First Impressions of the NIV Cultural Background Study Bible

Today I would like to pass along Peter Enns comments on the NIV Cultural Background Study Bible in observing how evangelical apologetics pretends towards "academic rigor" while keeping to its own internal standards of what is, and isn't biblical, according to the handbook of evangelical theology. Pointedly, as reflected in several recent articles on Radical Theology (see list immediately after these comments) this isn't true as evangelical doctrine holds to its own kind of "archaeological reality" while refusing any admit to post-foundational studies such as found in Radical Theology.

R.E. Slater

August 19, 2016

• Devolution is the New Evolution: Christianity's need for Radical Theology

• The Choice Before Nations to Love and Forgive

• Embracing the Dark Side of Doubt & Uncertainty

• R.E. Slater - Radical Reflections on God, Faith, and the Bible

* * * * * * * * * * *

THE BRAND NEW NIV CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS STUDY BIBLE—SOME FIRST IMPRESSIONS

http://www.peteenns.com/the-brand-new-niv-cultural-backgrounds-study-bible-some-first-impressions/

Posted by PeteEnns

August 15, 2016 in book notes and reviews

I just received the NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible (to be released August 23, available in hardcover, leather, and e-version) and spent a day reading through significant portions of it.

When an evangelical Bible commentary or study Bible is published, I get an initial feel for it by seeing how perennial evangelical hot-button issues are handled, like: 

• creation, Adam, and the Flood (i.e., myth)

• historicity of the Exodus 

• historicity and ethics of the conquest (especially archaeology of Jericho)

• historicity of David and Solomon

• Chronicles as a midrash of the Deuteornomistic history

• authorship issues especially Pentateuch, Isaiah, Daniel, Pastoral Epistles

• theological diversity and contradiction in the Gospels

• Paul and the New Perspective on Judaism

Let me be clear. I do not mean to say that I look to see whether the authors agree with me or mainstream biblical scholarship (which has its own variety), but whether non-evangelical readings are dismissed, marginalized, or misrepresented.

In other words, I am looking to see whether the book leads evangelicals to an awareness of broader academic discussions or whether it is oriented toward evangelical apologetics. My initial impression is that NIVCBSB is much more the former with relatively little the latter.

I’d be lying if I said that I stood up and cheered on each page. To be sure, this is an evangelical study Bible—theological borders delimit the range of options the authors can take, and so qualifications abound. This is to be expected, but all in all, I feel safe recommending this study Bible as a learned and valuable resource from an evangelical perspective without being overly concerned that the reader will be strongarmed by evangelical apologetics.

First, here are a few examples from the OT to give you a bit of a feel for the study Bible, followed by some brief observations about the NT portion.

Adam is presumed throughout to be a historical figure. There is a good essay on “Adam and Jewish Tradition” (p. 1957), but, disappointingly nothing on Adam in the ancient Mesopotamian context. The silence is deafening, though I suppose in the current climate of tensions over Adam an essay on the mythic setting of the Adam story is too much to ask.

But the other essays covering the opening chapters of Genesis will be instructive for readers. For example, the essay on the serpent of Genesis 3 (p. 12) makes very clear that the serpent is only equated with Satan under the influence of the NT and Christian theology, which would not have been on the OT author’s mind. I find it refreshing (if also a bit striking) that in an evangelical publication the NT reading is not given the final word on what Genesis means.

Concerning the Flood, source-criticism is simply ignored (which is better than misrepresenting it as passé among biblical scholars, a common verdict among evangelicals). The stated purpose of the story, however, is worth underscoring: its value is in helping us “see how the Israelites would have understood the whole event differently than their neighbors” (p. 21, my emphasis).

In other words—lets not miss what’s happening here—we are told that the Flood story gives us Israel’s perspective on an event (local Mesopotamian deluge), which is very different indeed from saying it gives an essentially accurate account of history. I’m relieved that an apologetic note was not struck in a study Bible that is supposed to be fixed on backgrounds material.

On p. 32 we read of the value of ancient Near Eastern mythological literature for understanding Genesis: it helps us see Genesis with ancient eyes rather than imposing upon it modern expectations.

That point is hardly news within evangelicalism (especially given the fact that John Walton is the OT editor), but thankfully missing here is the confused and too-common rapid qualification that, though mythic, the Bible nevertheless records history. Even if the author/editor of this portion of the study Bible believes that, the note doesn’t reflect it.

Too often evangelicals give “myth” a respectful nod of recognition (it can’t be tabled forever, after all), but they tend not to grab the mythic tiger by the tail and just say it: “Yes, myth is the correct genre category for this text, not history.” But still, seeing “myth” treated without first completely de-clawing it is worth noting.

Of course, things can get quite heated when the topic turns to the doctrinal implications of recognizing the mythic nature of parts of the Bible. Maybe one day Zondervan can publish a “Doctrinal Implications Study Bible” (text me, Katya).

The treatment of the historicity of the exodus is also worth noting. The relevant essays (pp. 104; 116-17; 118-19) freely admit the event cannot be “determined with certainty” and we are lacking a “precise and convincing historical framework” (p. 104). The best we can do is argue for what is “possible, plausible, or even probable” (p. 116).

To be sure, the exodus is still presumed to be an event that took place sometime during the New Kingdom in Egypt (1550-1069 BC), and unfortunately there is no discernable probing into what way the biblical story is historical. But readers will certainly be alerted that the evidence for the exodus is essentially nonexistent and the best we can do is comment on its plausibility.

I have to say I was taken off guard by the essay on the Passover. Albeit briefly, the essay acknowledges that,

certain elements in the Passover suggest that at its roots may be a nomadic herdmen’s ritual in which they sought both protection from demonic attack as they moved to summer pasture and fertility for their herds in the new breeding season (p. 129).

Such a comment, though commonplace outside of evangelicalism, requires more discussion here, as it raises the question—largely unaddressed in this volume—of the impact cultural backgrounds has had on evangelical theology.

Seeing these sorts of observations through to the end is precisely what has led generations of evangelicals to feel the need to rethink the nature of Scripture, particularly Scripture as an inerrant account of historical events. This comment on the Passover is not innocent. It cries out for explanation and can’t simply be dropped.

Israelite origins is a vexing scholarly issue, and the study Bible unsurprisingly steers clear of anything that might contravene the biblical narrative. Having said that, though assumed to be an historical event, the historical problems with the biblical account of the fall of Jericho are not ignored (pp. 368-69). Rather than a major population area, Jericho was a “small settlement” and likely primarily a “military compound, a small fort” containing perhaps “an inn or hostel” and with “100 soldiers or fewer guarding it.”

