Originally posted on Facebook.

Thematical, Linguistic, and Theological Similarities Between the Interpretation of the Book of Habakkuk in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament

by Brett Fawcett

Dr. William Anderson

REL 338, Dead Sea Scrolls

Near the beginning of the sixteenth century, an Augustinian monk named Martin Luther embarked on a series of extensive research into the Scriptural books of Psalms, Romans, and Galatians with the intention of lecturing on them to his students at the University of Wittenberg. His most noteworthy biographer of the twentieth century, Roland Bainton, says of this undertaking that "[t]hese studies proved to be for Luther the Damascus road."¹ Romanticized and mythologized as Protestant historians may have made this event, a strong case can be made that, theologically, the Reformation truly began when Martin Luther's eyes lighted upon the words of Romans 1:17, which consists of a quotation from Habakkuk 2:4. Bainton quotes Luther's famous description of his "conversion": "Night and day I pondered until I saw the connection between the justice of God and the statement that 'the just shall live by his faith.' Then I grasped that the justice of God is that righteousness by which through grace and sheer mercy God justifies us through faith. Thereupon I felt myself to be reborn and to have gone through open doors into paradise."² Bainton calls this Luther's "evangelical experience"; it has also been referred to as his "Tower Experience"³ and, perhaps more pertinently, "the Reformation breakthrough"⁴. From this moment onwards the doctrinal course of the Protestant Reformation was irreparably fixed, and the doctrine of justification by faith alone through God's grace alone found its most passionate expositor.

In his German commentary on Habakkuk, Luther expressed irritation that the stones in this little book had gone almost completely unturned by Biblical scholarship throughout all of church history. "I resolved to expound this prophet Habakkuk so that he, too, may finally come to light and that his contents may be learned, and that we may note what the Holy Spirit says and teaches us through him. For I believe that he has not seen the light of day since the time of the apostles."⁵ Contrast this with Mason's observation: "In 1977 the German scholar P. Jocken published a detailed and comprehensive history of investigation of the book of Habakkuk. Towards the end of this he wrote, with perhaps just a hint of justifiable pride, that he had surveyed over 150 years of scholarly study of the book, and mentioned the work of more than 300 scholars. If he were now to issue a revised edition he would have to take note of many more articles, books and commentaries, with little sign of the flood drying to a trickle."⁶ This is without question due in large part to the significance of the fourth verse of the second chapter to the theology of the Reformation, and Luther would doubtless allow himself an indulgent smile if he could see how throughly his actions had lifted the book from obscurity. Yet Price notes that, not only is Habakkuk 2:4 "one of the foundation stones on which Martin Luther built his anti-papal doctrines of the Reformation, and changed the course of church history", "[t]here is no single text in the Old Testament that plays a larger role in the doctrinal discussions of the New Testament than this little sentence from the prophecy of the prophet Habakkuk...Its modern interpretation reflects the utilitarian character of our day, and the method by which its teachings may be entirely fulfilled in everyday living."⁷ Furthermore, in the wake of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we have access to resources regarding Habakkuk that Luther couldn't have dreamed of. Haak opens his commentary on Habakkuk thusly: "Text critical studies of the Hebrew Bible took on a new vigor and direction with the discovery and publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The significance of these documents for textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible is difficult to overestimate. Among the earliest discoveries from the caves of Qumran was the pesher on the book of Habakkuk (1QpHab)."⁸

1QpHab presents the researcher with a bevy of temptations. One possible route to take in studying this fascinating document is the investigation of the clues it yields regarding the identities of the nebulous figures recurrent in Essene theology, the “Wicked Priests”.⁹ Another promising subject- one that shall be touched upon out of necessity- is how 1qpHab has affected scholarly understanding of the book of Habakkuk itself (although this essay will focus primarily on its interpretation in Qumran and the New Testament). Pfeiffer remarks with a note of diffidence, “From the standpoint of Biblical interpretation the Habakkuk Commentary has no value. It will not throw light on any Biblical passage.”¹⁰ This is certainly too strong, as will be touched on later.¹¹ In the meantime, consider Haak: “The significance of 1QpHab lies in the fact that it witnesses a Hebrew text of Habakkuk that is nearly a millennium older than other extant texts of the book. After an initial period of controversy, most scholars date 1QpHab, on paleographic grounds, to the second half of the first century B.C.E., although its time of composition may be somewhat earlier.”¹² We are therefore cognizant of a wealth of textual information hitherto regarding the book hitherto unknown, although Haak cautions, “The fact that 1QpHab itself is not an autograph means that its readings are subject to the same errors that are common in the transmission of all documents of this type. It should be stressed that the fact that 1QpHab is the oldest witness to the Hebrew text does not mean that its readings are always preferable to those of the Masoretic Text (MT) or even the readings reflected in the ancient Versions.”¹³ This is and of itself presents yet another interesting diversion which this essay will avoid pursuing.¹⁴

It is not difficult to see the appeal of Habakkuk to the Qumran sect. “In view of the central Qumran preoccupation with [the “End of Days”], it is easy to understand why one of the works chosen for exposition by the quasi-messianic exegete at Qumran was the Book of Habakkuk. This too does not mention the End of Days in so many words: but it describes with a wealth of detail the punishment by an alien race of the backsliders among the Hebrew people, the misdeeds of their rulers, and finally in the great theophany of the last chapter the ultimate conflict in which God would sweep away the wrong-doers and establish His rule on earth. Not only is the tenor of this last chapter in the most complete conformity with the accepted picture of the End of Days, but the work pointed or seemed to point specifically to the persecutions and tribulations of the Qumran sect.”¹⁵

Yet the book also has much to resonate with the New Testament community. "Habakkuk's stance in the interim between Yahweh's ancient victories and his coming intervention, between vision and fulfillment, is strikingly similar to that of the Christian. The Christian lives after God's victory over evil in Jesus' death and resurrection but prior to his final victory at Jesus' second coming and the general resurrection. Thus it is no accident that Hab. 2:4 has become a key text in describing the Christian's eschatological lifestyle.”¹⁶ Dodd argues convincingly that this verse was part of “a collection of 'messianic proof-texts' compiled at a very early date”, which he calls testimonial.¹⁷ Thus if Dodd is correct (and most commentators seem to feel he is on this point), even before the New Testament was written the early Christians were interpreting Habakkuk in light of the Apostolic proclamation. We return to Pfieffer's statement that “we cannot expect the commentaries to throw any light on the meaning of the Old Testament writings themselves. They help us to understand the attitudes of pre-Christian sectarian Judaism, and for this reason they are valuable to the historian and the Biblical scholar who is interested in the background of the New Testament. Principles of interpretation exhibited in the Qumran Commentaries may be compared to the use of Old Testament Scripture in the New Testament.”¹⁸

Because of the extensiveness and length of the Qumran commentary, we shall not delve in depth into its contents and shall refer to them only as they relate to the interpretation of Habakkuk in the New Testament. We should, however, consider just how exactly the Essenes interpreted the Scriptures. Sanders does justice to the pesharim: “The Qumran expositor of Habakkuk firmly believed that Habakkuk spoke to Qumran's day and time, to the situation and to the crisis which the Qumran sect believed marked the beginning of the divine eschaton. He was a modernizer in the ageless sense of the term. He sought the meaning of Scripture and the word of God for his time. What the Qumran commentator was doing was normal...He brought Habakkuk to his people in their time and in terms which they undoubtedly understood clearly.”¹⁹ There is an undeniable similarity to the way in which the New Testament uses the Old.²⁰ We shall look firstly at the use of Hab. 1:5 in Acts 13:41, where it is the conclusion to a sermon by Paul in Antioch.²¹ Fitzmyer observes that the sermon “differs from the recital in Stephen's speech (7:2-47) in being positive in its expose', and not a negative buildup for an indictment”, and instead “Paul emphasizes God's guidance” and “divine providence”²². Interestingly, this is conceptually similar to themes in Habakkuk regarding the sovereignty of God and His loyalty to Israel (particularly the psalm in chapter 3). Fitzmyer writes that the sermon has “the concluding exhortation: Through Christ come forgiveness of sins and justification, a message not to be spurned. This is the climax of Paul's address to the people in the synagogue. It is the only time in Acts, when Paul's teaching about justification by faith is mentioned, the topic that is prominent in his letters to the Galatians and Romans.”²³ It is fascinating that when we have, in embryo, the doctrine of justification Paul cites Hab. 2:4 to vindicate in his epistles, we see it closely associated with a different quote from Habakkuk, thus suggesting the early Christian commentators read the whole book in the light of this dogma. Previous commentators experienced some vexation over the difference between Acts' and the LXX's rendering of the Hebrew baggoyim in this verse as the Greek hoi kataphronetai, "scoffers." This was previously ascribed to sloppiness on the part of the Septuagint translators²⁴, but the “Qumran Hebrew text of Habakkuk reads instead of baggoyim, 'among the nations,' the word habbogedim, "scoffers" (1QpHab 2:1-2), the very term that the LXX and Luke presuppose”²⁵.

