Category: Old Testament

Devotional: But Ask the Beasts (Job 12:7–9)

On By Janine TuggleIn Animals, Devotional, Job, Matthew, Old Testament, Wisdom Literature 
“But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you... and the fish of the sea will declare to you. Who among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this?” (Job 12:7, 8b, 9).

As we read about different animals in the Bible, we see that God made animals for us to learn from them many great and valuable lessons in life. Animals have distinct characteristics that can show us how humans should behave.

Jesus taught truths using these animals in the form of similes. 

“Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16).

We observe from the characteristics of these animals, that sheep are vulnerable to predators, such as wolves. The sheep are without protection. Wolves are hunters on the prowl. They will devour innocent sheep in a heartbeat. Serpents are considered wise with sly and cunning maneuvers. Snakes will move slowly through new territory. Usually, they stay concealed finding a place to hide.

Doves were designed with innocent, meek, and gentle qualities. They are birds known to be non-threatening. When Jesus sent his disciples out to teach the world, He compared them to sheep amid wolves. Jesus knew there would be people out there, who would attack them for their proclaimed message.

How does a person become wise as a serpent and innocent as a dove? It does sound as if the two do not mix. To be wise is to be practical, prudent, and discerning regarding relationships.

  • Be wise in keeping yourself innocent.
  • Be practical in keeping yourself away from the evil in the world.
  • Be prudent in how you manage yourself around others.

Know when to turn away and hide like that wise snake when others want to lead you into temptation.

Sing: “How Great Thou Art“

Devotional: All God’s Creatures (Genesis 1:30)

On By Janine TuggleIn Animals, Devotional, Genesis, Old Testament, Proverbs, Psalms, Theology 
“And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food” (Genesis 1:30).

We may wonder why God created all the different animals. We read in Genesis 1 that God created the sea creatures and the birds that fly in the air on the fifth day. On the sixth day, He created every living creature that “creeps” on the ground.

Every animal shows God’s glory and is a glory to God. He gave man instructions and responsibility to have dominion over all creeping things on the earth. This does not mean ownership; it is about stewardship. Man is to take care of the animals.

According to one source, over 120 animal species are mentioned in the Bible. Animals show God’s creativity. There are many large and many small. Some are beautiful and some are strange; some have many legs. Some have none.

Animals have been used as a teaching tool, for example:

“Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise! It has no commander, no overseer or ruler, yet it stores its provisions in summer and gathers its food at harvest” (Proverbs 6:6–8).

Animals have been used to accomplish God’s will. He used animals with the 10 plagues. He used a great fish when Jonah was swallowed by it. God caused a donkey to speak so Balaam would obey Him. He sent quail to provide food for the Israelites and ravens to bring bread and meat to Elijah.

These are just a few examples of what we can read and learn from animals. In the next few weeks, we will learn more interesting tidbits and lessons from animals mentioned in the Bible.

“Praise the LORD from the earth, you great sea creatures and all deeps. . . . Beasts and all livestock, creeping things and flying birds!” (Psalm 148:7, 10).

Hymn: “All Things Bright and Beautiful“

Devotional: Doves (Genesis 8:8)

On By Janine TuggleIn Animals, Devotional, Doves, Genesis, John, Luke, Mark, Matthew, New Testament, Old Testament 
“Then he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the ground.” (Genesis 8:8)

The dove, a beautiful bird with a lovely cooing sound is one of God’s creatures that has many symbols. We find many of them in the Bible.

Let us learn a little bit about the nature of doves. Doves, turtle doves (a dainty dove), and pigeons (larger in size) are from the order Columbiformes family of birds. A dove’s eyes are on the sides of their head, having a 340° vision. They can see in front and in back at the same time. This is necessary for an animal of prey to watch out for predators.

Doves can fly up to speeds of fifty-five mph.

Doves will only descend when they know it is safe and trust where it will land. Once a dove starts its descent, it doesn’t have the ability to go in reverse.

We first read of the dove in Genesis 8:9. After Noah sent out a raven, he sent out a dove. It flew to and fro, then came back after no place to land. Seven days went by, and Noah sent the dove out again. This time by evening the dove brought back an olive branch. This is where the symbol of hope, peace, and a new beginning came from.