This interpretation is not universal among scholars, and it seems geared toward latching the biblical story to a verifiable historical moment (there was a Jericho at the time of the conquest and something didhappen there). Nevertheless, this reconstruction is at odds with the biblical story. So how to explain it? The essay gently concedes, without using the term, that the biblical story is an exaggeration that served to bolster Joshua’s reputation (which some might call “propaganda”).

We are not told when such an exaggeration to bolster Joshua’s reputation would have been written (within a generation? half a millennium later?), nor (once again) is it suggested what impact this conclusion might have on typical evangelical expectations about biblical inspiration, but at least we are moving in the right direction.

One concern I have, though, with the handling of Jericho and other violent episodes (e.g., Flood, exodus, and the Midianite war in Numbers 30) is that the morality of these actions is not addressed or questioned, at least not that I could see. I was very surprised to see no essay on “Divine violence” or “warfare in the Ancient Near East.” Cultural backgrounds could easily have been used to explain that biblical writers portray God in ways reflected in well-documented texts from Israel’s Iron Age tribalistic neighbors.

Cultural backgrounds could easily have been used to explain that the biblical writers portrayed God in ways that reflected well-documented texts from Israel’s Iron Age tribalistic neighbors. I suspect that the topic was avoided because it raises serious questions about the historical factuality of the conquest accounts.

I was hopeful that authorship issues might be addressed with some meaningful flexibility, but that was largely not the case. Ancient parallels to Deuteronomy are 2nd millennium rather than 1st. The apparent introduction of the divine name Yahweh in Exodus 6:2-3, a key text for source critics, receives an innocuous comment (p. 15).

On the still controversial question of the authorship of Isaiah, we read, “The compositional history of Isaiah is debated, with numerous competing views as to the number of authors and time of composition” (p. 1103). While true, this is also misleading.

There are certainly debates about the composition of Isaiah, but every biblical scholar in the solar system, outside of some (by no means all) evangelical circles, agrees that the 8th-century prophet is not responsible for all 66 chapters, and that the final form of the book dates to the exilic and postexilic periods.

If authorship issues are to be addressed at all, something as fundamentally accepted as multiple Isaianic authorship deserves clearer mention. Rather, the comment suggests that the matter is up for grabs and the scholarly world is in a state of confusion. It isn’t.

One final note on authorship concerns Daniel. Affirming a 6th-century date has been a veritable one-question orthodoxy exam in evangelicalism, whereas a 2nd-century date is considered to be one of the surest conclusions of modern scholarship (and accepted among some evangelicals).

With that in mind, on p. 1414 we read the following. Though expressed in evangelical speak (“try to say it without actually saying it and make sure you say something about the Bible’s reliability”), I for one appreciate the effort:

Though the book occasionally has Daniel speaking in the first person, the narratives are largely third person. Daniel is not named as the author. While there is no reason to question the authenticity of the accounts of the book, the fact that many narrative traditions were preserved orally, perhaps even for centuries before being committed to writing, results in uncertainty concerning when and by whom the book was compiled.

Translation: 6th-century authorship is not a slam dunk and the story might not have been written down until many centuries later. Though we read here hardly a ringing endorsement of the mainstream view, and with the typical qualification about Daniel’s unquestioned “authenticity” (though was does that mean?), this comment will likely give readers something to think about: Daniel is in some sense “late.”

But, again, if the authorship if Daniel is going to be addressed at all, some mention should be made of the essentially ubiquitous view, which is based on a “cultural background” issue, namely the havoc wreaked by the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (reigned from 175-164 BC).

Moving more quickly to the New Testament portion of the study Bible, here too we see many valuable and learned essays that will inform readers. I did feel, however, that the tone was more apologetic throughout, and often times seemed to me digress from the purpose of a cultural backgrounds study Bible.

Inordinate space, for example, is given to establishing the historical veracity of the Gospels and their sources, including the plausibility of the authorship ascriptions and miracles. However interesting these issues may be, they are not backgrounds issues for understanding the text.

What I was hoping to find was more focus on the cultural settings of the various Gospel writers that yielded their unique interpretations on Jesus (though see “The ‘Jews’ and ‘Jewish Leaders’ in John’s Gospel,” p. 1810). Likewise, essays on Jesus’ trial (p. 1672) and the location of Jesus’ tomb (p. 1678) are interesting, but I would rather have seen essays on “legal systems” or “burial practices in Greco-Roman Palestine” or something of that nature.

For the life of me, I have no idea why an essay discussing the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin (p. 1728) is included in a cultural backgrounds study Bible.

I was surprised that missing was an essay on the well known Priene Calendar Inscription (an account of Caesar Augustus’s divine birth and proclamation as “savior,” which is “Good News” for all). This inscription is a stunningly important cultural background for Mark or the Lukan birth narrative. Instead we see numerous synchronic charts: resurrection appearances (p. 1799), miracles of Jesus (p. 1808), harmonies of the Gospels (pp. 1858-64) and the events of Passion Week (pp. 1722-23). (The same holds for the Epistles [qualifications for elders, p. 2112; the “greater than” sayings in Hebrews, p. 2142.)

I cannot say synchronic charts should by no means appear in a backgrounds study Bible, but I would rather have seen that space devoted to more essays like the one on the triclinium (dining room in a Roman house, p. 1840) or “Houses in the Holy Land” (1640-41). Perhaps robust essays on the structure of the family in Greco-Roman society (though “marriage roles in antiquity” touches on it, pp. 2064-65), or the background for the language of “citizenship” or the “church” (ekklesia) that Paul reframes (though the latter is [too briefly] defined in “Key New Testament Terms,” p. 1585).

Again, there are many helpful essays and notes in the New Testament section. Let me mention in particular the non-alarmist and contextually sensitive essay on homosexuality in antiquity (p. 1950), and about as balanced a nod as one might expect to the New Perspective on Paul (“Paul’s Jewish Opponents,” p. 2047). But I felt I had to wade through less interesting and less relevant material along the way, almost at points loosing track that this was a cultural backgrounds Bible.

To sum up, the visuals are striking and inviting, and this volume will be a wonderful aid for many, particularly for those readers who might otherwise be jarred by the depth and breadth to which our Bible owes its existence, culturally speaking, to the settings in which its various parts were written. It is well worth the investment of $49.99 ($36.98 on Amazon).

My Spidey sense is tuned in to where authors tip-toe around or package issues in ways that are more palatable for evangelicals, some of which I note above. But, as they say in the publishing world, “Know your audience.” Readers just need to be aware that these essays, though wonderfully informative, quite often offer a perspective that many (or most) scholars in the field would either qualify or even disagree with.

Let me end this brief post by revisiting a point I alluded to once or twice. On the first page of the study Bible, we read:

This study Bible has been purpose-built to do one thing: in increase your understanding of the cultural nuances behind the text of God’s Word so that your study experience, and your knowledge of the realities behind the ideas in the text, is enriched and expanded (p. v, my emphasis).

