Not a Messiah

In the Face of Old Testament Studies, I read David Howard’s piece on the Book of Psalms. He said that one view out there is that the Psalms were arranged to communicate a point: that, although Israel had lost her earthly king (the Davidic monarch), she still had her heavenly king (YHWH) to guide her.

This reminds me of the current political scene. Many who voted for Barack Obama expected him to be some sort of Messiah, who would change Washington and work with the other side. But, two years into the Presidency, America is not a paradise, and people who voted for Obama either were disillusioned and did not vote in the 2010 elections, or they voted for the Republicans.

Personally, I don’t expect any human leader to be a Messiah. But some people are better than others, and some policies are better than others. That is why I vote.

The Ezra Midrash, The Megabyzos Revolt

In my reading today of The Face of Old Testament Studies, I read H.G.M. Williamson’s article, “Exile and After: Historical Study.” I took notes over much of the chapter, but it got tiring near the end, and so I’ll feature in this post two of the points that I didn’t jot down in my notebook. They’re on pages 258-259.

1. Williamson refers to the view that parts of the Ezra narrative are a “midrash” on the edict of King Artaxerxes of Persia. Williamson notes that the text doesn’t mention Ezra carrying all of the edict out. Williamson then says: “if either the narrative had been based solely on the text of the edict, or indeed, if both had been written by the narrator from scratch, we should have expected a better fit.” Williamson appears to believe that the Ezra narrative is historically-accurate.

2. Williamson says that many scholars have attempted to explain Persia’s beneficent policy towards the Jews in light of the Megabyzos revolt in Greece: in this view, the Persians were trying to gain the Jews’ loyalty after that revolt, and so they let them return to their land and rebuild their temple and city. A scholar named Hoglund, however, concludes from his examination of Greek historical sources that there was no Megabyzos revolt. Rather, he says that the problem for Persia was that the Greeks were supporting a revolt in Egypt, which threatened Persian hegemony. That’s sort of what I heard in a class: the Persians were trying to appease the Jews so they (the Persians) would have their own buffer between themselves and Egypt. So Cyrus wasn’t just being Mr. Nice Guy!

Hapiru; Joshua, the Conquest, and Archaeology

1. The Hapiru. Were they Hebrews? I’ve heard many scholars answer “no,” claiming that the Hapiru instead were a group of outlaws that attracted different ethnic groups. But what’s the basis for that claim?

Today, in the Face of Old Testament Studies, I read K. Lawson Younger’s essay, “Early Israel in Recent Biblical Scholarship.” Younger referred to a 1500 B.C.E. prism (I think that’s what it was called) from King Tunip-Tessep of Tininani. It referred to 438 men as Hapiru, and they had different kinds of ethnic names—some Hurrian, some Semitic. Younger says that all of them appeared to be slaves or servants of this king.

At least that addresses why many scholars don’t think the Hapiru were a specific ethnic group.

2. In addition to Younger’s article, I read the chapter by Mark Chavalas and Murray Adamthwaite on “Archaeological Light on the Old Testament.” Younger and these gentlemen wrestle with a question: if the Israelites indeed conquered the Canaanites, then why is there no evidence that many of the Canaanite cities were destroyed?

In a footnore, Chavalas and Adamthwaite echo evangelical scholar James Hoffmeier, who refers to Deuteronomy 6:10-11, which states that the Israelites will dwell in cities and houses that they did not build. According to Hoffmeier, this shows that the Israelites didn’t destroy every city that they conquered; rather, they preserved a number of cities and dwelt in them themselves.

Younger argues that the Book of Joshua doesn’t present a wholesale destruction. After all, many battles back then were fought and won in the open field, and so the Israelites could have triumphed without destroying Canaanite cities.

I looked up “burned” on my BibleWorks to see if the Book of Joshua says that the Israelites burned Canaanite cities. What I found was that, according to the Book of Joshua, Jericho, Ai, and Hazor were burned in the fire, but other cities were not burned (Joshua 11:13). The Anchor Bible Dictionary article on Hazor by Jeffries Hamilton says that the city of Hazor (identified as Tell el-Qedah) was destroyed in the thirteenth century B.C.E. Joseph Callaway, however, in the Anchor Bible Dictionary on Ai, says that there is a discrepancy between the biblical account of Ai’s conquest and what archaeology tells us (regardless of whether one dates that conquest to the fifteenth or the thirteenth century B.C.E.).

Regarding Jericho, large parts of it were burned in the Middle Bronze Age (1950-1550 B.C.E.), and archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon concluded that (in the words of T.A. Holland’s Anchor Bible Dictionary article) ”The heavy tilting of the Area H walls to the E…may indicate earthquake activity which may have resulted in sulfrous gases, fire, and possibily even some form of early plague, thus causing the total abandonment of the site at the end of the [Middle Bronze].” Kenyon thought that disease wiped out many people in Jericho in the Middle Bronze Period because entire families were buried together. In the Late Bronze Period (1550-1200 B.C.E.), which is when people like to date the Exodus and Conquest (whether one prefers an early or late date), Jericho is weakened and doesn’t even have walls. So Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, and the non-existent walls came tumbling down!

