Posts
I read two essays today in Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson.
1. The first essay that I read was W. McKane's "Old and New Covenant (Testament): A Terminological Enquiry". McKane brought up some interesting questions, as well as solutions that he and R.M. Grant have proposed. The questions concern the reason that the early church used the Scriptures that it did. Why did the early church use the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew, when it had a strong Jerusalemite element? And when did the early church begin to view the writings that entered the New Testament as Scripture?
Regarding the first question---on the use of the Septuagint---McKane says that "Greek-speaking Jews, who had returned to Jerusalem from the diaspora, played a prominent part in the founding of the Church and...Greek-speaking synagogues were the institutions out of which they emerged as the first Christians" (page 228). McKane does not elaborate on this point, but he does refer to pages 17-19 of a 1988 book that he wrote, Selected Christian Hebraists. McKane's scenario may coincide with the Book of Acts, for Acts 2 presents the conversion of Jews from the Diaspora to Christianity---in Jerusalem---and Acts 6 concerns how the apostles in Jerusalem sought to minister to the Hellenistic Jews in their midst. Perhaps the Septuagint was used in Jerusalem because that appealed to the Hellenistic Jews who were there, plus the Palestinian Jews understood Greek---and so everyone heard the Scripture in a language that he or she comprehended.
Regarding the second question---on when the New Testament became Scripture---Grant says that, in the early second century writings of Polycarp of Smyrna and Ignatius of Antioch, the assumption was that only the Septuagint was the Scripture of the church. But the threat of Gnosticism and this movement's rejection of the Septuagint led the church to reflect on the contents of its Scriptures. Clement of Alexandria (second century C.E.) claimed that the "Holy Spirit which is active in the Church is the same in substance and energy as the Spirit which informed the Old Covenant" (McKane's words on page 229). But Gnostics were also pushing for recognition of the Church's books as Scripture---as did Basilides in the second century---plus Marcion was putting on the table the question of which books were genuine. According to McKane, those factors may have influenced the church to take a stand on canon. At the same time, Christians wanted to preserve their common ground with the Jews of accepting the Hebrew Scriptures (in this case, the Septuagint) as authoritative. In the second century, Justin Martyr did not appeal to the Epistle of Hebrews in his debate with the Jew Trypho, although Justin was making a similar point to Hebrews regarding the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34.
Unfortunately, McKane does not interact with II Peter 3:16, which implies that Paul's writings are Scripture. Even if II Peter is a second century document, McKane should address that passage as he does other second century figures, such as Clement, Justin, etc.
2. Another essay that I read was A. Malamat's "A New Prophetic Message from Aleppo and Its Biblical Counterparts". In this essay, Malamat discusses a letter from Nur-Sin---Mari's ambassador to Aleppo---to Zimri-Lim, his lord. The letter contains a prophecy by the prophet Abiya, who represents Adad, a deity of Aleppo. Abiya speaks Adad's words concerning the king of Mari, which is dependent on Aleppo. In this prophecy---and also in a letter to a deity by Yasmah-Adad, an Amorite king of Mari---the first king of Mari, Yahdun-Lim, is said to have abandoned the god who granted him numerous countries, which was why the god rejected him. The country was taken from Yahdun-Lim and given to Shamshi-Adad, the king of a rival Amorite dynasty which was established in Assyria, and the father of Yasmah-Adad. But Shamshi-Adad's dynasty was overthrown by Zimri-Lim, the last king of Mari, who was later ousted by the Babylonian king Hammurabi in the early second millennium B.C.E. Zimri-Lim was related to the dynasty that Shamshi-Adad overthrew.
But the text is apparently set before Hammurabi did his damage, for it concerns the restoration of Zimri-Lin to his father's throne by Adad, and that is likened to the defeat of the Sea (a motif that appears often in ancient Near Eastern literature, but it's appearance in the Mari texts in novel). Aleppo in Syria is thus upheld as superior to Mari. A god then says that he had anointed Zimri-Lin king, and that Zimri-Lin is to do justice---to stand up for the wronged. Malamat states that the Mari prophets usually focus on "material demands", but that there are occasionally "moral, ethical commands" (page 238) in their messages. The god then says that Zimri-Lin is only to go on a campaign after he learns via oracle that the god is favorable.
Malamat compares Abiya's prophecy to prophecy in the Hebrew Bible. Both attribute the transfer of a kingdom from one person to another to the sin of the king who loses out. Both Abiya and the Hebrew Bible present the anointing of the king. Abiya has the demand for justice follow the coronation, but they are more intertwined in the Hebrew Bible, or, rather, the king's anointment is a "consequence of his righteous behavior towards the people" (page 239). And both Abiya and the Hebrew Bible say that one should go to battle after hearing from a god. In the Hebrew Bible, that is done via oracle or prophecy.
Malamat concludes by saying that "The prophecy from Aleppo, which represents the West, is exceptional in its high standard of theological and moral contemplation, but the real breakthrough in this respect came only with the Bible and especially with the Great Prophets."
I think that a difference between Abiya and many of the biblical prophets is that Abiya is an outsider criticizing the past kings of Mari, whereas the biblical prophets critiqued kings of their own country. (An exception would be Amos, a Southern prophet to the North.) At the same time, Abiya is someone from Aleppo who is talking about a king of Mari---who is also from Aleppo (or at least he fled there). His implication may be that Zimri-Lin should be faithful to the god and thus avoid the fate of his predecessors, who lost the throne due to their disloyalty to a god.
