Book Review: Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period

 

Length: 528 pages
Size: 6 x 9 inches
Binding: paperback
Publisher: IVP Academic (July 2002)
ISBN: 0-8308-2678-5
IVP Order Code: 2678

The Second Temple Period, spanning from 586 B.C.- A.D. 135, was a fascinating time of joy (due to the return from exile in Babylon) and hope (of a future return of the ten northern tribes who had been scattered by Assyria). Mixed with the joy and hope are themes of tribulation, restoration, nationalistic identification, liturgical purification, and eschatological and messianic expectation which all help to further our understanding of the New Testament. With Larry Helyer’s Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period: A Guide for New Testament Students, he takes on an ambitious task...and succeeds. In 528 pages he surveys over 35 documents from the Second Temple Period, from the Babylonian Exile to the rise of Rabbinical Judaism and the Apostolic Fathers.

For each document, Helyer provides an introduction (discussing authorship, dating, purpose, and structure), outline, and analysis. Concluding each analysis is a section pointing out each Second Temple document’s significance for the New Testament. What really makes this book worth its weight in gold for students of the New Testament, however, is the discussion questions, the recommended readings for further study, and the advice concerning which texts to use for each document. These resources make the book perfect for independent study with Helyer as the guide. With the Second Temple documents in one hand and Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period in another, the student is well equipped to dive into these sources and bear much fruit for understanding the New Testament.

While I did enjoy the book and would recommend it to all, I do so with a few caveats for Catholic readers. Being a Protestant, there are issues with Helyer’s understanding of the Old Testament Canon. Although his rejection of the seven books of the Old Testament that the Church has always held as canonical do not prevent the book from being profitable (for more on the Old Testament Canon, see my review of Walter Kaiser’s The Old Testament Documents). What is more of a concern is Helyer’s Calvinistic presuppositions that influence his understanding of the texts. For example, he seems to suggest that the Qumranites are proto-Calvinits:

“The doctrine of the two spirits actually attributes the evil impulse to God. Though accountable for their sin, the wicked, by virtue of God’s eternal plan, have no recourse but to succumb to the evil angel and the resultant misdeeds.” (256)

Did the Qumran community really believe in double predestination? That is highly debatable, which is why it is startling to see him state immediately after, “This theological problem is never raised or discussed in the Qumran literature; it is simply assumed as a fact.” If the problem is never raised or discussed, who is assuming it as a fact? The Qumranites or Helyer? His search for a proto-Calvin doesn’t end with the Qumranites, however. A couple of pages later in discussing how the Qumran literature is significant for the New Testament, Helyer states that Paul believes in the predestination of the elect. I have no problem with that. But, then he goes on to say, “Paul does not, however, explicitly state the contrary, namely, that the wicked are predestined to damnation” (259). The problem is that Paul nowhere, even implicitly, argues for double predestination! Yet, Helyer seems to think that Paul comes close in the following quote from Romans:

‘What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction; and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—including us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?’ (Romans 9:22-23)

Is Paul saying that God has predestined some here for damnation? By no means! God is patient with the all. If the evil doer fails to repent of his ways, it is he himself who is responsible for his damnation, not God. St. John Chrysostom explains:

“Why are some people vessels of wrath and others vessels of mercy? It is by their own free choice. God, being very good, shows the same kindness to both. For it was not only to those who were saved that God showed kindness but to Pharaoh also, as far as he deserved. For both Pharaoh and God’s people had the advantage of God’s patience. And if Pharaoh was not saved it was because of his own will, since God had done as much for him as he had done for those who were saved.” (Homilies on Romans 16)

Elsewhere in the context of the churches established by Paul, he suggests that they “appear to have been autonomous” (224). To his credit, however, he adds in a footnote, “This statement, of course, will not go unchallenged by many who are convinced that the NT displays more of a hierarchical structure than I have allowed. I own up to my Baptistic presupposition on this point!”

Aside from the above mentioned issues, I think Helyer does a fantastic job surveying such a wide breadth of literature in one book and should be commended for his effort. Anyone who wishes to do a serious study of both Second Temple Literature and the New Testament should get this book!

Many thanks once again to Adrianna Wright and the good folks at InterVarsity Press who have provided me with a review copy of Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period: A Guide for New Testament Students.