As far as the content of Hab. 1:5 goes, “[t]he words as used by Habakkuk referred to the imminent Chaldean invasion. Paul uses them in an eschatological sense, of the judgment about to fall.”²⁶ In other words, should the Jews reject the preaching of the justification of Christ, God would be forced to punish them just as He had in the past.²⁷ There is some question as to what Paul intends the “work” God is performing in the Habakkuk passage to be understood as. Barrett suggests, “Paul (Luke) refers to the work that God has done in Christ; and the unbelief of Israel, their rejection of God's work, has been foretold.”²⁸ Given that Paul's sermon is dealing with "the continuity between Israel and the church"²⁹, the “work” could very well refer to the entire course of salvation history beginning with the patriarchs and culminating in Paul's message. Now the Essene interpretation of this verse is revealing: “The prophetic meaning of the passage concerns those who were traitors along with the Man of Lies, for they [did] not [believe the words of] the Teacher of Righteousness (which came) from the mouth of God. It also concerns those who were trait[ors to the] New [Covenant], f[or] they were not faithful to the covenant of God, [but profaned] His [h]oly na[me].”³⁰ The fact that the Essenes saw this as the catalyst for the end of the world should be noted when we consider what judgment Paul was threatening Israel with should they reject the Messiah. Some suggest it was the destruction of Jerusalem³¹, but Meyer argues that “[i]n the announcement of the penal judgments to be executed by means of the Chaldeans...the apostle sees a divine threatening, the execution of which, in the Messianic sense, would ensue at the impending last judgment by the punishment befalling the unbelieving Israelites...This last Messianic judgment of God- not the ruin of the Jewish war- is here the ergon.”³² Thus an eschatological, almost Essenic tinge colours Paul's sermon almost imperceptibly.

When we turn to Romans 1, we find that, “to bolster up his analysis of God's gospel and its call for a vital faith, Paul quotes Hab. 2:4...the words were uttered by the prophet to stress the value of the observance of the law as a form of fidelity to Yahweh....the [Qumran] community understood the prophet's words to promise life not only for observance of the law, but also for fidelity to the teaching and person of a Jewish leader, otherwise unknown, but referred to in Qumran writings as the Teacher of Righteousness. Paul's application of Habakkuk's words to the new form of deliverance that God is now providing through the teaching and person of a new Jewish leader thus stands within a genuine Jewish tradition of interpretation.”³³ How exactly Hab. 2:4 fits into Paul's line of argumentation is a controversy that would be beyond this essay if it were twice as long as it is.³⁴ There are certainly those who refer to Paul's "somewhat violent use of the quotation" and speak of "the Pauline distortion of Habakkuk"³⁵; these criticisms would, presumably, apply equally well to the Qumran commentary, as well as to the Targum paraphrase of Hab. 2:4 which reads: "Behold the wicked are saying, All these things are not [to be]; but the just shall be established by their faithfulness”³⁶. Yet Fung insightfully points out, “While Heb. 'emuna strictly means 'steadfastness' or 'fidelity' rather than 'trust' or 'faith,' the former is based on the latter...can there be any 'fidelity' on man's part, such as God can reward with the great gift of 'life,' which does not ultimately have its roots in man's attitude of 'faith' in God? Furthermore, if it is 'faith' which makes the 'just' man worthy to receive life, what is it but his faith which gives him originally the title to be called 'just'? Seen in this light, Paul's application of the Habakkuk text as though it read "he who is righteous-by-faith" does no violence to the prophet's intention: he simply strips faithfulness to its core of faith in God and in so doing expresses the abiding validity of the prophet's message.”³⁷

In both Romans and Galatians, Paul cites Abraham as proof that justification is by faith rather than observance of the law. “It might be argued, however, that Abraham's was a special case; hence Paul cites the statement of justification by faith as a permanent principle in Hab. 2:4b”³⁸ Bruce goes on to note: “In the Qumran literature the Hebrew text of Hab. 2:4b is applied to 'all the doers of the law in the house of Judah, whom God will save from the place of judgment because of their toil (amal) and their faith in (or 'loyalty to') the Teacher of Righteousness' (1QpHab 8:1-3). The Teacher of Righteousness was not only a spiritual leader but a figure of eschatological significance. Acceptance of his teaching, or loyally keeping to the path which he marked out for his followers, was the way to eternal life.”³⁹ Brownlee has a fascinating discussion of whether to understand the Qumran commentary's reference to “faithfulness” as meaning “faith”, “which would give an important background for the use of the passage with reference to Christ in the New Testament.” Yet he makes this striking observation: “It is because of the nature of the faith in the Righteous Teacher that we here translate 'Teacher of Right;' for faith in hum is not due to his personal righteousness, but to the rightness of his teaching, which if followed will bring salvation...All this contrasts sharply with faith in Christ as a redemptive figure.”⁴⁰ “A contrast between faith and works was impossible at Qumran, for faith itself was a meritorious work....That the idea of faith is not to be excluded from the passage is reinforced by the Targum...[which] interprets 'enunah as an affirmation of the prophetic message. The next development in the evolution of interpretation would be faith in the one who fulfils all prophecy. This last stage is represented by the New Testament.”⁴¹

We shall finally note the way the author of Hebrews uses Hab. 2:3-4. Yadin has advanced the idea that the audience of this epistle were former Essenes who had converted to Christianity; the fact that the letter deals with so many topics of interest to the Dead Sea Scrolls may bolster this suggestion. Heb 10:37-8 “is a composite of Isa 26:20 and Hab 2:3-4. The author is faithful to the wording of the LXX with some modifications, the greatest of which is structural. Where the LXX of Hab 2:3 has simply the participle erchomenos, "one who comes," Hebrews adds a definite article, ho erchomenos, "the one who comes." "The one who comes" is used of the Messiah in the NT (Matt 3:11; 11:3; 21:9; Mark 11:9; Luke 7:19; 19:38; John 1:15, 27; 11:27). It is also applied directly to Christ (Matt 24:50; Luke 12:46; 13:35; Rom 11:26; Rev 2:25; 3:3).”⁴²

Whoever the author of Hebrews was writing to had already suffered persecution, although not bloodshed, and “the prophet was thinking of the threat from the Chaldeans. Here the thought is of the certainty of God's intervention, which was particularly significant for the coming church in a time of persecution. The assurance that the coming one would not tarry shows that any delay should be regarded as temporary.”⁴³ The commonest interpretation of Hebrews is that it is urging Jewish converts not to fall back into the Judaism they formerly practiced, that is to say, not to lose their faith in Christ. Habakkuk's celebration of faith in the face of rampant immorality and the threat of destruction seems all too applicable, and it is worth noting that this citation is shortly followed by the famous “Hall of Faith” in Hebrews 11, where champions of the Tanakh are recounted who “living by faith” “received a good report” and brought glory to God and achieved salvation for themselves and their people. It is of interest to note an eschatological tone even here. The author of Hebrews warns his readers not to draw back from their faith “and be destroyed”. “The words and are destroyed (eis apoleian) are an interpretation of the passage just quoted, for the writer can only understand the outcome of God's displeasure in this way. Here it is contrasted with the result of faith, i.e. that writer and readers alike will keep their souls. This idea of preservation, the exact opposite of destruction, is characteristic of salvation. The same word is linked with salvation in 1 Thessalonians 5:9.”⁴⁴ Mitchell similarly writes: “'Destruction,' apoleia, is an eschatological term in the NT (Matt 7:13; Acts 8:20; Rom 9:22; Phil 3:19; 1 Tim 6:9; 2 Pet 3:7; Rev 17:8, 11), which contrasts in this verse with 'the preservation of the soul.'”⁴⁵ In other words, departing from faith in Christ will result in destruction at the eschaton. The thematical similarity to the Dead Sea Scrolls should already have suggested itself to the reader.