In the gospel accounts we read that the Holy Spirit descended as a dove when Jesus was baptized. 

“The heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him” (Matthew 3:16b; cf. Mark 1:10, Luke 3:22, John 1:32).

When Jesus was baptized the Holy Spirit came down and rested upon Jesus to stay. Just as when we are baptized, we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, there is trust. And I say, “Oh, that I had wings like a dove! I would fly away and be at rest” (Psalm 55:6). A symbol of peace.

Hymn: “I’ll Fly Away”

Fellowship

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Corinthians, 1 John, 2 Corinthians, Book of Acts, Ephesians, Focus Magazine, Johannine Literature, New Testament, Old Testament, Paul's Letters, Psalms, Publications, Published, Spiritual Formation

When I was a young man, my mom would stress her concern to me regarding the person I was becoming. As a Central American mother, she would often say to me this Spanish proverb, “Dime con quién andas y te dire quién eres,” which means, “Tell me whom you are with, and I will tell you who you are.” She had good reason for concern. I was slipping into the world of street gangs, violence, and drugs. She was attempting to make me aware that the company I kept said a lot about who I was becoming.

In church-ese, we speak of those with him we share “fellowship.”

A Perspective

This word is typically reserved for formal relationships, it is not a word commonly used in everyday talk. Yet, what this word means is readily accessible. The English word “fellowship” tells us who or what we shape our life around. It describes certain boundaries that shape our lives, our relationships, and even our priorities. We could say it a fellowship is a circle we draw that includes certain relationships and excludes others. To make this more complicated, we may have many overlapping fellowships.

Our English New Testaments remind us that what we fellowship is important. For example, “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them” (Ephesians 5:11, English Standard Version). “Take no part,” this means Christians are called to be disassociated from what spiritual darkness creates. As light has no common ground with darkness (2 Corinthians 6:14), Christians have no partnership with evil except to expose it for the spiritual corruption it is (Ephesians 5:7–10). This is what light does, it shines to expose what is hiding in the dark.

Light does not allow darkness to hide its contents, and neither should Christians allow spiritual darkness of sinful corruption to hide what it is doing in the world we live in. We may live in a world surrounded by corruption, but we are called to be disassociated from it.

Additionally, the apostle John provides a “test” of sorts to help God’s people realize that our fellowship with God comes with personal responsibility: “If we say we have fellowship with him [i.e., God] while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth” (1 John 1:6). The claim to be in fellowship with God must be supported by a life living in the light, not darkness. Otherwise, our claim is a work of pure fiction. It is this truth that makes the Christian faith so consequential. It means our fellowship with God affects our lifestyle and our priorities, for it shapes the boundaries of what we will accept and what we must reject.

More positively, John follows up his caution with another maxim, “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). Our fellowship with God entails the redemptive and sanctifying gifts of God provided we “walk in the light” with God.

Being with Likeminded Kindred

Fellowship is a practical thing that God’s people do. Not only does it provide a boundary marker of godly living amid a corrupt world which sharpens our understanding of what a faithful life before God looks like. It also provides a clear way to share in the life of other like-minded kindred. The early church participated in “the fellowship” of those who devoted themselves to the apostle’s teaching, the breaking of bread, and praying together (Acts 2:42).

As David proclaimed in Psalm 119:63, “I am a companion of all who fear you, of those who keep your precepts.” Christianity is not a lonesome religion. In this way, it stands against the trend within Western society of individualism, which is a form of thinking of ourselves in isolation from our community, our family, and our ancestors. This problem has only worsened in our post-pandemic world in which “going to church” is as easy as hopping online and clicking on a few buttons while still in our pajamas.

The in-person “fellowship” of God’s people, once a marker of togetherness, unity, and godly accountability, as a spiritual biome where God’s redemption is lived out has become a privatized novelty. Yet, when Paul wrote to the Corinthian believers, he reminded them, “God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Corinthians 1:9). The “you” in “you were called” is part of a plural verb. Christians experience the fellowship of the Son together as brothers and sisters, not in isolation together.

