Whenever I hear the opening lines of Michael W. Smith’s song, “Ancient Words,” I am always moved: “Holy words long preserved /for our walk in this world. / They resound with God's own heart. / Oh, let the ancient words impart.”

Being aware of God while gazing on the ocean is all well and good, C.S. Lewis noted,¹ but if you want to go anywhere on that sparkling sea, you must have a map. Going somewhere with God is no different. In His case, though, the map is not made of symbols, but of words—ancient words.

Why Words?

Why any words at all, though? Isn’t experience with God enough? As the songwriter says, “You ask me how I know he lives: He lives within my heart.”

Experience has its place (Paul used his own dramatic Damascus Road encounter as evidence for skeptical Jews), but it also has its liabilities. Lots of people have spiritual experiences. Any Mormon can tell you of his experience with Jesus, the created spirit brother of Lucifer. Jehovah’s Witnesses experience the incarnation of Michael the Archangel. New Ager’s experience Jesus the Ascended Hindu Master.

Each has an experience, but each can’t be right. Which is the true Jesus? What objective authority separates wheat from chaff? Classically, Christians have turned to details recorded in Scripture as authoritative, objective grounds for truth. God has spoken in the ancient words of the Bible.

The Fingerprints Of God

Hundreds of places in the Old Testament we find the phrase, “Thus saith the Lord,” or its equivalent. The writer of Hebrews affirms, “God…spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways” (Heb. 1:1).

Jesus and the Apostles constantly affirm the authority of the Old Testament with the simple statement, “It is written....” The words of a text are attributed equally to the writers (“Moses said…”) and to God (God said…”). Paul reminds us that all Scripture is profitable precisely because it is “inspired” (theopneustos, “God-breathed”), the very counsel of God.

Of course, just claiming it’s so doesn’t make it so. How do we know? Do we have any evidence God has spoken in the Bible?

The challenge can be reduced to a simple question: “What kind of book is the Bible?” I submit there are only two plausible answers. The Bible is merely a book by man about God, or it is a book given by God through man, to man.

If the first, then the Bible is a record of human wisdom marked by human limitations. That’s all.² If the second, then God is the ultimate author and His word is the last word. Further, being essentially a supernatural book, it would likely bear supernatural marks, God’s fingerprints in a sense.

Do we have any good reasons to think God has spoken supernaturally in the Bible? Or have men merely opined? The way to answer this question is to look at the book itself. I want to offer six reasons I think the Bible is God’s book, six evidences of supernatural authorship conveniently paired with parts of the hand so you won’t forget. ³

The “Pinky”

For the first evidence, think “pinky—prophecy.” The Bible has fulfilled prophecy—detailed, precise, predictions relating to individuals and entire empires given with hairsplitting accuracy.

Daniel gives prophecy so exact it reads like history written after the fact. For one, at the threshold of the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy of 70 years of Babylonian captivity for Judah (Jer. 29:10), Daniel is given the amazing “70 weeks” prophecy. Identifying the specific time of Messiah’s advent and subsequent execution, it was fulfilled in the exact 173,880-day time period he predicted (Daniel 9:24-25, cf., Luke 19:41-44).⁴

There were dozens of specific prophecies fulfilled in Jesus’ life alone.⁵ His own prediction that the temple would be destroyed stone by stone (Luke 21:5-6) was dramatically fulfilled 40 years later when Roman legions under Titus razed Jerusalem.

Is fulfilled prophecy sufficient in itself to make our case for divine authorship? Maybe not for some. Even so, it’s an important piece of a cumulative case for the Scripture’s Divine authorship. Chalk up one for the supernatural side.

The Ring Finger

A wedding ring, symbolic of marital unity, reminds us of the second evidence for the Bible’s supernatural origin—a remarkable unity of purpose and plan despite its diverse origins.

The Bible consists of sixty-six books written by forty or more authors from diverse backgrounds (rabbis, warriors, shepherds, kings, historians), in a diversity of conditions (dungeons, deserts, battlefields, palaces, pastures), on a diversity of controversial subjects, over a fifteen-hundred-year period of time.

The Bible doesn’t read like sixty-six different stories, though. Instead, a profound harmony of perspective is woven through the account from Genesis to Revelation as God progressively unveils His rescue plan for fallen creation.

No individual writer understood the plan completely. Each in his time, as if guided by an unseen hand, added his piece to the puzzle. Later, at the advent of Christ, all the pieces come together, revealing the full picture of God’s strategy for salvation that had been unfolding for ages.⁶

This remarkable continuity defies naturalistic explanation. Chalk up two for the supernatural side.

The Large Finger

The largest finger brings to mind the Bible’s ability to address the big issues of life in a coherent way that’s also entirely consistent with our deepest intuitions about reality. Simply put, the worldview of the Bible makes sense.

First, the fundamental questions vexing mankind for millennia are all confronted in Scripture: What is life’s meaning? Who is God? What does He want? What makes man special? Why is there evil? What went wrong? How can we fix it?

Second, we are all intuitively aware of certain unavoidable facts. The universe is filled with order, meaning, and moral significance. Man is a unique creature, distinct from all other living things in his transcendent nobility, but is deeply damaged and morally broken, plagued by guilt he desperately tries to suppress.

The biblical worldview takes each of these things seriously. The universe is filled with order, meaning, and morality by a holy Creator who made us for friendship with Him. Yet we rebelled against our Sovereign, severing that relationship, damaging our own souls, and crippling the created order.

Evil is the wreckage left behind by our rebellion. Man is noble because he bears God’s image. Man is cruel because he is fallen. He feels guilty because he is guilty. Though our hearts long for restoration, reconciliation, and forgiveness, our wills remain defiant. Only God can rescue us.

Deep inside we already know most of these things. The Bible simply connects the dots, then offers the sole solution to the central problem. The problem is personal guilt that comes with rebellion. The solution is forgiveness that comes with surrender, what the Bible calls “repentance.”

The Bible has supernatural insight. Its assessment of the problem and its antidote for the cure both resonate with our deepest longings, and also fit our common-sense intuitions about the world and ourselves. Chalk up three for the supernatural side.

The Index Finger

The index, or “pointing,” finger reminds me that the Bible points to history for verification. It’s a reliable, detailed record from the distant past of events that have profound spiritual significance. This is important for two reasons.

First, a book allegedly given by God must get its history right. And it does.⁷ Menahem Mansoor, professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, has affirmed, “Biblical archaeology’s greatest significance is that it has corroborated many historical records in the Bible.”⁸

David Ussishkin, Jewish professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University, acknowledges: “In general, the evidence of material culture fits the biblical account beginning with the period of the settlement of the tribes of Israel in the land of Canaan and the establishment of the kingdom of Israel.”⁹

Archaeology and the biblical record fit hand in glove. The trade journal Biblical Archaeological Review demonstrates this time and again. No other religious book can summon historical evidence to support its unique theological claims.¹⁰

The New Testament documents are the best historical documents of the ancient world when approached using the standard cannons of historical research untainted by naturalistic (anti-supernatural) presuppositions. There are five reasons historians take the New Testament material seriously.¹¹

First, the accounts are early. As ancient records go, the narratives were written very close to the events they report.

Second, multiple, independent, primary source documents verify each other. In addition to the works of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the writings of Peter and Paul, 17 secular references¹² along with prodigious archaeological evidence further corroborate the canonical accounts.

Third, the New Testament documents include details of eyewitness testimony: times of day, weather conditions, local customs, names of provincial rulers, and other minutia characteristic of authentic accounts.

Fourth, the Gospels include embarrassing details. Jesus’ disciples are petty, slow to understand, arrogant, and unfaithful. Peter denies Christ; the rest flee. Women, disrespected in the ancient world, are the first to witness the risen Christ. Why include these unflattering details if the Gospels are works of fiction?

Fifth, there was no motivation for the writers to deceive. Those who lie, do so out of self-interest. A testimony that brings torment, torture, and execution is not likely to be fabricated. The earliest disciples—those who were in a position to know the truth—signed their testimonies in blood. Peter wrote, “We did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Pet. 1:16). His claim fits all the facts.¹³

In the most successful work of history in history, The Story of Civilization, Pulitzer Prize winning historian Will Durant writes:

Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that many inventors would have concealed. No one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them….After two centuries of higher criticism, the outlines of the life, character and teachings of Christ remain reasonably clear and constitute the most fascinating feature in the history of Western man.¹⁴

“But isn’t the Qur’an historically accurate?” I am asked. Possibly, but that alone is not adequate to show supernatural authorship. Something more is needed, which leads to the second point: Unlike the Qur’an, the Bible is a record of supernatural events.¹⁵

The historical documents of the Gospels not only record Jesus’ claim to be God. They also faithfully document the miracles and resurrection from the dead that substantiate this claim. Jesus’ acts of power give His words tremendous authority (John 20:30-31).

If these things really happened, then Jesus is no ordinary man, and the book He endorsed as divine is no ordinary book. History itself is our ally, here.

In a dramatic reversal of New Testament scholarship over the last 50 years, the majority of scholars—even secular ones—now affirm four facts of history. One, Jesus of Nazareth died on a Roman cross and was buried in a tomb. Two, the tomb was empty Sunday morning. Three, numerous people (including skeptics like James and Saul) experienced what they thought was the resurrected Jesus. Four, belief in the resurrection launched the early church.¹⁶

What historians do not agree on is what best explains these four facts of history. But there aren’t that many options. No explanation fits the evidence better than the one given by those previously gutless disciples who now put their lives on the line for this testimony: He who was dead is alive. He has risen.

The Bible records supernatural events in history to support its claims. Chalk up four for the supernatural side.

