Lessons from the Wilderness, Volume 59 [1]
[2]
©2024-2025, David E.
Robinson: At the Gates of Yerushalayim Ministries
Part
1. “As if Doctrine Not Given”: https://www.asearchformessiah.net/2020/04/what-if-we-approached-word-of-g-d.html
Part
2. https://www.asearchformessiah.net/2020/04/hominum-confusion-et-dei.html
Part
3. https://www.asearchformessiah.net/2020/09/lessonsfrom-wilderness-1-2-3-4-volume.html
https://www.e-sword.net/index.html#features
https://www.e-sword.net/downloads.html
As if Doctrine Not
Given Part 4: Introduction to Bible Study Aids
…How to Know the
Word…
…How to Know God…
Today, we are going to do something different. Through all my studies, I rely heavily on various Bible study software. This of course, is in addition to the library I have accumulated for my studies – a library that I have crafted for the specific area of study that God has called me to, which is the study of what is commonly called the “Old Testament”[3]. Many think this name was first introduced by a man named Marcion[4], but they would be wrong. The Tanakh[5], as it is called in Judaism, was named the Old Testament by a man named Melito of Sardis (See notes).[6]
So, what does “old” mean in
today’s understanding? While in footnotes I include Merriam-Webster’s
definition, allow me to include the portion of the definition I left out in my footnote:
“…Choose
the Right Synonym for old
old, ancient, venerable, antique, antiquated, archaic, obsolete mean having come into existence or use in the more or less distant past.
old may apply to either actual or merely relative length of existence.
old houses
an old sweater
of mine
ancient applies to occurrence, existence, or use in or survival from the
distant past.
ancient accounts
of dragons
venerable stresses the impressiveness and dignity of great
age.
the
family's venerable patriarch
antique applies to what has come down from a former or ancient time.
collected antique Chippendale
furniture
antiquated implies being discredited or outmoded or otherwise
inappropriate to the present time.
antiquated teaching
methods
archaic implies having the character or characteristics of a much earlier
time.
the
play used archaic language to convey a sense of period
obsolete may apply to something regarded as no longer
acceptable or useful even though it is still in existence.
a
computer that makes earlier models obsolete…”[7]
Is the “First” Testament, the Tanakh, old? If one means ‘of ancient time’ and still applicable in our days, then, alright, call it “old”. But should we use the synonymous terms “antiquated, archaic, or obsolete”, then are we not relegating two thirds of Scripture to the dust bin of history? Do we read and interpret the words from a “Jurassic Bible”?[8]
From Dr. Michael S. Heisers’s book, “The Bible Unfiltered: Approaching Scripture on its Own Terms”, comes this explanation (embellishment mine):
“…In the summer of 2015, I saw the movie Jurassic World, the latest installment of the Jurassic Park franchise based on the Michael Crichton novel by that name. The novel and the films center around the idea of bringing dinosaurs back from extinction by means of genetic engineering. It’s a fascinating premise, especially since some paleontologists and geneticists are working on real-world procedures for accomplishing the feat. You can get a glimpse of the real science behind this work in the book How to Build a Dinosaur by Jack Horner, the paleontologist who partly inspired the film version of Dr. Alan Grant in Jurassic Park.1
One
of the more interesting background elements in Horner’s book is the story of
Dr. Mary Schweitzer, who now teaches at North Carolina State University. When
she began her journey into what would become her career, Schweitzer was a
substitute teacher and mother of three. She gained Horner’s permission to audit
his vertebrate paleontology class at Montana State. The rest is history.
Schweitzer got hooked and soon became Horner’s protégé, earning a PhD in
biology. She is now world-famous for discovering soft tissue in dinosaur bones
that were 68 million years old. Young earth creationists thrilled to the
discovery, touting it as incontrovertible proof that the earth is actually only
thousands of years old, not millions since (they argue) soft tissue could never
have survived that long.
There’s
just one problem with this picture. Schweitzer is an evangelical Christian—and
she doesn’t agree with the young earth creationists’ use of her research. By
her own testimony, she learned that a lot of what she’d heard in church about
her field and about scientists wasn’t true. But the experience didn’t harm her
faith; it made it stronger. Schweitzer is now an old earth creationist. This is
no secret in the paleontological community. Her faith is as well-known as her
discovery. Schweitzer is living proof that serious Christians can be serious
scientists.
Mary
Schweitzer is also living proof that honesty and integrity in letting the Bible
be what it is and doing science matter. She isn’t disputing the science behind
the age of the bones she works on. She knows her field as well as anyone in the
world. She isn’t pretending that we need a young earth to believe in the
authority of Scripture. She understands that the Bible is an ancient work
inspired by God not to give us science, but to give us truth about things that
can’t be put under a microscope, like the spiritual world, our spiritual need,
and our spiritual destiny if we believe God’s plan for salvation. Those truths
transcend science and aren’t dependent on it. The Bible has a pre-scientific
cosmology because God chose writers who lived in a pre-scientific age. He knew
that would be no obstacle to communicating what he wanted communicated.
