Book Comment: A Survey of Old Testament Introduction

 

In his book, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Dr. Gleason L. Archer presents a conservative discussion pf Old Testament canonicity, historicity, information about the Semitic languages, known textual problems, the “specific difficulties” presented by each book, archaeological evidences, how the Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts were prepared and transmitted to new generations, and the challenges which can be presented by higher criticism.

Gleason sees the Old Testament as the preparation and the New Testament as the completion of the Christian message. He points out that “It made a great deal of difference that Greek was precise in expressing time values, and that Hebrew laid chief emphasis upon mode of action rather than upon tense.”

The survey takes each book verse by verse and discusses historical, textual, and modern questions. The text assumes some level of knowledge about archaeology, the Hebrew language, the history of the Middle East, various approaches to biblical criticism, and tends to become a little technical on some points. It is obviously intended for beginning college or seminary level students but is not above the understanding of the interested layman. Pastors and academics will definitely find it useful.

As with most books such as this, what you get from the book depends on what you bring with you. You may not agree with everything the author says. Luke (see below) advises you to think for yourself.

Information you will need to search for this book:

___________________________________________________________________

A general caution: books may give you wonderful new insights and explanations of subjects, but you should never base your Christian beliefs on any one book or the teachings of one person, no matter who they are. All teachings must be consistent with scripture. Read as the Bereans did, with discernment. “… for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” Acts 17:11 NASB

Any doctrines must be consistent with the historical full body of Christian thought. Doctrines or teachings inconsistent with scripture in any way must be rejected. You would not eat cheese which had a fuzzy fungus growing on it.

Jesus Primarily Spoke Aramaic

Jesus is believed to have primarily spoken a Galilean accented dialect of Aramaic since Aramaic was the most commonly spoken language of Judea in the first century AD. He also seems to have understood some Greek since he talked with Romans who would have primarily spoken that language.  Also, it was a point of pride and honor for a Jewish man to stand up in the synagogue and read from the Hebrew scriptures,

Biblical Hebrew,and most modern representations of the language, has an abjad writing system rather than an alphabet as in English. Abjabs are writing systems in which there are only consonants with no written vowels. The word is a technical term named for the fist four letters of the Arabic abjad in their original order of sequence: alif, ba, jem, dal. The first four letters in the Hebrew abjad retain the original Semitic sequence: aleph, bet, gimel, dalet.

The first widely used abjad was ancient Phoenician. It was much easier to learn and to write than the Egyptian hieroglyphics (a pictographic writing system). The Phoenician sea merchants quickly adopted the writing system for their business records.

The modern "alphabets" of Greek, English, Spanish, Russian, and other similar languages represent both consonantal and vowel sounds using their glyphs (aka letters). Each glyph represents a different sound.

The English word "alphabet"is derived from the first two letters of the Greek alphabet: alpha and beta.

The Acrostic in Psalm 119

Ancient Hebrew poetry has many conventions which are not immediately apparent to the reader, especially when it is read in translation as most of us, including me, must do.  I took several semesters of Hebrew in seminary but I have to admit that I barely understood what I was "learning" and today still understand it only in very patchy form. (Greek to me was much easier as it is Indo-European and is much more similar to English than the Semitic Hebrew.)

The rhythm of Hebrew poetry is irregular and is based on the accented or toned syllables rather than on meter as in English.  Rhymed word sounds are rare.  Refrains, repeated lines, sometimes occur.  The "rhyming" in ancient Hebrew poetry is based on parallelism of ideas in three forms: synonymous (the meanings of the lines are similar); antithetical (the meanings of the lines are opposites of one another; and synthetic (nouns correspond to nouns, verbs correspond to verbs, etc)

One convention of ancient Hebrew poetry which has received much modern attention is the acrostic, in which the first letter of each line spells out a word or makes a pattern.  Psalm 119 is such an acrostic.  Verses 1-8 begin with the letter aleph, verses 9-16 begin with the letter beth, verses 17-24 begin with the letter gimel, then daleth, he, waw, zayin, etc.  Acrostic patterns also occur in Psalms 9, 10, 25, 34,37, 111, 112, and 145.

All of these poetic conventions are human in origin and have nothing to do with the supposed Bible Codes which some believe that God has embedded into the Torah.