Thumbs Up

“Thumbs up” was the emperor’s sign that a gladiator had won the right to live to fight again. It reminds me that the Bible supernaturally changes people’s lives in deep, profound, and irreversible ways.

This is the acid test of God’s influence on revelation, its ability to dramatically transform. Whether old or young, rich or poor, learned or illiterate, noble or of mean birth, regardless of culture or country or era, the Bible has a revolutionary impact on those who heed its counsel.

And it’s promised in the text: “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature. The old things passed away. Behold, new things have come” (2 Cor. 5:17). When people consistently obey this book, something radical happens, both to individuals and to whole cultures.¹⁷

Yes, people can change on their own. However, obedience to Scripture changes us in ways we could never have accomplished by ourselves (we’ve tried). The Bible has a supernatural impact in human lives. Chalk up five for the supernatural side.

The Fist

The clenched fist reminds me that the Bible is a fighter. It has demonstrated remarkable survival through time and persecution.

Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words will not pass away” (Matt. 13:31). Isaiah wrote, “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God stands forever” (Is. 40:8). In prison himself for the Bible’s testimony, Paul promised, “The Word of God cannot be imprisoned” (2 Tim. 2:9).

No other book in history has seen such concerted attempts to obliterate it—both externally (through destruction) and internally (through criticism)—to no avail. No other book has been printed as much, translated as much, read as much, or quoted as much as the Bible. No other name has been written about as much, pondered as much, sung about as much, or recognized as much all over the globe as the name of Jesus.

The Bible’s obituary has been written many times, but it refuses to stay in the grave. It remains today the best selling book of all time. If this book had not been the book of God, men would have destroyed it long ago. This defies a naturalistic explanation. Chalk up six for the supernatural side.

A Verdict And A Confession

The Bible has the stamp of the supernatural: supernatural predictions, supernatural unity, supernatural insight, a reliable record of supernatural events, supernatural impact, and supernatural survival.

Does this prove the Bible is God’s book? That depends upon what you consider proof. It’s always possible to be mistaken, but I have built a cumulative case here. Our claim is reasonable. Christians do have compelling evidence for the divine authorship of the Bible.

But now I’m going to confess something surprising: These persuasive evidences have almost nothing to do with why so many people around the world are convinced that the words of the Bible are also God’s own words. It certainly isn’t why I believe.

I came to believe that the Bible was inspired the same way most Christians do. I encountered the truth firsthand and was changed. Without really being able to explain why, I knew I was hearing the words of God and not just the words of man.

Consider this question: When Jesus addressed the multitudes, did He routinely give six compelling reasons to believe His words before actually speaking them? No. He simply began to talk and people marveled, even His detractors.

Soldiers sent to arrest Jesus returned empty-handed. Why had they disobeyed orders? They had listened. “Never has a man spoken the way this man speaks,” they said (Jn. 7:46). Jesus didn’t start with reasons why people should believe His words. Instead, He let the words do the work themselves. And His words worked because they were the very words of God.

If you really want to know if the Bible is God’s Word, read it. Let Jesus speak for Himself. There is a powerful role the Spirit plays that is hard to describe, and is therefore difficult to explain to others.

For one, it is personal, subjective. Two, it’s non-rational. In a sense, we are not persuaded, as such. We are wooed and won over, and that’s very different from weighing reasons and coming to conclusions. Note, I didn’t say it was ir-rational, but non-rational. God uses a different means to change our minds about the Bible.

Even so, the reasons given above are still vital. Here’s why: The objective reasons are important to show that our subjective confidence has not been misplaced, that what we’ve believed with our hearts can be confirmed with our minds. The ancients called this, “Faith seeking understanding.”

When you start giving people reasons to change their minds—to believe in the Bible, for instance—their first instinct is to resist, to keep on believing what they’ve always believed. It’s human nature.

Offering good reasons is a fine approach. I do it all the time. In this case, though, skeptics will find the reasons more compelling if something else happens first. It’s best if they first listen.

If you want people to believe in the Bible, encourage them simply to listen to Jesus for a while, then have them draw their own conclusions. Most people respect Jesus. They’ve just never listened closely to what He’s said. They’ve never allowed His words to have their impact.

Don’t get into a tug-o-war with skeptics about inspiration. Instead, invite them to engage the ideas first, then let God do the heavy lifting for you. The truth you’re defending has a life of it’s own because the Spirit is in the words. Once others have listened a bit, any further reasons you give for biblical authority will have the soil they need to take root in.

If all the evidence—subjective and objective—shows that God has spoken in the Bible, then our appropriate response is to bend the knee. Our beliefs bow to revelation, because God Himself is the best the authority to tell us what is right and true and good.

When God speaks, our opinions are silenced. The ancient words are the final word—“ancient words, ever true, changing me, changing you.”

---

¹ http://www.imperishableinheritance.com/2005/cs-lewis-on-the-importance-of-theology/

² Of course, even if the Bible were entirely man-made, that wouldn’t by itself undermine the Bible’s message. There are millions of books not penned by inerrant hands that overflow with truth—even spiritual truth (Christian bookstores are filled with them).  Though I believe in inerrancy, I don’t need inerrant Scripture to substantiate Christianity. Christianity stands or falls not on inerrancy, but on facts of history pertaining to Jesus of Nazareth.  If the salient events recorded in the Gospels actually happened, then the claims of Christ are fully justified and Christianity is on solid ground.

³ Some might object that proving the Bible with the Bible is circular.  But this is not so in our case.  If our method subtly presumed the thing we were trying to prove—the divine inspiration of the Bible—that would be circular.  But it does not. Instead, we’re merely looking to the text for evidence of Divine authorship.  This is not circular.

⁴ http://deeperwalk.lefora.com/2010/08/26/israels-70-years-exile-to-70th-and-final-week/#ad_not_found.

⁵ See, for example, Messianic Christology—A Study of Old Testament Prophecy Concerning the First Coming of the Messiah, by Arnold Fruchetenbaum (www.ariel.org).

⁶ See “The Bible: Fast Forward” CDs at str.org.

⁷ For more detail, see “Archeology, the Bible, and the Leap of Faith” at str.org.

⁸ Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 1995, 29.

⁹ Ibid., 32.

¹⁰ This connection can be overstated.  Piecing together hard data from thousands of years ago is difficult, and archaeological evidence is especially vulnerable to bias in its interpretation. Old Testament scholars of the “minimalist” school, for example, characteristically refuse to accept any biblical account without independent corroboration, a virtual impossibility when dealing with texts this ancient and not a demand made on other texts.  Even so, a very strong case can be made for the correlation of biblical historical claims and archaeological evidence. An even-handed approach using the standard criteria of historiography minus naturalistic bias yields high marks for the Bible as an historical source. McDowell’s New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999) covers this ground thoroughly.

¹¹ See STR’s “Jesus: Man or Myth” at str.org for more detail. See also Habermas and Licona’s The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), chapter 2.

¹² Gary Habermas, The Verdict of History (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1988), 108.

¹³ See also Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).

¹⁴ Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, vol. 3 of The Story of Civilization (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1972), 557.

¹⁵ By the way, these are accounts, not “Bible stories.”  They really happened.

¹⁶ See Habermas and Licona’s The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, chapters 3 and 4, and William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith, third edition (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 349, 361-389.

¹⁷ See “Christianity’s Real Record” at str.org.  See also Alvin Schmidt, Under the Influence—How Christianity Transformed Civilization (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001) and Carroll and Shiflett, Christianity on Trial (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2002).

In Misquoting Jesus, the New York Times bestseller subtitled The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, author Bret Ehrman fires a shot meant to sink the ship of any Christian who thinks the New Testament documents can be trusted. Here it is:

What good is it to say that the autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don’t have the originals! We have only error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways….There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.¹ [emphasis in the original]

Ehrman is right on the facts, as far as they go. There are 130,000 words in the New Testament, yet the surviving manuscripts (the handwritten copies) reveal something like 400,000 individual times the wording disagrees between them.² Indeed, Ehrman points out, the manuscripts “differ from one another in so many places that we don’t even know how many differences there are.”³

Further, Bart Ehrman is an accomplished scholar with impeccable bona fides. He co-authored The Text of the New Testament (4th Edition)—an academic standard in the field—with Bruce Metzger, arguably the greatest New Testament manuscript scholar alive at the time.⁴

The Washington Post says Misquoting Jesus “casts doubt on any number of New Testament episodes that most Christians take as, well gospel.” Publishers Weekly promises that Ehrman’s arguments “ensure that readers might never read the gospels or Paul’s letters the same way again.”⁵

Which, of course, is exactly what Ehrman wants. Misquoting is the kind of what-they-don’t-want-you-to-know exposé that has become popular in recent years. Ehrman “exposes” discoveries that sabotaged his own “born-again” faith while a graduate student at Princeton, leaving him with the agnosticism about God he now embraces.⁶

Has the Bible been changed over 2,000 years of copying and recopying? Ehrman answers, “Yes, significantly.” Worse, the massive number of alterations make it virtually impossible to have any confidence of reconstructing the autographs.

Without the original renderings, there is no inspired text. Without inspired Scripture, there is no orthodox Christianity, only a jumble of spiritual ideas about Jesus expressed in a diverse body of conflicting texts that have tumbled down to us through the corridors of time.

Is this skepticism justified? Simply put, no. In spite of Ehrman’s credentials, his who-knows-what-the-original-text-said view is not the majority opinion of textual scholars. This includes Bruce Metzger, Ehrman’s mentor, to whom he dedicated the book. The reasons for this confidence are based in the nature of the reconstructive task itself.

Reconstructing Aunt Sally’s Recipe

A manuscript is a hand-copied text. For the first 1500 years after Christ, all copies of the Bible were reproduced by scribes who did the best they could—in most cases—to faithfully transmit the text. Inevitably, mistakes happened which were then compounded geometrically when the flaw was copied, spawning multiple copies with the same error in subsequent generations of texts.⁷ Some changes, it seems clear, were intentional and even theologically motivated.