Bainton, Roland. Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. Pierce and Smith, 1950.

Barrett, C.K. Acts: A Shorter Commentary. T&T Ltd., 2002.

Brownlee, William H. The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk. Society of Biblical Literature, 1979.

Bruce, F.F. The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Paternoster Press, 1982.

Cross, Frank Moore. The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies, Doubleday, 1958.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Anchor Bible: The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Doubleday, 1998.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Spiritual Exercises Based on Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2004.

Fung, Ronald Y. K. The Epistle to the Galatians. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988.

Guthrie, Donald. The Letter to the Hebrews: An Introduction and Commentary. Inter-Varsity Press, 1983.

Haak, Robert. Habakkuk. E.J. Brill, Leiden, the Netherlands, 1992.

Krodel, Gerhard A. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament: Acts. Augsburg Publishing House, 1986.

Lohse, Bernhard. Martin Luther: An Introduction to His Life and Work, translated by Robert C. Schultz. Fortress Press, 1986.

Luther, Martin. Luther's Works: Lectures on the Minor Prophets II: Jonah, Habakkuk edited by Hilton C. Oswald, Concordia Publishing House, 1974.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary. Inter-Varsity Press. 1980.

Mason, Rex. Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Joel. Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.

Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Acts of the Apostles, translated from the fourth edition of the German by Paton J. Gloag, the translation revised and edited by William P. Dickson, first English edition T&T Clark, 1883, reprinted 1979 by Alpha Publications.

Mitchell, Alan C. Sacra Pagina Series, Volume 13: Hebrews by Alan C. Mitchell, Liturgical Press, 2007.

Moessner, David P. Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke's Narrative Claim upon Israel's Legacy. Trinity Press International, 1999.

Perry, Edmund. “The Meaning of 'emuna in the Old Testament.” Journal of Bible and Religion, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Oct., 1953), pp. 252-256

Pfeiffer, Charles. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible. Baker Books, 1969.

Price, Ira Maurice. “The Just Shall Live by Faith: Habakkuk 2:4.” The Biblical World, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Jan., 1910), pp. 39-45.

Roberts, J.J.M. Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary. Westminster Press, 1991.

Roth, Cecil. “The Subject Matter of Qumran Exegesis.” Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 10, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 1960), pp. 51-68.

Sanders, J.A. “Habakkuk in Qumran, Paul, and the Old Testament.” The Journal of Religion, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Oct., 1959), pp. 232-244.

Williams, Sam K. “The "Righteousness of God" in Romans.” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 99, No. 2 (Jun., 1980), pp. 241-290.

Witherington, Ben. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary.Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998.

Knox's Theological Thought i

The Intellectual Ancestors of Knox's Theological System

Brett Fawcett

History

Dr. Colin Neufeldt

November X, 2007

ii

INTRODUCTION

One of the most prominent imprints in Western society left by the Protestant Reformation is embodied in the denomination of Presbyterianism. Although it is most well-established in Scotland, where it is the state church, fourteen signatories of the Declaration of Independence and twelve signatories of the U.S. Constitution were members of the Presbyterian church, and nine U.S. presidents (including no less renowned names than Woodrow Wilson, Dwight Eisenhower, and Ronald Regan) had roots in the denomination.¹ To what extent these individuals' membership in the Presbyterian church affected their beliefs, actions, and thinking is highly debatable in each instance;² nevertheless, it may be instructive and helpful to attempt to determine where the strains of theological thought found in Presbyterian doctrine originated, or at least from whence Presbyterianism inherited them, if only as an amusing academic enterprise but possibly also to better understand the culture it played a role in shaping.

Although Presbyterianism has generally been most strongly identified with Five-Point Calvinism, its founder is usually regarded as being John Knox, "foremost leader of the Scottish Reformation, who set the austere moral tone of the Church of Scotland and

iii

shaped the democratic form of government it adopted".³ A popular newspaper article remarked that "if any one man shaped modern Scotland it is John Knox."⁴ This paper will attempt to identify some of the sources for Knox's beliefs by way of considering the intellectual climate he came out of (including the consideration of the known beliefs and influences of his direct teachers), particularly by identifying key individuals involved in generating that climate and identifying where they inherited their beliefs from, and finally by comparing Knox's doctrines to some of his influences and identifying similarities.

THE THEOLOGICAL CLIMATE

An ideological genealogy of Protestant thinking threatens to dig back into the patristic era; however, in the interests of narrowing the scope of this paper to subjects relevant to John Knox, we shall regard Martin Luther as the originator of Protestant thinking, and wherever a road leads to him, we shall stop there.⁵

The specter of Protestantism erected in Wittenberg first protruded into Scotland, at least visibly, in the person of a Monsieur de la Tour, a French soldier and one of John, Duke of Albany's men at arms (who, ironically, was distantly related to Luther's rival,

iv

Pope Leo X, by marriage)⁶. He came to Scotland to work for the Duke, but upon returning to France he was burned to death for his beliefs in 1527.⁷ As McGoldrick notes, "He appears to have been the first link in the chain of transmission which brought Luther's teachings to the country, but details of his activities are few" and ultimately "It is, unfortunately, impossible to measure the degree of his influence in bringing Lutheranism to Scotland."⁸ On the other hand, as Knox himself records, "merchants and mariners, who frequenting other countries, heard the true doctrine affirmed," and propagated them on the return home. No less a respectable convert to the Protestant cause than Sir John Borthwick of Cineray became martyrs, who "burnt in figure, but in God's providence escaped their fury."⁹

In this scene entered Patrick Hamilton, sometimes called "the Stephen of the Scottish Reformation"¹⁰. Hamilton, "a Scotchman born of high and noble stock, and of the king's blood, of excellent towardness"¹¹, received his Master's in Arts in Paris in 1520

in Paris, where "he became acquainted with Catholic humanism and Lutheran theology."

v

McGoldrick proposes that Hamilton must have been particular impressed with the philosophy of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, for shortly thereafter he attended the University of Lovain (where Erasmus was teaching). McGoldrick notes that Robert Barnes, a "pioneer English Lutheran", attended at the same time as Hamilton.¹² While Hamilton was in Paris, however, the university's officials ordered that all copies of Luther's works be burned, which naturally aroused great interest in the Reformer. Hamilton would surely have been present for much of the debate regarding his teachings, although "[t]here is no evidence, however, that he became a Lutheran at that time. Like his English contemporaries, Barnes and Tyndale, his passage to evangelical Protestantism was via Erasmian humanism."¹³

Upon returning to Scotland in 1523, Hamilton joined the faculty of St. Andrew's University, where, rather than teach against Catholic dogma, he criticized the abuses of the clergy and "called for implementation of humanist methodology in university teaching as a way to combat clerical ignorance"¹⁴ and, when Archbishop James Beaton, primate of the Scottish Church, began to investigate him, he was forced to flee to Wittenberg "where by God's providence he became familiar with those lights and notable servants of Christ

vi

Jesus at that time, Martin Luther, Philip Melancthon, and the said Francis Lambert"¹⁵, a former Franciscan who had embraced the Protestant cause.¹⁶ Hamilton was only at Wittenberg briefly before studying theology at Marburg, "the first university founded upon Protestant principles"¹⁷, where he "learned his message" under the tutelage of "Luther's associates"¹⁸, not the least of whom was Lambert himself, who was employed by Marburg as a professor of theology upon the recommendation of Philip Melancthon.¹⁹ McGoldrick notes elsewhere that "[t]here is decisive evidence that Lambert held Luther's position on sin and salvation", noting that he wrote De Arbitrio Hominis vere Captivo, which put forward the same view of human depravity that Luther famously defended in De Servo Arbitrio. He goes on to discuss how, while Lambert originally held to Luther's doctrine of consubstantiation, he converted to a belief in Zwinglian memorialism after spending time in Strassburg. "A careful study of Lambert's mature thinking shows that he was a composite figure in whom concepts from Franciscan legalism were blended with others from the teachings of Luther, Zwingli, and Martin Bucer, the reformer of Strassburg."²⁰

