My colleague, Robert Webber, Myers Professor of Ministry at Northern Baptist Seminary, is convening a group of scholars and practitioners who represent the next generation of evangelical leaders to sign a document called A Call to an Ancient Evangelical Future.
Bob Webber is recognized by pastors, denominational leaders, scholars, and lay people as one of the foremost authorities on worship renewal. He regularly conducts workshops for almost every major denomination in North America through the Institute in Worship Studies, which he founded in 1995.
The document, A Call to an Ancient Evangelical Future, is a clarion call for evangelicals to get beyond their present divisions and become energized once again by the Spirit. The Call to an Ancient Evangelical Future beckons Christians to make God’s story known through the rediscovery of the church’s mission in its worship, spirituality, and life in the world. Below is the final draft of the document:
A CALL TO AN ANCIENT EVANGELICAL FUTURE
Prologue
In every age the Holy Spirit calls the Church to examine its faithfulness to God's revelation in Jesus Christ, authoritatively recorded in Scripture and handed down through the Church. Thus, while we affirm the global strength and vitality of worldwide Evangelicalism in our day, we believe the North American expression of Evangelicalism needs to be especially sensitive to the new external and internal challenges facing God's people.
These external challenges include the current cultural milieu and the resurgence of religious and political ideologies. The internal challenges include Evangelical accommodation to civil religion, rationalism, privatism and pragmatism. In light of these challenges, we call Evangelicals to strengthen their witness through a recovery of the faith articulated by the consensus of the ancient Church and its guardians in the traditions of Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, the Protestant Reformation and the Evangelical awakenings. Ancient Christians faced a world of paganism, Gnosticism and political domination. In the face of heresy and persecution, they understood history through Israel's story, culminating in the death and resurrection of Jesus and the coming of God's Kingdom.
Today, as in the ancient era, the Church is confronted by a host of master narratives that contradict and compete with the gospel. The pressing question is: who gets to narrate the world? The Call to an Ancient Evangelical Future challenges Evangelical Christians to restore the priority of the divinely inspired biblical story of God's acts in history. The narrative of God's Kingdom holds eternal implications for the mission of the Church, its theological reflection, its public ministries of worship and spirituality and its life in the world. By engaging these themes, we believe the Church will be strengthened to address the issues of our day.
1. On the Primacy of the Biblical Narrative
We call for a return to the priority of the divinely authorized canonical story of the Triune God. This story-Creation, Incarnation, and Re-creation-was effected by Christ's recapitulation of human history and summarized by the early Church in its Rules of Faith. The gospel-formed content of these Rules served as the key to the interpretation of Scripture and its critique of contemporary culture, and thus shaped the church's pastoral ministry. Today, we call Evangelicals to turn away from modern theological methods that reduce the gospel to mere propositions, and from contemporary pastoral ministries so compatible with culture that they camouflage God's story or empty it of its cosmic and redemptive meaning. In a world of competing stories, we call Evangelicals to recover the truth of God's word as the story of the world, and to make it the centerpiece of Evangelical life.
2. On the Church, the Continuation of God's Narrative
We call Evangelicals to take seriously the visible character of the Church. We call for a commitment to its mission in the world in fidelity to God's mission (Missio Dei), and for an exploration of the ecumenical implications this has for the unity, holiness catholicity, and apostolicity of the Church. Thus, we call Evangelicals to turn away from an individualism that makes the Church a mere addendum to God's redemptive plan. Individualistic Evangelicalism has contributed to the current problems of churchless Christianity, redefinitions of the Church according to business models, separatist ecclesiologies and judgmental attitudes toward the Church. Therefore, we call Evangelicals to recover their place in the community of the Church catholic.
3. On the Church's Theological Reflection on God's Narrative
We call for the Church's reflection to remain anchored in the Scriptures in continuity with the theological interpretation learned from the early Fathers. Thus, we call Evangelicals to turn away from methods that separate theological reflection from the common traditions of the Church. These modern methods compartmentalize God's story by analyzing its separate parts, while ignoring God's entire redemptive work as recapitulated in Christ. Anti-historical attitudes also disregard the common biblical and theological legacy of the ancient Church.
Such disregard ignores the hermeneutical value of the Church's ecumenical creeds. This reduces God's story of the world to one of many competing theologies and impairs the unified witness of the Church to God's plan for the history of the world. Therefore, we call Evangelicals to unity in "the tradition that has been believed everywhere, always and by all," as well as to humility and charity in their various Protestant traditions.
4. On Church's Worship as Telling and Enacting God's Narrative
We call for public worship that sings, preaches and enacts God's story. We call for a renewed consideration of how God ministers to us in baptism, eucharist, confession, the laying on of hands, marriage, healing and through the charisms of the Spirit, for these actions shape our lives and signify the meaning of the world. Thus, we call Evangelicals to turn away from forms of worship that focus on God as a mere object of the intellect, or that assert the self as the source of worship. Such worship has resulted in lecture-oriented, music-driven, performance-centered and program-controlled models that do not adequately proclaim God's cosmic redemption. Therefore, we call Evangelicals to recover the historic substance of worship of Word and Table and to attend to the Christian year, which marks time according to God's saving acts.
5. On Spiritual Formation in the Church as Embodiment of God's Narrative
We call for a catechetical spiritual formation of the people of God that is based firmly on a Trinitarian biblical narrative. We are concerned when spirituality is separated from the story of God and baptism into the life of Christ and his Body. Spirituality, made independent from God's story, is often characterized by legalism, mere intellectual knowledge, an overly therapeutic culture, New Age Gnosticism, a dualistic rejection of this world and a narcissistic preoccupation with one's own experience. These false spiritualities are inadequate for the challenges we face in today's world. Therefore, we call Evangelicals to return to a historic spirituality like that taught and practiced in the ancient catechumenate.
6. On the Church's Embodied Life in the World
We call for a cruciform holiness and commitment to God's mission in the world. This embodied holiness affirms life, biblical morality and appropriate self-denial. It calls us to be faithful stewards of the created order and bold prophets to our contemporary culture. Thus, we call Evangelicals to intensify their prophetic voice against forms of indifference to God's gift of life, economic and political injustice, ecological insensitivity and the failure to champion the poor and marginalized. Too often we have failed to stand prophetically against the culture's captivity to racism, consumerism, political correctness, civil religion, sexism, ethical relativism, violence and the culture of death. These failures have muted the voice of Christ to the world through his Church and detract from God's story of the world, which the Church is collectively to embody. Therefore, we call the Church to recover its counter-cultural mission to the world.
Epilogue
In sum, we call Evangelicals to recover the conviction that God's story shapes the mission of the Church to bear witness to God's Kingdom and to inform the spiritual foundations of civilization. We set forth this Call as an ongoing, open-ended conversation. We are aware that we have our blind spots and weaknesses. Therefore, we encourage Evangelicals to engage this Call within educational centers, denominations and local churches through publications and conferences.
We pray that we can move with intention to proclaim a loving, transcendent, triune God who has become involved in our history. In line with Scripture, creed and tradition, it is our deepest desire to embody God's purposes in the mission of the Church through our theological reflection, our worship, our spirituality and our life in the world, all the while proclaiming that Jesus is Lord over all creation.
© Northern Seminary 2006 Robert Webber and Phil Kenyon
Sponsors:
Northern Seminary (www.seminary.edu)
Baker Books (www.bakerbooks.com)
Institute for Worship Studies (www.iwsfla.org)
This is a great declaration.
In order to understand the implications of this Call, people from all strands of evangelicalism will gather together on December 7, 8, and 9, 2006 in Lombard, Illinois under the sponsorship of Northern Baptist Seminary to explore ministry that flows directly out of God’s story. The keynote speakers for the conference are Brian D. McLaren and Robert Webber. At this historic gathering, ministers and theologians will come together in order to rediscover their unity in God’s story.
For more details about The Call contact Robert Webber at rwebber@seminary.edu. For registration and additional information about the conference visit www.growcenter.org.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
The Mysterious Egyptian Tomb
A new tomb discovered in Egypt recently is causing archaeologists to ponder its significance. Is this new tomb a royal Egyptian tomb, a supply room used by ancient embalmers, or something else?
The new tomb was hidden in the Valley of the Kings for thousands of years. Today, some archaeologists believe that the finding may be the first tomb to be uncovered in the pharaonic city of the dead since the discovery of King Tutankhamun's treasures in 1922.
The findings in the tomb include jars of mummification materials and coffins labeled A through G. The discovery of this new tomb will be described in a TV show that will chronicle how the tomb was found. The program, "Egypt's New Tomb Revealed," will premiere on June 4, 2006 on the Discovery Channel.
Click here and read the article describing the complexities of this new discovery.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
File under: Egypt, Archaeology
The new tomb was hidden in the Valley of the Kings for thousands of years. Today, some archaeologists believe that the finding may be the first tomb to be uncovered in the pharaonic city of the dead since the discovery of King Tutankhamun's treasures in 1922.
The findings in the tomb include jars of mummification materials and coffins labeled A through G. The discovery of this new tomb will be described in a TV show that will chronicle how the tomb was found. The program, "Egypt's New Tomb Revealed," will premiere on June 4, 2006 on the Discovery Channel.
Click here and read the article describing the complexities of this new discovery.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
File under: Egypt, Archaeology
Sunday, May 28, 2006
A Threat to the Future of the Internet
Is the democratic ethic of the World Wide Web about to end? In a very interesting article about the future of blogging and of the World Wide Web itself, Adam Cohen wrote in The New York Times that if the people at AT&T have their way, the Internet of the future will be completely different from the Internet of today.
Cohen wrote:
“Last year, the chief executive of what is now AT&T sent shock waves through cyberspace when he asked why Web sites should be able to ‘use my pipes free.’ Internet service providers would like to be able to charge Web sites for access to their customers. Web sites that could not pay the new fees would be accessible at a slower speed, or perhaps not be accessible at all.”
“A tiered Internet poses a threat at many levels. Service providers could, for example, shut out Web sites whose politics they dislike. Even if they did not discriminate on the basis of content, access fees would automatically marginalize smaller, poorer Web sites.”