Indeed, the reader’s understanding will be increased, enriched, and expanded from studying Scripture aided by this volume. And on one level this is a fine and innocuous statement to make.

The irony, however, is that it is precisely such culturally informed study of the contexts of the Bible over the last 150 years that has led to significant challenges for evangelical theology.

The cultural context of Scripture cannot be presented as a safe haven of rest for the person in the pew, just a bit of background information that one can safely tack onto evangelical theology. Though not always the case, exposure to “Bible in context” has brought evangelical theology under careful scrutiny more often than not.

The NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible does a good job of presenting some challenging material in a sober and unthreatening manner for its intended audience, and so it is not free of evangelical pre-packaging. At the end of the day, however, the challenges of the study of Scripture in historical context will not be adequately addressed that way.

Having said all this, I plan to consult it regularly for backgrounds issues for any course I teach, in conjunction with other sources as needed. And I will warmly recommend it and refer others to it, though with some possible qualifications of my own, depending on the person’s degree of familiarity with the topic.

- Peter Enns

*I talk more about the nature of the Bible in its historical contexts in The Bible Tells Me So (HarperOne, 2014), Inspiration and Incarnation (Baker 2005/2015), and The Evolution of Adam (Baker, 2012).

Devolution is the New Evolution: Christianity's need for Radical Theology

One of the challenges for radical theology is to consistently bring conflict
back into the heart of community so that the thinking of those involved is
disrupted in ways that are both creative and productive. - anon


Is 'radical theology' anything other than a 21st century incarnation
of  the New Testament 'faith vs works' conversation? - anon


Yes, because being radical would mean returning to
the "roots of" therefore live works not by faith.
- anon


When once perceiving radical theology's substance I thought it to be the
very same conversation of "faith v. works" but updated for today's followers
of Jesus in a postmodern context. But perhaps wider because it embraces
all those who doubt but still pursue faith with works. - res

Not too many years ago astute Christians began to wake up to the idea that their faith had changed. Not for the better but for the worse. Perhaps it was more to the fact that they were the ones that actually were changing in a religious tradition that pointed to God as much as away from God.

These were Christians who wished to follow what they had been taught but differently from what a secular Christian religion was telling them. That their faith needed a radical updating into contemporary society focusing on the simple things like recentering their Christian faith in Jesus, and in His Spirit, rather than in a Christian religion lost unto itself. Or in what their faith group was telling them was important to believe or act on. Things like God is not love first, last, and always, but that these are outcomes to our obedience to Him. And if we do not obey God than God becomes to us a controlling, threatening God who uses divine anger, coercion, judgment, and even hell, to get His way.

It began to cross these discerning Christian minds that what we love may not be what God loves. That what we think should be important to God is not important to God Himself. Or descriptive of who He is. Rather, these things more describe us - our lust for control and power; our idolatries of God's Person and Work; our desire to make ourselves righteous before God misbelieving ourselves to be God's testimonies to His greater gospel of peace and love.

However, Radical theology then comes along to presage all these ideas around the person and work of Jesus (sic, ideas like "God and the Other"). Not around a doctrine, or a Christian movement, or a type of faith association. This latter would be known as a "radical (de)orthodoxy" (led by faith groups espousing neo-Calvinism for instance). I say de-orthodoxy because a true orthodoxy - a postmodern, obedient, humanitarian-focused orthodoxy - is the truer radical orthodoxy or radical theology. But of course all good words are mis-shapened and bent into angular forms when well-meaning - but undiscerning - Christians come along claiming as true something that is false. And so we are to beware of orthodoxies claiming one thing but actually becoming the very idols they themselves claim they are not. These then are de-orthodoxies. Idolatrous religions. Not radical except in the idea of being radically religious rather than radically spiritual as hallmarked by the following of Jesus.

As observed by friend and fellow-theologian Peter Enns: "The Christian Faith for the Deconverted gives reasons for Christians to get a new faith after the one they had lost." He taps into the idea that Christians need to talk about things in western Christianity that drive people away (e.g., the quest for power, the rejection of science and academia, the need for shunning and exclusivity). Things which are actually windows into what the Christian faith has devolved into instead of what it really is all about.

And so, we have now come full circle in describing why many Christians are beginning to wake up to the idea that their faith has changed - and not for the better. That they must return to their orthodox faith by deconstructing its errors, its ingraciousness, its inhumanities which point away from God and not towards God. We might call this yet another "Great Awakening" but unlike any previous awakening that has occurred in the Reformation era. This one drives us from the Christian faith back into the Christian faith in a much more radical reformation or reconstruction of what Jesus' redemption means in the insistence of God's heart within all of His creation. That it must burn itself up before it can be purified and offered as incense to the holy altar of God. That we must repent of our sin and error and enter into a period of doubt and mistrust until God's Spirit leads us out again from our wilderness period of waste and darkness unto His paths of light and grace.

Peace,

R.E. Slater

August 18, 2016

*for further reference: https://www.goodreads.com/genres/radical-theology

* * * * * * * * * * *

ADDENDUM

No sooner had I written an article about "Christianity and The Other" when I find it's antithesis in "The Other" as espoused by a well-meaning, but wholly unstudied, writer who throws words around betraying his own faith and religion:

In the article that follows radical theology is misunderstood when Evangelical hermeneutics is applied to the postmodern understanding of New Testament faith. That is, when it  interprets radical theology you get the result of foundational entrenchment rather than post-foundational enlightenment (I also like the idea of entanglement). Further, the classic Evangelical description of "faith in faith" is misapplied and upended to it's circumvented understanding of radical theology. However, a post-foundational faith looks at the results of someone's faith, not simply their belief structures. That is, whether it is humanitarian, humane, ethical, moral, Jesus-centered or oppressive and self-centered. To simply have faith in faith is not enough as we pyros know. There must be substance to faith if it is to be worthy. Now a classicist will say that they understand faith and works in this same regard not realizing that without uncertainty and doubt they can never depart their classical foundational system that puts belief over all other aspects of faith. Thus its struggle with radical theology which first destroys the foundational aspects of faith of it's certainties, verities, and belief structures in order for it to rise above a man-made religion more idolatrous than Divine.

R.E. Slater

August 18, 2016

~ [Start of Article] ~

Christian Certainty: The Only Sin Left

https://stephenmcalpine.com/2016/08/04/christian-certainty-the-only-sin-left/

04ThursdayAug 2016

Posted by stephenmcalpine in Uncategorized

Christianity is all too often a day late and a dollar short on many things.  And when it comes to the matter of conviction, once again evangelical writers and influencers are short-changing us.

Just as the secular culture is jettisoning uncertainty at a rate of knots, many in the Church are espousing its virtues, whilst pointing out the pitfalls of certainty in the process.