Given that history, it’s hard to imagine how an original can be restored. The uncertainty, though, is based on two misconceptions by the rank and file about the history of the communication of ancient material like that found in the New Testament.

The first assumption is that the transmission is more or less linear—one person passing the message on to a second who gives it to a third, etc., leaving a single message many generations removed from the original. Second, the objection assumes oral transmission which is more easily distorted and misconstrued than something written.

Neither assumption applies to the text of the New Testament. First, the transmission was done in writing, and written manuscripts can be tested in a way oral communications cannot. Second, the transmission was not linear, but geometric—e.g., one letter birthed 10 copies which generated 100 and so on.

Let me illustrate how such a test can be made. It will help you see how scholars confidently reconstruct an original from conflicting manuscripts that are centuries removed from the autograph.

Pretend your Aunt Sally learns in a dream the recipe for an elixir that preserves her youth. When she awakes, she scribbles the complex directions on a sheet of paper, then runs to the kitchen to mix up her first batch of “Sally’s Secret Sauce.” In a few days, she is transformed into a picture of radiant youth.

Aunt Sally is so excited she sends detailed, handwritten instructions to her three bridge partners (Aunt Sally is still in the technological dark ages—no photocopier or email). They, in turn, make copies for ten of their own friends.

All goes well until one day Aunt Sally’s schnauzer eats the original script. In a panic she contacts her friends who have mysteriously suffered similar mishaps. The alarm goes out to the others who received copies from her card-playing trio in an attempt to recover the original wording.

Sally rounds up all the surviving handwritten copies, 26 in all. When she spreads them out on the kitchen table, she immediately notices differences. Twenty-three of the copies are virtually the same save for misspelled words and abbreviations littering the text. Of the remaining three, however, one lists ingredients in a different order, another has two phrases inverted (“mix then chop” instead of “chop then mix”), and one includes an ingredient not mentioned in any other list.

Do you think Aunt Sally can accurately reconstruct her original recipe from this evidence? Of course she can. The misspellings and abbreviations are inconsequential, as is the order of ingredients in the list (those variations all mean the same thing). The single inverted phrase stands out and can easily be repaired because one can’t mix something that hasn’t been chopped. Sally would then strike the extra ingredient reasoning it’s more plausible one person would mistakenly add an item than 25 people would accidentally omit it.

Even if the variations were more numerous and diverse, the original could still be reconstructed with a high level of confidence with enough copies and a little common sense.

This, in simplified form (very simplified, but you get the point), is how scholars do “textual criticism,” an academic enterprise used to reconstitute all documents of antiquity, not just religious texts. It is not a haphazard effort based on guesses and religious faith. It is a careful analytical process allowing an alert critic to determine the extent of possible corruption of any work and, given certain conditions, reconstruct the original with a high degree of certainty.

This last point raises the key question of this entire discussion: Regardless of the raw number of variants, can we recover the original reading with confidence? The answer to that pivotal question depends on three factors. First, how many copies exist? Second, how old are the manuscripts? Third, what is the exact nature of the differences (the variants)?

How Many And How Old?

If the number of manuscripts available for comparison are few and the time gap between the original and the oldest copy is wide, then the autograph is harder to reconstruct. However, if there are many copies and the oldest ones are closer in time to the original, the scholar can be more certain she has pinpointed the exact wording of the initial text, for all practical purposes.⁸

To get an idea of the significance of the New Testament manuscript evidence, note for a moment the record for non-biblical texts. These are secular writings historians rely on for all their data from antiquity that have been restored with a high level of confidence based on available textual evidence.⁹

Josephus’ first century document The Jewish War survives in only nine complete manuscripts dating from the 5th century—four centuries after they were written.¹⁰ Tacitus’ Annals of Imperial Rome is one of the chief historical sources for the Roman world of New Testament times, yet, surprisingly, it survives in only two manuscripts dating from the Middle Ages.¹¹ Thucydides’ History survives in eight copies. There are ten copies of Caesar’s Gallic Wars, eight copies of Herodotus’ History, and seven copies of Plato, all dated over a millennium from the original. Homer’s Iliad has the most impressive manuscript evidence for any secular work with 647 existing copies.¹²

Note that for most ancient documents only a handful of manuscripts exist, some facing a time gap of 800-1500 years or more. Yet scholars are confident they have reconstructed the originals with a high degree of accuracy. In fact, virtually all of our knowledge of ancient history depends on documents like these.

The Biblical Manuscript Evidence

The manuscript evidence for the New Testament is stunning by comparison. A recent count shows 5,500 separate Greek manuscripts.¹³ These are represented by early fragments, uncial codices (manuscripts in capital Greek letters bound together in book form), and minuscules (small Greek letters in cursive style).

Among the 2,795 minuscule fragments dating from the 9th to the 15th centuries are 34 complete New Testaments.¹⁴ Uncial manuscripts providing virtually complete New Testaments date back to the 4th century and earlier. Codex Vaticanus is likely the oldest, dated c. 325-350.¹⁵ The magnificent Codex Sinaiticus, dated c. 340¹⁶, contains half the Old Testament and virtually all of the New. Codex Alexandrinus contains the whole Old Testament and a nearly complete New Testament and dates from the mid-5th century.¹⁷

The most fascinating evidence comes from the fragments. The Chester Beatty Papyri contains most of the New Testament and is dated mid-third century.¹⁸ The Bodmer Papyri II collection, whose discovery was announced in 1956, includes most of the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John and much of the last seven chapters. It dates from A.D. 200 or earlier.¹⁹

The most amazing find of all, however, is a small portion of John 18:31-33, discovered in Egypt. Known as the John Rylands Papyri and barely three inches square, it represents the earliest known copy of any part of the New Testament. The papyri is dated at A.D. 117-138 (though it may even be earlier),²⁰ showing that the Gospel of John was circulated as far away as Egypt within 40 years of its composition.

Keep in mind that most papyri are fragmentary. Only about 50 manuscripts contain the entire New Testament. Even so, the textual evidence is exceedingly rich, especially when compared to other works of antiquity.

Two other cross-checks on the accuracy of the manuscripts remain: ancient versions (translations) and citations by early church Fathers known as “patristic quotations.”

Early in the history of the Church, the Scriptures were translated into Latin (10,000 copies exist²¹). By the 3rd and 4th centuries the New Testament had been translated and reproduced in Coptic and Syriac, and soon after in Armenian, and Georgian, among others. ²² These texts helped missionaries reach new cultures in their own language as the Gospel spread and the church grew. Translations help modern-day scholars answer questions about the underlying Greek manuscripts.

In addition, there are ancient extra-biblical sources—catechisms, lectionaries, and quotes from the church fathers—that cite Scripture at great length. Indeed, the patristic quotations themselves include virtually every verse in the New Testament.²³

I want you to notice something here. The chief concern Bart Ehrman raises regarding the biblical texts—the massive number of variants—can only arise with a massive number of manuscripts. Scholars universally consider this a virtue, not a vice—good news, not bad—because the condition causing the problem is the very condition providing the solution. The more manuscripts available for comparison, the more changes that will likely appear, but also the more raw material to use for comparison to fix the problem the variants pose.

This mountain of manuscripts gives us every reason to believe the originals have been preserved in the aggregate. No missing parts need be replaced. We have 110% of the text, not 90%.²⁴ The real question is this: Do we know how to separate the wheat from the chaff to recover the original reading? That depends entirely on our last question: What is the nature of the variants themselves?

Those Pesky Variants

According to manuscript expert Daniel Wallace, “A textual variant is simply any difference from a standard text (e.g., a printed text, a particular manuscript, etc.) that involves spelling, word order, omission, addition, substitution, or a total rewrite of the text.²⁵ Note that any difference, no matter how slight, is added to the total count.

What exactly are those differences? They can be divided into two categories: significant variants and insignificant ones. An insignificant variant has absolutely no bearing on our ability to reconstruct the original text. The meaning remains the same, regardless of which reading is the original.

For example, well over half the variants (yes, more than 200,000) are spelling errors,²⁶ due either to accident (the ie/ei mistake is as common in Scripture as it is in our own writing), or different choices of phonetic spelling (kreinai vs. krinai). A host of others are immaterial differences in abbreviation or style (a definite article appearing before a name—“the James”—omitted in another because it adds nothing to the meaning).²⁷

Clearly, some insignificant variations are theologically important. The rendering in the KJV of 1 John 5 (the Comma Johanneum) appearing to echo the Trinity is about a significant doctrinal issue, but clearly this variant is not in the original so it creates no textual concern. It appears in only a four manuscripts, the earliest dating from the 10th century (four others have it penciled into the margin by a scribe),²⁸ and is almost universally acknowledged to be a corruption. Further, the doctrine of the Trinity does not rely on this text, but is verified by many other passages not in question.

A similar problem occurs with thousands of other variants that appear in only one manuscript (“singular readings”). These obvious mistakes are easily corrected.

Here’s how Wallace²⁹ sums up the variations:

1. Spelling differences or nonsense readings (e.g., a skipped line)
2. Inconsequential word order (“Christ Jesus” vs. “Jesus Christ”) and synonyms
3. Meaningful, though non-viable variants (e.g., the Comma Johanneum)
4. Variants that are both meaningful and viable

Wallace’s last category constitutes “much less than” 1% of all variations.³⁰ In other words, more than 396,000 of the variants have no bearing on our ability to reconstruct the original. Even with the textually viable differences that remain, the vast majority are so theologically insignificant they are “relatively boring.”³¹ These facts Ehrman himself freely admits:

Most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple—slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort of another.³²

Wallace’s fourth category—those variants both meaningful and viable (in a textual sense)—is the only one of any consequence. “We are talking here,” write Kostenberger and Kruger, “about a situation where there are two (or more) possible readings, and the evidence for each reading…is relatively equal.”³³

Here the analytical skills of the professional textual critic are applied to weed out the most unlikely variants. She has at her disposal a specific set of rules—the accepted canons of textual analysis—that enable her to resolve the vast majority of conflicts to recover the original with a high degree of confidence.