Some of the people who want to impose limitations on the Internet are using misleading information to cover their intentions. According to Cohen,
“The companies fighting net neutrality have been waging a misleading campaign, with the slogan ‘hands off the Internet,’ that tries to look like a grass-roots effort to protect the Internet in its current form. What they actually favor is stopping the government from protecting the Internet, so they can get their own hands on it.”
All of us who blog and use the Internet should be aware of the struggle to preserve the democratic aspect of the Internet and of the World Wide Web. You should read this article.
To read Cohen’s article, click here.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Cohen wrote:
“Last year, the chief executive of what is now AT&T sent shock waves through cyberspace when he asked why Web sites should be able to ‘use my pipes free.’ Internet service providers would like to be able to charge Web sites for access to their customers. Web sites that could not pay the new fees would be accessible at a slower speed, or perhaps not be accessible at all.”
“A tiered Internet poses a threat at many levels. Service providers could, for example, shut out Web sites whose politics they dislike. Even if they did not discriminate on the basis of content, access fees would automatically marginalize smaller, poorer Web sites.”
Some of the people who want to impose limitations on the Internet are using misleading information to cover their intentions. According to Cohen,
“The companies fighting net neutrality have been waging a misleading campaign, with the slogan ‘hands off the Internet,’ that tries to look like a grass-roots effort to protect the Internet in its current form. What they actually favor is stopping the government from protecting the Internet, so they can get their own hands on it.”
All of us who blog and use the Internet should be aware of the struggle to preserve the democratic aspect of the Internet and of the World Wide Web. You should read this article.
To read Cohen’s article, click here.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Saturday, May 27, 2006
God in the Movies: God Goes Hollywood
God is all over Hollywood these days. The name of God has been mentioned so often in movies lately because movie producers have realized that God sells.
Take, for instance, this brief selection taken from an article published in The New York Times on Saturday, May 27, 2006:
"You don't believe in God?" Tom Hanks's character asks Audrey Tautou, who plays his partner-in-ciphers in "The Da Vinci Code."
"Do you believe in God?" Liev Schreiber's character asks a therapist who doubts that his adopted son, Damien, has devil genes in the new version of "The Omen."
"Get right with God," William Hurt preaches in the small, intense film "The King," but he's playing an evangelical minister, so he's a lot more certain.
“With echo upon echo of faith-based dialogue, movie theaters today often sound like church. But what seems like a new willingness to explore questions of faith — as if Mel Gibson's blockbuster "The Passion of the Christ" had made religion safe for Hollywood — has the spiritual depth of the "Daily Show" segment "This Week in God," with its quiz-show-style "God Machine" that spits out religions to satirize.”
The article, “God and Man on Screen: Big Questions as Entertainment,” was written by Caryn James. To read the complete article, click here.
With all this publicity God is receiving lately, we should remember that there is no such thing as bad publicity.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
File under: Movies, God, Hollywood
Take, for instance, this brief selection taken from an article published in The New York Times on Saturday, May 27, 2006:
"You don't believe in God?" Tom Hanks's character asks Audrey Tautou, who plays his partner-in-ciphers in "The Da Vinci Code."
"Do you believe in God?" Liev Schreiber's character asks a therapist who doubts that his adopted son, Damien, has devil genes in the new version of "The Omen."
"Get right with God," William Hurt preaches in the small, intense film "The King," but he's playing an evangelical minister, so he's a lot more certain.
“With echo upon echo of faith-based dialogue, movie theaters today often sound like church. But what seems like a new willingness to explore questions of faith — as if Mel Gibson's blockbuster "The Passion of the Christ" had made religion safe for Hollywood — has the spiritual depth of the "Daily Show" segment "This Week in God," with its quiz-show-style "God Machine" that spits out religions to satirize.”
The article, “God and Man on Screen: Big Questions as Entertainment,” was written by Caryn James. To read the complete article, click here.
With all this publicity God is receiving lately, we should remember that there is no such thing as bad publicity.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
File under: Movies, God, Hollywood
Thursday, May 25, 2006
The God of the Bible and the Problem of Evil
My friend Martin has commented on my “brief homily” about my insistence that the God of the Bible is a real being. In his post, Claude Strikes Back, he wrote: “To me, the whole god thing is just an unnecessary hypothesis pruned long ago from rational discourse by razor-wielding Ockham.”
Then, he introduced an issue that all those who deny God like to emphasize. Martin wrote: “Claude, however, offers no explanation for his deity's self-imposed limitations regarding famine, pestilence, hurricanes, tsunamis and other causes of human suffering that have nothing to do with free will.”
But I have! I expressed my views on the problem of evil at the time Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana and Mississippi. Explaining natural disasters and other causes of human suffering is difficult and there is no easy answer to the problem.
In dealing with the issue of theodicy, people either blame God or human beings for the cause of evil. There are many other proposed solutions to the problem of evil, but no one can agree on an answer that satisfies all objections.
Those who desire to know my views on this issue can read my three blogs on Hurricane Katrina, especially part 2 and 3. I am sure that Martin will not agree with what he reads.
To read “God and Hurricane Katrina - Part 1,” click here.
To read “God and Hurricane Katrina - Part 2,” click here.
To read “God and Hurricane Katrina - Part 3,” click here.
I definitely agree with Martin in denying “all rumors that the whole thing is just a scheme we dreamed up with the aim of attracting enough attention for both of us to beat the evil archaeo-astronomical genius Alun Salt on Technorati's list.” However, I welcome readers from Europe who have visited my blog because of Martin.
Claude F. Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Then, he introduced an issue that all those who deny God like to emphasize. Martin wrote: “Claude, however, offers no explanation for his deity's self-imposed limitations regarding famine, pestilence, hurricanes, tsunamis and other causes of human suffering that have nothing to do with free will.”
But I have! I expressed my views on the problem of evil at the time Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana and Mississippi. Explaining natural disasters and other causes of human suffering is difficult and there is no easy answer to the problem.
In dealing with the issue of theodicy, people either blame God or human beings for the cause of evil. There are many other proposed solutions to the problem of evil, but no one can agree on an answer that satisfies all objections.
Those who desire to know my views on this issue can read my three blogs on Hurricane Katrina, especially part 2 and 3. I am sure that Martin will not agree with what he reads.
To read “God and Hurricane Katrina - Part 1,” click here.
To read “God and Hurricane Katrina - Part 2,” click here.
To read “God and Hurricane Katrina - Part 3,” click here.
I definitely agree with Martin in denying “all rumors that the whole thing is just a scheme we dreamed up with the aim of attracting enough attention for both of us to beat the evil archaeo-astronomical genius Alun Salt on Technorati's list.” However, I welcome readers from Europe who have visited my blog because of Martin.
Claude F. Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
The God of the Bible: Real or Imaginary?
Two weeks ago I decided to take a few days off from blogging in order to concentrate on grading final exams, reading papers, and preparing for the end of the academic year. Those who are involved in teaching know that the end of the academic year is very busy. I am not finished with my academic responsibilities yet, but I decided to return to blogging one week earlier than I expected.
I missed blogging. By this I mean, I missed receiving emails from my readers reacting to what they read. I missed the dialogue with other bloggers and I missed the give and take with those who have comments about my posts.
During my time off I discovered several things. First, I discovered that several people have linked their blogs to my blog. I discovered this fact by accident. If you have linked your blog to my blog, please, let me know and I will be in contact with you by email.
Second, I discovered that two months ago, a blog called Salto sobrius reached the top-10 list of archaeology blogs on Technorati. I discovered this because Martin Rundkvist, from Stockholm, Sweden, someone who describes himself as “a skeptic and an atheist,” in a post titled Racing Claude, wrote:
“Two months ago, Salto sobrius made it onto the top-10 list of archaeology blogs on Technorati. It's currently at number 8 and rising. The reason I bring this up now is that I've just made it past Claude Mariottini of the Northern Baptist Seminary, the current number 9.”
Martin introduces some material I posted on my blog from James Kennedy about The Da Vinci Code with some of his personal evaluation to what he misunderstood to be my rebuttal. He wrote:
“You can see where this guy's at. Code is a crappy novel full of clichés, and you have to be severely ignorant to believe any of it is historical truth. But being a skeptic and an atheist, I find it really amusing to see a tenured academic argue (as a "rebuttal" of an "error"!) that if someone is willing to die for a piece of religious writing, then it must be historical truth. And also, that an author's sexual habits, as described posthumously by his enemies, are a good indicator of his truthfulness.”
Martin then concludes with a shout of victory:“Well, Claude amigo, keep up the good work! You started blogging on 16 August last year, so you've got exactly four months' head start on me. And you're supported by an Almighty Imaginary Friend. But still my stuff seems to be more relevant to other bloggers than yours.”
Martin’s description of God really caught my attention. Is the God of the Bible “an Almighty Imaginary Friend?” This description of the nature of God has deep implications for those who believe in God and even for those, like Martin, who do not believe that there is a God. Let me explain.
It is easy to say that God is “Almighty,” even though this is not the best way to explain God. Those who call God “the Almighty” have the wrong idea that God can do everything. This view is derived from Greek philosophy, not from biblical revelation.
Those who accept this Greek idea of God wonder whether God can make the past not to have existed or whether God can create a stone so heavy that not even God can lift it. What the Bible teaches is that as the Creator, God has supreme power and authority over his creation.
However, God’s power as the Creator does not eliminate the independence of human beings to make choices. Divine power does not take away human freedom to believe or not to believe. Not even God can force skeptics and atheists to believe in God. This self-imposed limitation of God comes out of God’s love for the humans he has created.
It is also easy to say that God is a “Friend.” A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity. Those who understand these words will also understand the words of Christ: “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” [Ingen har större kärlek, än att han giver sitt liv för sina vänner] (John 15:13).
The word “friend” focuses on God’s love for us. Friendship finds its realization in sacrificial, self-giving love. And this is what people discover when they establish a personal relationship with God. God is always present, God is always love. No one can discover God’s love just by reading about it; they have to experience that love through Christ.
To call God “Imaginary” is another matter. The God of the Bible is not an imaginary God; he is a real being. The evidence for the existence of God is everywhere: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands” (Psalm 19:1).
Or, as Paul wrote: “From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities-- his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God” (Romans 1:20).