I say this in light of a new book by Peter Enns, (formerly of Westminster Theological Seminary) which I have yet to read, but which, if the reviews and comments about it are any indication, is another nail in the coffin of post-evangelical Christianity. In other words, his crisis of faith should be your crisis of faith too.  What better way to use the skills honed in several decades of evangelical learning than to tear that down.  Or  better still, tear down the faith of  your kids.

That’s right, according to Enns, and his many acolytes, there is only one big hairy sin left for Christians these days, and that’s the sin of certainty.

Whilst secularism hardens into deep certainty and conviction, growing more zealous by the year, the future hope for evangelicalism in particularly is, apparently, less certainty.

Enns’ new book “The Sin of Certainty: Why God Desire Ours Trust Not Our Correct Beliefs” is his latest work on his road away from a traditional confessional faith.  And it’s a beautiful beguiling title.  Until you work out that the Bible does not differentiate between trust and belief.  But note that he said “correct” beliefs; which conjures up all sorts of Pharisaical and Puritanical nastiness, does it not?

A glowing review of his book can be found at Evangelicals for Social Action. This has been linked to Facebook. That review plus a list of comments on the  FB thread, picqued my interest.

The review begins with nary a flush of embarrassment with this certain statement:

Children of evangelical parents are at risk. Raised with the belief that the truth can be cornered, they live in a world that suggests quite the opposite. As cultural pressures increase, parents and pastors double down. The kids feel torn and are left without meaningful onramps to a more open and humane framing of faith.

Woah, I see your problem!  I mean, let’s do the time warp again. We live in a world that suggests that truth cannot be cornered? Please!   We live in a world that is currently executing an agenda of deep truth and zealotry on all sorts of matters, especially in relation to ethics, sexuality, and the goal of life – personal fulfilment.  Truth has been cornered and flogged into submission by the culture. Looks like someone missed that particular train.

Or this for example from the reviewer:

The book provides a meaningful “third way” between unflappable dogmatic certainty and relativistic skepticism. In philosophical terms, it is a welcome depiction of critical realism discipleship that avoids the arrogance of foundationalism and the skepticism of postmodernism.

Again I ask, What skepticism?  In the 1980s at university perhaps.  But even that skepticism about truth was directly pointed at one target only, the Christian framework of the Western world and the Western canon.  That skepticism was a mere ruse. A well considered technique to raze the landscape in order to rebuild something different.

And what a rebuild!  Out of the debris of post-foundationalism  soaring brutalist tower blocks of zeal have arisen; gargantuan dogmatic constructions that dehumanise and overshadow anything to the contrary.

 Universities are prime examples.  The “what is truth?” meh of the 1980s has been replaced with a deep dark certainty in which, ironically, professors are fearful of their students – worried that the wrong word or an off-hand remark will have them hauled before the star chamber.

But what of Christian certainty?  Why would Christians jettison certainty at precisely the time the culture is gearing up? The critical mistake made by the post-evangelical cohort is that certainty always equals pride, something the reviewer simply assume when he states:

The move from a confident, settled transcendent perspective to a humbler, exploratory transcendent perspective is a major frame shift.

In other words it’s not possible to be both confident in the gospel and humble about it at the same time.  That, quite frankly, is nonsense. Indeed the opposite is the case – it’s completely possible to be uncertain and proud.

The Bible, (part of the problem for Enns in general in his books), encourages certainty.  Hence we have Luke writing to Theophilus:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 thatyou may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

And Peter says to the church in 2Peter1:19:

 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

Indeed the very gospel of John is written that:

… you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:30-31).

Notice how all three of these examples showcase that what is written is trustworthy? That what is written is certain? That is anathema to the Christian moving away from certainty and it’s a central plank to Enns’ other writings.  (Have a read here for a generous, but critical review of his other work).

Even the flow of salvation history is the movement from less certainty in the shadow of the Old Testament to the more certain fulfilment of the New Testament.  Hence we have Hebrews:

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 

And that certainty will be even more certain when we see Jesus face to face.  We are on a certainty trajectory, not having yet arrived – that is for sure -, but a trajectory in a direction nonetheless.

Now let’s be clear.  Our certainty is in the person of Jesus.  Our theological certainties are not ends in themselves, but a means to drive us closer to Jesus and find our certainty in him.  But these go together.  There would have been no apostolic witness, and definitely no apostolic bravery to spread the gospel news in the face of hatred, death and privations, if the apostles were not rock solid certain about it. And they were certain enough about it to write it down and call others to the certainty of it too.

It follows then, that when certainty in the biblical witness or the authority of that witness is  removed, then there can be no certainty in Jesus. Full stop.  This is blindingly obvious in the ensuing Facebook exchange.

ME: A good robust biblical argument against certainty would be welcome, but when the author and reviewer’s premise is the uncertainty of Scripture then there’s not even a platform for debate!

My FB Friend: I’m just not sure about scripture. I love it. It speaks to me but my faith sits in God a bit more than in scripture. I Do actually hold a high view of it. But certainty? Not too much of that here, Does God love me? Pretty certain. 

ME: You are certain of that on the basis of?

MFBF:  My faith ?

ME: Sounds suspiciously like love is love.

In other words I am certain on the basis of my certainty.  That’s a circular argument. I have faith in my faith on the basis of my faith. At least he ended it with a question mark.  Can’t be too certain about these things!

But do you see what that does?  It does not do away with certainty, it simply removes it from critique, locking it away in a deep subjectivism that is unreachable and unteachable. It is impervious, hermetically sealed off from any word to the contrary.  That is ultimate certainty right there.

The reviewer confidently (with certainty?) states that this is a book to give to your children if you want them to continue in the faith.  Au contraire!  This is a book that evangelicals on the way out of any definition of orthodoxy buy for themselves in the faint hope that they can hand on their Christian ethic to their children whilst jettisoning the theology.  That proved to be a disaster for the liberal church of the sixties and seventies, yet in true “day late, dollar short” style, evangelicals are lining up and signing up.

The reviewer concludes:

Enns is a worthy exemplar for the coming generation. Out of the pain of his personal history has come a roadmap to a better, accepting, honest, and faithful evangelicalism. This book is an onramp to spiritual sanity.

Actually Enns has built an off-ramp that leads to an unfinished bridge that will leave your children’s faith a smouldering wreck in the bottom of a ravine. That’s where the real risk  is.  And that’s where the real sin is too.

- Stephen McAlpine

The Sibylline Oracles of the Pseudepigrapha, Part 2

Seven Generations of the World – Sibylline Oracles 1.1-323

https://readingacts.com/2016/07/27/seven-generations-of-the-world-sibylline-oracles-1-1-323/

by Phillip J. Long

July 27, 2016

I dealt with the introductory material for the first two Sibylline Oracles in a previous post (books 1-3). The first 323 lines of Book One of the Sibylline Oracles are a Jewish summary of biblical history from through the “seventh generation.” This section is dated from 30 B.C. to A. D. 250, possibly originating from Phrygia based on the reference to the Ark in 1.196-198.