Ultimately, fellowship is a vital part of being disciples of Christ and a worshiper of God. Our fellowship with God guides us to make clear distinctions between us and corrupting evil in the world. It also has a practical communal part to it, as we join with other fellow believers in worship. The more we appreciate this, the better the language of the communal worship will penetrate our hearts: “Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!” (Psalm 133:1).

This article originally appeared in Think magazine. To subscribe click here. There are slight edits in this version.

Devotional: The Beast of Burden (Zechariah 9:9)

On By Janine TuggleIn Devotional, Old Testament, the prophets, Zechariah 
“Behold, your king is coming to you; . . . humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” (Zechariah 9:9b)

The donkey is an amazingly strong animal. Through centuries this animal has aided in people’s burdens. In today’s world, especially here in America, the donkey is not thought of as a special animal. It is thought of as dumb or stubborn and is used as the brunt end of jokes or name-calling.

Throughout the Bible, people rode donkeys for everyday travel. When kings rode a donkey, it was a symbol of peace. Opposed to riding a horse which was a symbol for war.

We read when Abraham took his son Isaac for an offering he took along a donkey. 

“So, Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac. And he cut the wood for the burnt offering and arose and went to the place of which God had told him.” (Genesis 22:3)

Saddling the donkey and cutting the wood for the burnt offering, it is probable that the donkey carried the wood and other supplies until they got to the place where Abraham gave Isaac the wood to carry.

Besides supplies, often the donkey was used to carry food. “And Jesse took a donkey laden with bread and a skin of wine and a young goat and sent them by David his son to Saul” (1 Samuel 16:20).

Then later on in the time of Jesus, He fulfills the prophecy of our text in Zechariah 9:9b showing that He is King and that He comes in peace.

It is very interesting that the donkey in the Old Testament carries the bread and wine. Also, a donkey carries Jesus, and the scriptures say, “I am the bread of life” (John 6:35).

As stated in an earlier devotional on “God’s Creatures,” all of God’s creatures were made for His glory and in His glory.

Hymn: “To God Be The Glory”

The Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses: A Selected Comparative Look

On By Jovan PayesIn Ancient History, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, ANE, College Papers, Exodus, Mesopotamia, Mesopotamia, Old Testament Background, Women Studies

[Note: This was a comparative historical paper for a history course exploring ancient societies. It forced me to examine ancient literature–even the Bible–as a historical source. ]

If one were to think of the most significant influences in lawmaking one who be hard-pressed to consider two greater and oldest than that the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses. Even today, hanging above the gallery doors of the House Chamber in Washington, D.C., are twenty-three marble relief portraits of all those whose works have influenced the establishment of the principles of American law.

Among them are King Hammurabi and the prophet Moses (“About Relief Portrait” in SNT 36). Hammurabi’s Law ( or “Code”) is available today due to a monument relief and extant manuscript evidence (Roth 336). The Law of Moses has been preserved in the biblical manuscripts used for both the Hebrew and Christian Bibles.

In this paper, I focus on four touching points between the “Code of Hammurabi” (Roth) and the Law of Moses (Exod 19:3–24:8) by examining their similarities and suggesting some differences. These touching points are their sources of authority and their significance, the relationship between Moses and his people with the relationship between Hammurabi and his people, the position(s) of women in both societies as revealed by the laws, and what both sources of the law reveal about their two societies.

While this is not an exhaustive evaluation, it is an attempt to understand from these literary sources insights helpful toward a historical understanding of ancient Mesopotamia and ancient Israel. The most fundamental conclusion from this comparison and contrast may be that despite the similar concerns for establishing order in their respective societies, the differences demonstrate the unique trajectories of each society’s beliefs, expectations, and social concerns.

Sources of Authority

The first touching point is their source(s) of authority and their significance. There are points of comparison between the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses when it comes to their sources of authority; however, there are significant contrasts that highlight the unique trajectory of each set of laws.