The fact is, people chose to believe that God is an imaginary being. “Yes, people knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they became utter fools instead” (Romans 1:21-22).
Human wisdom will never lead an individual to a personal knowledge of God. This is what Qoheleth, the writer of the book of Ecclesiastes, discovered. He tried by human wisdom to understand the mysteries of life, and in the end he concluded that his attempt to understand everything was in vain.
The book of Ecclesiastes tells the story of a skeptic in search of God through human wisdom. The book presents the struggle of a man who had tried everything and in the end found that nothing satisfied him and that nothing was of value. He concluded that God has nothing to do with what happened in the world. His skepticism led him to deny the existence of God.
In his commentary on Psalms 1-59 (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988), p. 221, Hans-Joachim Kraus wrote:
“The assumption that God exists is the Old Testament’s greatest gift to mankind. In the Old Testament God’s existence is entirely a foregone conclusion, always presupposed; reference is continually being made to it; it is never denied or questioned.
The Psalmist said: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1). The words of the fool are the words of people who are practical atheists. As Kraus wrote: “They speak like that not in order to deny God but in order to evade His judgment and His claims upon them.”
So, Martin, my vän! God is Almighty and a Friend but he is not imaginary. He is real and he has a claim on you. I congratulate you for reaching number 8 on the Technorati list (In fact, I linked you in this blog to help out!), but what counts is being number one with God.
“Ty så älskade Gud världen, att han utgav sin enfödde Son, på det att var och en som tror på honom skall icke förgås, utan hava evigt liv” (John 3:16).
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
I missed blogging. By this I mean, I missed receiving emails from my readers reacting to what they read. I missed the dialogue with other bloggers and I missed the give and take with those who have comments about my posts.
During my time off I discovered several things. First, I discovered that several people have linked their blogs to my blog. I discovered this fact by accident. If you have linked your blog to my blog, please, let me know and I will be in contact with you by email.
Second, I discovered that two months ago, a blog called Salto sobrius reached the top-10 list of archaeology blogs on Technorati. I discovered this because Martin Rundkvist, from Stockholm, Sweden, someone who describes himself as “a skeptic and an atheist,” in a post titled Racing Claude, wrote:
“Two months ago, Salto sobrius made it onto the top-10 list of archaeology blogs on Technorati. It's currently at number 8 and rising. The reason I bring this up now is that I've just made it past Claude Mariottini of the Northern Baptist Seminary, the current number 9.”
Martin introduces some material I posted on my blog from James Kennedy about The Da Vinci Code with some of his personal evaluation to what he misunderstood to be my rebuttal. He wrote:
“You can see where this guy's at. Code is a crappy novel full of clichés, and you have to be severely ignorant to believe any of it is historical truth. But being a skeptic and an atheist, I find it really amusing to see a tenured academic argue (as a "rebuttal" of an "error"!) that if someone is willing to die for a piece of religious writing, then it must be historical truth. And also, that an author's sexual habits, as described posthumously by his enemies, are a good indicator of his truthfulness.”
Martin then concludes with a shout of victory:“Well, Claude amigo, keep up the good work! You started blogging on 16 August last year, so you've got exactly four months' head start on me. And you're supported by an Almighty Imaginary Friend. But still my stuff seems to be more relevant to other bloggers than yours.”
Martin’s description of God really caught my attention. Is the God of the Bible “an Almighty Imaginary Friend?” This description of the nature of God has deep implications for those who believe in God and even for those, like Martin, who do not believe that there is a God. Let me explain.
It is easy to say that God is “Almighty,” even though this is not the best way to explain God. Those who call God “the Almighty” have the wrong idea that God can do everything. This view is derived from Greek philosophy, not from biblical revelation.
Those who accept this Greek idea of God wonder whether God can make the past not to have existed or whether God can create a stone so heavy that not even God can lift it. What the Bible teaches is that as the Creator, God has supreme power and authority over his creation.
However, God’s power as the Creator does not eliminate the independence of human beings to make choices. Divine power does not take away human freedom to believe or not to believe. Not even God can force skeptics and atheists to believe in God. This self-imposed limitation of God comes out of God’s love for the humans he has created.
It is also easy to say that God is a “Friend.” A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity. Those who understand these words will also understand the words of Christ: “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” [Ingen har större kärlek, än att han giver sitt liv för sina vänner] (John 15:13).
The word “friend” focuses on God’s love for us. Friendship finds its realization in sacrificial, self-giving love. And this is what people discover when they establish a personal relationship with God. God is always present, God is always love. No one can discover God’s love just by reading about it; they have to experience that love through Christ.
To call God “Imaginary” is another matter. The God of the Bible is not an imaginary God; he is a real being. The evidence for the existence of God is everywhere: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands” (Psalm 19:1).
Or, as Paul wrote: “From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities-- his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God” (Romans 1:20).
The fact is, people chose to believe that God is an imaginary being. “Yes, people knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they became utter fools instead” (Romans 1:21-22).
Human wisdom will never lead an individual to a personal knowledge of God. This is what Qoheleth, the writer of the book of Ecclesiastes, discovered. He tried by human wisdom to understand the mysteries of life, and in the end he concluded that his attempt to understand everything was in vain.
The book of Ecclesiastes tells the story of a skeptic in search of God through human wisdom. The book presents the struggle of a man who had tried everything and in the end found that nothing satisfied him and that nothing was of value. He concluded that God has nothing to do with what happened in the world. His skepticism led him to deny the existence of God.
In his commentary on Psalms 1-59 (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988), p. 221, Hans-Joachim Kraus wrote:
“The assumption that God exists is the Old Testament’s greatest gift to mankind. In the Old Testament God’s existence is entirely a foregone conclusion, always presupposed; reference is continually being made to it; it is never denied or questioned.
The Psalmist said: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1). The words of the fool are the words of people who are practical atheists. As Kraus wrote: “They speak like that not in order to deny God but in order to evade His judgment and His claims upon them.”
So, Martin, my vän! God is Almighty and a Friend but he is not imaginary. He is real and he has a claim on you. I congratulate you for reaching number 8 on the Technorati list (In fact, I linked you in this blog to help out!), but what counts is being number one with God.
“Ty så älskade Gud världen, att han utgav sin enfödde Son, på det att var och en som tror på honom skall icke förgås, utan hava evigt liv” (John 3:16).
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Monday, May 22, 2006
And Sarah Died
“And Sarah died” (Genesis 23:2).
Today I break my self-imposed time-off in order to write about the death of a wonderful woman, a faithful Christian, and one of my greatest supporters. Last week, Mildred Pondell, a member of Trinity Baptist Church, died at the age of 86. Millie had been a member of the church for more than 75 years.
The writer of Ecclesiastes was right: “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven: There is a time to be born and a time to die” (Ecclesiastes 3:1-2). The end of birth is death and the end of death is birth into a new and wonderful life. Millie Pondell today is enjoying her new life with Christ.
To those who believe in Christ, death is the end of all their pain and sorrow and the beginning of all their joys. There is no resurrection unless there is death. The God of the Bible is not the God of the dead but the God of the living (Luke 20:28).
Sarah was 90 years old when her son Isaac was born and 127 when she died. Sarah laughed when Isaac was born and she laughed again when she died. Physically, she probably was weak and frail when she died but spiritually, on the day she died, she was strong enough to win her greatest victory: “O death, where is your victory?” (1 Corinthians 15:55).
After Sarah died, Abraham mourned and wept for her. The father of the faithful, himself a man of faith, wept for the wife he loved. His faith did not harden his heart; he was a man of faith but he also was a man of feelings.
Abraham wept for Sarah. Abraham, the man who was to become the example of all faithful, wept. And so did Jesus at the occasion of Lazarus’s death. “Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh” (Luke 6:21).
Abraham wept in the face of death. His tears show that his faith was as human as the sorrow he experienced. And we join him at this time of sorrow. If we are willing to join him in his faith why not in his pain: “Oh, how I weep for you” (2 Samuel 1:26).
John Donne wrote: “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less . . . any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tools; it tolls for thee.”
Those who live a life of independence and self-centeredness will have a difficult time understanding how human beings are related to each other. The death of a believer overshadows Christian fellowship by the work of a temporary destroyer. As Donne wrote, our lives are diminished and impoverished by the angel of death.
If there is a time to be born and a time to die, then the end of live will demand that we provide a grave for the dead. Abraham bought a burial place for Sarah and all of us will need a burial place someday.
People go down to their graves in different ways. Some people live in such a way that when they die they will be greatly missed. Others live in such a way that when they die few will notice their absence. “Blessed are those who die in the Lord, for their good deeds follow them!” (Revelation 14:13).
Abraham mourned for Sarah, David for his son, and Jesus for his friend. Our faith is a Risen Savior does not eliminate our humanity nor diminish our love. To the contrary, Christianity heightens our humanity, refines our love, and magnifies our sense of community.
Today my church and I mourn the death of Millie Pondell, our beloved sister in Christ. The finger of God touched her and she slept. But death is not the end of everything. We think of death as the end of life rather than the beginning. We think of death as losing rather than gaining. Death is not departing but arriving. Today Millie has arrived at her final destination.
As believers, we praise our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, “who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (2 Timothy 1:10). In Christ, “Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting? How we thank God, who gives us victory over death through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (1 Corinthians 15:54-57).
“Blessed are those who die in the Lord from now on. Yes, says the Spirit, they are blessed indeed, for they will rest from all their toils and trials; for their good deeds follow them!” (Revelation 14:13).
Rest in peace.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Today I break my self-imposed time-off in order to write about the death of a wonderful woman, a faithful Christian, and one of my greatest supporters. Last week, Mildred Pondell, a member of Trinity Baptist Church, died at the age of 86. Millie had been a member of the church for more than 75 years.
The writer of Ecclesiastes was right: “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven: There is a time to be born and a time to die” (Ecclesiastes 3:1-2). The end of birth is death and the end of death is birth into a new and wonderful life. Millie Pondell today is enjoying her new life with Christ.
To those who believe in Christ, death is the end of all their pain and sorrow and the beginning of all their joys. There is no resurrection unless there is death. The God of the Bible is not the God of the dead but the God of the living (Luke 20:28).