Ironically, this is precisely the point Ehrman unwittingly demonstrates as he closes out his case against the New Testament documents.

Ehrman’s “Top Ten”

On the final page of the paperback edition of Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman lists the “Top Ten Verses That Were Not Originally in the New Testament.” It serves as his parting salvo, but in reality proves his entire thesis false.

First, I immediately recognized six of the ten citations, and in every case my own Bible translation (NASB) makes a marginal note that these verses are not in the earliest manuscripts. No surprises here.

Second, one third of Ehrman’s “Top Ten” list actually is in the New Testament, after all. Luke 22:20, 24:12, and 24:51b are, in fact, questionable in Luke. They do appear, however, almost word for word in uncontested passages (respectively, Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24; John 20:3-7; Acts 1:9, 11).

Third, nothing of theological consequence is lost by striking any of the variants Ehrman lists, even the long ending in Mark (16:9-20) or the engaging but likely non-canonical account of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11).

Finally (and most damaging), Ehrman’s list proves just the opposite of what he intends. For all his hand wringing that the original text is lost forever, his list itself demonstrates it’s possible to recognize the most important spurious renderings and eliminate them.

Ehrman’s own works (Misquoting and also The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture) prove that the text-critical methods mentioned above—the very methods he uses to critique the New Testament—are adequate to restore the original reading. It is proof that the massive number of variants do not interfere with our ability to recapture the original, but instead the rich manuscript evidence we possess allows us to weed out the vast percentage of variants. Otherwise Ehrman would not be able to say with confidence his “Top Ten”—or any other verses—are not in the New Testament.

This is a fact he acknowledges (again, ironically) in another work. Compare the pessimism of Misquoting Jesus with the optimism expressed in Metzger and Ehrman’s The Text of the New Testament:³⁴

Besides textual evidence derived from New Testament Greek manuscripts and from early versions, the textual critic compares numerous scriptural quotations used in commentaries, sermons, and other treatises written by early church fathers. Indeed, so extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament. [emphasis added]

Bart Ehrman has two books with his name on them that give the exact opposite impression.³⁵ And both were published the same year (2005).

What can we conclude from the evidence? Virtually all of the 400,000 differences in the New Testament documents—spelling errors, inverted words, non-viable variants and the like—are completely inconsequential to the task of reconstructing the original. Of the remaining differences, virtually all yield to a vigorous application of the accepted canons of textual criticism.

This means that our New Testament is over 99% pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words),³⁶ and none affects any significant doctrine.

Scholar D.A. Carson sums it up this way: “What is at stake is a purity of text of such a substantial nature that nothing we believe to be doctrinally true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants.”³⁷

Our chief question has been, “Can we reproduce the original New Testament to a high degree of certainty?” Even Bart Ehrman, in spite of himself, demonstrates we can.

---

¹ Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus—The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, first paperback edition (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2007), 7, 90.

² Daniel Wallace, “The Number of Textual Variants: An Evangelical Miscalculation,” bible.org (http://bible.org/article/number-textual-variants-evangelical-miscalculation).

³ Ehrman, 10.

⁴ Bruce Metzger passed away in 2007.

⁵ Both quotes can be found on the back cover of Misquoting Jesus.

⁶ Ehrman, 7, 257.

⁷ When a large number of manuscripts exhibit the same “signature” pattern of variations, they are referred to as a text family or a “text type,” e.g., the Alexandrian Text, the Western Text, or the Majority Text (aka the Byzantine Text, the underlying manuscript family of the KJV).

⁸ Kostenberger and Kruger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy (Wheaton, IL:  Crossway, 2010), 205.  Sufficient certainty is the goal, not absolute certainty.

⁹ Very minor differences in number appear in various catalogs of these documents, but these are accurate enough to make our point.

¹⁰ Paul Barnett, Is the New Testament History? (Ann Arbor:  Vine Books, 1986), 45.

¹¹ Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago:  Moody Press, 1986), 405.

¹² Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (New York and Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 1968), 34. 

¹³ Kostenberger and Kruger, 207.  The number of manuscripts is continually increasing as more are discovered.

¹⁴ Geisler & Nix, 402.

¹⁵ Ibid., 391.

¹⁶ Ibid., 392.

¹⁷ Ibid., 394.

¹⁸ Ibid., 389-390.

¹⁹ Metzger, 39-40.

²⁰ Geisler and Nix, 388.

²¹ Kostenberger and Kruger, 208.

²² Barnett, 44.

²³ Metzger, 86.

²⁴ Daniel Wallace, “The Majority Text and the Original Text:  Are They Identical?,” Bibliotheca Sacra, April-June, 1991, 169.

²⁵ Daniel Wallace, “The Number of Textual Variants: An Evangelical Miscalculation.”

²⁶ Daniel Wallace, “Is What We Have Now What They Wrote Then?,” http://bible.org/article/what-we-have-now-what-they-wrote-then.

²⁷ Kostenberger and Kruger, 215-217.

²⁸ Ibid., 219.

²⁹ Daniel Wallace, “Is What We Have Now What They Wrote Then?”

³⁰ Ibid.

³¹ Kostenberger and Kruger, 226.

³² Ehrman, 55.

³³ Kostenberger and Kruger, 225.

³⁴ Metzger and Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament:  Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th Edition (New York:  Oxford University Press, 2005), 126.

³⁵ To be fair, this portion was undoubtedly authored by Metzger.  Nonetheless, the ironic conflict remains.

³⁶Geisler and Nix, 475.

³⁷Carson, D.A., The King James Version Debate (Grand Rapids:  Baker, 1979), 56.

The first chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans contains what most readers consider the Bible’s clearest condemnation of same-sex relations. Recent scholarship reads the same text and finds just the opposite. Who is right?

To most readers, the first chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans contains the Bible’s clearest condemnation of same-sex relations--both male and female. Recent scholarship, though, reads the same text and finds just the opposite--that homosexuality is innate and therefore normal, moral, and biblical.

Reconstructing Romans

In Romans, Paul seems to use homosexuality as indicative of man’s deep seated rebellion against God and God’s proper condemnation of man. New interpretations cast a different light on the passage.

Paul, the religious Jew, is looking across the Mediterranean at life in the capital of Graeco-Roman culture. Homosexuality in itself is not the focus of condemnation. Rather, Paul’s opprobrium falls upon paganism’s refusal to acknowledge the true God.

It’s also possible Paul did not understand the physiological basis of genuine homosexuality. John Boswell, professor of history at Yale, is among those who differ with the classical interpretation. In Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality he writes:

The persons Paul condemns are manifestly not homosexual: what he derogates are homosexual acts committed by apparently heterosexual persons....It is not clear that Paul distinguished in his thoughts or writings between gay persons (in the sense of permanent sexual preference) and heterosexuals who simply engaged in periodic homosexual behavior. It is in fact unlikely that many Jews of his day recognized such a distinction, but it is quite apparent that--whether or not he was aware of their existence--Paul did not discuss gay persons but only homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons.¹ [emphasis in the original]

Paul is speaking to those who violate their natural sexual orientation, Boswell contends, those who go against their own natural desire: “‘Nature’ in Romans 1:26, then, should be understood as the personal nature of the pagans in question.”² [emphasis in the original]

Since a homosexual’s natural desire is for the same sex, this verse doesn’t apply to him. He has not chosen to set aside heterosexuality for homosexuality; the orientation he was born with is homosexual. Demanding that he forsake his “sin” and become heterosexual is actually the kind of violation of one’s nature Paul condemns here.

Romans 1:18-27

Both views can’t be correct. Only a close look at the text itself will give us the answer. The details of this passage show why these new interpretations are impossible:³

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Let me start by making two observations. First, this is about God being mad: “For the wrath of God [orge] is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men....”

Second, there is a specific progression that leads to this “orgy” of anger. Men “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (v. 18). They exchanged “the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (v. 25). Next, “God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity...” (v. 24). They “exchanged the natural [sexual] function for that which is unnatural (v. 26). Therefore, the wrath of God rightly falls on them (v. 18); they are without excuse (v. 20).

This text is a crystal clear condemnation of homosexuality by the Apostle Paul in the middle of his most brilliant discourse on general revelation. Paul is not speaking to a localized aberration of pedophilia or temple prostitution that’s part of life in the capital of Graeco-Roman culture. He is talking about a universal condition of man.

Regarding the same-sex behavior itself, here are the specific words Paul uses: a lust of the heart, an impurity and dishonoring to the body (v. 24); a degrading passion that’s unnatural (v. 29); an indecent act and an error (v. 27); not proper and the product of a depraved mind (v. 28).

There’s only one way the clear sense of this passage can be missed: if someone is in total revolt against God. According to Paul, homosexual behavior is evidence of active, persistent rebellion against one’s Creator. Verse 32 shows it’s rooted in direct, willful, aggressive sedition against God--true of all so-called Christians who are defending their own homosexuality. God’s response is explicit: “They are without excuse” (v. 20).

Born Gay?

What if one’s “natural” desire is for the same sex, though. What if his homosexuality is part of his physical constitution? There are four different reasons this is a bad argument. The first three are compelling; the fourth is unassailable.

