew and 4 in Aramaic.