Although McGoldrick admits that "[t]he degree of Francis Lambert's influence on Patrick Hamilton is difficult to assess," but "it appears that he encouraged Hamilton to continue in the Lutheran persuasion to which he had already given allegiance." His

vii

encouragement of Hamilton's scholarly endeavors led to Hamilton penning Dyvers Frutful Gatherings of Scripture Concernyng Fayth and Workes in Latin (it was translated into English around 1532 by John Frith, who, along with Tyndale, was at Marburg when Hamilton did his writing). The treatise soon became known as Patrick's Places. McGoldrick calls it "a doctrinal treatise on salvation arranged in accordance with Luther's teaching regarding the relationship of law and gospel as the means of revelation about man's sin and his hope of deliverance from it." He quotes a historian as saying it "contain[s] the pure milk of the Lutheran word", and goes on to add that "although its content would be acceptable to both the Lutheran and the Reformed branches of Protestantism, [it] reflects primarily (but not exclusively) the influence of Martin Luther", although "it also appears to mirror the influence of Melancthon's systematic theology" as well as some of Tyndale's writings.²¹ Although martyred by "Bloody" Beaton for his views²², his "little manual of the new faith became a popular textbook of the Reformation in England and Scotland."²³

TWO TEACHERS

Two of the men who taught John Knox directly bear mention and brief consideration. Reid quotes George Buchanan as stating that John Knox attended St. Andrews University while John Major taught there, which is made probable by historical

viii

chronology "as well as the similarity which appeared later in the two men's views on a number of important subjects."²⁴ Major, "the latest and last of the Scottish schoolmen"²⁵ "was one of the leading logicians and theologians in Paris at the beginning of the Reformation"²⁶. Although much is known of Major's beliefs (for example, "[h]is name heads the list of theologians who in 1530 took Catherine of Aragon's side in the discussion of Henry's marriage"²⁷) very little is known about who or what primarily influenced his thinking. As a Scholastic, he was opposed by both the Humanists (such as Erasmus, whose paraphrases of the New Testament were critiqued by Major²⁸) and the Reformers (Melancthon called his writings "wagon-loads of trifling"²⁹), although "[n]o reformer saw more clearly or denounced more stringently the corruptions and abuses of the church as it existed in Scotland"³⁰. Major was "the last of the great advocates of church government by councils and a New Testament commentator"³¹ and "in political philosophy he maintained the Scotist position, that civil authority was derived from the

ix

popular will, but in theology he was a scholastic conservative"³². Not only did Knox appear to pick up some of his beliefs from Major³³, Reid notes that Knox even seems to have inherited "a strong bent towards abstract and legalistic thinking" from the logician.³⁴

Knox's most famous teacher is George Wishart, who, in the interests of space must be given a totally cursory glance (given the vast amount that could be said about him). The account of Wishart's adoption of Protestant dogma appears to be, for all intents and purposes, lost to history. Even his personal friends and most devoted admirers appear to almost forget to mention any account of his conversion. John Foxe's passionate and very partial record of Wishart's martyrdom (which proclaims, "[h]e loved me tenderly, and I him") picks up its account of Wishart's life after his departure from Cambridge.³⁵ Knox himself calls Wishart "a man of such graces as before him were never heard in this realm", yet he also only speaks of him after his return to Scotland.³⁶ Charles Rogers' glowing, 103-page biography of the martyr notes almost offhandedly that "[d]uring the progress of his studies he seems to have adopted the Reformed doctrines."³⁷ The guarded language betrays the fact that this is merely an inference. However, given that Wishart was a lecturer in New Testament Greek and a teacher of the Book of Romans, we may

x

perhaps safely assume that Wishart was not "taught" his religious beliefs by anyone but rather formulated them by himself based on his study of Romans.³⁸ This is surely how he would want to be remembered- as one who, like his pupil Knox, "cast his anchor" in the Scriptures, not the teachings and opinions of men.

KNOX'S DOCTRINES

Having established what sort of influences Knox had, many more pages could be devoted to isolating various elements of Knox's theology and finding their parent in the writings of his predecessors. For example, his eschatology was based upon the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible and the writings of David Lindsay, George Joye, John Bale, and even the radical Joachim of Fiore.³⁹ His 1560 treatise On Predestination in Answer to the Cavillations by an Anabaptist quotes liberally from John Calvin⁴⁰, and he cites the Lutheran Magdeburg Bekenntnis in support of rebellion against tyranny.⁴¹ However, the origins of Knox's most notorious position have rarely been considered; brief discussion will be given to it here.

KNOX'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS WOMEN

Knox is most famous outside the theological community for his The First Blast of

xi

the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, which he anonymously published (without even informing John Calvin) and later denied being the author of.⁴² Monstrous Regiment was an extended argument to the effect that "[t]o promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or empire above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature; contumely [an insult] to God, a thing most contrary to his revealed will and approved ordinance; and finally, it is the subversion of good order, of all equity and justice." He cites as authorities, or, as he refers to them, his "witness God's ordinance in nature, his plain will revealed in his word, and by the minds of such as be most ancient amongst godly writers."⁴³ As is to be expected, the treatise was mainly directed against the regime of Queen Mary, but, as A. Taylor Innes points out, the book was "a practical mistake. Mary of England died immediately after, and was succeeded by Elizabeth"⁴⁴, who was far more sympathetic to the Protestant cause than her predecessor and therefore potentially a great ally to the Scottish Reformer came to the throne with a chilly predisposition towards him. As Lord Percy remarked, "The author of the First Blast was irretrievably suspect to Elizabeth; no letter that he wrote would be allowed to reach her, if [Sir William] Cecil could help it." He quotes Knox as even acknowledging that he had "become so odious to the Queen's Grace and her Council that the mention of my name is

xii

unpleasing to their ears", and Percy mentions his letters "assur[ed] her of his respect for her authority".⁴⁵ All to no avail.

Whatever Knox's actual beliefs regarding the subject of women in power were, the ones espoused in his First Blast do not represent the widespread opinions of Protestant theologians at the time. As Reid points out, "Knox had been interested in this subject ever since Mary Tudor had come to the throne-perhaps even before. Concerning it he had queried Calvin, Bullinger and others when he had first arrived in Europe, but had received only rather evasive answers."⁴⁶ Bullinger, in Lang's words, "gave answers in writing as to Knox's problems", remarking in response to the question of whether women can rule by divine right that "it was a hazardous thing for the godly to resist the laws of a country. Philip the eunuch, though converted, did not drive Queen Candace out of Ethiopia" (though he did allude to the Biblical story of Athaliah, an evil queen slain by a treasonous plot to prepare the way for the godly king Josiah). "In short, nothing definite was to be drawn out of Bullinger."⁴⁷ M'Crie records that Knox posed "[c]ertain difficult questions" to the Swiss "learned men", questions "suggested by the present conjecture of affairs in England, which he had resolved in his mind, he propounded to them for advice, and was confirmed in his own judgment by the coincidence of their views."⁴⁸ This does not appear to be completely accurate. As Percy remarks, "Knox could get small help from Bullinger", although "Bullinger found himself on more definitely Scriptural ground";

xii

"[n]evertheless Knox had made up his mind. He had resolved to take advantage of the largest loophole left to him by Bullinger's answers."⁴⁹ Hart, in listing the "powerful men" Knox was associated with, mentions that "he took the advice of Bullinger, or rather asked it and then followed his own mind".⁵⁰