Sibyl by Francesco Ubertini,
c. 1525

This Jewish section of the collection periodizes history after the fall into seven generation. In lines 1-37 the writer describes the wonders of the pre-fall world. Adam and Eve are wondrously beautiful when created and placed in the garden. They speak wisdom to one another and had no evil thoughts at all. Lines 38-64 are an interpretation of the story of the Fall in Genesis 3. Rather than blaming sin on Adam (as in Romans 5:12-21), It is the woman who is the first betrayer, having persuaded Adam to sin (cf. 2 Enoch 31). Genesis 3:14 is interpreted as literal enmity between snakes and humans. There is no messianic imagery at all in this retelling of the story.

• The First Generation (65-86). The first generation of humans was noble, but they went to Hades anyway because they were polluted by sin and made war.

• The Second Generation (87-103). This generation is inventive and skillful, described as “watchers” because of their sleepless minds (not as fallen angels, as in 1 Enoch). They too died and went to Tartarus and are “guarded by unbreakable bonds, to make retribution, to Gehenna of terrible, raging, undying fire.”

• The Third Generation (104-108). This generation was “overbearing and terrible men” and the period is marked by “wars, slaughters, and battles destroyed these continually, men of proud heart.”

• The Fourth Generation (109-119). This generation “shed much blood” and neither respected God nor man. Some were killed in war and went to the netherworld, others God took from the world in his wrath.

• The Fifth Generation (120-282). The fifth generation was “far inferior” men, insolent and crooked, even more so than the giants. Noah is command to prepare for the flood (125-136) and he preaches to his generation (147-198). There is a riddle in lines 137-146 which promises to give the name of God, nine letters with four syllables. These clues are reminiscent of Rev. 13:18 and the “number of the beast,” and probably just as impossible to figure out! This sermon lists the sins of the generation and describes them as evil-hearted and fickle. He is jeered for this preaching (171-172), therefore he enters the ark with his family and other creatures God wished to save (199-216). The flood begins (217-261) and the ark lands on Ararat in Phrygia as opposed to Armenia (262-283).

• The Sixth Generation (283-306). This generation is described a noble and blessed one, righteous and hard working. During this generation, “the earth will rejoice, sprouting with many spontaneous fruits, overladen with offspring. Those who give nourishment will be ageless, always” (lines 297-299). They too enter Hades, but they are blessed as the go since “Sabaoth gave a noble mind” (304).

• The Seventh Generation (307-323). The seventh generation is the generation of the Titans (cf., Hesiod, Theogony, 687–735). The Lord makes war against them and shuts them from the world.

As Collins suggests, the main interest of this section of the Oracle is the schematization of history into a series of “generations.” Along with the Christian interpolations, history passes through ten generations, five before the flood and five after. The world is destroyed by water in the fifth generation and fire in the tenth. This is not exactly a modern dispensational timeline, but there is a long history of creating a series of periods through which humanity passes before the final judgment.

Although there are clear signs of Christian redaction in the first two books, it is important to observe an apocalyptic theme which connects the flood and a future apocalyptic destruction (or re-creation) of the world. Similar imagery appears in Revelation; 1 Peter 3:19-22; 3:11-13.

* * * * * * * * * *

The Christian Interpolation – Sibylline Oracle, Book 1.324-400

https://readingacts.com/2016/07/28/the-christian-interpolation-sibylline-oracle-book-1-324-400/

Phillip J. Long

July 28, 2016

The last section of the first Sibylline Oracle was inserted by a Christian. The section is a clear description of Jesus Christ, “the son of the most high, immortal God” (1.331). The goal is to add a prediction of the events of the life of Jesus into this oracle-prophecy.

Depiction of a Sibyl by
Domenichino, c. 1616-17

Since the book is missing the eighth and ninth generations, it is hard to know if this was the most appropriate place to insert these Christological predictions. As with the riddle on God’s name earlier in the book (lines 137-146), we are given a short riddle on the name and number of the son of God’s name (lines 327-329). “I will state explicitly the entire number for you. For eight units, and equal number of tens in addition to these, and eight hundreds will reveal the name.” This adds up to 888, the number of the name Iēsous.

Lines 334-335 allude to the wise men, “Priests will bring gifts to him, bringing forward gold, myrrh, and incense.” Lines 336-339 refer to John the Baptist, “But when a certain voice will come through the desert land bringing tidings to mortals, and will cry out to all to make the paths straight and cast away evils from the heart” and his death by Herod, “ a man with barbarous mind, enslaved to dances will cut out this voice.”

The Jews will stumble against this coming son of God, but Gentiles will be gathered to him (lines 346-347). Jesus’ ministry and miracles are summarized (347-361) and the writer blames the Jews for the crucifixion with a string of anti-Semitic invectives (lines 360-371).

Then indeed Israel, with abominable lips and poisonous spittings, will give this man blows. For food they will give him gall and for drink unmixed vinegar, impiously, smitten in breast and heart with an evil craze, not seeing with their eyes, more blind than blind rats, more terrible than poisonous creeping beasts, shackled with heavy sleep.

Later in the interpolation the writer blames the fall of Jerusalem as a judgment for killing Jesus: “Then when the Hebrews reap the bad harvest, a Roman king will ravage much gold and silver… since they committed an evil deed.”

After three days the Son of God will raise from the “house of Adonis” (i.e., Hades) and return to heaven on the clouds (376-382). The Christian church is described as a “new shoot” named after him (Christians) sprouting for the nations lead by wise leaders but with a cessation of prophets (lines 383-386). The section ends with a dire prediction of the destruction of the Jews at the hands of the Romans because they have committed an evil deed in rejecting the son of God (lines 387-400).

There is little here that is unique, although obvious forgery of a Sibylline article by a Christian in order to support orthodox Christian theology is significant. Several items are worthy of some attention. First, in the retelling of the story of Jesus, John the Baptist is still important enough to have his career and death summarized. Even in the New Testament there are some hints of John’s lingering importance, this Christian interpolation indicates John’s life and death were still part of the Gospel story.

Second, the section describing Jesus’s miracles tracks with the Synoptic Gospels (healings and exorcisms, walking in water feeding the 5000). There are no non-biblical miracles mentioned, and there are small details included (John is killed by someone addicted to dance, twelve baskets after the feeding miracle). The details seem to be drawn from all four Gospels. This is an obvious attempt to wedge the Gospel story into an existing “ancient” prophecy, but it is remarkable there are no allusions to non-canonical stories. For example, the only reference to the birth of Jesus is the visit of the Magi, indicating a familiarity with Matthew (or a similar tradition). Yet there is no virgin birth, canonical or non-, and there is no mention of popular stories about Jesus as a child.