On the one hand, the preamble of the Code of Hammurabi and the beginning chapters leading to the specific Laws of Moses share a similar concern with establishing the view that each law has a divine source. Lockard points to a black basalt stone in the temple of Marduk (Babylon’s patron god) which pictures Hammurabi “receiving” kingship from Shamash (sun-god and lawgiver), and this provides the divine authority for the king to enforce his code of 282 laws upon his people (SNT 37). The preamble of the Code of Hammurabi likewise enlists this motif of the kings being “called” by name to bring justice and protection for the weak a reality. The laws of Moses, very similarly, presume the call of Moses for the Hebrews to be a “treasured possession” of the “Lord God” as a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:5–6).

The very connection between man and the divine realm supports the shared worldview of theism and the order and accountability that follows from that view. Accordingly, then, such a relationship would make Hammurabi and Moses mediators of such divinely given laws rather than their chief architects.

On the other hand, the divine sources of authority are significantly distinct in their presumption of polytheism and monotheism. The first words in the “Code of Hammurabi” are, “When the exalted Anum king of the Annunaki.” Anum is the “sky god of the old Babylonian pantheon” of which the Annunaki were the “lesser Babylonian gods of heaven who served Enlil.” This demonstrates the full placement of the polytheistic belief system of Hammurabi and the Babylonian world (Roth 335). For example, Roth’s translation reads, 

“When the august god Anu, king of the Anunnaku deities” (335).

The preamble affirms that both gods Anum and Enlil gave all power to the god Marduk (son of Ea) and elevated him above the “Igigu deities.” It is this pantheon, as it were, of Babylonian and Mesopotamian gods that form the authoritative source for the call of Hammurabi as mediator of his law. The inclusion of these unifying acts in the heavens would create a significant plea for unity under this law on earth.

Yet, Moses and the laws in the Exodus record are based on a monotheistic view and this is significant since it ties in with their heritage. The Hebrews are believed to be descendants of a man named Abraham who departed from the Mesopotamian city of Ur (Gen. 12–13) and abandoned polytheism and idolatry. The Laws of Moses reaffirm this belief system, for example, in Exodus:

“You shall have no other gods besides me” (20:3 NJPS)

“With Me, therefore, you shall not make any gods of silver, nor shall you make for yourselves any gods of gold” (20:23 NJPS).

The monotheistic tone set at the beginning and throughout connects the Hebrews to their heritage, the sense that the God of Abraham has overthrown the gods of Egypt, and will be their only “LORD God” even in the future in polytheistic lands (Exod 23:23–24 ESV). This law will be their guide and source of unity in such conflicting environments.

Relationship with the Governed

The second touching point is the relationship between Moses and his people with the relationship between Hammurabi and his people. On the one hand, Moses is described as a servant rather than a prince. Moses dialogues with the “LORD God,” and then is said to communicate the conclusion of that dialogue to the people. As briefly noted above, Moses was called by the Lord God; however, the Exodus narrative describes Moses as one who does not always have the trust of the people. Nevertheless, it is the exodus (mass migration) out of Egypt and the procession toward the mountain of the “LORD God” that establishes the relationship for which he is known most, the servant of the “Lord God,” mediator, and law-giver (Exod. 19; 20:19-21). It is through Moses that the Hebrews agree in the community to the Laws of the Lord (Exod. 24:3). Moses does not appear as an architect or prince, but as the mediator chosen by the people and by the Lord God.

On the other hand, Hammurabi’s relationship with his empire is distinct. He comes to the throne, according to Roth, as a descendant of Sumu-abum (c. 1894-1881 B.C.E.) and consequently has an established relationship with the Mesopotamian empire (Roth 335). It is clear from the Code of Hammurabi that the king was involved in the development of the laws:

When the god Marduk commanded me to provide just ways for the people of the land (in order to attain) appropriate behavior, I established truth and justice as the declaration of the land, I enhanced the well-being of the people. (Roth 337)

Lockard describes the significant career of the king as one who stabilized, maintained, and expanded his kingdom. Consequently, Hammurabi’s relationship was far more formal than that of Moses with the Hebrews.