Book Review: The Old Testament Documents

Length: 239 pages
Size: 5 1/2 x 8 1/4 inches
Binding: paperback
Publisher: IVP Academic (August 2001)
ISBN: 978-0-8308-1975-1
IVP Order Code: 1975

With the wasteland of scholarship that exists in modern biblical studies, it is refreshing to find a scholar who approaches the Old Testament texts as the Word of God. That scholar is Walter C. Kaiser Jr., president emeritus and Colman M. Mockler Distinguished Professor of Old Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Kaiser envisions his The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant? as a companion volume to the classic work by F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?

Kaiser’s book serves as a refreshing introduction to the Old Testament. The books are judged on their own merit and based on their own claims—which are to be the revelation of God given to His people. He lays great importance in discovering what the texts, as they stand, mean to us. The several books are united by virtue of being the Word of God and so they should be read as a unity, each individual book having its place in the wider narrative of salvation history. With this hermeneutic in mind, he brings to light evidence against the tendency to break up individual books (specifically the Pentateuch) into little pieces in hopes of finding supposed sources, such as the Wellhausenian J, E, P, and D.

The greatest treasure of this book is the copious amounts of archeological corroboration Kaiser uses to show that the Old Testament documents are indeed reliable. One such example is of the walls at Jericho, which in the biblical account fell after Joshua led his army around while blowing trumpets. Many modern scholars doubt that this evident ever happened, or at least not as is told in the book of Joshua. Yet, Kaiser explains that the archeological excavations done at Jericho show that the walls fell outward supporting Joshua’s description that the walls “fell down flat” (Josh. 6:20) making it so that every man could charge straight into the city. Also, the mass amounts of grain found in the city support the biblical account of a swift fall of Jericho, rather than a long siege in which the attackers waited for the inhabitants to starve.

Kaiser also talks about the Old Testament Canon and here is where I, as a Catholic, disagree with the eminent Protestant. Kaiser and other Protestants affirm only 39 books of the Old Testament as Canonical (they leave out Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus [also known as Sirach], Baruch, and 1 and 2 Maccabees), whereas Catholics hold that there are 46 books. Kaiser asks the question, “Who…made the decision as to what books were to be included in the canon and what were the criteria that were used?” He answers his question by stating, “The answer we could give is that there is no evidence that any group, council, or any other religious or nonreligious body made such as decision, much less left a clue as to what their criteria were.” This is simply false.

The Christian Canon of the Old Testament was established first in 382 at the Council of Rome which was held under Pope Damasus. Here is what is has to say:

“Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun.

The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books (meaning 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings), Paralipomenon two books (1 and 2 Chronicles), Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) one book.

Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book (Baruch is included here), with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee (Hosea) one book, Amos one book, Micheas (Micah) one book, Joel one book, Abdias (Obadiah) one book, Jonas (Jonah) one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias (Zephaniah) one book, Aggeus (Haggai) one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book.

Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books (Ezra and Nehemiah), Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.

Notice that there isn’t any talk of a “second-canon” or “deuterocanonical” books. There was only ONE canon of Sacred Scripture. The seven books that the Protestants reject never had a secondary status! The later councils of Hippo and Carthage (393 and 397) both affirmed the same books as being canonical. Then in 405, Pope Innocent I in his epistle “Consulenti tibi” to Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, enumerates the same books that were listed at Rome, Hippo, and Carthage as being canonical. From here on until 1442 there is no more talk of the canon amongst the Popes or councils of the Church. The Council of Florence in 1442 lists the same as has been listed previously, again with no mention of a second canon. There has always only been ONE canon, and one alone. Then in 1546, at the Council of Trent, the Church reaffirms the list found at Florence in reaction against the Protestants taking out of the seven books mentioned previously. Thus, history witnesses against Kaiser’s claim that “At the Council of Trent (A.D. 1546), the Roman Catholic Church also added as canonical [the seven books]…though always with a secondary or deuterocanonical status.” Although, to Kaiser’s credit, he does not try to invoke the oft used myth that a council of rabbis took place at Jamnia which settled the Hebrew canon in 90 A.D. Instead, he firmly rejects the notion and states that all that took place at Jamnia was a discussion on how to interpret the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon. There was no mention of their canonical status. On top of all that, if Jamnia did settle the Jewish canon, which it did not, why would the Church be bound to accept it? It wouldn’t and any notion that it should is to be rejected as ludicrous.