Third, the Jews are blamed for the crucifixion and they are now feeling the “raging wrath of the Most High” (362) and they will “will weep for each other on receiving the wrath of the great” (399). This reflects an unfortunate anti-Jewish theology which will result in a great deal of persecutions throughout the Christian era.

* * * * * * * * * *

The Tenth Generation – Sibylline Oracles, Book 2.1-55

https://readingacts.com/2016/07/29/the-tenth-generation-sibylline-oracles-book-2-1-55/

by Phillip J. Long

July 29, 2016

After a short five line introduction, we read the fate of the tenth generation. Because of the Christian interpolation, the eighth and ninth generation are lost, and perhaps the beginning of the description of the tenth. Lines 6-39 describe a number of “apocalyptic signs” such as thunder, lightning, frenzied wild animals and other prodigies (blood from heaven and general strange events).

Sib.Or. 2.15-24 Then indeed the tenth generation of men will also appear after these things, when the earth-shaking lightning-giver will break the glory of idols and shake the people of seven-hilled Rome. Great wealth will perish, burned in a great fire by the flame of Hephaestus. Then there will be bloody precipitation from heaven … but the entire world of innumerable men will kill each other in madness. In the tumult God will impose famines and pestilence and thunderbolts on men who adjudicate without justice.

David Aune has a lengthy excursus on prodigies, “unnatural or extraordinary occurrence or phenomenon understood as a sign warning of divine anger” in Roman culture. See, for example, Thucydides 1.23.3, a list of disasters that affected the Athenians during the Peloponnesian war: earthquakes, eclipses, droughts, famines, and pestilence (Revelation 2:402; 2:416ff).

This list of apocalyptic events is drawn from the stock imagery of the Old Testament, especially Jeremiah and Ezekiel in describing the horror of the fall of Jerusalem (Jer 14:12; 21:9; Ezek 6:11; 12:16, 14:21; 1QpPsa 1-10 and Dio Cassius 69.1-2, describing the fall of Jerusalem after the Bar Kohkba Rebellion). In the midst of the judgment of the tenth generation, God will be a savior to the pious (27-28) and will show a great sign from heaven for “no small number of days” (34-38).

Entry into heaven is described as a “contests” which people should strive for rather than a crown of silver. The “holy Christ” will make awards to those who are worthy (45-46), especially the martyrs. Those who are virgins, perform justice live piously, love marriage and refrain from adultery will receive the reward of immortality.

The image of entry into heaven as a “contest” is found in 2 Tim. 4:7-8: Paul has “fight the good fight and finished the race,” and is looking forward to his “crown of righteousness” to be awarded him by the Lord, the righteous Judge. Like the author of this oracle, Paul sees this reward as connected to the consummation of the age.

* * * * * * * * * *

An Extract from Pseudo-Phocylides – Sibylline Oracles, Book 2.56-148

https://readingacts.com/2016/07/29/an-extract-from-pseudo-phocylides-sibylline-oracles-book-2-56-148/

by Phillip J. Long

July 29, 2016

Phocylides was a sixth century B.C. poet who was, in the ancient world, well-known as an author of maxims and proverbs applicable to daily life (See P. W. Van Der Horst, “Pseudo-Phocylides” in OTP 2:565-582; ABD 5:347-348; “Pseudo-Phocylides and the New Testament,” ZNW 69 (1978) 187-202; “Pseudo-Phocylides Revisited.” JSP 3 (1988): 3-30).

In the first century B.C. it appears a diaspora Jew created 230 lines of poetry in the name of Phocylides in order to demonstrate to the gentiles that Judaism is a rational religion. The point was not to convert, but to create “sympathizers” among the gentiles (OTP 2:566). In the Sibylline Oracles, these lines are used as “criteria” for the judgment just described (Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” in ABD 6:4). There is a “frame” at the end of this section returns to the idea of a context (lines 149-153). Since these lines will be covered in more detail in the section on Pseudo-Phocylides, suffice here to simply note the themes covered:

• On Justice (56-77)
• On Mercy (78-94)
• On Moderation (95-108)
• On Money (109-118)
• On Honesty and Moderation (119-148)

The material following the Pseudo-Phocylides insertion returns to the theme of apocalyptic judgment and associated signs. Lines 154-173 give another series of prodigies which signal the last generation: children with grey temples from birth, famines, pestilence, war, changes of time, lamentations, and many tears. The time is near, we are told, when false prophets arise and do many signs (cf. Mt. 24:11, 24, Mk 13:22). Even Beliar will appear and do many signs, confusing even the holy and faithful men (Mt. 24:14, even the elect may be deceived by false Christs). Jesus was accused of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub, the prince of demons. The Jews of the first century seem to have been looking closely at the signs performed by Jesus in order to determine if they were true (i.e. from God) or false (i.e satanically inspired.)

After the kingdoms of the world are judged (172-173) the Hebrews will rule over the world (174-186). The most high will “spread” over all men at that time. Elijah will come driving his chariot from heaven and display three signs (187-195). Then the fiery river of heaven will pour out on the earth and destroy nearly everything (196-213). Stars will fall from the sky (cf. Is. 34:4, Mk. 13:25, Mt. 24:29) and men will gnash their teeth (cf. Matt 8:12, 13:42, 50, 22:13, 24:51, 25:30, Luke 13:28). The archangels will lead people into judgment (214-220).

The gates of Hades will then be broken and all the dead will be raised to life (221-251). Christ himself will come on a cloud of glory and sit on the right hand of the Glorious One to judge all of the dead. The dead will be divided into the wicked and the righteous (252-282); the wicked are punished (283-312) and the righteous are rewarded (313-338), all quite parallel to the eschatological judgment described in Matthew 25:31-46. In this parable-like conclusion to the Olivet Discourse, the punishment of the wicked is also described as a place a darkness, weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Unlike Matthew 25, people in the place of torment will request mercy from God in vain for “seven days of ages,” then they will come into repentance because of the intercession of the holy virgin. This last line is obviously a Christian idea, probably assigning a role to the “holy virgin” played by Ezra in 4 Ezra 7:101 (OTP 1:353, note a3; in much of the Ezra material, as the prophet witnesses some sinner tortured, he prays to the Lord for mercy on the sinner).

The righteous are rewarded with equality – there will be no more kings and leaders, no more rich and tyrants, “all will be on a par together” (324). Creation will also have an “equality” – there will be no more seasons. There will be no more marriage, death, sales or purchases, no sunset, no sunrise, etc. The righteous will enter into eternal life which is described as the Elysian plain and the Archerusian Lake (where Odysseus entered Hades).