The Status of Women

The third touching point is the position(s) of women in both societies as revealed by the laws. On the one hand, information in the “Code of Hammurabi” demonstrates a considerable need to regulate the treatment and care of women facing a variety of injustices. Lockard holds a similar view (SNT 36). Following Roth’s and Harper’s sectioning of the Laws, sections §131-136 demonstrate considerable regulations on how to treat an accusation of adultery. 

§131 If her husband accuses his own wife (of adultery), although she has not been seized lying with another male, she shall swear (to her innocence by) an oath by the god, and return to her house.
§132 If a man’s wife should have a finger pointed against her in accusation involving another male, although she has not been seized lying with another male, she shall submit to the divine River Ordeal for her husband.
§133a If a man should be captured and there are sufficient provisions in his house, his wife […, she will not] enter [another’s house].
§133b If that woman does not keep herself chaste but enters another’s house, they shall charge and convict that woman and cast her into the water.
§134 If a man should be captured and there are not sufficient provisions in his house, his wife may enter another’s house; that woman will not be subject to any penalty.
§135 If a man should be captured and there are not sufficient provisions in his house, before his return his wife enters another’s house and bears children, and afterwards her husband returns and gets back to his city, that woman shall return to her first husband; the children shall inherit from their father.
§136 If a man deserts his city and flees, and after his departure his wife enters another’s house — if that man then should return and seize his wife, because he repudiated his city and fled, the wife of the deserter will not return to her husband. (Roth COS 343)

Apparently, there was such considerable mistreatment that legislation was provided to give the local judges the necessary guidelines to protect mistreated women and children.

Some of the more intriguing laws that deal with the protection of women are in the cases of abandonment and mistreatment (section 138-141). 

§138 If a man intends to divorce his first-ranking wife who did not bear him children, he shall give her silver as much as was her bridewealth and restore to her the dowry that she brought from her father’s house, and he shall divorce her. 
§139 If there is no bridewealth, he shall give her 60 shekels of silver as a divorce settlement.
§140 If he is a commoner, he shall give her 20 shekels of silver.
§141 If the wife of a man who is residing in the man’s house should decide to leave, and she appropriates goods, squanders her household possessions, or disparages her husband, they shall charge and convict her; and if her husband should declare his intention to divorce her, then he shall divorce her; neither her travel expenses, nor her divorce settlement, nor anything else shall be given to her. If her husband should declare his intention to not divorce her, then her husband may marry another woman and that (first) woman shall reside in her husband’s house as a slave woman. (Roth COS 343)

It is not that every law was written in the women’s favor because there appears evidence that a woman’s marital conduct can be actionable if abusive to her husband, but they implicitly suggest that these laws were needed in Hammurabi’s empire. Yet, this is only based on literary evidence. Nevertheless, it implies there was a negative treatment of women, so much so that it required legislation.

On the other hand, in Exodus 21:1–23:33 there are several sections addressing varying roles women were found in. Apparently, some fathers sold their daughters as slaves (21:7) but her potential manumission was legislated, as was legitimate marriage to the family’s son (21:7–11).

7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 

8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money. (ESV)

There were also retributive laws of justice if a pregnant woman was hurt or killed (21:22–32). 

22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.26 “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. 27 If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth. 28 “When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall not be liable. 29 But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. 30 If a ransom is imposed on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is imposed on him. 31 If it gores a man’s son or daughter, he shall be dealt with according to this same rule. 32 If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. (ESV)

Even in the case of consensual premarital sex, the Law legislated that the male “give the bride-price” for her to legitimize the marriage (22:16–17; NJPS 22:15–16). Sociological morés of promiscuity would have rendered the woman vulnerable to social scandal and familial shame. 

16 “If a man seduces [or, entices] a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins. (ESV)

Widows were to be cared for and never mistreated, and if so the perpetrators would receive the sword so their wives would become widows (22:22–24; NJPS 22:21–23). The language carries a passionate emphasis:

22 You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child. 23 If you do mistreat them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry, 24 and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless. (ESV)

Related to the issue of adultery, there was a clear prohibition against such practices in the Law: “You shall not commit adultery” (Exod 20:14). In contrast to the wide practice of polygamy (but not polyandry) in ancient societies of the Near East, the LORD God established monogamy as the mandated ideal of marriage (Gen 2:24). Consequently, adultery was viewed as a social wrong and a violation against God’s order. There was a concession for divorce and remarriage found in the teachings of Moses (Deut 24:1–4), but it is very restrictive.