Canon issues aside, the book on a whole is a great introduction to the Old Testament. Are the texts reliable and relevant? Walter Kaiser is no Marcionite and the answer is a definite “Yes!” I highly recommend this book to all and praise IVP Academic for publishing it. It is books like this that makes Intervarsity Press one of my favorite publishers! Many thanks once again to Heather Mascarello and the good folks at InterVarsity Press who have provided me with a review copy of The Old Testament Documents by Walter Kaiser.

Book Review: Ancient Christian Texts- Ambrosiaster's Commentaries On Galations-Philemon

Length: 166 pages
Size: 9.9 x 6.7 x 0.8 inches
Binding: hardcover
Publisher: IVP Academic (September 30, 2009)
ISBN: 978-0-8308-2920-0
IVP Order Code: 2920

There is a problem in contemporary biblical criticism. Some say it began with Baruch Spinoza, while others trace it back even further to William of Ockham. The problem manifests itself in the historical-critical method, which, in the words of Pope Benedict XVI, is a “hermeneutic of suspicion.” It operates on the notion that if certain phenomena are unobservable in our time, then it didn’t exist in antiquity either. This can lead to major problems when it comes to examining the miracles of the New and Old Testaments. They are often explained away as mere pious exaggeration.

Another problem concerning contemporary views of Scripture is the wide chasm between exegesis and theology. This dichotomy is surely of modern invention. When we look back on the great minds of Christianity, we see that this wasn’t always the case. It used to be that the Sacred Page was the soul of theology and Vatican II sought to once again make it so, but like so many other aspects of the Second Vatican Council, it has yet to be fully realized. However, there are a noble few who are working towards implementing this call of Vatican II, both inside and outside of the Church.

One of these few is Thomas Oden and his collaborators in the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (ACCS) series published by InterVarsity Press. This series has served to remind us that the Church Fathers are the locus for the reuniting of exegesis and theology. In the Fathers, exegesis informs theology and theology informs exegesis. More importantly Scripture is read ex corde ecclesiae, from the heart of the Church. In the ACCS series we were introduced to a plethora of Church Fathers, from both East and West, and their line by line commentaries on all of the books of Sacred Scripture (some of which had never before appeared in English). The downside to this format is that you only get little snippets of the Fathers’ commentaries. For those who do not have the means or training to look up the full commentary in the original language, this can leave one burning with a desire for more, yet with no means of which to quench it.

Until now, that is. Oden and Gerald Bray have provided us with the fulfillment of our desire in the form of the Ancient Christian Texts (ACT) series. ACT presents for the first time in English full commentaries by the likes of Ambrosiaster, Origen, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Cyril of Alexandria, and many others. The translations are fresh and modern (described as a “thought-for-thought translation”) in order for the reader to take away as much as possible. This philosophy of translation allows the commentaries to be accessible to all. Currently in the series are:

Ambrosiaster’s Commentaries on Galatians--Philemon (hardcover)
Ambrosiaster’s Commentaries on Romans and 1-2 Corinthians (hardcover)
Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Commentary on the Gospel of John (hardcover)
Origen’s Homilies on Numbers (hardcover)

Many thanks to Heather Mascarello and the good folks at InterVarsity Press who have provided me with a review copy of Ambrosiaster’s Commentary on Galatians-Philemon. Ambrosiaster is an enigmatic Father of the Church, the writings of whom were once thought to be those of Ambrose of Milan. This alone gives witness to the importance of his corpus. His exegetical method is practical and pastoral. He also shows a good knowledge of the Jewish laws and Scripture, which is evidenced especially in his commentaries on Galatians and Philippians. Consequently, his knowledge of Judaism led some to falsely believe that he was the Jewish convert, Isaac of Rome. Regardless of his true identity, his Pauline commentaries are of great importance to the history of exegesis, on par with those of Chrysostom.

The Ancient Christian Texts series is to be highly recommended for anyone who is interested in Patristic exegesis. I look forward to reading the titles already published and wait in anticipation of future volumes.