* * * * * * * * * *

Sibylline Oracles, Book 3

https://readingacts.com/2016/08/02/sibylline-oracles-book-3/

by Phillip J. Long

August 2, 2016

Lines 1-96 are probably a conclusion to another book. Lines 97-349, 489-829 are the “main book,” with an “Oracles against the nations” section inserted in 350-488. The main section expects God to intervene during the reign of the seventh king of Egypt (lines 193, 318, 608). The mostly likely candidates for the seventh king are Philometor (186-164, 163-145 B.C.), Neos Philopater (145-144 B.C.) and Physcon / Euergetes II (170-164, 164-163, 144-117 B.C.; Collins, Athens, 85). As can be observed from the dates of these three kings, there are some co-regencies which complicate the chronology. Collins dates the book to 163-145 B.C. based on the prominence of Rome (which is more present after 175, the book is definitely written after the battle of Magnesia, 190 B.C.; Collins, OTP 1:355).

This view has been challenged, however, by Rieuwerd Buitenwerf. He points out the numbering of Ptolemaic kings did not exist in antiquity, they were identified by “title” (Buitenwerf, 126ff). The number seven is used three times in the context of the prediction of a seventh king, all figuratively according to Buitenwerf (Cf., Erich Gruen,Heritage and Hellenism, 277). The writer of the oracle can only be said to believe that Roman rule will end when an Asian king conquers Egypt, signaling the appointed time for God to intervene in history. Therefore, the historical seventh king in the Ptolemaic dynasty does not matter for dating the book. Although he accepts the number seven may have been chose as an ideal number, Collins disagrees that the seventh king has no bearing on the date. The prediction of God’s intervention when the seventh king reigns is meaningless if it is known there have been more than seven kings (Collins, Athens, 83-84, interacting with Erich Gruen).

Buitenwerf points out there is no hint of a Roman invasion of Palestine nor an end to the Ptolemy dynasty, therefore the book must be written some time before Actium, 31 B.C. He finds confirmation for this date in the paraphrase of Book 3 of the Sibylline Oracles by Alexander Polyhistor on the tower of Babel. His citation of lines 3.91-107 are preserved in Eusebius’ Chronica and Josephus’ Antiq. 1.118-119, although Josephus probably also used Polyhistor. Polyhistor began to write about 880 B.C. and died about 40 B.C.

Collins believes the main section of the book to be pro-Ptolemaic and therefore argues the book is the product of a diaspora Jew living in Egypt. This too has been challenged by Buitenwerf, calling the evidence for an Egyptian origin “extremely meager” (Buitenwerf, 131). He considers Collins’ evidence of a pro-Ptolemaic author as saying nothing of the sort and considers the topographical details as a reflection of “general education” (132). He argues for an Asian origin for the book based on the frequent mention of Asian locations and (more importantly), the prediction that an Asian king will invade Egypt.

Lines 367-380 predicted this Asian king will usher in a time of bliss for Egypt, then again in lines 601-623 an Asian king invades and God intervenes in the world. The prophetess identifies herself as the Erythraean Sibyl, a very famous Asian prophetess. He concludes the author was a Jewish inhabitant of the Roman province of Asia (133). Collins agrees the “oracles against the nations” need to be dated a bit later, likely before the battle of Actium in 31 B.C. (Compendia rerum Iudaicarum 368). These are “gentile oracles” included to bring book three up to date and add to the Sibylline flavor, but the main section of the book, in Collins opinion, is earlier.

The first section is different from the rest of the book and is to be dated at least after Actium (line 46 seems to refer to the second Triumvirate.) Lines 75-92 refer to Cleopatra. Lines 63-92 are the most difficult to date, and ought to be considered separately from the rest of the introduction since they refer to the coming of Beliar. This looks like a Christian interpolation. The identity of Beliar may be Simon Magus as an anti-messiah, who was from Samaria (Herod’s renamed Samaria “Sebaste” in honor of Augustus in 25 B.C.)

A second and more likely possibility is the phrase describing Beliar ek Sebasttenonmeans “from the line of Augustus,” implying that Beliar is Nero. This is in keeping with the Nero Myth and the common association of the return of Nero with an end-time villain. If the second option is accepted, then the date must be after A.D. 70 (when the Nero myth began to circulate), possibly later. The use of the Nero Myth in Revelation 13 is a bit controversial since most scholars date Revelation to the mid 90’s A.D. This would mean the Nero Myth was still common nearly 30 years after his death.

* * * * * * * * * *

Kingdoms of the World – Sibylline Oracles Book 3.1-294

https://readingacts.com/2016/08/05/kingdoms-of-the-world-sibylline-oracles-book-3-1-294/

by Phillip J. Long

August 5, 2016

As discussed in the introduction, Collins identified the first 96 lines as an introduction, possibly a fragment from another book. Lines 1-8 form an introduction by the Sibyl herself, explaining that she speaks as God bids her to speak. There follows a condemnation of idolatry which is clearly Egyptian in origin (worshiping snakes and sacrificing to cats, line 30; OTP 1:362, note d). When Rome rules over Egypt, it will become the greatest kingdom, but it will be destroyed by three men (the second triumvirate, lines 46-63; OTP 1:363, note i).

The Cumaean Sibyl

Lines 63-74 predict the coming of Nero, the Beliar from the line of the Sebastenoi. This Beliar will perform signs and raise the dead, but will eventually be destroyed when he threatens the most high God. After this the world will be in the hands of a woman (75-92). This seems to be Cleopatra, although if the previous paragraph mentions the line of theSebastenoi (Augustus), then this is either out of order historically or it refers to someone else.

The “main book” begins in line 97 with a historical survey of the world beginning with the tower of Babel in the tenth generation of men from the flood (97-109). A lengthy section discusses the Titans and their battles (110-161). God ultimately puts an end to the Titans and the cycles of the history of men began: Egypt, Persian, the Medes, the Ethiopians, Assyria-Babylon, then the Macedonians, Egypt again, then Rome.

These kingdoms seem out of order – Persia followed Babylon and the Ethiopians could not really be described as the same kind of kingdom as the others. Collins notes on OTP 1:365, note u if the kingdom of Cronos and a final eschatological kingdom is included, we have a typical list of ten kingdoms of the world. This list of kingdoms of the world is expanded in lines 162-195, climaxing in the kingdom of Macedonia. Macedonia will rule over a great territory and will cause many kings to fear.

The text seems to be against Hellenism as spread through the world by Alexander (cf. the anti-homosexuality statement in lines 185-186). This will continue until the seventh Greek king rules in Egypt (see the introduction for possibilities). The kingdoms of the world are finally judged in 196-217.

The remainder of the first section of the Third Sibylline concerns the history of Israel:

• A description of the Jewish People (218-248). While Abram came from Ur of the Chaldeans, his people do not practice sorcery, etc. They do not rob, move boundaries, or drive off herds, etc. They always take care of the poor, the widow, and the orphan.

