The word Scripture simply means writings. Of course the only writings that are fully the words of God are those found in the Torah, Prophets and Writings of the Old and New Testaments. But the word Scripture only tells us they are writings. The more I study the structure of Scripture the more I realize that the shape of the book is an apologetic for the importance of the book. In fact, the third section of the canon in the Old Testament is called the Writings. Actually, we might as well call them the Scriptures. Thus just as the Torah (Deuteronomy) is a name we apply to the first section, so the Writings is a name we apply to all the Bible.

The shape of Scripture is an apologetic for the importance of Scripture study. You can see this clearly at the seams of the three sections: Deut 34, Josh 1, Malachi 4, and Psalm 1. It is the reason we are so passionate about The Book.

In any case, the Writings are in conversation (though not in an oral but written form) with the rest of Scripture. The Prophets interpret Torah for a new generation. The Writings are reflections on the Torah and Prophets. Likewise in the New Testament, the New Testament writings are interpreting the significance of the death and resurrection of Christ (Gospels, NT Torah) and the giving of the Spirit on Pentecost (Acts, NT Prophets).

And the Writings are in conversation with each other. The first three: Psalms, Job, and Proverbs are all accented as poetry for chanting in Hebrew. The next five were chanted at festivals during the year: Ruth, Song of Songs, Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes), Lamentations, and Esther. And then the last three are Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. The ones chanted at festivals form a chiasm -- Ruth the heroine, Song of Songs is erotic poetry, Ecclesiastes in the middle, Lamentations is sad poetry, and Esther the heroine. Thus with three before and three after these five the whole of the Writings makes a chiasm.

The sections within the Writings are stitched together when we realize that Proverbs ends with the poem about the ideal wife (Prov 31:10) and Boaz says that everyone knows Ruth would be the ideal wife (Ruth 3:11). In Hebrew the phrase is identical. Song of Songs gives us another example of the ideal wife, as does Esther parallel to Ruth. Also Esther in many ways is a female Daniel, which bridges those two books together. But already you should be able to see that the Writings are in conversation with one another.

One common literary form in the Writings is the alphabetic acrostic poem. One reason that you would do an alphabetic acrostic is to speak comprehensively. Thus the alphabetic acrostic par excellence is Psalm 119, with eight lines for each letter of the Hebrew alphabet (making it also the longest chapter in the Scriptures). The book of Lamentations consists of six alphabetic acrostics. The poem about the ideal wife in Prov 31:10ff is another example. It is a comprehensive description of the ideal wife from A to Z (for the English alphabetic equivalent). This is in conversation, as Longman notes in his Proverbs commentary on the ideal wife poem, with Psalm 112. Psalm 112:1-10 is an alphabetic acrostic about the ideal husband. The fear of YHWH, like at the end of Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes 12:13) is the preeminent trait of both the wife (Prov 31:30) and husband (Psalm 112:1). The point of Ecclesiastes is to explain the limits of wisdom and this seems to be a favorite feature of this conversation. Job makes a similar point. The limit on wisdom is that we should fear God and keep His Torah.

Thus the Writings make the point about Writings, "My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh" (Ecclesiastes 12:12). We must keep this in conversation with how the delight of the blessed is in the written Torah of YHWH and on this Torah he meditates day and night (Psalm 1:2). Thus we should study (even toil until we are weary) the word of God. But this ending to the central book of the chiasm of the Writings is fitting. It is similar to ending the New Testament with the Book of Revelation given how Revelation ends warning about adding or subtracting from it. The effect of Ecclesiastes 12:12 is to say, the Writings are now complete until prophecy resumes, beware of adding to or subtracting from them.

Labels: acrostic, alphabetic acrostic, chronicles, daniel, ecclesiastes, esther, ezra-nehemiah, job, lamentations, proverbs 31, psalms, qoheleth, ruth, scripture, song of songs, writings

As Sailhamer points out, reshith is the antonym of aharith. Or in English, beginning is the antonym of last. Thus the Torah begins, "In the beginning" (bereshith) (Gen 1:1) and then the poetic climaxes are explained as telling what will happen "in the last days" (beaharith hayyamim) (Gen 49:1, Num 24:14, Deut 31:29). The only other place in the Torah where this phrase is found is Deut 4:30. These reflections are inspired by his article, "A Wisdom Composition of the Pentateuch?" in The Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce Waltke published by Zondervan.

This observation encourages us to see that the protology (words about first things) of Gen 1:1 is written to correspond to eschatology (words about last [or ultimate] things) of the poems following Gen 49:1, Num 24:14, and Deut 31:29. One point stressed at WTS was that the prologue of Genesis (Gen 1:1-2:3) as well as the first book of Genesis (Gen 2-4) is eschatological. But we do not need to look beyond the opening word ("in the beginning") to be pointed to the last days. We are living in the last days now, but the phrase in the Torah pointed first to the days of King David before ultimately to the days of his son and Lord Jesus Christ.