Sarah was 90 years old when her son Isaac was born and 127 when she died. Sarah laughed when Isaac was born and she laughed again when she died. Physically, she probably was weak and frail when she died but spiritually, on the day she died, she was strong enough to win her greatest victory: “O death, where is your victory?” (1 Corinthians 15:55).
After Sarah died, Abraham mourned and wept for her. The father of the faithful, himself a man of faith, wept for the wife he loved. His faith did not harden his heart; he was a man of faith but he also was a man of feelings.
Abraham wept for Sarah. Abraham, the man who was to become the example of all faithful, wept. And so did Jesus at the occasion of Lazarus’s death. “Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh” (Luke 6:21).
Abraham wept in the face of death. His tears show that his faith was as human as the sorrow he experienced. And we join him at this time of sorrow. If we are willing to join him in his faith why not in his pain: “Oh, how I weep for you” (2 Samuel 1:26).
John Donne wrote: “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less . . . any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tools; it tolls for thee.”
Those who live a life of independence and self-centeredness will have a difficult time understanding how human beings are related to each other. The death of a believer overshadows Christian fellowship by the work of a temporary destroyer. As Donne wrote, our lives are diminished and impoverished by the angel of death.
If there is a time to be born and a time to die, then the end of live will demand that we provide a grave for the dead. Abraham bought a burial place for Sarah and all of us will need a burial place someday.
People go down to their graves in different ways. Some people live in such a way that when they die they will be greatly missed. Others live in such a way that when they die few will notice their absence. “Blessed are those who die in the Lord, for their good deeds follow them!” (Revelation 14:13).
Abraham mourned for Sarah, David for his son, and Jesus for his friend. Our faith is a Risen Savior does not eliminate our humanity nor diminish our love. To the contrary, Christianity heightens our humanity, refines our love, and magnifies our sense of community.
Today my church and I mourn the death of Millie Pondell, our beloved sister in Christ. The finger of God touched her and she slept. But death is not the end of everything. We think of death as the end of life rather than the beginning. We think of death as losing rather than gaining. Death is not departing but arriving. Today Millie has arrived at her final destination.
As believers, we praise our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, “who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (2 Timothy 1:10). In Christ, “Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting? How we thank God, who gives us victory over death through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (1 Corinthians 15:54-57).
“Blessed are those who die in the Lord from now on. Yes, says the Spirit, they are blessed indeed, for they will rest from all their toils and trials; for their good deeds follow them!” (Revelation 14:13).
Rest in peace.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Monday, May 15, 2006
Time Off
It has happened again. The end of the academic year has arrived and with it grading exams, reading papers, and preparing for graduation ceremonies and all the things related to it. This means that the time to write the blog will be very limited.
For the next two weeks I will be taking some time off in order to give attention to my academic responsibilities. I have enjoyed reading the many emails, responses, and comments to the blog. Your response has been very positive and encouraging. I thank you for reading and for writing.
I will be back in a few days.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
For the next two weeks I will be taking some time off in order to give attention to my academic responsibilities. I have enjoyed reading the many emails, responses, and comments to the blog. Your response has been very positive and encouraging. I thank you for reading and for writing.
I will be back in a few days.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Thursday, May 11, 2006
The False Teachings of The Da Vinci Code
Dr. James Kennedy, senior minister of the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida and president of Coral Ridge Ministries, is presenting a special program about The Da Vinci Code. In this documentary, Dr. Kennedy and biblical scholars examine The Da Vinci Code and rebut several errors found in the book.
Some of the errors, claimed to be fact in the book, contradict the teachings of the New Testament. If these errors were true, they would greatly impact the teachings of Christianity.
Here are two examples of the issues discussed in the documentary:
Error: The book tells readers that "The New Testament is false testimony."
Rebuttal: The New Testament was sealed with the apostles' blood. They put their money where their mouths were. The Greek word for "witness" – as in the idea of witnessing to the truth about Jesus – is "martyro," from whence we get the word martyr. Why? Because so many witnesses to Jesus, e.g., the apostles, were killed for testifying about what they themselves saw. Brown glibly ignores this history and, instead, exalts the questionable writings of second-, third-, and fourth-century Gnostic Christians, who were sexual libertines for the most part. (Other Gnostics were strict legalists.)
Error: In "The Last Supper," Leonardo da Vinci allegedly painted Mary Magdalene seated next to Jesus.
Rebuttal: One of Dan Brown's proofs is that John looks so feminine, but John is often portrayed in such a way in art because he was young. Go to any cathedral and look at the stained-glass images of John. Just as you can identify Peter because he is holding keys, and you can tell Andrew because he is holding a Cross like an X (the kind on which He was crucified), so you can tell John by his feminine looks. But suppose it were the case that Leonardo intentionally painted Mary Magdalene next to Jesus instead of John, because Jesus and Mary were allegedly married, and Leonardo was in on the secret, then where is the "beloved disciple" John? He is not in the picture. Where is he? Under the table?
To read the full article, click here.
The new documentary special, "The Da Vinci Delusion," airs May 13 and May 14 nationwide and is available now on DVD from Coral Ridge Ministries
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Index under: Da Vinci Code
Some of the errors, claimed to be fact in the book, contradict the teachings of the New Testament. If these errors were true, they would greatly impact the teachings of Christianity.
Here are two examples of the issues discussed in the documentary:
Error: The book tells readers that "The New Testament is false testimony."
Rebuttal: The New Testament was sealed with the apostles' blood. They put their money where their mouths were. The Greek word for "witness" – as in the idea of witnessing to the truth about Jesus – is "martyro," from whence we get the word martyr. Why? Because so many witnesses to Jesus, e.g., the apostles, were killed for testifying about what they themselves saw. Brown glibly ignores this history and, instead, exalts the questionable writings of second-, third-, and fourth-century Gnostic Christians, who were sexual libertines for the most part. (Other Gnostics were strict legalists.)
Error: In "The Last Supper," Leonardo da Vinci allegedly painted Mary Magdalene seated next to Jesus.
Rebuttal: One of Dan Brown's proofs is that John looks so feminine, but John is often portrayed in such a way in art because he was young. Go to any cathedral and look at the stained-glass images of John. Just as you can identify Peter because he is holding keys, and you can tell Andrew because he is holding a Cross like an X (the kind on which He was crucified), so you can tell John by his feminine looks. But suppose it were the case that Leonardo intentionally painted Mary Magdalene next to Jesus instead of John, because Jesus and Mary were allegedly married, and Leonardo was in on the secret, then where is the "beloved disciple" John? He is not in the picture. Where is he? Under the table?
To read the full article, click here.
The new documentary special, "The Da Vinci Delusion," airs May 13 and May 14 nationwide and is available now on DVD from Coral Ridge Ministries
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Index under: Da Vinci Code
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
A Prehistoric Site in Israel
On Tuesday, May 9, 2006, the Jerusalem Post reported that two Israeli archaeologists have found a prehistoric site in Israel. According to the report, the archaeologists discovered stone utensils on the southeastern section of Jerusalem.A stone arrowhead found at the site
According to Israel's Antiquities Authority, the archaeologists dated the stone utensils to the Middle Paleolithic Period, that is, between 50,000-200,000 years ago.
The picture above shows a stone arrowhead found at the site.
To read the news report, click here.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Index under: archaeology
Monday, May 08, 2006
Rereading Daniel 9:25-27: The Seventy Weeks of Daniel
This essay is the third in a series of studies dealing with translation issues related to the very controversial text of Daniel 9:25-27. I recommend that if you have not read the previous essays, read them before you continue reading this essay about the seventy weeks of Daniel.
The first essay, Fairbairn v. Fairbairn, deals with the issue of interpretation of biblical texts. The issue focuses on how people can interpret the same biblical text in different ways.
The second essay, Rereading Daniel 9:25-27: The Coming of the Messiah, deals with the issue of how to translate the word mashiah and nagid in Daniel 9:25. The conclusion of the study was that the text requires the translation “an anointed one,” and “a prince.”
This translation of the text was affirmed in a comment made by Lingamish in his blog Definiteness in Hebrew. In that post, Lingamish wrote:
“Wayne at Better Bibles referenced Dr. Mariottini's blog on Daniel 9:25. According to Dr. Mariottini's argument, the lack of an article in verse 25 is evidence that Daniel isn't referring to ‘the’ annointed [sic] one but to ‘an’ annointed one.”
“I just happened to be sitting at a workshop next to Dr. Stephen Levinsohn and asked him about definite articles in Hebrew. He said that generally in introducing a participant in Hebrew you would expect to not have an article on the first reference. Subsequent reference to the participant would have the article. So the example in 9:25 does not necessarily demonstrate that Daniel wasn't referring to a specific annointed one. However, in verse 26, Daniel again refers to the annointed one without the article, and in Dr. Levinsohn's view this was evidence to support the proposition that Daniel was referring to an undefined ‘annointed one.’”
I want to thank Dr. Stephen Levinsohn for his affirmation. In the present essay, I want to deal with another issue of translation: the seventy weeks of Daniel. The King James Version translates Daniel 9:25 as follows:
“Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.”
According to this translation, “the Messiah” shall come after 69 weeks (7 weeks + 62 weeks). Then “the Messiah” shall be cut off at the end of the 62nd week (v. 26).
The same approach is taken by the Holman Christian Standard Version. The HCSV reads: “Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince will be seven weeks and 62 weeks.”
The problem with these two translations and others that follow the same reading is that they do not take into consideration the Hebrew accentuation of verse 25. The issue of Hebrew accents is difficult, but a few words can clarify the issue.
In Hebrew there are two types of accents and they act as punctuation marks. The strong accents serve as stops (periods), colons, and semicolons. One of these accents is called the athnah. The function of the athnah is to mark the first half of a verse and serves as a strong break within a sentence.
The Hebrew text contains an athnah under the Hebrew word for “seven”, which in the text closes the first period of sevens. Thus, in Hebrew the accent makes a separation between the two periods of weeks. If the translator of the KJV had followed the Hebrew accentuation, the translation of Daniel 9:25 would read as follows:
“Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.”
This is the translation adopted by the English Standard Version (ESV). The Revised Standard Version and a few other translations have adopted similar reading. Notice that the coming of the anointed one comes at the end of seven weeks, not at the end of sixty-nine weeks.