• When they leave Egypt under the leadership of Moses, they follow the Lord to Sinai and are given the Law (249-264).

• The people do not keep the law and the land becomes desolate for 70 years and the Temple will be destroyed (265-281).

• A “good end and great glory” await the Jews when he lifts their weary knee and sends them a king to judge each man and raise a new temple (282-294).

Like Daniel, this survey of history affirms God’s sovereignty as he works through human history by raising up series of kingdoms. As the series of kingdoms culminates in Rome, the history narrows its focus to the restoration of Israel and the Temple.

* * * * * * * * * *

Oracles against the Nations – Sibylline Oracles Book 3.295-488

https://readingacts.com/2016/08/05/oracles-against-the-nations-sibylline-oracles-book-3-295-488/

Phillip J. Long

August 5, 2016

This section seems to have been inserted into the third book from another source as it interrupts the flow of the apocalyptic section ending in 294.

• Babylon is judged first because they destroyed the temple (303-313). Babylon will be “filled with blood” because they poured out the blood of good men and righteous men, whose blood even now cries out to high heaven.”

• Egypt will be judged until the seventh generation (314-318).

• Gog and Magog, between the Ethiopian rivers (319-323), “your dewy earth will drink black blood.”

• Lybia, because they destroyed the house of the great immortal (324-340). Lybia and Ethiopia are among the followers of Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38:5. Their land will be full of corpses, chasms and yawning pits.

• Many cities will fall (341-349). The list includes nineteen cities in Asia Minor and Egypt.

• Rome is condemned (350-380). Rome will fall in poverty and “become a street” (364). Rome will be liable to pay ten-thousand times so “what man would want to live in those days?” (371). Collins suspects line 357, “often drunken with your weddings with many suitors” is an allusion to the many weddings of Cleopatra, called “the mistress” in the oracle.

• Macedonia will greatly afflict the world (381-388). Alexander the Great is described as from the “race of Cronos” and he will conquer even Babylon.

• Alexander will go throughout the world conquering whomever he pleases (389-401). Lines 397-398 make reference to ten horns and another which will sprout out the side, similar to Dan. 7:7 and the various other “horn” prophecies in Dan. 8 and Rev. 13.

The remaining section is a collection of prophecies against cities in Greece and Asian Minor, beginning with Phrygia (402-413). Illium, Sparta, Cyprus, Ephesus, etc. are all mentioned in this section (414-488). The oracle also refers to Homer as “certain false writer, an old man, of falsified fatherland” (419-420), a writer who “he will especially embellish the helmeted men of war” (426).

* * * * * * * * * *

Prophecies of Disaster – Sibylline Book 3.489-544

https://readingacts.com/2016/08/06/prophecies-of-disaster-sibylline-book-3-489-544/

by Phillip J. Long

August 6, 2016

This section (489-544) begins with a long prophecy of disaster against a variety of city states and peoples including the Phoenicians, Crete, and even Gog and Magog (513), but the main enemy judged in this section is Greece (520, 534, 537). In 544 there is reference to only a third of mankind surviving the judgment by fire of that day, not unlike several Revelation judgments in when a “third” is destroyed. The reference may be to Ezekiel 5:12, however, who used his hair as a prophecy to demonstrate that only a third of the nation would survive.

Sibyl by Ghirlandaio, 1485

The Greeks continue as the focus in 545-573. They will recognize God when the planned disaster falls upon them (555-557). Unlike the Greeks, the Jews do recognize God and are greatly praised in 573-600. They fully honor God in the temple, they properly sacrifice in a holy manner, the do not commit idolatry, they are “mindful of wedlock” and do not commit grotesque acts of immorality (pedophiles are mentioned in line 596). The Phoenicians, Egyptians, Romans, and Greeks are specifically mentioned in contrast to the Jews in this section (598).

Because of the great sin which is in the world God will judge all mortals with disaster, wars, famines, etc. (601-619). The Greeks, Macedonians and Egyptians will all be overthrown and their “handmade works” will be thrown on the fire. God will then transform the earth and cause great joy and prosperity for men (619-623).

The writer exhorts his readers to respond to God with great sacrifices in order to propitiate God (624-634). The writer describes a “signs of the end,” primarily political chaos and military conquests (635-651). The next brief section appears to be a reference to a messiah-like person (652-656). God will send a “king from the sun” who will stop war from happening on the earth by being obedient to the “noble teachings of God.” Collins mentions the common theme in Egyptian material that war will cease when Isis wills it. In the Potters Oracle, a king from the Sun is sent by Isis (OTP 1:376 note x3). The Sibylline Oracles seem to be taking an Egyptian messiah-figure and converting it to the Jewish idea that the Messiah will stop war when he comes.

An assault on the temple is predicted in 658-668. The Temple of the Great God will be attacked and destroyed and “abominable kings” will set their thrones around the city. A series of cosmological signs are given in 669-701. These physical signs of the end of the age are not as spectacular as in other apocalypses (even Revelation in the New Testament), but the serve to show even this Oracle predicts a time of natural chaos before the kingdom arrives.

Amid this chaos, the elect will be rescued by the Great God (702-731). The hand of the Holy One will be fighting for them and all the people of the earth will notice how much the Mighty One loves his chosen people. Playing on Ezekiel 39, the Oracle describes the massive bloodshed of the final battle in terms of how long it will take to collect all of the weapons of war (“seven lengths of annually recurring times,” i.e. seven months). The Greeks are advised to “desist from proud thoughts” and seek the “great-hearted Immortal” (732-740). If they serve the great God they will share in his things.

The time after the great day of God’s judgment is described in 741-761. It will be a time of prosperity and riches, God himself will institute a “common law” which the whole earth will follow so that his will is done by all “wretched mortals.” A brief exhortation to “shun unlawful worship” interrupts the description of the kingdom (762-766). This section includes a prohibition on unnatural sexual relations and the killing of infants. The description of the kingdom is resumed in 767-795. Much here is drawn from passages in Isaiah and expanded imaginatively. (Wolves and lambs eating together, lions eating husks at a manger, serpent and asps willsleep with babies, etc.) Signs of the end are listed in (796-808). These include signs in the stars and eclipses, drops of blood and gore on rocks, infantry and cavalry in the clouds.

The book ends with a “confession” from the Sibyl herself (809-829). This Jewish book attempts to put prophecies into the mouth of a pagan seer in order to show the universality of the Jewish hope for a messiah and a final judgment. She is the daughter of Circe and Gnostos (Circe is a witch in Odyssey 10.210, the identity of Gnostos is unknown. OTP 3:380 note g4 suggests an emendation to agnostos, meaning an “unknown” father) but now she is a prophetess of the great God, who put all of the future in her mind.