Book Review: How Africa Shaped The Christian Mind

Length: 204 pages
Size: 5 1/2 x 8 1/4 inches
Binding: hardcover
Publisher: InterVarsity Press (December 2007)
ISBN: 978-0-8308-2875-3
IVP Order Code: 2875

In Mainline Protestantism, the center of orthodoxy has shifted to the Global South, specifically to the continent of Africa. For Catholics, the great continent is also of central importance. Amidst the threat of Islamic persecution the blood of martyrs has become the seed of the church in Africa. This is nothing new, of course. Orthodoxy and martyrdom in Africa reach back to the beginnings of Christianity. Now that Christianity is moving out of Europe and reemerging with vigor in Africa, it is important to look to the past in order to see the way forward. It is for this reason that the time is ripe for a book such as Thomas Oden’s How Africa Shaped the Christian Mind.

Oden’s intended audience is ambitious. This book is for Christians and non-Christians. East and West. Africa, Europe, Asia, and the Americas. Those convinced and those skeptical. But, primarily he writes for children of African villages. That is where the history of African Christianity must be reinvigorated. Amongst those whose ancestors are the protagonists. From there it will permeate the world.

The book sets out to remind the world of Africa’s role in the formation of Christian culture, the roots of which are apostolic. Tradition tells us that St. Mark the Evangelist, the disciple of St. Peter, established the See of Alexandria. It is also the home of such giants of the Patristic era as Origen, Tertullian, Athanasius, Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, and Augustine. It is the locus of the early Church’s fight for orthodoxy. The early ecumenical councils of the Church, which hammered out the doctrinal formulations of the Faith, owe a great debt to the local councils of Carthage, Hippo, Milevis, and Alexandria.

Some of the key points that Oden presents are:

-How the birth of the European university was anticipated within African Christianity.

-How African Christian historical and spiritual exegesis of Scripture first matured in Africa.

-How African thinkers shaped the very core of the most basic early Christian dogma.

-How early ecumenical decisions followed African conciliar patterns.

-How Africa shaped Western forms of spiritual formation through monastic discipline.

-How Neoplatonic philosophy of late antiquity moved from Africa to Europe.

-How influential literary and dialectical skills were refined in Africa.

All this serves to remind us that, contrary to common misconceptions, the intellectual history of Christianity moved from South to North and not vice versa. Oden tells us that the narrative that posits a southward movement of Christian thought from Europe to Africa stems from nineteenth century French Enlightenment, German idealism and British empiricism under the likes of Hegel, Troeltsch, Harnack and Bauer. Essentially it is born out of liberal Protestantism. Yet, its effects are far-reaching so as to influence liberal Catholic scholars as well.

Oden reminds us over and over again in the book that “the early African vision of the world history was shaped by brilliant writers—Lactantius, Origen, Athanasius, Cyril, Augustine and the post-Vandal monastic diaspora. These are the historians who have been neglected by European and American scholars.” However, the case seems a bit overstated. It very well might be the case amongst Protestant theologians, and especially liberal Protestant theologians, but no so in the Catholic tradition. Catholic theology in the twentieth century has given a great deal of attention to African Patristic writers following the Second Vatican Council’s call for Ressourcement. This call was taken up primarily by Nouvelle Theologie writers such as Congar, de Lubac, Bouyer, Danielou and Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI). Pope Benedict even devoted his general audiences from March 2007 to February 2008 highlighting the Fathers of the Church in which he included all the major African writers.

Oden is right to be concerned of this lacuna amongst Protestants, however. One ignores African Christianity, past and present, at his own folly. This book is a great start to spur on the awakening. It is indeed only a start as Oden himself admits. There are many places where the reader wishes he would delve in further and expound upon the topic of which he so passionately speaks. Alas, due to health concerns, that is not the purpose of this book. Rather, he has written to inspire younger scholars to take up the task of proclaiming boldly Africa’s great contribution to Christian thought. It is not an easy task. In order to do it sufficiently, one must be able to access primary texts, which means learning the primary languages of Latin, Greek, Arabic, and Coptic. There is also a need to translate these texts into the modern languages of French, English, Portuguese and (in order for African children to truly appreciate their heritage) the regional languages of Housa, Amharic, Swahili and Zulu. The renewal of African Christianity must be a truly international endeavor lead by African scholars. To help make this project a reality, Oden has set up the website The Center for Early African Christianity. How Africa Shaped the Christian Mind and the website are great resources for anyone interested in African Christianity as well as the formation of Christian thought as a whole.

Many thanks to Heather Mascarello and the folks at InterVarsity Press for sending me a review copy of this book!