This is why some conservative scholars have posited that Jericho’s Middle Bronze walls survived into the Late Bronze Age, when the Israelites would have come. Some have even tried to re-date the Middle Bronze Period!

Oswalt on Apocalyptic

I’ve been reading the Face of Old Testament Studies, which contains articles about the history and current state of scholarship in the Hebrew Bible. Today, I read John Oswalt’s article on “Recent Studies in Old Testament Apocalyptic.” I can’t say that the contents of the article are imprinted on my mind, but I do recall that it addressed such issues as the definition of apocalyptic, as well as the question of whether or not it descended from prophecy.

Both are difficult issues. Apocalyptic is often defined as the belief that God will end history and set into motion something completely new. But the problem with this definition is that even texts labelled “apocalyptic” by scholars don’t match this consistently, for they may present God intervening in history and redeeming his creation, as opposed to throwing it into the garbage. And texts labelled “prophetic,” such as Second Isaiah, contain a scenario in which God brings about something that’s dramatically new. So can we fit Israel’s literature under neat, mutually exclusive categories of “prophecy” and “apocalyptic”? Oswalt argues that apocalyptic did not replace prophecy, per se, but it complemented it, as both asserted that God would defeat evil and bring forth good.

Oswalt referred to critiques of Paul Hanson’s views regarding apocalyptic. For Hanson, apocalyptic emerged in Israel’s post-exilic period, among a group of visionaries who opposed the priesthood’s attempt to rebuild the temple. Hanson sees such a visionary view in Isaiah 66:1, which ridicules the idea that Israel can build a house for God to inhabit. But the visionaries lost, and their apocalyptic ideology had to wait until the second century B.C.E. to experience a revival, in respose to the evils of Antiochus Epiphanes. According to Oswalt, Hanson’s thesis was developed in the 1960′s, a time when anti-establishment ideologues challenged the status quo, and so there’s a chance that Hanson’s historical context shaped his thesis regarding apocalyptic.

Four Reactions to Ken Pulliam's Recent Passing

In this post, I don’t want to focus on the disgusting reaction of certain conservative Christians to the death of former fundamentalist Ken Pulliam. I do, however, want to feature four quotes on how people are processing his death in terms of their own ideology or perspective:

1. Here is a comment by Danny on the blog “Unreasonable Faith.” Danny (I take it) is a non-Christian:

“We know he isn’t being tortured somewhere. We know he isn’t being forced to eternally worship a tyrannical god. We know he isn’t cold, hot, hungry, thirsty, or tired. He feels no pain, pleasure, happiness or depression. He’s just…..dead. The same state we enter after sleeping for two or three hours, he is in forever. The only way he lives is through his ideas, which live on the internet, and in the minds of the people who he reached with his beliefs to him, and the minds changed by the people he reached transferring his ideas. His beliefs will continue on for many centuries, possibly longer, along with the beliefs of others, he is a part of the fiber that will usher in a new age of freedom from religion. I think that’s a lot stronger than any religious afterlife. It isn’t abstract, or physical. No pearly gates, no streets of gold, no virgins. Rest in Peace, Ken.”

2. Here is a comment by Brennon, a Christian:

“Today, while we remember the tragic but necessary split that occurred in 1517, I am also sad to hear that Ken Pulliam has died. I hope and pray that his spiritual state was different than it appeared. God is merciful and just and will judge Dr. Pulliam as He sees fit. Keep his family in your prayers, please.”

3. This is a comment by Ken's niece, a Christian:

“No one truly knows anyones spiritual state. We know what we hear from them, but those are only words. Only the[y], themselves know their true spiritual state. I’m not one to debate when it comes to believers and non-believers. I believe we were all created by a loving God. It was Ken who lived his life for God so many years, that even at the age of 15, I wrote him a letter and mailed it out to Arizona to him. Seeking guidance from him on how I to could have true salvation and live my life according to God’s will. I said in my wall post above that ‘I rest assure with my faith in God’ that Ken is in Heaven. Why do I say this. I know my uncle had the [r]eal thing. That when he said his sinner’s prayer and asked the Lord into his heart he [was] sincere and genuine. He was a new person. All the old had pass[ed] and he had been born again. Actions always speak louder than words. His actions was seeking God. Wanting to know more about God. Wanting to have that one on one relationship with God. Ken had this. So I know the promise that God made to all of us.

“John 10; 28-29….I give them eternal life and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My father who has given them to me, is greater than all, no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.

“The keyword in the scripture is NO ONE…..

“When I seen this page had been created, it was no surprise to me to see how many admired my uncle and how many lives he had touched. Lets rejoice and celebrate the life Ken had and lived. He was placed on this earth for a reason, as we all are. I’m confident his purpose was fulfilled. Lets remember his wife, son and daughter as they are dealing with a difficult loss. As we have suffered from 4 losses in the past 23 months. Thank you all for caring for such an amazing person. Ken R. Pulliam.”