First, this rejoinder assumes there is such a thing as innate homosexuality. The scientific data is far from conclusive, though. Contrary to the hasty claims of the press, there is no definitive evidence that homosexuality is determined by physiological factors (see “Just Doing What Comes Naturally,” Clear Thinking, Spring, 1997).

There’s a second problem. If all who have a desire for the same sex do so “naturally,” then to whom does this verse apply? If everybody is only following their natural sexual desires, then which particular individuals fall under this ban, those who are not aroused by their own gender, but have sex anyway? Generally, for men at least, if there is no arousal, there is no sex. And if there is arousal, according to Boswell et al, then the passion must be natural.

Third, this interpretation introduces a whole new concept--constitutional homosexuality--that is entirely foreign to the text. Boswell himself admits that it was “in fact unlikely that many Jews of [Paul’s] day recognized such a distinction,” and that possibly even Paul himself was in the dark.

If Paul did not understand genuine homosexuality, though, then how can one say he excepted constitutional homosexuals when he wrote that they “exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural”? This argument self-destructs.

Further, if Paul spoke only to those violating their personal sexual orientation, then wouldn’t he also warn that some men burned unnaturally towards women, and some women towards men? Wouldn’t Paul warn against both types of violation--heterosexuals committing indecent acts with members of the same sex, and homosexuals committing indecent acts with members of the opposite sex?

What in the text allows us to distinguish between constitutional homosexuals and others? Only one word: “natural.” A close look at this word and what it modifies, though, leads to the most devastating critique of all.

Natural Desire or Natural Function?

Paul was not unclear about what he meant by “natural.” Homosexuals do not abandon natural desires; they abandon natural functions: “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another...” (1:26-27)

The Greek word kreesis, translated “function” in this text, is used only these two times in the New Testament, but is found frequently in other literature of the time. According to the standard Greek language reference A Greek/English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,⁴ the word means “use, relations, function, especially of sexual intercourse.”

Paul is not talking about natural desires here, but natural functions. He is not talking about what one wants sexually, but how one is built to operate sexually. The body is built to function in a specific way. Men were not built to function sexually with men, but with women.

This conclusion becomes unmistakable when one notes what men abandon in verse 27, according to Paul. The modern argument depends on the text teaching that men abandoned their own natural desire for woman and burned toward one another. Men whose natural desire was for other men would then be exempted from Paul’s condemnation. Paul says nothing of the kind, though.

Paul says men forsake not their own natural desire (their constitutional make-up), but rather the “natural function of the woman..” They abandoned the female, who was built by God to be man’s sexual compliment.

The error has nothing to do with anything in the male’s own constitution that he’s denying. It is in the rejection of the proper sexual companion God has made for him--a woman: “The men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts....” (v. 27)

Natural desires go with natural functions. The passion that exchanges the natural function of sex between a man and a woman for the unnatural function of sex between a man and a man is what Paul calls a degrading passion.

Jesus clarified the natural, normal relationship: “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh [sexual intercourse].’?” (Matthew 19:4-5)

Homosexual desire is unnatural because it causes a man to abandon the natural sexual compliment God has ordained for him: a woman. That was Paul’s view. If it was Paul’s view recorded in the inspired text, then it is God’s view. And if it is God’s view, it should be ours if we call ourselves Christian.

---

¹John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago:  University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 109.

²Ibid., p. 111.

³Citations are from the New American Standard Bible, copyright 1977, The Lockman Foundation.

⁴Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich (University of Chicago Press).

I. AN INTRODUCTION TO WISDOM AND POETIC LITERATURE

A. The Place of Wisdom Literature in the Bible

1. Hebrew Wisdom Literature was part of a larger corpus of material with Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Canaanite-Phoenician influences¹

2. The Bible contains several different types of literature:

a. Narrative (Genesis, 1 and 2 Samuel, Ruth, Jonah, Nehemiah, etc.)

b. Legal (Deuteronomy, Leviticus, etc.)

c. Historical (1 and 2 Chronicles, etc.)

d. Poetic (Psalms; Song of Songs etc.)

e. Prophetic (Isaiah, Jeremiah etc.)

f. Gospel (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John)

g. Epistles (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Peter, etc.)

h. Apocalyptic (Daniel, Zechariah, Revelation)

3. The different kinds of literature serve different didactic functions:

a. The effects of the fall of mankind were pervasive:²

1) The fall effected Mankind’s supernatural relationships (Gen. 3:8,14-15,19)

a) The fall effected conflict with God (Gen. 3:8)

b) The fall effected conflict with the enemy (Gen. 3:14-15,19)

2) The Fall effected mankind’s natural relationships (Gen. 3:16-19)

a) The fall effected conflict with children 3:16a

b) The fall effected conflict between men and women 3:16b

c) The fall effected conflict in work (Gen. 3:17-19)

b. The Scriptures are designed to address Mankind’s need of salvation in all realms of his life (with God, with one another, and with the tasks of life)³

1) Legal Literature is a declaration of god’s will designed to mold the moral, spiritual, and ethical direction of the nation

2) Historical Literature is a revelation (record) of the sovereign work of God in History

3) Prophetic Literature is a declaration of the will of God in History in judgment of the nation’s historical dealings and in promise of God’s future blessings

4) Wisdom/Poetic Literature is practical direction for obtaining substantial wholeness out of the brokenness of natural life:

a) Job addresses Mankind’s wrestling with affliction which defies human explanation

b) Psalms are an expression of Mankind’s heart toward God in the varied nature of life: fears, doubts, tragedies, triumphs, joys, hopes.⁴

c) Song of Solomon is the outworking of love in marriage

d) Ecclesiastes affirms that meaning for life is not in life, but in the One who gives life

e) Proverbs provides skill at living life from the parameters of the Law and natural order⁵

4. Biblical literature is designed to appeal to the whole person: his mind and his heart!

B. The Design of Wisdom Literature⁶

1. Wisdom literature is concerned with the application of truth (from creation and the Law) to daily life and choices

2. The application of truth was to give one skill at life⁷ or even good common sense⁸ (Job 32:7; Prov. 1:7)

3. Wisdom literature applies truth through generalizations:

a. The author makes applicational generalizations in a specific area

b. The author’s generalizations are rarely intended to have an unlimited scope

c. The task in interpreting wisdom literature is to recognize the specific scope of the author and thus applying the truth in that specific scope

d. The generalizations are stated in the form of maxims

1) Maxims are statements of truth which are always true, but whose scope is not intended to be an exhaustive or comprehensive statement of truth concerning a subject

2) Maxims state a truth from one perspective without intending to say all that there is to say about that subject

4. Examples of the application of truths through generalizations:⁹

a. Proverbs consists of pithy maxims to be applied properly to life¹⁰. The limits of the author’s scope of application can be discerned through collecting many proverbs on a given subject

b. Job is the application of maxims concerning the nature of evil and punitive suffering. The value of maxims is critiqued as a final guide in suffering. God becomes the only source of meaning in suffering as he brings good for his own out of evil for his own good purposes

c. Ecclesiastes is the search for the ultimate maxim to explain the nature of life. However, life is not found in the storehouse of wisdom, but is a gift from God given to be used in a responsible, yet rewarding fashion¹¹

d. Song of Songs is more poetic literature rather than wisdom in that it celebrates the greatest gift of human life--love! Nevertheless, love is presented in a full expression as that which unifies two into one with purity and honor for each person

e. Psalms are also closer to poetry than to wisdom literature. Nevertheless, they express the one sided expression of the heart of man towards God¹² as he expresses fear, sorrow, despair, hope, praise, and skill at life (wisdom psalms, 1, 27, 32, 34, 37, 49, 73, 112, 127--128, 133)

C. The Literary¹³ Character of Hebrew Poetry/Wisdom

1. Rhythm of Thought

The genius of Hebrew poetry is in the realm of thought rhyme” and the key to thought rhyme is in the technique of parallelism (the correspondence of one thought with another)¹⁴

a. Synonymous parallelism exactly balances the thoughts or meanings in two lines of poetry by saying the same thing twice in nearly the same way (Ps. 3:1; 7:16; 2:4)

b. Synthetic and Climatic parallelism further takes up and develops a through begun in the first line by adding a little more to enrich one’s thinking (Ps. 95:3; 1:1). Occasionally they expansion is expressed in a tiered structure in which each line repeats the first with the exception of the last term/phrase where a new one is added (Ps. 29:1)

c. Emblematic parallelism uses images to convey the poetic meaning. While one line conveys the main point in a direct fashion, the second line illuminates it by an image. There is a movement from point to picture (Ps. 23:1,2,4; 103:13; 113:5,6; 57:1)

d. Antithetical parallelism balances the thoughts or ideas within the line pairs by stating truth in the first line in an opposing or negative way by introducing a contrast (Ps. 1:6; 57:6)

e. Chiastic or Inverted parallelism contraposes or alternates the words or phrases in consecutive lines (Ps. 51:3; Isa. 11:13)

2. Rhythm of Sound (in Hebrew)

a. Acrostic Poems are written so that the initial letters of consecutive lines form an alphabet, word, or phrase (Ps. 9; 10; 25; 34; 37; 11; 112; 119; 145; Prov. 31:10-31; Lam. 1; 2; 3; 4; Nahum 1:2-20). This was a mnemonic tool (memory device) conveying ideas of order, progression, and completeness.

b. Alliteration is the consonance of sounds at the beginning of words or syllables (Ps. 122:6)

c. Assonance is correspondence of vowels sounds, often at the end of words in order to emphasize an idea, theme, or tone (Ps. 119:29)

d. Paronomasia is a word play through the repetition of words of similar sound, but not necessarily meaning in order to heighten the impact of the message (Gen. 32:22-24)

e. Onomatopoeia is the use of words that sound like what they describe (Ruth 1:19)

f. Ellipsis is the omission of a word or words that would complete a given parallel construction (Ps. 115:4-7)

g. Inclusio is the repetition of words or phrases by which the poet returns to the point from which he began (Ps. 118:1,29)