To see how the poems pointed to the King we should observe the intertexuality of the poems (that is, how they are in conversation or even quoting one another). Here I am expanding from discussing the three major poems to include the other prominent poems in the Torah. Sailhamer calls it cross-referencing. He notes, for example that Num 24:9a quotes Gen 49:9b. Speaking of the King from the tribe of Judah, these two poems both say, "He crouched as a lion and as a lioness; who dares rouse him?"

Comparing the major poem in Genesis 49 and the major poem starting in Num 24:15 we can see the king's scepter mentioned with Judah in Gen 49:10 is mentioned in Num 24:17. The advance of Numbers is to note the king will defeat certain people groups. As Sailhamer notes, Gen 10 helps you to identify where these people groups in the Numbers poem fit. In fact, it may be that one reason for the writing of Gen 10 was to explain the groups mentioned in Balaam's poem. These peoples are not mentioned in the surrounding story of Numbers, you have to look at Gen 10 to learn about them. The major poem of Deut 32 mentions the events of Gen 10: "When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the people according to the number of the sons of God" (Deut 32:8). This last poem in Deut 32:10 also uses the word tohu from Gen 1:2.

Therefore, Sailhamer argues that Num 24:24 is showing how the Noahic poetry of Gen 9:27 about Japheth dwelling in the tents of Shem extends to the last days. The Kittim were from Japheth (Gen 10:4). Asshur is one of the sons of Shem (Gen 10:22) and Eber is considered his son too (Gen 10:21).

Sailhamer also says, "In addition, the literary parallels between Deut 33 and Gen 49 are well known. Whole phrases from one poem have been inserted into the other" (p.22). I have noted this previously because Deut 33 is the work of a later hand, but one that borrows from the earlier hand of the Torah. At some point I would like to examine this claim further.

But the point shown here is that "in the beginning" (especially for the purposes of this post, Gen 1-11, the unit that comes before the patriarchal narratives) points us to "in the last days" (Gen 49:1, Num 24:14, Deut 31:29).

Labels: eschatology, japheth, protology, sailhamer, shem

Generally in a literary-canonical approach we do not dive into questions of multiple authors but simply study the text as we have it. Usually such lines of inquiry have been laden with faulty presuppositions and with agendas to undermine the word of God as we have it (look no further than the bogus JEDP theory, which has torn apart Scripture without any benefit to the church and honest scholars today would admit that it is highly speculative and is the product of particular biases). But it is helpful for those who hold Scripture to be fully the word of God to note what lines in Deuteronomy are the product of a later human hand so that we can see what this finished product of the Spirit is teaching us today.

Aside from the additional poem and epilogue by the editor(s) [hereafter simply, 'editor'], there are few indications of a later hand in the text. The "these words" are not only faithful to Moses but are his very words (as noted in an earlier post, the vocabulary was updated later but this does not change the meaning). And the bulk of the book has this early origin. (As fitting with what I have said above, the whole book when completed is fully the word of God even in the choice of words). But there are a few places where we see the editor's hand.

In particular we see this in the remark "to this day" in Deut 2:22 and Deut 3:14. We already noted that this phrase points us to the editor in the second epilogue and it often does so in other places in the Torah as well. Most of the editorial comments explain geographical issues (people groups and places). These comments interrupt the flow of the passage so much that English translations usually put them in parentheses. For example Deut 3:9 and Deut 3:11 are editorial additions. In particular, verse 11 shows us the main interest of the editor -- King Og was one of the Rephaim (from the size description it is obvious that Og was one of the giants). McConville explains that Canaanite giants were called Anakim [sons of Anak from the Nephilim according to Num 13:33] (Deut 1:28, 9:2), Moabite giants were called Emim (Gen 14:5, Deut 2:10-11), Ammonite giants were called Zamzummim (Deut 2:20, perhaps also Zuzim in Gen 14:5), but Rephaim was the generic title for all such giant races (cf. Deut 2:11). One only needs to read the text in English to see all of these parentheses about giants. Interestingly, the editor also made comments about giants in the book of Joshua (Josh 14:15, 15:13, 21:11 all mentioning that Arba was the father of Anak).

As an aside, I think it is unhelpful to dismiss these editorial comments as less than Scriptural or to think of them as extrapolations and interpretations in later preaching. These additions are inspired of God -- they come from a later human hand -- but they tell us something God wants to teach us.

So why is the editor obsessed with these giants? For one thing, this is why the previous generation (save Joshua and Caleb) were not prepared to enter the land but here we see the next generation defeating a renowned giant even before entering the land and they defeated peoples who had defeated giants. This also helps us understand as well why the people of the land were so afraid when they heard that Israel had defeated King Og. It is also worth noting that we can trace the theme of giants in Scripture to Goliath and to Satan (maybe the reason for the word choice of Rephaim in as much as other texts use the term for those living in the underworld -- McConville cites Psa 88:11, Job 26:5, Isa 26:14 for this meaning but admits that we do not currently know if the two meanings of Rephaim are related). Are there any other reasons you think the editor would be so interested in giants? Aside from what I said above, perhaps they help the text preach to a new generation that is facing metaphorical giants? One of the major concerns of Deuteronomy, shared by the faithful editor, is the preaching of Torah to a new generation. So there may be something to this.

Labels: deuteronomy, giants, jedp, scripture