Overall, such legislation in Israel was required because there were problems with the mistreatment of widows and slave girls, and also the abuse of rejection or abandonment of women after premarital sex.

If one is careful to read between the lines, Hammurabi and the Exodus Laws seek correctives on matters of injustice and oppression. These may not meet the modern social expectations regarding what are protective laws for women, but it should be noted different social norms and morés are being addressed in the ancient world than those of today.

Impact on the Society

The fourth observation focuses on what both sources of law reveal about these two societies. The earlier society of Hammurabi appears to have considerable social unrest and a sense of injustice in the air. The sorts of laws are of such a micromanagement level that they reflect a tremendous amount of abuse in society at large. The laws do cover more than just social matters, but it cannot be ignored that Hammurabi’s Code was, as he affirms, to: 

“make justice to appear in the land, to destroy evil and the wicked that the strong might not oppress the weak.”

This law reveals that retribution towards evil, the wicked, and oppression was not only viewed as a social necessity but was also a divine ruling. The gods will hold the mortals accountable for their mistreatment of others.

Likewise, in the emerging society of the Hebrews, it was expected that all previous and current expectations of justice and injustice must now be reevaluated from the perspective of the moral and religious expectation of the “LORD God.” One of the premises of the Exodus Law is their liberation from Egyptian slavery and its moral application to how a neighbor treats their neighbor. The case law nature of the Mosaic Law demonstrates this transition, especially in the Ten Commandments proper (Exod 20:1–17). The good standing in the Hebrew community was based upon how one interacted with their neighbor; consequently, it may be inferred from the law section of Exodus that Hebrew society needed much legislation to correct their conduct toward their neighbor: “…you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord (Leviticus 19:18 ESV).

Observations

Initially, it may be said that despite the similar concerns for establishing order in their respective societies, the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses demonstrate the unique trajectories of each society’s beliefs, expectations, and social concerns.

This is seen in the following four areas as evaluated above. First, despite sharing a concern with connecting their source(s) of authority with the divine realm (i.e., the gods/God), and thus, making Moses and Hammurabi mediators of a law that centers on moral accountability and justice, they are markedly distinct in their theism.

Second, despite there being a common motif of mediation between the gods/God and the people they led, Moses and Hammurabi held distinct relationships with their people. Moses rose to leadership and was summoned to lead by the people; whereas, Hammurabi ascended to the thorn and had an established and formal regnal relationship with his empire.

Third, although the Hammurabi handout had selected sections on what is available shows that when compared to Exodus Laws, both were concerned with correcting and abolishing, through retributive legislation, the abuse of women in their communities in areas of sexuality, honor, abandonment, and humiliation.

Finally, both sources of law reveal that human societies always deal with matters of injustice and oppression, and these tend to be focused on the mistreatment of vulnerable women and widows. The consequences of such laws demonstrate the rough and violent nature of society and its expectations.

Bibliography

(ESV) English Standard Version of The Holy Bible. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001.

Harper, Robert Francis. The Code of Hammurabi King of Babylon About 2250. 2nd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 1904.

(NJPS) TANAKH: The Holy Scriptures, A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text. Philadelphia, PA: Jerusalem Publication Society, 1985.

(SNT) Lockard, Craig A. Societies, Networks, and Transitions: A Global History. Volume I: To 1500. 3rd edition. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2015.

(COS) Roth, Martha. “The Laws of Hammurabi.” In volume 3 of The Context of Scripture: Archival Documents from the Biblical World. Edited by William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. New York: Brill, 2002.

Book Review: Textual Criticism of the Bible, Revised Edition

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Bibliology, Book Reviews, Greek Studies, Hebrew Bible, New Testament, Old Testament, Textual Criticism

Amy Anderson and Wendy Widder, Textual Criticism of the Bible, revised ed., Lexham Methods Series, edited by Douglas Mangum (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018), Paperback, 236 pages.