3. Wisdom Speech Forms¹⁵

a. The Parable is a “warning speech” (Prov. 6:20-35; 2 Sam. 12:1-4)

b. The Precept is an authoritative instruction or regulation for behavior connecting wisdom with the moral codes of the Law (Prov. 3:27)

c. The Riddle is a puzzling question stated as a problem calling for mental acumen to solve it (Judg. 14:14)

d. The Fable is a brief tale embracing a moral truth using people, animals, or inanimate objects as characters (Judg. 9:7-20)

e. The Wise Saying is a generalization about the way of wisdom based on the insight of experience or a folk expression of plain common sense (Prov. 18:18)

f. The Numerical Proverb culminates numerical progression (Prov. 6:16-19; 30:18-31)

g. Rhetorical Questions (Prov. 5:16; 8:1), Allegory Through Personification (Prov. 8--9; Eccl. 12:1-8), Satire and Irony (Prov. 11:22; Eccl. 5:13-17)

D. The Canonical Order of the Wisdom and Poetic Books

1. The Hebrew Scriptures were probably originally canonized into a two-fold division: the Law and the Prophets¹⁶

2. By around the second century B.C.¹⁷ a three-fold division of the Hebrew Scriptures arose: The Law, The Prophets, and The Writings¹⁸

a. The three-fold division included the same books as the two-fold division

b. There are several possible reasons for a three-fold division:¹⁹

1) A distinction was made between books which were written by men who held the prophetic office, and men who only had the prophetic gift

2) Some at a later date may have felt that those books which were not written by “prophets” were not fully canonical

3) A more practical purpose was served by the topical and festal²⁰ significance rather than by the two-fold categories

3. Within the category of the Sacred Writings, the books of Psalms, Proverbs and Job were regarded by the Jews as specifically poetical in nature, and were described by the mnemonic title “The Book of Truth”²¹

4. The Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (The Septuagint or LXX c. 280-150 B.C.) divided the Old Testament according to subject matter which is the basis of the modern four-fold classification of the: five books of Law, twelve books of History, five books of Poetry, and seventeen books of Prophecy²²

II. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF PSALMS

A. The Canonical Order of the Book of Psalms

1. The Book of Psalms is subdivided into five smaller books:²³

a. Book I: 1-41

b. Book II: 42-72

c. Book III: 73-89

d. Book IV: 90-106

e. Book V: 107-150

2. The Psalms may well be editorially²⁴ grouped in accordance with the history of the nation Israel around the Davidic Covenant:²⁵

a. INTRODUCTION: The righteous one²⁶ 1--2

b. BOOK I: David’s conflict with Saul²⁷ 3--41

c. BOOK II: David’s kingship²⁸ 42-72

d. BOOK III: The Assyrian crisis²⁹ 73--89

e. BOOK IV: Introspection about the destruction of the temple and the Exile³⁰ 90--106

f. BOOK V: Praise and Reflection on the Return and the new era³¹ 107--145

g. CONCLUSION: climatic praise to God³² 146--150

B. The Theological Principle of Psalms: The Lord, who sovereignly rules the universe, will establish His just rule on the earth in and through his people whereupon the righteous will prosper and the wicked will suffer³³

1. Since the OT saint did not have a concrete sense of a “final” judgment in eternity, they often worked out this theology through the events of their earthly world³⁴

2. At times it was difficult to resolve issues of God’s rule since the wicked seemed to prosper (Ps. 73).

3. Nevertheless, the wise person would be upright before God awaiting his blessing

4. Also imprecations were pronounced upon those who continued in rebellion against God’s theocracy³⁵ with a desire that He might deal with them in this life (Pss. 10:15; 28:4; 58:6; 69:22-28; 109; 137:9; 139:19-21 et cetera).

5. Often YHWH is described in polemical terms so as to express his sovereign rule over all of Israel’s neighbor’s gods:

a. It is YHWH who “rides on the clouds” rather then the Canaanite Baal (Ps. 68:4)

b. It is YHWH who brings about a storm in Canaanite territory rather than the storm god Baal (Ps. 29)

c. This was not myth as in their neighboring religions, but a departure from myth through YHWH

C. The Forms³⁶ of the Psalms³⁷

1. Individual Laments³⁸--a prayer for help out of distress (Pss. 51; 57; etc.)

a. Introductory Cry to God

1) Address

2) Cry for Help

b. Lament

1) Foes

2) I

3) Thou

c. Confession of Trust

d. Petition

1) Hear!

2) Save!

3) Punish!

4) Because...

e. Conclusion:

1) Vow of Praise or Expression of Praise³⁹

2) Assurance, Trust/Praise “heard”

2. National Laments--usually shorter than the individual laments; the nation faced some difficulty so they approached God together with their lament (Ps. 44; 58; 60 etc.)

a. Introductory Cry to God

1) Address

2) Cry for Help

3) Report of “former saving deeds”

b. Lament

1) Foes

2) Me

3) Thou

c. Confession of Trust

d. Petition

1) Hear!

2) Save!

3) Punish!

4) Because...

e. Vow of Praise

3. Declaritive Praise (Thanksgiving) Psalms of the Individual--praise or thanksgiving is giving to God because of some kind of personal deliverance (Pss. 30; 32; 121; etc.; cf. also I Sam. 2:1-10; Jonah 2:1-9)

a. Proclamation of Intention to Praise God

b. Introductory Summary of Praise

c. Reflection on Past Distress (= Lament)

1) Foes

2) I

3) Thou

d. Report of Deliverance

1) I cried

2) He heard

3) He delivered

e. Renewed Vow of Praise

f. Conclusion

1) Praise (descriptive)

2) Instruction (etc.)

4. Descriptive Praise Psalms of the People (Hymns)--direct praise of God for his works among men (Pss. 24; 100; 113; etc.)

a. Call to Praise

b. Cause for Praise

1) Summary

2) Reason for praise

a) The greatness of God

b) The grace of God

c) Specific Illustrations

c. Call to Praise

D. Psalms Distinctive in Thought⁴⁰:

1. Wisdom Psalms (Pss. 1; 37; 112; 127; etc.)

a. These are related in their motifs with wisdom literature in the Hebrew Scriptures (e.g., Proverbs)

b. The emphasize the theme of “Two Roads” through numerous sayings:

1) “Better” sayings (Ps. 119:72)

2) Numerical sayings (Ps. 62:11-12a)

3) Admonitions to “sons” (Ps. 34:11)

4) Blessing formulas (Ps. 1:1)

5) Emphasis upon the Law (Ps. 119)

c. They are also identified with “Torah Psalms” expounding the wisdom of following the Law.

2. Pilgrim Psalms (Pss. 120-134)

a. These all have the heading, “A song of ascents” which probably refer to Israel’s “going up” to Jerusalem for the three festivals (cf. 1 Sam. 1:3; Ps.122:4; Isa. 30:29; also Ex. 23:14-19; Lev. 23:4-44; Ps. 42:4 [Spring-Passover & Unleavened Bread, Summer--Weeks or Pentecost, Fall--Atonement & Tabernacles]⁴¹

b. Hill and Walton suggest that the canonical placement of these Psalms is to emphasize the return to Jerusalem after decades of exile⁴²

3. Royal Psalms (Pss.2; 18; 21; 45; 72; 89; 101; 110; 132; 144)⁴³

a. These emphasize the anointed King after the line of David (Ps. 89; 132; cf. 2 Sam. 7)

b. Historically the texts refer to some high point in the monarch such as his coronation (Ps. 2), his wedding (Ps. 45) or his going into battle (Pss. 20; 144); his anticipated coming in conquest (110), and his glorious reign (Ps. 72)

c. Many of these Psalms speak through David (the ideal king, cf, 2 Ki. 25:27-30) of the coming Messiah in a typically Messianic⁴⁴ or typico-prophetic Messianic⁴⁵ manner.

4. Enthronement Psalms

a. These are songs of God’s Kingship characterized by the expression “The Lord Reigns” (Pss. 93; 96-97; 99), the Lord is “the great King” (Pss. 47; 95), or the Lord “comes to judge” (Ps. 98)

b. While these Psalms may have expressed aspects of God’s reign at different times, they have their fullest sense in the coming Messianic kingdom (cf. Isa. 52:7)

E. Headings of the Psalms:⁴⁶

1. The Ascription of the Psalms as to Author

a. Their historical accuracy.

The current, popular, negative opinion concerning the historical reliability of the notations in the headings regarding authorship is reflected in the following comment by Barth: “Unfortunately, in the form in which the psalms have been handed down to us, they give no clue to the identity of their authors”⁴⁷

More positively the following argument can be advanced in defense of the accuracy of these notations

1) The abundant evidence elsewhere in Scripture that David was a writer of sacred poetry⁴⁸

2) The abundant internal evidence that Moses composed Psalm 90⁴⁹

3) The well-established point of Hebrew grammar that lamed ( l) can indicate authorship⁵⁰

4) The denial of the historical reliability of these notices is closely connected with the older, critical theory that most of the psalms were composed in the Maccabean period. New evidence, particularly from Ras Shamra has conclusively demonstrated the early date of many of these same psalms⁵¹

5) Undoubtedly they were considered as part of the Scriptures by Christ and His apostles

b. Classification of the psalms according to authorship:

1) Moses: Ps. 90

2) David: seventy-three psalms mostly in Books I and II

3) Asaph: Pss. 50, 73-83

4) Heman, the Ezrahite: Ps. 88

5) Ethan, the Ezrahite: Ps. 89

6) Solomon: Ps. 72,127

2. Technical names to designate the types of psalms

a. “Psalm” (Heb. mizmor): “a song accompanied by the plucking of the strings of an instrument.” Fifty-seven of the psalms are so labeled

b. “Song” (Heb. shir): “a song.” Twelve of the psalms are so labeled.

c. Maskil: “A contemplative poem.” Thirteen of the psalms are so labeled.⁵²

d. Miktam: root meaning is disputed. Later Hebrew (LXX and Modern Hebrew understand the word to mean “inscription poem,” or “epigram,” “a poem containing pithy sayings, etc.” Term is found in six superscriptions

e. “Prayers” (Heb. tepillah): “Prayer.” Found in five psalms titles and Hab. 3.

f. “Praise” (Heb. Tehillah): “Praise” found in Ps. 145.