Given this analysis, it seems unreasonable to try to attribute Knox's arguments regarding the unnatural nature of a female ruler to anyone but himself.⁵¹ Indeed, not only does he twist Bullinger to claim him as an ideological peer, but his views regarding female leaders in the Bible clash directly with those of Martin Luther. Take, for example, Luther's commentary on 1 Timothy 2:11, which instructs women to "learn in silence with all submissiveness". Although Luther states that "a woman…is not to be the spokesman among the people" and remarks, "This passage makes a woman subject. It takes from her all public office and authority", he goes on to allude, as Bullinger did, to "Queen Candace"⁵², and observes: "We read many such examples in sacred literature-that women have been very good at management: Huldah, Deborah, Jael, the wife of the Kenite, who killed Sisera." Luther explains why, then, Paul imposed these restrictions: "Here we properly take 'woman' to mean wife…Here we properly take 'woman' to mean wife". In

xiv

other words, while "Huldah and Deborah had no authority over husbands", that does not preclude them from other types of authority. Luther even appears to deem Christians as being progressive and feministic for believing women are entitled to some authority, likening them to the Greeks and contrasting them with the misogynistic Jews and Arabs (and claiming that "[t]he Turk considers women as beasts").⁵³

On the other hand, Knox addresses the Biblical accounts of Deborah and Huldah by commenting "that particular examples do establish no common law". "With these women, I say, did God work potently and miraculously; yea, to them he gave most singular grace and privilege." He compares female judges and prophetesses to stories regarding polygamy in the Bible. "Or if the question were demanded, if a Christian, with a good conscience, may defraud, steal, or deceive?" Knox is essentially saying that simply because we find a Biblical account of the people of God doing something, we cannot assume it is approved of in every era or circumstance, because, while God can sometimes command people to commit otherwise immoral actions (Knox here cites "the example of the Israelites, who, at God's commandment, deceived the Egyptians, and spoiled them of their garments, gold, and silver"), "the same power is not permitted to man." He also observes that Deborah deferred to Barak, a male military commander. On top of all this,

xv

he comments that even if the example of Deborah did have validity, "how unlike our mischievous Marys be unto Deborah".

It is interesting, however, that these comments do have a familiar ring when one considers John Calvin's commentary on the same verse Martin Luther addressed, 1 Timothy 2:11-12. After declaring that this passage prohibits women from teaching, he pre-emotively deals with the objector who references Judges 4:4, writing that "the answer is easy. Extraordinary acts done by God do not overturn the ordinary rules of government, by which he intended that we should be bound." This recalls Knox's reference to cases of female judges and prophetesses as "miraculous". Calvin continues, "Accordingly, if women at one time held the office of prophets and teachers, and that too when they were supernaturally called to it by the Spirit of God, He who is above all law might do this" (another thought employed by Knox, who writes that "God (being free) may, for such causes as are approved by his inscrutable wisdom, dispense with the rigour of his law, and may use his creatures at his pleasure"); however, this is a unique situation and "is not opposed to the constant and ordinary system of government."⁵⁴

Despite Calvin's use of the word "government", he appears to be referring only to church government, for he frequently refers to "the office of teaching" and makes no reference to secular politics, either in the abstract or with concrete references to the situation in England. The application of the argument regarding Deborah being a unique

xvi

case to the question of female temporal rulers appears to have originated with Knox.⁵⁵

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Greaves, Richard L., "John Knox, the Reformed Tradition, and the Development of Resistance Theory", The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 48, No. 3, On Demand Supplement (Sep., 1976), pp. 1-36.

Lang, Andrew, John Knox and the Reformation, with illustrations, first published in 1905, reissued in 1967 by Kennikat Press, Inc., Port Washington, New York.

Luther, Martin, Luther's Works, Volume 28: Commentaries on 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Corinthians 15, Lectures on 1 Timothy, edited by Hilton C. Oswald, © 1973 by Concordia Publishing House, Saint Louis, Missouri.

Knox, John, History of the Reformation of Religion in Scotland by John Knox; to which are appended, Several Other Pieces of His Writing; including The First Book of Discipline, Complete, and His Dispute With the Abbot of Crossraguel, not given with any former edition with a Memoir, Historical Introduction, and Notes by William M'Gavin, Esq., Author of The Protestant, The Protestant Reformation Vindicated, Second Edition, Glasgow: Published by Blackie and Son, and A. Fullarton and Co.; Wm. Curry Jun. and Co., Dublin; and Simpkin and Marshall, London.

Kyle, Richard, "John Knox and Apocalyptic Thought," Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Winter, 1984), pp. 449-469.

Kyle, Richard, "John Knox's Concept of Divine Providence and Its Influence on His Thought", Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies > Vol. 18, No. 3 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 395-410

M'Crie, Thomas, D.D., The Life of John Knox Containing Illustrations of the History of the Reformation in Scotland with Biographical Notices of the Principal Reformers, and Sketches of the Progress of Literature in Scotland During the Sixteenth Century; and an Appendix, Consisting of Original Papers (a new edition, containing numerous corrections and editions, with a preface and memoir of Dr. M'Crie, by Andrew Crichton, LL.D), James Clark & Co., High Street, Edinburgh.

McGoldrick, James Edward, "Patrick Hamilton, Luther's Scottish Disciple", Sixteenth Century Journal > Vol. 18, No. 1 (Spring, 1987), pp. 81-88.

McGoldrick, James Edward, Luther's Scottish Connection, © 1989, Associated University Presses, Inc., Rutherford, Madison, Teaneck, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, London and Toronto: Associated University Presses.

Percy, Lord Eustance, John Knox, made and printed in Great Britain for Hodder & Stoughton Limited by the Camelot Press Limited, St. Paul's House, London and Southampton.

Rogers, Rev. Charles, LL.D, Memoir of George Wishart, the Scottish Martyr. With His Translation of the Helvetian Confession, and a Gene-Alogical History of the Family of Wishart, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Vol. 4 (1876), pp. 260-363.

55 In "The Rhetoric of Biblical Authority: John Knox and the Question of Women" by Susan M. Felch (Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 26, No. 4 [Winter, 1995], pp. 805-822), a letter from Calvin to Cecil is quoted in which Calvin claims to have told Knox that "queens should be the nursing mothers of the church" and that therefore it was wrong "to unsettle governments that have been set up by the peculiar providence of God" (found in Letters of John Calvin, compiled by Jules Bonnet and translated by Marcus Robert Gilchrist). Felch also documents how, while "such classical, biblical, ecclesiastical, and logical arguments were not uncommon in the sixteenth century, the uncompromising tone, or perhaps the political injudiciousness, of The First Blast was considered intemperate even by Knox's associates." "Yet, at the same time that Knox was composing The First Blast, his relationships with ordinary women, rather than with sovereign queens, bear witness to a practical spiritual equality which transcends political treatises." It is also worth noting that Knox did believe that God could raise up another Deborah and was prepared to see Elizabeth fulfill that role; see "Waiting for Deborah: John Knox and Four Ruling Queens" by Robert M. Healey, found in Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Summer, 1994), pp. 371-386.

Currently The Romantic Manifesto By Ayn Rand see related

School paper.

"When on High"/"In the Beginning":

A Comparison of the Theologies of the Creation

Accounts in Babylonian and Hebrew Religion

Brett Fawcett

Religion 252

Old Testament Literature

Dr. Bill Anderson

November 28, 2008

In commencing an article purporting to exposit the "mythological" elements of the Hebrew creation narrative, Arvid S. Kapelrud feels no need to qualify his bold opening sentence: "There is no need any longer to discuss the fact that 'the biblical approach to creation as reflected in P is closely related to traditional Mesopotamian beliefs'".¹ This axiom derives itself origin from a common notion that the author(s) and redactor(s) of the opening chapters of Genesis borrowed imagery from other Ancient Near Eastern creation myths such as the Enuma Elish. There are, to say the least, a plethora of hermeneutical implications if this thesis was correct; these, in turn, will have bearings on our theology. This paper will examine the validity of the case for this familiar charge against the historicity of Genesis.