4. This is a comment by his daughter. I’m not sure what she believes. But she loved her Dad:

“Daddy… I miss you so much. I hope you know now how important you and your wisdom were to so many people. You were a kind hearted loving dad who taught me so much. Your patience and understanding helped guide me through the years. Through the good and bad times, our family seemed to get through them. You were the smartest man I know, I could ask you anything and you always had an answer. You touched many peoples lives throughout your time, we all lost a good teacher, mentor, friend, loved one, and dad. Regardless of what everyone else believes or doesn[']t believe, I know you are now in my heart, and I will keep you there as long as I am here. I love you.”

Latin Mass: 10/31/2010

At my Latin mass this morning, we had the priest who speaks about love. He said that Christ has transformed the flesh of Christians such that they've become new creations---righteous people. He also lamented that there is not much civility in today's discourse, compared to the "good old days." I could identify with him here, especially after the Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert rally calling for sanity. But then the priest used an example that rubbed me the wrong way: he said that, back in the old days, people treated the monsignor as if he were divine! Personally, I think it's good that we don't put religious leaders on so high a pedestal: nowadays, if they try to order people around, people will tell them where to go!

I also found that I had problems with the priest's statement that Christ has transformed the flesh of Christians. It's the same problem I have had on a Christian lady's site: she and commenters say that recovery groups can't save us, for only Jesus Christ can do that. My problem is that Christianity did not transform me when I was gun-ho evangelical---deep into my quiet times and church attendance and praise and worship, along with the other rituals of evangelical Christianity (some of which I still do). But things like therapy and recovery groups helped me to find my way, as flawed as I still am, and as far as I still have to go.

I'm not saying that my experience is universal. There are people in recovery communities who bang their heads against the wall, until they make a decision for Christ and then begin to experience genuine transformation. Christianity has brought transformation to many. But I have a hard time identifying with those who say that only Christ brings transformation, for I don't believe that my Christian faith really changed me when I was really into it.

Part of the problem was that I had difficulty becoming a part of evangelical communities. Right now, I have mentors. In evangelical Christianity, I didn't so much. It was difficult for me to walk into a church and to fit in. And I can't totally blame others, for I was afraid to become friends with Christians. I feared they would ask me to do things that I did not want to do (e.g., witness, reach out to others). I had bad experiences with Christians who tended to make the perfect the enemy of the good, and so I shyed away from Christians in churches.

I also had issues with evangelical small groups. I never knew how to act in them! I still don't, to tell you the truth. I talked, and people thought I was spiritually-immature. I didn't talk, and people didn't like that either. I just couldn't please people! In recovery groups, however, I can just go, sit down, and listen. And nobody makes a big deal about that.

I believe in a higher power who can transform me. But, because of my fruitless experiences in Christianity, I have problems interpreting that higher power within a Christian context. Still, I find myself saying on numerous occasions, "Jesus, give me love," or "Jesus, give me peace," or "Jesus, give me strength."

Ken Pulliam Has Passed Away

I just learned from James McGrath’s site that ex-fundamentalist Ken Pulliam died suddenly from a heart attack. Ken’s blog was Why I De-Converted from Evangelical Christianity.

Ken Pulliam received a Ph.D. from Bob Jones University and became a professor of apologetics. At some point, he concluded that the answers he was giving to his students were inadequate, and he ceased to be an evangelical Christian. The issue that apparently concerned him the most was the doctrine of penal substitution, the view that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. Ken wondered how it was just for an innocent person to be punished in place of the guilty, and he searched far and wide for a Christian solution that could convince him. But, as you can see from his blog, which continually featured and critiqued prominent Christians’ defenses of penal substitution, he found their solutions to be wanting.

Ken also struggled with other issues, such as the biblical Conquest (which included the Israelite slaughter of Canaanite children) and God’s approval of slavery in the Bible. Again, Ken found evangelical attempts to address these issues to be lacking.

Ken wrestled with what he should do in response to his loss of Christian faith. Should he continue to teach in seminary, when he no longer believed? That would make him a hypocrite! And yet, how else could he support himself and his family? He wasn’t trained for other lines of work. Fortunately, an opportunity for him to support himself came along, and he could have the necessities of life while maintaining his intellectual integrity. He once joked that his experience in this case was similar to the testimonies of Christians he knew, who talked about not having work, until God provided for them at just the right time. Personally, I’d like to think that God did provide for him. Why would God want anyone to be a hypocrite, or afraid to ask the hard questions?

I always admired Ken’s tact. Unlike many atheist bloggers, he didn’t call people stupid or put people down. He simply said why he agreed or disagreed with a position. He relied on logic, not smug condescension or a sense of intellectual superiority.

I’ll miss his blog. He posted on it yesterday, so I’m shocked that he is now dead—and in his 50′s, at that. I didn’t read all of his atonement posts, but I did visit and cite his blog a lot. It was one of my favorites. I came to his blog because I was intrigued by the story of a Bob Jones graduate who walked away from his evangelical faith. But I also enjoyed reading the comments on his blog by Christians and those who were disenchanted with evangelical Christianity. As I said on a number of occasions, the comments were often as interesting and as educational as Ken’s post! And I got laughs when I visited Ken’s blog, as he posted fractured Bible stories from YouTube as well as the comic strip, “Jesus and Mo.”

Many will miss you, Dr. Pulliam.