3. Musical Terms

a. “To the chief musician” (Heb. lam-menasseah): Disputed term. Most construe the term to mean “To the choir leader.” Found in 50 psalms.⁵³

b. “Sons of Korah” (Pss. 42, 44-49, 84, 87-88): Disputed whether the term refers to authorship or to musical rendition. The evidence-- would involve dual authorship in Ps. 88, the use of the plural, the LXX confusion--suggests that the sons of Korah were the musical performers of these ten psalms⁵⁴

c. “Jeduthun” (Pss. 39,62,77). Disputed term. Perhaps it refers to a guild of musicians who rendered the psalms

d. “Neginoth” (Pss. 4,6,54,55,67,76,61 [singular]): “with stringed instruments.”

e. “Alamoth” (Ps. 46): “Upon lyres tuned to the voice of maidens.”

f. “Sheminith” (Pss. 6,12). “with an eight stringed lute.”

g. “Nehilloth” (Ps. 5): Obscure term (“wind instrument”?)

h. “Gittith” (Pss. 8,81,84): Disputed term (“wine song”? or “instrument from Gath”?)

i. “Selah” (not in superscriptions). “Lift up”? Probably denotes places in the psalm where the worshipers were to lift up their voices

4. Melody Indicators:

a. “Shushan, ‘el shoshannim” (Pss. 45,60,69,89). “To the lily (lilies).”

b. “Mahalath” (Pss. 53,88). Very obscure. May also be a liturgical term.

c. “cal ayyelth hash-shahar” (Ps. 22): “to the hind of the morning”

d. “cal yonath /elem rehoqim (Ps. 56): “According to a silent dove of the distances”?

e. “cal tashheth (Pss. 57,58,59,75): “Do not Destroy.”

f. “cal mut labben (Ps. 9): disputed.

5. Liturgical Indicators:

a. “Sabbath” (Ps. 92): Psalm to be used on the Sabbath day

b. “Thanksgiving” (Heb. todah) (Ps. 100): Psalm to be used at the time of the offering up of the acknowledgment offering⁵⁵

c. “To bring to remembrance” (Heb. “Lehazkir) (Pss. 38,70): A psalm intended to bring the lamenter to Yahweh’s remembrance

d. “Prayer of the afflicted when he pines away and pours forth his complaint before Yahweh” (Ps. 102)

e. A song of degrees” (Heb. shir ham-ma aloth) (Pss. 120-34): Disputed term. Lit. “a song of ascending.” Many today prefer to understand the term as “a song for the pilgrimages.”⁵⁶

f. “For the dedication of the house” (Ps. 30):

g. Shiggaion (Ps. 7). Obscure

6. Historical notices in the life of David (Pss. 3, 7, 18, 34, 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, 142)⁵⁷

F. Purposes of the Book of Psalms:

John Calvin describes the Psalter as, “‘An Anatomy of all the Parts of the Soul;’ for there is not an emotion of which any one can be conscious that is not here represented as in a mirror. Or rather, the Holy Spirit has here drawn to the life all the griefs, sorrows, fears, doubts, hopes, cares, perplexities, in short, all the distracting emotions with which the minds of men are wont to be agitated.”⁵⁸

Another writes, “Like the windows and carvings of medieval cathedrals, the Psalms were pictures of biblical faith for a people who had no copies of the Scriptures in their homes and could not have read them.”⁵⁹

1. To express the divine word spoken in rather than to man

2. To reveal the character of God through the praise, complaint and exhortation of God’s people so that the reader may be willing to submit himself to the Lord

3. To enable the reader to come into contact with God through the expression of the common, subjective daily experiences of others

4. To encourage one’s confidence in God’s faithfulness by the words of others when one’s own life experiences do not seem to support that faith

5. To affirm the certainty of God’s future rule on earth through the line of David wherein the righteous will be blessed and the wicked will be judged

6. To provide a worship hymnal and a devotional guide for the Temple-centered Jewish faith

7. To encourage believers to enjoy God and his benefits

---

¹ To say that Hebrew Wisdom Literature was similar to some of the writings of its neighbors does not mean that there were not differences--especially in its development with respect to one God. Nevertheless, several factors were similar: (1) it was essentially practical, (2) it was attributed to God alone, (3) it was relevant to all parts of life (see R. K. Harrison, Introduction, pp. 1004-1009; Hill and Walton, Survey, pp. 248-252; La Sor et al, Old, pp. 534-542; Pritchard, ANET, pp. 589-607).

² Much of what follows is from S. Craig Glickman, class notes of student in 903 Soteriology, Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall 1981.

³ Much of what follows was adapted from Glickman, Ibid., Elliott E. Johnson, class notes of student in 303 Old Testament History II and Poetry, Dallas Theological Seminary, Spring 1981; Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction, pp. 106-132.

Geisler affirms that Legal literature provided the moral life of the people, Historical literature provided the political life of the people, and Poetical literature provided the spiritual experiences of the people (A Popular Survey of the Old Testament, p. 179). While there is some truth to this, the descriptions do not fully express the development of the different types of literature.

⁴ The wisdom aspect throughout the Psalms is the concept that the righteous will be vindicated and the wicked will suffer (Ps. 1).

⁵ See the discussion by La Sor et al, Old, p. 545.

⁶ Elliott E. Johnson, Principle of Recognition: Chapter IV (unpublished class notes in 315 Advanced Hermeneutics, Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall 1983), pp. 55-56.

⁷ The Hebrew term hmkh was generically used to describe the skill which one might have with craftsmanship (Ex. 31:1-11), architectural ability (1 Ki. 5:9-18) or, handiwork (1 Ki. 7:14; Isa. 44:9-17).

The skill that the fear of the Lord gives is the ability to make good choices about life (Prov. 1:1-7).

⁸ R. K. Harrison writes, worldly wisdom, through less elevated in nature, was different only in degree and not in kind from divine wisdom. The whole of life was thus connoted in terms of religious experience, and wisdom was held to be relevant at all points of existence (Introduction, p. 1008).

⁹ Two broad categories exist to define wisdom literature: (1) Proverbial wisdom--short, pity sayings which state rules for personal happiness and welfare [e.g., Proverbs], and (2) Contemplative or Speculative wisdom--monologues, dialogues, or essays which delve into basic problems of human existence such as meaning in life, or suffering [e.g., Ecclesiastes and Job]; see La Sor et al, Old, pp. 533-542.

¹⁰ These are concrete, down-to-earth statements rather than broad, philosophical evaluations (cf. Prov. 12:4; 11:2; 17:10); La Sor et al offer an enjoyable discussion of this characteristic (Old, pp. 537-538).

¹¹ An example of the essential difference between Mesopotamian wisdom literature, and that of Israel may be found in the first millennium Babylonian Dialogue of Pessimism which concludes a similar struggle as Solomon's in Ecclesiastes with absolute despair:

Slave, listen to me, Yes, master, yes. Then what is good? To have my neck and yours broken and to be thrown into the river. Who is so tall that he can reach to the heavens? Who is so broad that he can encompass the underworld? No, servant, I will kill you and let you go first. Then (I swear that) my master will not outlive me by even three days (Pritchard, ANET, p. 601).

How much different is this conclusion than that of the modern existentialist?

¹² As Ross writes, The Psalms are the inspired responses of human hearts to God's revelation of Himself in law, history, and prophecy (Psalms BKC, p. 779).

¹³ The language of the Psalms is concentrated when compared with prose. The concentration occurs through the use of images, symbols, figures, emotive vocabulary, and multiple meanings (Ross, Psalms, BKC, p. 780). The figurative language, is an instrument for conveying densely patterned meanings, and sometimes contradictory meanings, that are not readily conveyable through other kinds of discourse (Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry, p. 113).

The word pictures enable the reader to feel much of what the poet did when he wrote the lines. This capacity to imagine that which one has not experienced is probably tied to the image of God (Who was able to imagine all possible creations before he made this one). Therefore, one must be sensitive to figurative language in order to capture the emotional meanings of the poetry.

¹⁴ Hill and Walton, Survey, pp. 252-253; Kidner, Psalms 1-72, pp. 1-4; R. K. Harrison, Introduction, pp. 965-972; Ryken, Words of Delight, pp. 180-185.

¹⁵ Hill and Walton, Survey, pp. 257-258; See also Ryken, Words of Delight, pp. 159-185, 313-340.

¹⁶ The two-fold division is argued upon (1) the way in which Moses' Law is referred to as a unit throughout the Scriptures, (2) the way in which the historical books are linked together as a unit, (3) the reference in Daniel to the Law and the books [9:2], and (4) the recognition of the Former prophetic books by the Latter (See Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, pp. 148-161).

¹⁷ Prologue to Ecclesiasticus (c. 132 B.C.), Jesus in Luke 24:44 (A.D. 30) Josephus, Against Apion, I.8 (A.D. 37-100).