Rapaport has a small but fascinating work dedicated to arguing that the Enuma Elish and the Genesis account of Creation have absolutely no relationship whatsoever; and, in fact, that Marduk was actually based on the Biblical figure of Moses.² The merits of his controversial case aside, he correctly observes: "It all began with the nineteenth-century brilliant English scholar, George Smith, who was the first to announce the archaeological discovery of the cuneiform tablets which were later to become known as Enuma Elish. The tablets, or rather fragments of them, were specially described by him in a letter to The Daily Telegraph on 4 March 1875, and Smith managed to pack an enormous amount of dramatic tension into his report...the general impression gained from his presentation was that what he had discovered in the ruins of the palace of King Ashurbanipal in Nineveh was nothing less than a cuneiform prototype for practically all the narratives in the early chapters of the biblical Book of Genesis. Since the publication of Smith's letter in the London daily at the time, the study of the Hebrew Scriptures has never been the same."³

Rapaport then goes on to quote large sections of Smith's letter to the Telegraph in which he claims that the Enuma Elish contains stories of the fall of the angels from heaven, man's original innocence and subsequent fall, the pronouncement that the creation was "good", even the Tower of Babel and the confusion of tongues- all of which are not even remotely found in the tablets in question. King gently concedes that "[i]n noting the resemblance between the Babylonian and Hebrew legends it was not unnatural that he should have seen a closer resemblance between them than was really the case"⁴; nevertheless, he hastily (and paradoxically) adds, "Although these identifications were not justified, the outline which he gave of the contents of the legends was remarkably accurate."⁵ Rapaport is more frank, and more accurate, in his rather flat assertion that "literally all of Smith's assertions are totally incorrect".⁶ Yet it is his work and his conclusions which caused the connection between Enuma Elish and Genesis to become almost sacrosanct among scholars.⁷

It is true that the integrity of Mr. Smith as an academic has no ultimate bearing on whether the connection itself is a valid one; however, most of the planks on which this supposed connection has been built have since been knocked out. King remarks, "It has been suggested that the seven days of creation in Genesis correspond to seven definite acts of creation in the Babylonian account; but a careful study of the Babylonian poem has shown that such an arrangement was not contemplated by the Babylonian scribes, nor is there any evidence to show that the creation was deliberately classified in a series of seven acts."⁸ It has been asserted that Marduk exhibits an ability to call things into existence by the power of speech such as אלהים displays, but as Heidel notes, "There is no proof that Marduk reduced the garment to nothing in the strict sense and that he then re-created it out of nothing. As far as available evidence is concerned, the dogma of a creatio ex nihilo was not shared by the Babylonians and Assyrians. The import of this passage in all likelihood is simply that at Marduk's first command the garment was torn to shreds and that at his second command it was fully restored to its former condition."⁹ This is strengthened by the fact that "it is apparent that for the Babylonians matter was eternal."¹⁰ Enuma Elish does depict man being created from clay. "It is interesting to note, however, that the creation of man is not related as a natural sequel to the formation of the rest of the universe, but forms the solution of a difficulty with which Marduk has been met in the course of his work as Creator."¹¹ There are even questions as to whether Enuma Elish actually depicts the creation of heaven and earth at all. King believes that a reference to heaven may have occured in the very opening lines of the poem.¹² No description of the creation of the earth is found at all¹³; Tablet III even contains a reference to Marduk kissing the ground before his battle with Tiamat.

Yet all of these supposed similarities seem peripheral when the central theme of Enuma Elish is taken into account. As Batto notes, "Enuma elish is more of a theogony than a cosmogony; that is to say, it is more concerned with the establishment of the divine order (the origins of the gods and the hierarchy among them) than with the establishment of the world and the origins of humankind."¹⁴ The poem's primary purpose is to extol Marduk, the patron deity of Babylon, and to depict him assuming the chief place among the Ancient Near Eastern pantheon. Batto notes the polemical nature of much of the Enuma Elish against earlier works depicting other triumphant deities: "[I]t would appear that the author of Enuma elish consciously stole a page from the Anzu myth and attributed Ninurta's feats to Marduk."¹⁵ "The opening line of the poem, enuma elis ... ("When on high the heaven had not (even yet) been named ...") sounds like a not too subtle polemic against Atrahasis, which had opened with the words inuma ilu awilum ... ("When gods were human / Bore the labor, carried the corvee-basket...")...The author of Enuma elish, therefore, is claiming theological precedence for his work over all earlier religious statements."¹⁶ Thus the poem is transparently a justification of Babylonian hegemony; Heidel even uses this fact to date the work.¹⁷

One of the difficulties that built-in to the task of determining the nature of the relationship between the Genesis account and the Enuma Elish is the fact that the effects of Smith's excesses of interpretation (not to mention his seemingly a priori commitment to discovering polytheistic origins for the creation story) are felt in numerous commentaries on the subject since 1876- some displaying less subtlety and credibility than others. Thus, the student who wishes to study scholarly commentaries on Genesis in order to gauge the motives and messages of the Genesis account in an attempt to make an objective comparison between it and the Chaldean poem has the deck stacked against him. For example, Heinrich Zimmern writes of the Creation week: "The fourth day brought the creation of the heavenly bodies-sun, moon, and stars-and we must note the special emphasis laid on the 'rule' of the sun and of the moon. This points back to a system of belief in which the sun and moon were something more than mere lights in the sky, in other words to a society in which the worship of the heavenly bodies played an important part, in which religion was primarily astral."¹⁸ Today, the almost unanimous chorus of scholarship is in favour of an interpretation precisely the opposite; as Westermann puts it: "The utter creatureliness of the heavenly bodies has never before been expressed in such revolutionary terms, as far as we know. Sun, moon, and stars, being emptied of divinity, have been reduced to component parts of a world which is basically accessible to human proving."¹⁹

This is a more transparent example of Smithian hermeneutic; yet there is a more widespread and subtle example which almost imperceptibly overthrows the marked distinction between the two accounts: The problem of how to translate the very first words of Genesis. Sacks explains, "The syntax is rather difficult because the Hebrew counterpart of the definite article is missing...The missing article would be permissible in Hebrew, but then the word bereshith would have to mean in the beginning of, as in the phrase bereshith ha-tebhu'a (in the beginning of the harvest). In that case one would have expected another noun to follow, and there is none. The beginning of what? The whole? In Hebrew such a word would have to be stated, and no such word appears. Is it the beginning of the act implied in the verb created? Hebrew syntax would seem to say no."²⁰ Sacks ultimately confesses his indecision but provides two possible translations: The familiar "In the beginning, God..." rendition, and the rather convoluted offering, "When God began to create the sky and the earth, the earth being unformed and void with darkness over the face of the deep and a wind from God over the water, God said, Let there be light..." The alert reader will immediately notice that, firstly, this translation hearkens directly back to the Enuma Elish's "When on high" opening. Indeed, Edward Young said in an address to the Toronto Baptist Seminary, "The real reason that lies behind the modern translations is that the Babylonian creation account, we are told, begins that way...Hence, say the moderns, as the Babylonian creation account begins in that way, Genesis chapter one, being a similar cosmogony from the ancient world, must begin in the same way. Here is the real reason, I repeat, that leads so many men to-day to say that verse one must be construed as a temporal clause."²¹ Young went on to ask: "But what is involved if we translate the Hebrew in this way? It is very clear that if this view is correct-and it goes back to a Jewish exegete of the Middle Ages-then it denies absolute creation. If you say, when God began to create, the earth was always present 'without form and void', obviously there is no absolute creation, and by that I mean creation out of nothing. If the modern translations are correct, then when God began the work of creation, the material which he used was already present."²²