The authors of the present volume are professional scholars in Old Testament (Wendy Widder) and New Testament (Amy Anderson) respectively.[1] Widder, a contributing editor for Logos Mobile Education, holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Studies from the University of the Free State (South Africa), an M.A. in Hebrew and Semitic Studies (University of Wisconsin-Madison) and the M.Div. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary. Her published works include a technical linguistic work for the BZAW series (De Gruyter), commentaries on Daniel (ZECOT, SGBC), and was the original author of the first edition of the present work (2014).[2]

Amy Anderson joins the revision of this project as co-author. She is Professor of New Testament and Ancient Greek at North Central University (Minneapolis, MN), and holds a Ph.D. in New Testament Textual Criticism (University of Birmingham) and an M.A. in New Testament from Fuller Theological Seminary (Pasadena, CA). Additionally, Anderson has published technical works on New Testament textual criticism for Brill (Texts and Studies) and serves on the steering committee of the Editio Critica Maior for the SBL steering unit of the International Greek New Testament project (IGNT).[3]

Thesis of the Book

In keeping with the stated goal of the Lexham Methods Series to provide an overview of the “broad movements” within the fields of biblical criticism, Anderson and Widder introduce textual criticism of the Bible for the emerging scholar and biblical interpreter in order to better equip them to understand the basic question for many English readers of the Bible is translation: why are there differences in among the English versions?[4] Anderson and Widder offer an updated guided tour of textual criticism to equip the emerging scholar to “take on” the text critical issues that are behind some of the more technical reasons which account for these differences among Bible translations of the ancient original language manuscript copies.[5]

Summary of the Book

In the “Introduction” the authors isolate the practical importance of how understanding the field of textual criticism contributes to providing sensible answers for certain variations among contemporary Bible translations.[6] As a “ground clearing” chapter, it distinguishes changes brought about by the theories and practice of translation from the task of resolving “variations in the readings of [the] ancient manuscripts” of the Bible in pursuit of the ancient form of the text, i.e., the Ausgangstext.

In chapter two Anderson and Widder provide a general introduction to the field of textual criticism of the Bible. Despite different textual evidence for each Testament, the general principles of the discipline apply overall and the authors illustrate what is common to both fields.[7] As no two ancient hand-copied manuscripts of the Bible agree in every detail, the authors demonstrate the various types of scribal errors detected when comparing the extant copies of the manuscripts (accidental omissions, additions, misspellings, and intentional changes).[8] These examples illustrate the goal of textual criticism is to “establish the original reading of the biblical text” of the autographs, which for the transmission history of the Old Testament it is “more complicated” due various unknowns of scribal and editorial activity over a vastly longer period of time than the New.[9] The authors explain the importance in knowing the difference between external evidence and internal evidence, and how the former focuses on “what kinds of manuscripts is a given variant found” and the latter considers what is probable habits of the transcriber(s) of the manuscript and the author of the book (intrinsic).[10]

Chapter three offers a short history of the unique difficulties found in the transmission of the Old Testament. With no manuscripts available predating the canonical copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls (250 BC–AD 135), the authors begin their history with awareness of variants in the Hebrew text by early Christians. Representative of this early period are Origen’s textual notes in the fifth column of his Hexapla.[11] The textual history of the Old Testament is largely interwoven with Christian history (Greek and Latin translations, and other ancient polyglot texts) and the medieval scribal tradents of the Masoretic manuscript tradition. The Hebrew text in the modern period is represented in the two types of critical editions, diplomatic (e.g., BHK, BHS, HUB) and eclectic editions (e.g., HBCE). The textual resources available today (Masoretic Text, LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls, and translations) demonstrate the importance of carefully assessing each variants in light of the probabilities of the scribal habits of each tradition and the which reflects an older state of the Hebrew text.[12]