¹⁸ The Writings include: (1) Poetical Books--Psalms, Proverbs, Job, (2) Five Rolls (Megilloth)--Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Esther, Ecclesiastes, (3) Historical Books--Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles

Sometimes Ruth was attached to Judges, and Lamentations was attached to Jeremiah thereby making the Hebrew canon comprised of 22 books rather than the more usual 24 books (see Geisler and Nix, General, pp. 18-19).

¹⁹ Critical scholars assume that the three-fold division reflects dates of canonization in accordance with their dates of compositions--Law (400 B.C.), Prophets (c. 200 B.C.), Writings (c. A.D. 100). However, this thesis is untenable in light of early reports of a three-fold division (c. 132 B.C.; see above). See Geisler and Nix, General, p. 151.

This critical approach is suggested by La Sor et al as an explanation for the placement of Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, Esther, Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes when they write, Essentially, the purpose of the Writings as a whole was to collect those sacred books whose purpose, character, or date excluded them form the collections of law and prophecy (Old, p. 508-509).

²⁰ Song of Solomon (eighth day of Passover), Ruth (second day of Weeks, or Pentecost), Lamentations (ninth day of Ab, in mourning for the destruction of Solomon's temple), Ecclesiastes (third day of Tabernacles), Esther (Purim).

²¹ The word truth (tma) was composed of the initial letters of each book--a (boya, Job), m (ylvm, Proverbs), and t (<ylht, Praises or Psalms) see R. K. Harrison, Introduction, p. 965.

²² Law = Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy

History = Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther

Poetry = Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon

Prophets/Major = Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel

Prophets/Minor = Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

For a more extensive overview see Geisler and Nix, General, pp. 17-25.

²³ This division seems to be older than the oldest extant manuscripts of the Psalms since it exists in all manuscripts. The order of the last two books (IV and V) do differ in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls suggesting that their final order was not canonized until around the time of Christ. But all of the Psalms remain present (The LXX does have one extra Psalm (151) concerning David's battle with Goliath).

Smaller collections exist within the larger books: (1) Davidic group I: 3-41; (2) Sons of Korah group I: 42-49; (3) Davidic group II: 51-65; (4) Asaph group: 73-83; (5) Sons of Korah group II: 84-88 [exc. 86]; (6) Congregational Praise group I: 95-100; (7) Hallelujah group: 111-117; (8) Songs of Ascent to Jerusalem: 120-134; (9) Davidic Group III: 138-145; (10) Congregational Praise Group II: 146-150

²⁴ Psalms range from Moses to the post-exilic period. Therefore, there were probably various stages and revisions in their collection. Evidence of former stages of editing may be found in the colophon-like conclusion of Ps. 72 (the prayers of David, the son of Jesse, are ended even though other Psalms of David follow) as well as the YHWH (Book I) and Elohistic editing (Book II).

²⁵ Not all would agree with this evaluation (e.g., Ross, Psalms BKC, p. 784; Waltke, Notes on the Psalms, p. 2), but Walton and Hill offer considerable information regarding this thesis (Survey, pp. 275, 278-281).

The logical progression is built upon the function of seam psalms which unite the first four books (42; 72; 89; 106) and form a transition from one book to the next.

While there are still some significant questions to consider in this presentation, the proposition is plausible.

Usually the five-fold division is associated with the five books of the Law. However, in such a correlation, no real striking correspondence can be traced between the Psalms and the Pentateuch (see R. K. Harrison, Introduction, pp. 986-987; La Sor et al, Old, pp. 510-511).

Regardless of the canonical shape of the Psalter, each Psalm must be interpreted individually. The Canonical shape of the Psalter may, however, offer insight into the nation's understanding of a particular psalm theologically. See the discussion on Royal psalms (Introduction, pp. 115-117).

²⁶ Psalm 1 would describe ultimate vindication for the righteous; Psalm 2 would describe God's choice and defense of the Israelite king. David fits into these two themes as the righteous individual whom God vindicates as king.

²⁷ This unit includes many individual laments; most psalms mention enemies.

²⁸ As a whole these psalms can be correlated with David's reign as recorded in 2 Samuel including the crises with Absalom (Pss. 54-64; esp. 55:12-14,21).

²⁹ This may well represent the eighth-century Assyrian crisis. The key psalm is Psalm 78.

³⁰ This unit begins with a Psalm of Moses and ends with a recapitulation of a history of rebellion leading to a hope and a plea for restoration. The collection of praise psalms (95-100) expresses the hope sustained in the Exile.

³¹ This book emphasizes thanksgiving to God for regathering the nation.

³² Psalms 146-150 offers a finale to the entire cantata.

³³ See Allen P. Ross, Psalms in BKC, p. 788; Hill and Walton, Survey, pp. 281-282.

³⁴ See Psalms 6:5; 30:9; 88:4-5,10-12; 115:17 (Ross, Psalms, BKC, p. 788). Later, the Prophets expressed a hope in the resurrection (Isa. 26:19; Ezek. 37:1-14; Dan. 12:2). Perhaps the closest one comes to the Psalmists view of a future with God may be found in Psalms 16--17; 49 and 73, but these may also be understood naturally (Ibid., p. 789; see also Dahood, Psalms [1970]: xli-lii).

³⁵ These imprecatory psalms were not personal vendettas (cf. Ps. 109:4-5). Any foe of Israel's was a foe of God's. Therefore, they were longings for God to vindicate His cause upon the earth--to judge sin!

There is still a place for these curses in Christianity--especially upon Satan and his henchmen.

See La Sor et al, Old, p. 530-531; C.S. Lewis, Reflections, pp. 20-33; Chalmers Martin, The Imprecations in the Psalms, The Princeton Theological Review 1 (1903): 537-553.

³⁶ Hermann Gunkel pioneered a form-critical (formgeschichte) approach in his Einleitung in die Psalmen or Introduction to the Psalms, translated by Thomas Horner (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967). He identified the Psalms with ritual (cultic) acts in Israel's worship (cf. 1 Samuel 1:24--2:10; 1 Chronicles 16:1-37). Even though many of his theories do not have historical evidence, the categories of Psalms by form are extremely helpful to the interpreter.

³⁷ The forms of Psalms are not unique from the ANE neighbors. However, the theology of the Psalms was molded by the Law (see Hill and Walton, Survey, pp. 276-277).

³⁸ Almost all other Psalm forms (except for Wisdom Psalms) may be found as a subsection of the Lament Psalm.

La Sor et al may be right in identifying this type of psalm with the title of complaint rather than lament since the psalms are descriptive of prayers for help and a lament is closer to the dirge-like form of Lamentations 1--2; 4 (Old, p. 516 n. 17; see also Childs, Introduction, p. 510).

³⁹ Even Lament Psalms were prayers of great confidence in the Lord which often turned to praise before the answers actually came (Ps. 57).

⁴⁰ These Psalms are not understood by their form so much as by the content of their thought. See Alan P. Ross for much of what follows (Psalms, in BKC, pp. 786-787).

⁴¹ For a discussion on the feasts see de Vaux, Ancient Israel, pp. 71-110; Kraus, Worship in Israel, pp. 26-69, 131f., 136-141, 179-188. A helpful summary of their work is found in La Sor et al Old, pp. 523-528.

⁴² Survey, p. 280.

⁴³ See the discussion by La Sor et al, Old, pp. 520-521. Concerning the contribution of the canonization of the Psalms upon royal psalms Childs seems to be right when he writes, although the royal psalms arose originally in a peculiar historical setting of ancient Israel which had received its form from a common mythopoetic milieu, they were treasured in the Psalter for a different reason, namely as a witness to the messianic hope which looked for the consummation of God's kingship through his Anointed One (Introduction, p. 517; cf. pp. 515-517).

⁴⁴ In these Psalms features of the psalmist's life foreshadow Messiah in that His life and experience are parallel to them (Pss. 41:9; 69:5,9; 118:10-12).

⁴⁵ In these psalms as David describes his inward and outward experiences, they are beyond the limits of his experience and are thus true only in Messiah (Pss. 16:10; 22). See Ross, Psalms BKC, p. 789.

⁴⁶ The following list of headings is taken from Bruce Waltke's Notes on the Book of Psalms, pp. 5-8.

Theses headings demonstrate that many of the Psalms were probably connected with ritual and temple worship

⁴⁷ For a refutation of the arguments on which this evaluation is based see Gleason Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, pp. 424ff.

⁴⁸ See Leupold, pp. 6-7, and J.G.S.S. Thompson, Psalms, Book of The New Bible Dictionary (Eerdmans, 1962), p. 1053; also compare 2 Sam. 1:19ff; 1 Sam. 16:18ff; 1 Chron. 6:31-32; 1 Sam. 16:13; 2 Sam. 7; 23:1,2; Acts 4:25; Romans 4:7; Hebrews 4:7; Matthew 22:44.

⁴⁹ See Delitzsch on Psalm 90.

⁵⁰ Gesenius notes: the introduction of the author, poet, etc, by this Lamed euctoris is the customary idiom also in the other semitic dialects, especially in Arabic (GKC, p. 129c).

⁵¹ See Dahood, pp. xxix, xxx.

⁵² For further discussion see Ahlstrom, Psalms 89; Eine Liturgie aus dem Ritual des leiden Konigs, (Gleerups 1959), pp. 27-36.

⁵³ See Delitzsch.

⁵⁴ See Ralph Alexander, pp. 31f.

⁵⁵ See Leviticus 7.

⁵⁶ For other views see Delitzsch.

⁵⁷ Ross presents several possible alignments of Psalms and historical material (Psalms, BKC, p. 783); see also R. K. Harrison, Introduction, p. 978.

For the historical of these notations see Alexander, pp. 51ff.

⁵⁸ John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, p. xxxvii.

⁵⁹ La Sor et al, Old, p. 530.