The question, then, becomes: Does Genesis teach creation ex nihilo? There are those who would say yes, on the basis of the word that is used for "create", ברא. Working on the basis of the Documentary Hypothesis, von Rad writes: "P has a much greater interest in cosmology and in consequence he sketches a story of Creation which moves much more purposefully, though by stages, towards the creation of man. The world and its fullness do not find their unity and inner coherence in a cosmological first principle, such as the Ionian natural philosophers tried to discover, but in the completely personal will of Jahweh their creator. Nor, as in so many myths of the creation, is the world traced back to a creative struggle between two mythical first principles regarded as persons...The verb ברא, which is used here, is a technical term in the theological vocabulary of the priests, and is used exclusively of creation by God. It also occurs with the same meaning of that divine creation which is completely without analogy, in Deutero-Isaiah (Is. XL. 26, 28, XLV. 18, etc.): he on his part probably took it over from the cultic language of hymnody...The term ברא is also used where Jahweh's new creation is the subject (Pss. CII. 19 [18], R.S.V. "yet unborn," lit. "to be created"; LI. I0). Since pre-existent matter is never mentioned in connexion with this activity, the idea of creation ex nihilo is connected with it."²³

Note that von Rad draws out the logical implications of this concept: namely, the absolute sovereignty of God. "The concept of creation by means of a simple word of command only begins with the unfolding of the individual works of creation and their succession, and it dominates the picture down to Gen. I. 24 (the creation of the living creatures of the dry land), when it makes room for something quite new. Thus, the concept of creation by means of the word is to be taken as an interpretation of the ברא of vs. I. It gives to begin with an idea of the absolute effortlessness of the divine creative action. It only needed the brief pronouncement of the will of Jahweh to call the world into being."²⁴ von Rad is hardly alone in this opinion.²⁵ If, however, ברא does not connote creation "out of nothing", and if Genesis 1:1 really does echo the Enuma Elish, then the Hebrews and the Babylonians share a fundamental starting point and foundation for their respective cosmogonies: The sea (or the sea-goddess) who will eventually be renovated into the cosmos we see today. If the traditional reading of Genesis is the correct one, however, the foundation of the universe is God's will.²⁶ Consider then how much theology may have suffered from Smith's work.

While these more obviously rotten fruits of Smith's theory may have been shaken from the tree of academia, it is perhaps impossible to gauge exactly how deeply this idea has burrowed into the thinking of Biblical scholarship, and how many of our conclusions rest upon the unexamined presuppositions fashioned for us by Smithianism. Nevertheless, we must make a concentrated effort to be true exegetes, and we must be willing to suffer blame should we let extra-textual ideas slip into our work- a trap even the most reputable of scholars are susceptible to.

Strive though they might to avoid eisegeting their own theological or philosophical preconceptions into a text which they believe to be authoritative Scripture (whatever that expression might happen to mean to them)²⁷, such interpolations sometimes manifest themselves. For example, in discussing the distinction between God and His works in the first creation account, von Rad writes, "At farthest remove from him, in a relationship which scarcely admits of theological definition, is the formless, watery, darksome, abysmal chaos." [The appropriateness of the term "chaos" will be examined shortly.] "Because of vs. I which precedes the mention of chaos, we cannot say that it is uncreated, that is, that it was found by God as pre-existent. On the other hand, it is hardly possible to conceive of the idea of a created chaos, for what is created is not chaotic"²⁸. von Rad's discomfort is evident: While he makes no effort to escape an inescapable conclusion (namely, that the first verse precludes the idea of an uncreated chaos), he perceives a difficulty with this doctrine- not on exegetical grounds, but based on the (apparently) normative rule (one is left wondering from where) that "what is created is not chaotic". There is a distinctly philosophical flavour to this which is utterly alien to the spirit of Hebrew thought. von Rad provides no evidence to substantiate this assertion, and here we must for a moment step back and consider Gen. 1 in the theological and historical context into which von Rad himself places it; that is to say, in a situation which is represented in the writings of "Deutero"-Isaiah²⁹. This may seem to be an excursion from the main thrust of this paper, but we must remember that while we may not impute our own ideas into our exegesis, to ignore the intellectual context of a passage is equally, if not more, debilitating to the task of interpretation. We must also realize that if the milieux this passage arose from saw אלהים as the Creator of the supposed Hebrew equivalent to Tiamat, we have a vastly different picture of the primeval state right from the start than that which we see in the Enuma Elish; and this foundational difference affects the entire way these two accounts compare to each other.

There is a Scripture in Deutero-Isaiah which von Rad may have fallen back upon to validate his claim, namely, Isaiah 45:18: "For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), 'I am the LORD, and there is none else" (NASB). The expression "a waste place" stands in this translation for the familiar Hebrew word תּהוּ, suggesting that the chaotic state represented in the opening lines of Genesis were not the creation of Elohim.³⁰ Yet the immediate context must be taken into account here, and von Rad himself is extremely helpful for doing so.

On page 137, we read: "It is instructive to look at Deutero-Isaiah, who is commonly regarded, along with the Priestly Document, as the chief witness about Creation. However, even a quick glance at the passages in question shows that the allusions to Jahweh as the creator are far from being the primary subject of Deutero-Isaiah's message", indeed, "[t]he prophet apostrophises the creation of the world, but at the same time he speaks of Israel's redemption from Egypt." "In Is. XLIV. 24, Jahweh represents himself as 'the redeemer and creator.' It is striking how easily both there and in LIV. 5 articles of faith which are, to our way of thinking, widely separated, are placed side by side, and indeed interwoven. Jahweh created the world. But he created Israel too." Thus the soteriological understanding of creation by the Hebrews is confirmed.³¹ What relevance, then, does v.18 have for the Israelites? Kidner remarks: "v. 18b looks on to the end in view at the creation (cf. the phrase to be inhabited), the transforming of an initial formlessness into a habitable world. So too, a glorious end will be achieved with Israel."³² Similarly, Knight explains: "whether we call him creator or potter, God will not rest till his world becomes once again what it was created to be. It was not created to be chaos, that is to say, for the continuance of the reign of sin, disease, and war. It was created to be inhabited, that is, for civilized life, literally 'for dwelling'."³³ Finally, Childs explains, "The prophetic introduction expands on the power of God in a hymnic style, but now ties the power of God to his purpose in creation. He formed the heavens and the earth, not as a chaos, but rather to be inhabited." Childs' next remark is worth paying attention to: "The message is not actually different from that of Genesis 1, but has now been given a polemical, disputational form."³⁴ It is therefore God's intention in creation which is being alluded to here, not the state of creation when He commenced His work

Buttressing the interpretation that Deutero-Isaiah refers to God's intention in this verse is the Authorized Version's translation of תּהוּ as "in vain", especially considered in relation to the following verse: "I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right." As in v.18, "in vain" is the AV's rendition of תּהוּ, and in this instance the element of intentionality in the usage of the word is inescapable. The point, in other words, is that Isaiah 45:18 has nothing to do with what earth looked like, in the Hebrew understanding, when God started to create; it deals with why God created and what the end result was.

It is, however, worth noting that Knight observes a connection between v.18 and v.7.³⁵ Verse 7 is worth serious consideration, for it may be the death-blow to von Rad's skepticism regarding the possibility of chaos being the creation of God:

"The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being and creating calamity;
I am the LORD who does all these." (NASB)

Here again von Rad is, ironically, helpful in understanding why his own thesis does not appear to withstand critical scrutiny. Almost immediately after he claims that "what is created is not chaotic", he elaborates on the picture of Hebrew thinking painted by Gen. 1 thusly: "Night is a survival of the darkness of chaos, now however kept in bounds by a protective order."³⁶ von Rad grants the connection between darkness and the primal chaos in Old Testament theology; he is even willing to admit God's present sovereignty over darkness and all it signifies to the Israelites (even quoting Ps. LXXIV. 16: "thine is the day, thine also is the night"), but not to concede its ultimate origin in God's creative purposes. It is difficult to not see this as a conclusion biased by theological presuppositions about the problem of evil and theodicy. In this verse, Deutero-Isaiah seems to unequivocally tell us that, indeed, God did create darkness and "calamity" ("evil" in the AV; רע in the original Hebrew), even using the word בורא in both instances.³⁷ Deutero-Isaiah's treatment of this subject has been dwelt upon long enough and we must presently return to Genesis, but let us first acknowledge the work of Michael Deroche.³⁸ Deroche rejects the interpretation of this verse which makes יהוה the creator of chaos, but freely admits the implications of the interpretation he rejects: firstly, "there is nothing that Yahweh did not create, not even primeval matter...this interpretation is not far from the idea of creation ex nihilo. If there is nothing that God did not create, it is a short step to the conclusion that he created out of nothing" (pg. 13); and, secondly, he seems aware that his is the minority position, citing a wealth of respected scholars on page 12 who hold to the interpretation which makes God the creator of chaos in Isa. 45:7, including Stuhlmueller, Westermann, Gunkel, and Levenson (who "go[es] so far as to suggest that the verse is a deliberate polemic against the more common notion that chaos existed prior to creation"). His arguments cannot be dealt with in depth, but we may note briefly that he severely begs the question: "While darkness and evil can refer to chaos...they also constitute part of the created universe."³⁹ Notice again the problem of the word "chaos" and the dichotomy between it and the created order or cosmos we continually run into.