Chapter four introduces the history of the Greek New Testament text.[13] This history reveals not only a proliferation of the early translation, citation, and copying of these texts, but also that a number of copying communities can be detected in the “patterns of variation” found in groups or family of manuscripts (Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean).[14] With the rise of Christianity, Byzantium (Constantinople) became a center for transmission, giving rise to the period of standardization culminating in the advent of the printing press in which a Greek New Testament would be printed (700s–1600s). This gave rise to what is called the Byzantine text-type. Today, scholarship has largely moved away from the Textus Receptus (or, Majority Text) in favor of eclectic critical approach to establish the Greek New Testament text, which weighs the strength and weakness of variants and manuscripts (seen in UBS, NA). Today, there are over fifty-five hundred manuscripts (papyri, majuscules, and minuscules) from which textual critics must work with in establishing the original wording of the text (the Ausgangstext), as they seek “to identify the reading that best explains how the other readings arose.”[15]

In chapter five, the authors bring their discussion to a close as they comment on the connection between textual criticism and English translations, and how many of the variations between them rely on the text the translation committee agrees to work from.[16] The scholarship of textual criticism directly impacts the practical life of church life, especially one’s doctrine of Scripture, inerrancy and infallibility, and its authority. While debated extremes exist, the inspiration of the text can be maintained as it relates to the original manuscripts. The transmission of the text of Scripture is a history of God’s providential use of imperfect human scribes to reliably preserve the text of the Bible for all generations.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Anderson and Widder have produced a very effective pedagogical-centered volume introducing the field of textual criticism to the emerging scholar of the Bible. The authors were neither overly academic nor did their discussions lack the specialty knowledge essential to this field of methodology. The strongest contribution is the practical hands-on approach illustrating how to evaluate textual variants, how to use the critical apparatus and critical sigla, and how to interact with the different resources (manuscripts, translations, lexicography, etc.) available to the emerging textual critic.[17] These helpful text-critical walkthroughs will guide the students well moving from theory to practice.

Overall, it is very difficult to find weaknesses in the current volume, but when they observed that biblical scholarship seeks to establish the “final form” of the authoritative text instead of the “original wording” of the autographs, little space is provided to address this important text-critical topic.[18] Outside the mention of the philosophical debate over the Urtext, the matter is only briefly commented on.[19] With the lack of older witnesses, important questions are sidelined, such as, “is seeking the original wording of the autograph no longer feasible in Old Testament studies? What are the implications of this issue?” I humbly suggest that Anderson and Widder would have served their readers better by exploring this question.

Endnotes

[1] Amy Anderson and Wendy Widder, Textual Criticism of the Bible, rev. ed., Lexham Methods Series, ed.  Douglas Mangum (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018).

[2] For more information regarding Dr. Widder see her blog: https://wendywidder.com.

[3] For more information regarding Dr. Anderson see her teacher’s page at North Central University: https://www.northcentral.edu/academics/amy-anderson-2.

[4] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, ix–x, 2–3.

[5] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 7–8.

[6] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 1–9.

[8] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 16–40.

[7] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 11–48.

[9] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 40–41. For this reason, Anderson and Widder note that the Old Testament critic “has to decide exactly which state of the OT composition or transmission is the goal” (41).

[10] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 42–46.

[11] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 49–114.

[12] For example, the hands-on section of the text critical process illustrates that sometimes translations are preferred over original language manuscripts as they reflect “what Hebrew the translators had in front of them” (Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 95).

[13] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 115–77.

[14] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 116.

[15] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 158.

[16] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 179–87.

[17] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 90–109, 149–74.

[18] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 41–42. This concern may be theological motivated but more clarity would have appreciated (cf. Ferguson, “Textual Criticism of the Bible,” Presbyterion 46 [2020]: 158–59).

[19] Anderson and Widder, Textual Criticism, 93. If this was intended to supplement the “final authoritative form” discussion raised earlier, it seems completely disconnected (54–57).

Bibliography

Anderson, Amy, and Wendy Widder. Textual Criticism of the Bible. Revised ed. Lexham Methods Series 1. Edited by Douglas Mangum, et al. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018.

Ferguson, Anthony. “Textual Criticism of the Bible, by Amy Anderson and Wendy Widder. Revised edition. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018. Pp. xv + 236. ISBN 978-1-57799-663-7.” Presbyterion 46.1 (2020): 157–59.