The difference between the ESV and the KJV is that the ESV follows the Masoretic Text (MT) while the KJV follows the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Theodotion text.
The issue among interpreters is which text reflects the original reading of Daniel 9:25. Those who advocate Theodotion do so because his translation was finished in the second century A. D., while the Masoretic text found its final form in the ninth or tenth century A. D. Many people believe the Masoretes changed the text to avoid the Messianic interpretation of Daniel 9:25, whereas Theodotion’s translation supports the Messianic view.
Those who take the traditional translation of Daniel 9:25, represented by the King James Version and other translations, are led to believe that “the Messiah,” “the Prince,” was killed at the end of the 69th week. Since the “Messiah,” and the “Prince,” are interpreted to be Jesus, then the dates are calculated so that the conclusion of the 69th week ends in A. D. 32, the year that Christ died.
But this calculation leaves the last week, the 70th week of Daniel unfulfilled. This is where the dispensationalism of Scofield enters in. Since the 70th week does not fit historically, dispensationalists talk about “The Great Parenthesis.” As one proponent of the theory wrote:
“Between the sixty-nine and the seventieth weeks we have a Great Parenthesis which has now lasted over nineteen hundred years. The seventieth week has been postponed by God Himself, who changes the times and the seasons because of the transgression of the people.”
According to this view, the reason the last week was postponed was because when Christ died on the cross, “the prophetic clock stopped” until the age of the church comes to an end.
This infusion of ideas into Daniel 9:25-27, a process that is called eisegesis, is what leads people into dispensationalism. Eisegesis is the process of interpreting the Bible in which the interpreter tries to make the Bible say something that is in accordance with some pre-existing idea about a particular issue or doctrine.
Those who use eisegesis to interpret the Bible generally are not willing to allow the Bible to be understood as it was intended by the original writer. Rather, those who infuse ideas into the Bible are trying to prove something they already believe in.
People who use eisegesis can find aliens and astronauts in the Old Testament. They can also find America and Russia, Gorbachov and Saddam Hussein, the rapture and the tribulation, and a host of others things that are not in the Bible.
So, who was the anointed one of Daniel 9:25? In order to answer this question, there are several things that must control the interpretation of the text. Again, using the text of the ESV, the identification of the anointed one must fall within these guidelines:
First, an anointed one, who is also a prince of the community, must come at the end of the first seven weeks: “Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks” (v. 25a).
Second, after the coming of the anointed one, Jerusalem would be built again: “Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time” (v. 25b).
Third, at the end of the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be killed: “And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing” (v. 26a).
Fourth, after the death of the anointed one, the people of a prince shall destroy the sanctuary: “And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator” (vv. 26b-27).
When the biblical text is taken at face value, the text speaks of two anointed ones and two princes. Also, when the biblical text is taken at face value, the dispensationalism of Scofield, the Great Parenthesis, the seven year tribulation and all the other issues related to this doctrine, are found to have no biblical basis.
As for the identity of the one who was a prince and an anointed one, I leave that for those who write commentaries. My intent was only to demonstrate how a biased translation of a text can lead people astray. Translators have a responsibility of being neutral in their translation of the biblical text.
NOTE: My blog has moved to a new address. If you enjoyed reading this post, you can subscribe to my blog by visiting my web page or subscribing to my blog here:
Dr. Claude Mariottini
Subscription
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
If you enjoyed reading this post, subscribe to my posts here.
Tags: Hebrew Bible, Daniel, Daniel 9, Messiah , Seventy Weeks
The first essay, Fairbairn v. Fairbairn, deals with the issue of interpretation of biblical texts. The issue focuses on how people can interpret the same biblical text in different ways.
The second essay, Rereading Daniel 9:25-27: The Coming of the Messiah, deals with the issue of how to translate the word mashiah and nagid in Daniel 9:25. The conclusion of the study was that the text requires the translation “an anointed one,” and “a prince.”
This translation of the text was affirmed in a comment made by Lingamish in his blog Definiteness in Hebrew. In that post, Lingamish wrote:
“Wayne at Better Bibles referenced Dr. Mariottini's blog on Daniel 9:25. According to Dr. Mariottini's argument, the lack of an article in verse 25 is evidence that Daniel isn't referring to ‘the’ annointed [sic] one but to ‘an’ annointed one.”
“I just happened to be sitting at a workshop next to Dr. Stephen Levinsohn and asked him about definite articles in Hebrew. He said that generally in introducing a participant in Hebrew you would expect to not have an article on the first reference. Subsequent reference to the participant would have the article. So the example in 9:25 does not necessarily demonstrate that Daniel wasn't referring to a specific annointed one. However, in verse 26, Daniel again refers to the annointed one without the article, and in Dr. Levinsohn's view this was evidence to support the proposition that Daniel was referring to an undefined ‘annointed one.’”
I want to thank Dr. Stephen Levinsohn for his affirmation. In the present essay, I want to deal with another issue of translation: the seventy weeks of Daniel. The King James Version translates Daniel 9:25 as follows:
“Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.”
According to this translation, “the Messiah” shall come after 69 weeks (7 weeks + 62 weeks). Then “the Messiah” shall be cut off at the end of the 62nd week (v. 26).
The same approach is taken by the Holman Christian Standard Version. The HCSV reads: “Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince will be seven weeks and 62 weeks.”
The problem with these two translations and others that follow the same reading is that they do not take into consideration the Hebrew accentuation of verse 25. The issue of Hebrew accents is difficult, but a few words can clarify the issue.
In Hebrew there are two types of accents and they act as punctuation marks. The strong accents serve as stops (periods), colons, and semicolons. One of these accents is called the athnah. The function of the athnah is to mark the first half of a verse and serves as a strong break within a sentence.
The Hebrew text contains an athnah under the Hebrew word for “seven”, which in the text closes the first period of sevens. Thus, in Hebrew the accent makes a separation between the two periods of weeks. If the translator of the KJV had followed the Hebrew accentuation, the translation of Daniel 9:25 would read as follows:
“Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.”
This is the translation adopted by the English Standard Version (ESV). The Revised Standard Version and a few other translations have adopted similar reading. Notice that the coming of the anointed one comes at the end of seven weeks, not at the end of sixty-nine weeks.
The difference between the ESV and the KJV is that the ESV follows the Masoretic Text (MT) while the KJV follows the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Theodotion text.
The issue among interpreters is which text reflects the original reading of Daniel 9:25. Those who advocate Theodotion do so because his translation was finished in the second century A. D., while the Masoretic text found its final form in the ninth or tenth century A. D. Many people believe the Masoretes changed the text to avoid the Messianic interpretation of Daniel 9:25, whereas Theodotion’s translation supports the Messianic view.
Those who take the traditional translation of Daniel 9:25, represented by the King James Version and other translations, are led to believe that “the Messiah,” “the Prince,” was killed at the end of the 69th week. Since the “Messiah,” and the “Prince,” are interpreted to be Jesus, then the dates are calculated so that the conclusion of the 69th week ends in A. D. 32, the year that Christ died.
But this calculation leaves the last week, the 70th week of Daniel unfulfilled. This is where the dispensationalism of Scofield enters in. Since the 70th week does not fit historically, dispensationalists talk about “The Great Parenthesis.” As one proponent of the theory wrote:
“Between the sixty-nine and the seventieth weeks we have a Great Parenthesis which has now lasted over nineteen hundred years. The seventieth week has been postponed by God Himself, who changes the times and the seasons because of the transgression of the people.”
According to this view, the reason the last week was postponed was because when Christ died on the cross, “the prophetic clock stopped” until the age of the church comes to an end.
This infusion of ideas into Daniel 9:25-27, a process that is called eisegesis, is what leads people into dispensationalism. Eisegesis is the process of interpreting the Bible in which the interpreter tries to make the Bible say something that is in accordance with some pre-existing idea about a particular issue or doctrine.
Those who use eisegesis to interpret the Bible generally are not willing to allow the Bible to be understood as it was intended by the original writer. Rather, those who infuse ideas into the Bible are trying to prove something they already believe in.
People who use eisegesis can find aliens and astronauts in the Old Testament. They can also find America and Russia, Gorbachov and Saddam Hussein, the rapture and the tribulation, and a host of others things that are not in the Bible.
So, who was the anointed one of Daniel 9:25? In order to answer this question, there are several things that must control the interpretation of the text. Again, using the text of the ESV, the identification of the anointed one must fall within these guidelines:
First, an anointed one, who is also a prince of the community, must come at the end of the first seven weeks: “Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks” (v. 25a).
Second, after the coming of the anointed one, Jerusalem would be built again: “Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time” (v. 25b).
Third, at the end of the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be killed: “And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing” (v. 26a).
Fourth, after the death of the anointed one, the people of a prince shall destroy the sanctuary: “And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator” (vv. 26b-27).
When the biblical text is taken at face value, the text speaks of two anointed ones and two princes. Also, when the biblical text is taken at face value, the dispensationalism of Scofield, the Great Parenthesis, the seven year tribulation and all the other issues related to this doctrine, are found to have no biblical basis.
As for the identity of the one who was a prince and an anointed one, I leave that for those who write commentaries. My intent was only to demonstrate how a biased translation of a text can lead people astray. Translators have a responsibility of being neutral in their translation of the biblical text.
NOTE: My blog has moved to a new address. If you enjoyed reading this post, you can subscribe to my blog by visiting my web page or subscribing to my blog here:
Dr. Claude Mariottini
Subscription
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
If you enjoyed reading this post, subscribe to my posts here.
Tags: Hebrew Bible, Daniel, Daniel 9, Messiah , Seventy Weeks
Friday, May 05, 2006
The Jewish Goddess
Jay Michaelson has written a review of two books that deal with a very controversial subject: the Jewish Goddess. His review of Did God Have a Wife? Archeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel by William G. Dever (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005) and The Divine Feminine in Biblical Wisdom Literature by Rami Shapiro (Skylight Paths Publishing, 2005) presents a perspective of Israelite religion that may be unknown to many readers.