In his Studies in Genesis One, Edward J. Young remarks, probably thinking of von Rad, "It is occasionally said that the statement, 'creation of a chaos', would involve a contradiction in terms, and hence, it is concluded that verse two does not present the condition of things as they came from the hand of the Creator. If, however, instead of asking, without more precisely defining the term, whether verse two describes a chaos, we simply seek to ascertain what verse two does teach, we shall be in a better position to answer the question whether the world could have been created as it is pictured in verse two."⁴⁰ Bringing up the same point that has already been made in this paper regarding Isa. 45:18 (namely, how it indicates that תּהוּ is the opposite of "habitable"), Young observes: "In so far as the words תהו ובהו are concerned we must conclude that they simply describe the earth as not habitable. There is no reason why God might not have pronounced the condition set forth by the first circumstantial clause of verse two as 'good'." "It is true that man could not at that time have lived upon the earth, but, for that matter the earth was not ready for man until the sixth day. At the same time even though the earth was not in a habitable condition, it was as God desired it to be. It stands out in great contrast to the finished world of verse thirty-one, but at every stage in the development God is in control, things are as he desires them to be. It would probably be wise to abandon the term 'chaos' as a designation of the conditions set forth in verse two."⁴¹

As this examination winds to a close, let us finally note the inference we can draw from the fact that, as we have firmly established, Genesis depicts a transcendent deity who created the universe from nothing sheerly by force of His sovereign will- a deity who acts in stages, in an ordered, systematic way, according to a plan, a purpose. Thus, unlike in the Enuma Elish, where man is effectively an afterthought, we can see that, to the author(s) of Genesis, the creation of man, as the apex and crown of His work, was part of the plan all along; and rather than being created as a slave from the blood of a rebel, man stands before nature in the image of a God of love, freedom, and goodness. It is not difficult to see why, in the realm of history, the latter religious vision of anthropology ultimately won the day.⁴²

Bibliography:

Ch. Aalders, G. The Bible Students' Commentary, Genesis: Volume I. Translated by William Heynen. The Zondervan Corporation, 1981.

Batto, Bernard F. Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition. Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992.

Bush, George. Notes on Genesis, Volume I. Originally published by Ivison, Phinney & Co., New York, N.Y., 1860, printed by Klock & Klock in the U.S.A., 1981 reprint.

Childs, Brevard S.. Isaiah: A Commentary. Westminster John Knox Press: 2001

Clark, Gordon Haddon. Predestination : The Combined Edition of Biblical Predestination and Predestination in the Old Testament, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1987.

Davdson, Robert. The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible, Gen 1-11. Cambridge University Press, 1973.

Deroche, Michael. "Isaiah XLV 7 and the Creation of Chaos?" Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 42, Fasc. 1 [Jan., 1992], pp. 11-21.

Eichrodt, Walther. Theologie des Alten Testaments, II. Leipzig, 1935.

Goldingay, John, Old Testament Theology, Volume One: Israel's Gospel. InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Hamilton, Victor. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1990.

Heidel, Alexander. The Babylonian Genesis: The Story of Creation. University of Chicago Press, Ltd., 1963.

Kapelrud, Arvid S. "The Mythological Features in Genesis Chapter I and the Author's Intentions The Mythological Features in Genesis Chapter I and the Author's Intentions." Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 24, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1974), pp. 178-186.

Kidner, Derek; Guthrie, Donald and Motyer, Alec, ed. The New Bible Commentary: Revised. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.: 1970.

King, Leonard W. Babylonian Religion and Mythology. From the edition of 1899, London; first A,S edition published in 1976.

King, Leonard W. Enuma Elish: Volume 1: The Seven Tablets of Creation; The Babylonian and Assyrian Legends Concerning the Creation of the World and of Mankind. Cosimo, Inc., 2007.

Knight, George Angus Fulton. Servant Theology: A Commentary on the Book of Isaiah 40-55 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing: 1984.

Lewis, Theodore J. CT 13.33-34 and Ezekiel 32: Lion-Dragon Myths. Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 116, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1996), pp. 28-47.

Ouro, Roberto. "The Earth of Genesis 1:2: Abiotic or Chaotic?" Andrews University Seminary Studies 35.2, Autumn, 1998.

Rapaport, Rabbi Izaak. The Babylonian Poem Enuma Elish and Genesis Chapter One: A New Theory on the Relationship Between the Ancient Cuneiform Composition and the Hebrew Scriptures. Melbourne: Hawthorne Press, 1979.

Sacks, Robert D. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. The Edwin Mellen Press, 1990.

Sarna, Nahum M. The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. The Jewish Publication Society, 1989.

Stuhlmueller, Carroll. Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970.

Stuhlmueller, Carroll. "The Theology of Creation in Second Isaias". Catholic Biblical Quarterly, XXI [1959], 429-67.

Von Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology, Volume I: The Theology of Israel's Historical Traditions, translated by D.M.G. Stalker. Oliver and Boyd Ltd., 1962.

Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. Berlin and Leipzig, 1927.

Westermann, Claus. Creation (tr. by John J. Scullion, S.J.). SPCK and Fortress Press, 1974.

Young, Edward J. In the Beginning: Genesis Chapters 1 to 3 and the Authority of Scripture. The Banner of Truth Trust, 1976.

Young, Edward J. Studies in Genesis One. International Library of Philosophy and Theology: Biblical and Theological Studies, ed. by J. Marcellus Kik. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1979.

Zimmern, Heinrich. The Babylonian and Hebrew Genesis. London: David Nutt, 1901.

Currently Reading Early Christian Doctrines By J. N. D. Kelly see related

Observations on *The Ethics of Liberty*.

I still remember, as a fresh-faced upstart punk on Xanga with a KJV preference and a Pentecostal upbringing my only weapons, being daunted by the debates I would encounter between the scholars here on Xanga who threw around big words (and names) that they assumed everyone had a thorough familiarity with- Reconstructionism, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, the one and the many, Gary North, presuppositionalism, theonomy, and so on and so forth.  Well, after some years of study I can talk with some proficiency about Van Tillian vs. Clarkian methodology and all that lofty stuff that makes 19-year old wannabe theologians feel smart, but economics- particularly the Austrian school- has always been something I rather lagged behind in until the last year or so.  The Ron Paul Revolution has stimulated some degree of interest in Austrian economics (to those willing to do the extra homework necessary to find out where he derives his fiscal policies), but now that Palin and Biden are currently hogging the spotlight, Dr. Paul has faded into the background somewhat and therefore I can safely discuss Mises and Hayek without looking like I'm just jumping on the bandwagon.

A YouTuber by the moniker of Austrolibertarian has recommended Murray Rothbard's book The Ethics of Liberty to me if I want to understand his views on the meaning of life, morality, and such.  As God would have it, the text of this book in its entirety is online.  I'd like to just post some passing observations on the introduction by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and I may (as the title of this post implies) post more on Rothbard's own arguments and observations throughout the book.

Hoppe correctly diagnoses the fundamental flaw of the Chicago School of Economics:

In Christ, and for the gospel of the kingdom,
Brett