Archaeologists have uncovered household shrines, figurines of females with exposed breasts, and an inscription that mentions “Yahweh and his Asherah.” These and other discoveries may indicate that in pre-exilic Israel there was a type of worship that included the veneration of the goddess.
Michaelson provides additional evidence he says was omitted by Dever. According to Michaelson, the “Zohar's use of ‘Asherah’ as a name for the Shechinah, the feminine aspect of God,” may indicate the presence of the divine feminine in Israel.
Michaelson also wrote in his review that “In the Jewish tradition, the most obvious symbol of the Divine Feminine may be none other than the Torah itself.” He said: “Called the ‘Tree of Life’ (yet another euphemism for Asherah), the Torah's symbolism enacts the revelation of the Goddess. ‘The ark, the Holy of Holies, is separated by a curtain, like in the Temple, and behind it is the Torah, wearing a silver crown and velvet dress, always referred to in the feminine. Then we bring her out with great decorum, kiss her, undress her, open her up and commence the ritual of knowledge in the biblical sense.’”
Michaelson’s review of these two books may be controversial, but it is worth reading. Although I not agree with many of his conclusions, the fact remains that Asherah played an important role in the religious life of many people in Israel.
To read Michaelson’s review of these two books, click here.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Archaeologists have uncovered household shrines, figurines of females with exposed breasts, and an inscription that mentions “Yahweh and his Asherah.” These and other discoveries may indicate that in pre-exilic Israel there was a type of worship that included the veneration of the goddess.
Michaelson provides additional evidence he says was omitted by Dever. According to Michaelson, the “Zohar's use of ‘Asherah’ as a name for the Shechinah, the feminine aspect of God,” may indicate the presence of the divine feminine in Israel.
Michaelson also wrote in his review that “In the Jewish tradition, the most obvious symbol of the Divine Feminine may be none other than the Torah itself.” He said: “Called the ‘Tree of Life’ (yet another euphemism for Asherah), the Torah's symbolism enacts the revelation of the Goddess. ‘The ark, the Holy of Holies, is separated by a curtain, like in the Temple, and behind it is the Torah, wearing a silver crown and velvet dress, always referred to in the feminine. Then we bring her out with great decorum, kiss her, undress her, open her up and commence the ritual of knowledge in the biblical sense.’”
Michaelson’s review of these two books may be controversial, but it is worth reading. Although I not agree with many of his conclusions, the fact remains that Asherah played an important role in the religious life of many people in Israel.
To read Michaelson’s review of these two books, click here.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
The Death of John Trever
John Trever, one of the first scholars who evaluated the Dead Sea Scrolls when they were discovered in 1948, has died at the age of 90.
The Los Angeles Times has published a detailed obituary of John Trever. Here is an excerpt:
John C. Trever, one of the first Americans to examine the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1948 and whose photographs of the ancient texts also became important historical documents, has died. He was 90.
Trever, who was the last surviving member of the original group of Western scholars to study the scrolls, died Saturday at his home in Lake Forest, his family said. No cause of death was given.
As an American student in Jerusalem, Trever came face-to-face with the scrolls when Syrian monks brought them to be evaluated at what is now the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research
When Trever unrolled one of the scrolls on a cot in his living quarters, he couldn't believe what he was seeing. The document — said to have been found in a cave by a Bedouin shepherd in 1947 — contained text from the biblical book of Isaiah
To read the complete obituary, click here.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
The Los Angeles Times has published a detailed obituary of John Trever. Here is an excerpt:
John C. Trever, one of the first Americans to examine the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1948 and whose photographs of the ancient texts also became important historical documents, has died. He was 90.
Trever, who was the last surviving member of the original group of Western scholars to study the scrolls, died Saturday at his home in Lake Forest, his family said. No cause of death was given.
As an American student in Jerusalem, Trever came face-to-face with the scrolls when Syrian monks brought them to be evaluated at what is now the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research
When Trever unrolled one of the scrolls on a cot in his living quarters, he couldn't believe what he was seeing. The document — said to have been found in a cave by a Bedouin shepherd in 1947 — contained text from the biblical book of Isaiah
To read the complete obituary, click here.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Why Did God Ask for Animal Sacrifice? - A Rejoinder
In a recent post, “Why Did God Ask for Animal Sacrifice?” Michael Barber wrote: “Ever wonder why God asked the Israelites to sacrifice animals like cattle, sheep and goats? It’s not because God loves the smell of burning meat.”
“Moses explains to Pharaoh why the Israelites must be allowed to go out to the desert to offer their sacrifices to the Lord; their sacrifices would be “abominable” to the Egyptians (Ex. 8:25-27). In other words, Israel was to sacrifice to the Lord the very animals the Egyptians worshipped as gods.”
I am not sure whether I understand Michael correctly. His post seems to say that animal sacrifice was given by God to Israel in order for Israel to learn that these animals were not gods. As Michael wrote: “God wanted Israel to renounce the gods of Egypt and worship Him as the one true God.”
The post leaves the reader with the impression that Israel or the ancestors of Israel did not practice animal sacrifice. This is how Jonathan Erdman, of The Theos Project understood it. He wrote a comment to Michael’s post: “But animal sacrifice is a demand that goes back to early Genesis....so, there are broader issues here, right??? The reason for the requirement of animal sacrifice is certainly greater than the one context of Israel and Egypt, wouldn't you agree?”
The origins of animal sacrifice are lost in antiquity. As early as the 4th millennium B.C.,
animal sacrifices were offered in Egypt at the temples at Abydos, Thebes, and On. Among the animals sacrificed were oxen, wild goats, geese, and even pigs.
Babylon had centers of worship at Eridu, Nippur, Erech, Ur, and other places that can be dated from the 4th and the 3rd millenniums B.C. Babylonian records give evidence of an elaborate system of worship and sacrifices at these temples. One document says that the animals offered in sacrifice by King Gudea included oxen, sheep, goats, lambs, and birds.
As for animal sacrifice in the Bible, the biblical record is very clear that animal sacrifice goes back to the earliest days of biblical history.
For instance, the garments of skins for Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:21) were made from animals slain in sacrifice, since animals were not killed for food until after the flood. Abel made an animal sacrifice when he brought the fat portions from the firstborn of his flock (Genesis 4:4).
The burnt offering that Noah offered the Lord included animals and birds (Genesis 8:20). It is possible that Noah’s sacrifice was connected with the establishment of the covenant that God made with Noah (Genesis 9:8-17).
The earliest animal sacrifice that God commanded was the sacrifice God requested of Abraham at the time God established a covenant with him (Genesis 15:9-17). The five animals Abraham offered to God were a heifer, a goat, a ram, a dove, and a pigeon. These are the same five animals listed in the laws of sacrifice in the Book of Leviticus.
In response to his own question, “Why Did God Ask for Animal Sacrifice?” Michael wrote: “It’s not because God loves the smell of burning meat.” However, this statement does not reflect the biblical teaching. When Noah offered his sacrifice to the Lord, “The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma” of the burning meat and made a promise that he would never again curse the ground because of the actions of human beings (Genesis 8:21).
According to the book of Leviticus, the people of Israel would know their sacrifice was acceptable to God when the burnt offering became an aroma pleasing to God: “It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the Lord (Leviticus 1:9).
In fact, over and over again the people were commanded to present an offering made by fire as an aroma pleasing to the Lord (Numbers 29:36). This expression appears in Leviticus 1:9, 13, 17; 2:2, 9; 3:5; 4:31; 6:15, 21; 17:6; 23:18 and Numbers 15:3, 7, 10, 13f, 24; 18:17; 28:8, 24, 27; 29:2, 8, 13, 36.
The plagues of Egypt represented a struggle between the God of Israel and the gods of Egypt. These gods were associated with the Nile, with animals and reptiles, and with Pharaoh, who was considered an earthly representative of the gods.
This struggle between the God of Israel and the gods of Egypt is the focus of Michael’s statement. He wrote: “Israel was to sacrifice to the Lord the very animals the Egyptians worshipped as gods.” However, the plagues in Egypt also included frogs, gnats, flies, and locust. None of these animals were used as sacrifices in Israel.
The reason God asked Israel to make animal sacrifices is unknown. There are some similarities between the sacrificial system of Israel and those of Babylon and other nations.
Animal sacrifice was found among many Semitic peoples long before Israel became a nation. Thus, it is possible that the Israelites developed their sacrificial system by using some of the same practices found among other Semitic peoples.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
“Moses explains to Pharaoh why the Israelites must be allowed to go out to the desert to offer their sacrifices to the Lord; their sacrifices would be “abominable” to the Egyptians (Ex. 8:25-27). In other words, Israel was to sacrifice to the Lord the very animals the Egyptians worshipped as gods.”
I am not sure whether I understand Michael correctly. His post seems to say that animal sacrifice was given by God to Israel in order for Israel to learn that these animals were not gods. As Michael wrote: “God wanted Israel to renounce the gods of Egypt and worship Him as the one true God.”
The post leaves the reader with the impression that Israel or the ancestors of Israel did not practice animal sacrifice. This is how Jonathan Erdman, of The Theos Project understood it. He wrote a comment to Michael’s post: “But animal sacrifice is a demand that goes back to early Genesis....so, there are broader issues here, right??? The reason for the requirement of animal sacrifice is certainly greater than the one context of Israel and Egypt, wouldn't you agree?”
The origins of animal sacrifice are lost in antiquity. As early as the 4th millennium B.C.,
animal sacrifices were offered in Egypt at the temples at Abydos, Thebes, and On. Among the animals sacrificed were oxen, wild goats, geese, and even pigs.
Babylon had centers of worship at Eridu, Nippur, Erech, Ur, and other places that can be dated from the 4th and the 3rd millenniums B.C. Babylonian records give evidence of an elaborate system of worship and sacrifices at these temples. One document says that the animals offered in sacrifice by King Gudea included oxen, sheep, goats, lambs, and birds.
As for animal sacrifice in the Bible, the biblical record is very clear that animal sacrifice goes back to the earliest days of biblical history.
For instance, the garments of skins for Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:21) were made from animals slain in sacrifice, since animals were not killed for food until after the flood. Abel made an animal sacrifice when he brought the fat portions from the firstborn of his flock (Genesis 4:4).
The burnt offering that Noah offered the Lord included animals and birds (Genesis 8:20). It is possible that Noah’s sacrifice was connected with the establishment of the covenant that God made with Noah (Genesis 9:8-17).
The earliest animal sacrifice that God commanded was the sacrifice God requested of Abraham at the time God established a covenant with him (Genesis 15:9-17). The five animals Abraham offered to God were a heifer, a goat, a ram, a dove, and a pigeon. These are the same five animals listed in the laws of sacrifice in the Book of Leviticus.
In response to his own question, “Why Did God Ask for Animal Sacrifice?” Michael wrote: “It’s not because God loves the smell of burning meat.” However, this statement does not reflect the biblical teaching. When Noah offered his sacrifice to the Lord, “The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma” of the burning meat and made a promise that he would never again curse the ground because of the actions of human beings (Genesis 8:21).
According to the book of Leviticus, the people of Israel would know their sacrifice was acceptable to God when the burnt offering became an aroma pleasing to God: “It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the Lord (Leviticus 1:9).
In fact, over and over again the people were commanded to present an offering made by fire as an aroma pleasing to the Lord (Numbers 29:36). This expression appears in Leviticus 1:9, 13, 17; 2:2, 9; 3:5; 4:31; 6:15, 21; 17:6; 23:18 and Numbers 15:3, 7, 10, 13f, 24; 18:17; 28:8, 24, 27; 29:2, 8, 13, 36.
The plagues of Egypt represented a struggle between the God of Israel and the gods of Egypt. These gods were associated with the Nile, with animals and reptiles, and with Pharaoh, who was considered an earthly representative of the gods.
This struggle between the God of Israel and the gods of Egypt is the focus of Michael’s statement. He wrote: “Israel was to sacrifice to the Lord the very animals the Egyptians worshipped as gods.” However, the plagues in Egypt also included frogs, gnats, flies, and locust. None of these animals were used as sacrifices in Israel.
The reason God asked Israel to make animal sacrifices is unknown. There are some similarities between the sacrificial system of Israel and those of Babylon and other nations.
Animal sacrifice was found among many Semitic peoples long before Israel became a nation. Thus, it is possible that the Israelites developed their sacrificial system by using some of the same practices found among other Semitic peoples.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Christian Minorities in the Islamic World
Richard Z. Chesnoff has published an article in the Jewish World Review in which he presents the plight of Christian minorities in the Islamic world. It is a very revealing article.
Moslems
Here is an excerpt from his article:
“Even in Islamic countries not strictly run by Sharia law, pressures mount on local Christians to leave the homes they've known for centuries.
To read the article, click here.
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Moslems
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
America, Europe, and Islam
In a speech televised on Al-Jazeera TV on April 10, 2006, Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi, the Libyan leader, predicted that Allah would grant Islam a great victory in Europe. He also said that Europe and the United States should agree to become Islamic, or else declare war on the Muslim world.
Qadhafi said that the Old Testament and the New Testament are forged books and have been superseded by the holy book of Islam.
Qadhafi said that today there are 50 million Muslims in Europe. This large presence of Muslims in Europe is a sign that Allah will bring all of Europe to the faith of Islam, "without swords, without guns, without conquests." He believes that this large population of Muslims in Europe will help Europe to become a Muslim continent in less than a century.
Albania, a Muslim nation, is a member of the European Union and so is Bosnia, another Muslim nation, a nation whose population is about fifty percent Muslim. In a few years Turkey will also join the European Union. At the present Turkey has a population of 50 million people, most of them Muslims. When Turkey becomes a member of the European Union, the Muslim population of Europe will be more than 100 million people.
Qadhafi's speech tells much about Muslims' views of the Bible and of Jesus. His speech should be a wake-up call to people in Europe and in the United States.
You must read the excerpt of Qadhafi's speech. To read the speech, click here.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Qadhafi said that the Old Testament and the New Testament are forged books and have been superseded by the holy book of Islam.
Qadhafi said that today there are 50 million Muslims in Europe. This large presence of Muslims in Europe is a sign that Allah will bring all of Europe to the faith of Islam, "without swords, without guns, without conquests." He believes that this large population of Muslims in Europe will help Europe to become a Muslim continent in less than a century.
Albania, a Muslim nation, is a member of the European Union and so is Bosnia, another Muslim nation, a nation whose population is about fifty percent Muslim. In a few years Turkey will also join the European Union. At the present Turkey has a population of 50 million people, most of them Muslims. When Turkey becomes a member of the European Union, the Muslim population of Europe will be more than 100 million people.
Qadhafi's speech tells much about Muslims' views of the Bible and of Jesus. His speech should be a wake-up call to people in Europe and in the United States.
You must read the excerpt of Qadhafi's speech. To read the speech, click here.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Archaeology and the Problem of Unprovenanced Material
On Tuesday, May 2, 2006, the New York Times published an extensive article dealing with the issues of unprovenanced material, the statement of concerned drafted by Lawrence Stager, and the reaction of the scholarly community.
Here is an excerpt of the article:
“In recent days more than 100 scholars in the United States and Europe have signed a controversial statement asserting that the publishing restrictions are forcing them to "close their eyes to important information." The statement was drafted by Lawrence E. Stager, an archaeologist at Harvard University, and has been posted on the Web site of Biblical Archaeology Review, a journal that does not have restrictions on unprovenanced works.”
“The scholars signing the statement say that they ‘recognize that artifacts ripped from their context by looters often lose much of their meaning.’”
“‘On the other hand, this is not always true,’ the statement says, ‘and even when it is, looted objects, especially inscriptions, often have much of scholarly importance to impart.’”
“At issue are the publication rules of the two leading professional associations for scholars of antiquity, the Archaeological Institute of America and the American Schools of Oriental Research, the leading body for specialists of the ancient Near East. "If you publish, you are contributing to the illegal market," said Elizabeth Stone, an archaeologist of the ancient Near East at the State University of New York at Stony Brook who supports the restrictions.”
“But David I. Owen, a Near Eastern scholar at Cornell who signed Mr. Stager's statement and who has drawn extensively on unprovenanced material in his own research, countered, ‘Who ever heard of censoring knowledge?’”
The article, “Must Looted Relics Be Ignored,” is an important summary of the current debate. Read the complete article by clicking here.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Here is an excerpt of the article:
“In recent days more than 100 scholars in the United States and Europe have signed a controversial statement asserting that the publishing restrictions are forcing them to "close their eyes to important information." The statement was drafted by Lawrence E. Stager, an archaeologist at Harvard University, and has been posted on the Web site of Biblical Archaeology Review, a journal that does not have restrictions on unprovenanced works.”
“The scholars signing the statement say that they ‘recognize that artifacts ripped from their context by looters often lose much of their meaning.’”
“‘On the other hand, this is not always true,’ the statement says, ‘and even when it is, looted objects, especially inscriptions, often have much of scholarly importance to impart.’”
“At issue are the publication rules of the two leading professional associations for scholars of antiquity, the Archaeological Institute of America and the American Schools of Oriental Research, the leading body for specialists of the ancient Near East. "If you publish, you are contributing to the illegal market," said Elizabeth Stone, an archaeologist of the ancient Near East at the State University of New York at Stony Brook who supports the restrictions.”
“But David I. Owen, a Near Eastern scholar at Cornell who signed Mr. Stager's statement and who has drawn extensively on unprovenanced material in his own research, countered, ‘Who ever heard of censoring knowledge?’”
The article, “Must Looted Relics Be Ignored,” is an important summary of the current debate. Read the complete article by clicking here.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Monday, May 01, 2006
Rereading Daniel 9:25-27: The Coming of the Messiah
Last week I wrote a blog in response to Mr. Jack D. Hook’s invitation to read his book, Babylon the Great is Falling. In that blog, I disagreed with Mr. Hook’s interpretation of Daniel 9:25-27. I wrote:
“Incorrect interpretations of Daniel 9:25-27 have produced a type of theology exemplified by the teachings of the Scofield Bible, the rapture, the tribulation, and the Left Behind phenomenon. In a future post, I will discuss the problem with Mr. Hook’s interpretation of Daniel 9:25-27. The problem with Mr. Hook’s book is that his interpretation of Daniel 9:25-27 is based on the theology taught in the Scofield Bible” (read my blog by clicking here).
I wrote that when interpreting a text, “the reader must take the interpretation that reflects the plain meaning of Scripture.” I also wrote that “I believe it is possible to arrive at the original intent of the writer, even when we may not truly understand his message.”
I concluded by saying that “when the biblical text is read and studied without any preconceived ideas, the plain meaning of the text can be discovered and the true message of the author can be understood. When this happens, then, in the end, we honor the original intent of the writer of the biblical text.”
In reply to my views, Bruce Gerencser in The Hungarian Luddite, asked: “Is there any such thing as neutral Biblical study and interpretation?” His answer was: “Nah Baby Nah!”
Gerencser also said: “In the real world all of us have preconceived ideas and no one has an unbiased, neutral mind. No one! All of us study and interpret the Scriptures through the grid of our upbringing, training, theological bent.”
I agree with him that much of biblical scholarship today is not neutral. For instance, those who accept biblical criticism interpret the Pentateuch using the principles derived from source or tradition criticism. Those who uphold Mosaic authorship interpret the Pentateuch from the perspective that Moses wrote everything in the 15th century B.C.
But the focus of my essay was not solely on biblical interpretation but on the translation of a text. From my perspective, it seems that some Bibles reflect a bias in the translation of some texts. I believe that Daniel 9:25-27 is one of those texts. Before I discuss Daniel 9:25-27, let me say a few words about translations and translators.
Translating the Hebrew text of the Old Testament into another language is a difficult task. Translating is difficult because the structure of one language is different from others and what makes sense in one language does not make sense in another.
Another factor that makes translating difficult is that languages change from time to time. Language is always evolving to meet the challenges of culture, customs, religion, and politics. The English used by the translators of the King James Version in 1611 is different from the English used by people today.
Eugene Nida, in his book Toward a Science of Translation (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964), discusses the many challenges translators face. For instance, translators must use Hebrew dictionaries and grammar written in English. Thus, the structure of the English language is bound to be an influence in any translation, “regardless of the translator’s wish to avoid ‘linguistic contamination’” (p. 148).
Nida notes that one basic requirement for translators is that they must have empathy for the original author. The words which translators must employ to translate a text are already set out for them by the original author. Using this empathetic spirit, translators must be like the original author; translators must not try to improve or to excel the original author.
Nida wrote that the translator “must exert every effort to reduce to a minimum any intrusion of himself which is not in harmony with the intent of the original author and message” (p. 154).
Nida also notes that at times, translators purposely and consciously “attempted to change a message in order to make it conform to his own . . . religious predilections” (p. 155). According to Nida, “These are particularly evident when a translator feels inclined to improve on the original, correct apparent errors, or defend a personal preference by slanting his choice of words.”
Today I will study Daniel 9:25. In this study, it does not matter whether one accepts that Daniel was written in the 6th century B.C. or in the 2nd century B.C. An unbiased translation of this verse will produce the same result.
The King James Version reads: “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.”
The translation “Messiah the Prince” is adopted by the American Standard Version, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, the New American Standard Bible, and others. The New International Version has “the Anointed One, the ruler.” Following the Septuagint, the Douay-Rheims Bible has “unto Christ the prince.” It is clear that the translators of this text slanted their choice of words in Daniel 9:25.
The Hebrew word behind the word “Messiah” is mashiah. The word means “anointed one” and is used to designate kings, priests, and even Cyrus, King of Persia (Isaiah 45:1).
The word translated “Prince” is naGiD, a word that literally means a “ruler,” or a “leader.” The word is applied to people in the military, in government, and in religion. Thus, the word naGiD refers to a captain in the army, to a king, and to a priest. Azariah, the high priest was called “the ruler [naGiD] of the house of God” (2 Chronicles 31:13).
In Daniel 9:25 the word “the” as in “the Messiah,” is not present in the Hebrew text. Thus, the Hebrew text is talking about “an anointed one,” one who could be a priest or a king. However, when the translators of the King James Version used the words “the Messiah,” with a definite article and a capital letter M, Christians immediately say: “there is only one person who is ‘The Messiah,’ and that person is Jesus Christ.”
Thus, readers of the King James are predisposed by the translation to see Jesus Christ in Daniel 9:25. However, if one adopts the translation of the Revised Standard Version, the whole idea of the text changes.
The RSV reads: “Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.”
Even E. J. Young, in his commentary, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), follows the translation of the RSV. He translates the words in question: “unto an anointed one, a prince.” Now, this is good translation. But then he inserts this comment: “The fact is that there is only One in history who fully satisfied the two essential requisites of the theocratic king, Jesus who is the Messiah” (p. 204). Now, this is (good or bad) interpretation and this is the same principle that has influenced translations of Daniel 9:25.
In discussing Daniel 9:25, I have not made any reference to date or authorship. This is irrelevant when it comes to the issue of translation. A commentator may inject his theological bias on the interpretation of the text and decide who that anointed one was. However, the translator does not have that luxury. The translator must follow the intent of the original author and avoid making the decision of who in history fully satisfies the two essentials of leadership mentioned in Daniel 9:25, as the translators of the King James did.
So, you may ask: who was the anointed one mentioned by Daniel? The answer to this question requires another study: it all depends on how the seventy weeks of Daniel is understood. Here again, I believe that the translators of the King James allowed their view of Jesus to influence the translation of the text. If you want to read my understanding of the seventy weeks of Daniel, you will have to return next week.
Now, I return to the comments of the Hungarian Luddaite. I agree with him that interpreters bring their views and prejudices to the interpretation of the biblical text. This is not the ideal because such practice deprives many readers of the proper understanding of what the Bible says.
This is the reason I believe the notes of the Scofield Bible are not helpful. Many good people, influenced by the notes of the Scofield Bible, have developed a system of theology that cannot stand the scrutiny of an impartial reading of the biblical text. I am convinced that, if the Scofield notes had not been included into a Bible, the teachings of Scofield would have perished a long time ago.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
“Incorrect interpretations of Daniel 9:25-27 have produced a type of theology exemplified by the teachings of the Scofield Bible, the rapture, the tribulation, and the Left Behind phenomenon. In a future post, I will discuss the problem with Mr. Hook’s interpretation of Daniel 9:25-27. The problem with Mr. Hook’s book is that his interpretation of Daniel 9:25-27 is based on the theology taught in the Scofield Bible” (read my blog by clicking here).
I wrote that when interpreting a text, “the reader must take the interpretation that reflects the plain meaning of Scripture.” I also wrote that “I believe it is possible to arrive at the original intent of the writer, even when we may not truly understand his message.”
I concluded by saying that “when the biblical text is read and studied without any preconceived ideas, the plain meaning of the text can be discovered and the true message of the author can be understood. When this happens, then, in the end, we honor the original intent of the writer of the biblical text.”
In reply to my views, Bruce Gerencser in The Hungarian Luddite, asked: “Is there any such thing as neutral Biblical study and interpretation?” His answer was: “Nah Baby Nah!”
Gerencser also said: “In the real world all of us have preconceived ideas and no one has an unbiased, neutral mind. No one! All of us study and interpret the Scriptures through the grid of our upbringing, training, theological bent.”
I agree with him that much of biblical scholarship today is not neutral. For instance, those who accept biblical criticism interpret the Pentateuch using the principles derived from source or tradition criticism. Those who uphold Mosaic authorship interpret the Pentateuch from the perspective that Moses wrote everything in the 15th century B.C.
But the focus of my essay was not solely on biblical interpretation but on the translation of a text. From my perspective, it seems that some Bibles reflect a bias in the translation of some texts. I believe that Daniel 9:25-27 is one of those texts. Before I discuss Daniel 9:25-27, let me say a few words about translations and translators.
Translating the Hebrew text of the Old Testament into another language is a difficult task. Translating is difficult because the structure of one language is different from others and what makes sense in one language does not make sense in another.
Another factor that makes translating difficult is that languages change from time to time. Language is always evolving to meet the challenges of culture, customs, religion, and politics. The English used by the translators of the King James Version in 1611 is different from the English used by people today.
Eugene Nida, in his book Toward a Science of Translation (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964), discusses the many challenges translators face. For instance, translators must use Hebrew dictionaries and grammar written in English. Thus, the structure of the English language is bound to be an influence in any translation, “regardless of the translator’s wish to avoid ‘linguistic contamination’” (p. 148).
Nida notes that one basic requirement for translators is that they must have empathy for the original author. The words which translators must employ to translate a text are already set out for them by the original author. Using this empathetic spirit, translators must be like the original author; translators must not try to improve or to excel the original author.
Nida wrote that the translator “must exert every effort to reduce to a minimum any intrusion of himself which is not in harmony with the intent of the original author and message” (p. 154).
Nida also notes that at times, translators purposely and consciously “attempted to change a message in order to make it conform to his own . . . religious predilections” (p. 155). According to Nida, “These are particularly evident when a translator feels inclined to improve on the original, correct apparent errors, or defend a personal preference by slanting his choice of words.”
Today I will study Daniel 9:25. In this study, it does not matter whether one accepts that Daniel was written in the 6th century B.C. or in the 2nd century B.C. An unbiased translation of this verse will produce the same result.
The King James Version reads: “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.”
The translation “Messiah the Prince” is adopted by the American Standard Version, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, the New American Standard Bible, and others. The New International Version has “the Anointed One, the ruler.” Following the Septuagint, the Douay-Rheims Bible has “unto Christ the prince.” It is clear that the translators of this text slanted their choice of words in Daniel 9:25.
The Hebrew word behind the word “Messiah” is mashiah. The word means “anointed one” and is used to designate kings, priests, and even Cyrus, King of Persia (Isaiah 45:1).
The word translated “Prince” is naGiD, a word that literally means a “ruler,” or a “leader.” The word is applied to people in the military, in government, and in religion. Thus, the word naGiD refers to a captain in the army, to a king, and to a priest. Azariah, the high priest was called “the ruler [naGiD] of the house of God” (2 Chronicles 31:13).
In Daniel 9:25 the word “the” as in “the Messiah,” is not present in the Hebrew text. Thus, the Hebrew text is talking about “an anointed one,” one who could be a priest or a king. However, when the translators of the King James Version used the words “the Messiah,” with a definite article and a capital letter M, Christians immediately say: “there is only one person who is ‘The Messiah,’ and that person is Jesus Christ.”
Thus, readers of the King James are predisposed by the translation to see Jesus Christ in Daniel 9:25. However, if one adopts the translation of the Revised Standard Version, the whole idea of the text changes.
The RSV reads: “Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.”
Even E. J. Young, in his commentary, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), follows the translation of the RSV. He translates the words in question: “unto an anointed one, a prince.” Now, this is good translation. But then he inserts this comment: “The fact is that there is only One in history who fully satisfied the two essential requisites of the theocratic king, Jesus who is the Messiah” (p. 204). Now, this is (good or bad) interpretation and this is the same principle that has influenced translations of Daniel 9:25.
In discussing Daniel 9:25, I have not made any reference to date or authorship. This is irrelevant when it comes to the issue of translation. A commentator may inject his theological bias on the interpretation of the text and decide who that anointed one was. However, the translator does not have that luxury. The translator must follow the intent of the original author and avoid making the decision of who in history fully satisfies the two essentials of leadership mentioned in Daniel 9:25, as the translators of the King James did.
So, you may ask: who was the anointed one mentioned by Daniel? The answer to this question requires another study: it all depends on how the seventy weeks of Daniel is understood. Here again, I believe that the translators of the King James allowed their view of Jesus to influence the translation of the text. If you want to read my understanding of the seventy weeks of Daniel, you will have to return next week.
Now, I return to the comments of the Hungarian Luddaite. I agree with him that interpreters bring their views and prejudices to the interpretation of the biblical text. This is not the ideal because such practice deprives many readers of the proper understanding of what the Bible says.
This is the reason I believe the notes of the Scofield Bible are not helpful. Many good people, influenced by the notes of the Scofield Bible, have developed a system of theology that cannot stand the scrutiny of an impartial reading of the biblical text. I am convinced that, if the Scofield notes had not been included into a Bible, the teachings of Scofield would have perished a long time ago.
Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)