Schweitzer’s
testimony is useful for framing another example of how the Bible gets
interpreted out of context to address a modern controversy: the teaching
that there are dinosaurs in the Bible. The alleged evidence comes in the form
of words like Leviathan (lwytn [לִוְיָתָן liwyāṯān]; Ps 104:26), Rahab (rhb [רַהַב rahaḇ]; Isa 51:9), and Tannin, meaning “sea
monster” or “dragon” (tnyn [תַּנּין tanniyn]; Gen 1:21). This flawed notion isn’t
as disastrous as the “Bible teaching” that arose to account for newly
discovered races from the 16th century onward that produced “biblical” racism.
No one is going to be enslaved or die because people believe it. Its harm is
less discernible. It gets filed with other ideas that are falsifiable and, once
Christians learn that it isn’t true, their faith in the Bible’s inspiration
will be damaged when it doesn’t need to be…” [9]
I included this portion for a reason: to extract from it the point that is central to this series: how the Bible gets interpreted out of context. Not just any context either, but the only context that it can and should be interpreted in: it’s own original context.
Dr. Heiser [again, embellishment mine]:
“…Anyone
interested in Bible study, from the new believer to the biblical scholar, has
heard (and maybe even said) that if you want to correctly interpret the Bible,
you have to interpret it in context. I’m certainly not going to disagree. But
I have a question: What does that mean? Put another way, just what context
are we talking about?
There
are many contexts to which an interpreter needs to pay attention.
• Historical context situates a passage in a specific time period against the backdrop of certain events.
•
Cultural context concerns the way people lived and how they
thought about their lives and their world.
•
Literary context focuses on how a given piece of biblical
literature conforms (or not) to how the same type of literature was written
during biblical times.
All of these are important—but they only flirt with the heart of the matter. There’s a pretty clear element to this “context talk” that we’re missing. It’s time to get a firm grasp on something obvious. Believe it or not, it took years of study before I had it fixed in my head and my heart.
The Bible’s True Context
As Christians, whether consciously or otherwise, we’ve been trained to think that the history of Christianity is the true context for interpreting the Bible. It isn’t. That might be hard to hear, but Christian history and Christian thought is not the context of the biblical writers, and so it cannot be the correct context for interpreting what they wrote.
The
proper context for interpreting the Bible is not the church fathers. They lived
a thousand years or more after most of the Old Testament was written. Less than
a half dozen of them could read Hebrew. The New Testament period was a century
or more removed from important early theologians like Irenaeus and Tertullian;
Augustine, arguably the most famous early church figure, lived three hundred
years after the conversion of Paul.1
That’s
more time than has elapsed since the founding of the United States. Also, many
church fathers worked primarily with the Old Testament translated into Greek,
Latin, or Syriac versions, so a good bit of their exegesis is
translation-driven. Further, they were often responding to the intellectual
issues of their own day when they wrote about Scripture, not looking back to
the biblical context.
The
farther down the timeline of history one moves, the greater the contextual gap
becomes. The context for interpreting the biblical text is not the Catholic
Church. It is not the rabbinic movements of Late Antiquity or the Middle Ages.
It is not the Reformation—the time of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, or the
Anabaptists. It is not the time of the Puritans. It is not evangelicalism in
any of its flavors. It is not the modern world at all.2
So,
what is the proper context for interpreting the Bible? Here’s the transparently obvious
truth I was talking about - the proper context for interpreting the Bible is
the context of the biblical writers—the context that produced the Bible. Every
other context is alien or at least secondary.”[10]
While there are many who would want to disagree with this truth (and Dr. Heiser), I cannot. To truly read Scripture as if doctrine not given (see the previous posts on this matter), then we must ask ourselves a very simple question:
What if what we think we know, isn’t so?
This is my call, to always be teachable and correctable. The only way I can do this is to ask myself, “What does the text support?” What is it in the original autographs, the Hebrew and the Greek, that supports one’s conclusions or interpretations? What did the original (i.e., the 2nd Temple-era Jew or Gentile) hear and think about when these words were presented to them? What did the early sages of Judaism think – in fact – what was this early form of Judaism, or the religion of the Jews, and how different was it from our understanding today? What lens should one look through to understand the original intent? It has been said before that the Scriptures were not written to us, the modern reader. They were written at a specific time in history, in a specific place or location, to a specific set of people. They were meant for them, in their worldview and cosmic understanding, their situations, their culture, not ours. One thing is sure though, while the Scriptures were not written to us, we can take solace in the fact that they are presented to us, for us to hear the ancient yet relevant message of the one true God, YHVH and the story of His only begotten Son, Yeshua. What we cannot do is read back into the Tanakh the words of the Messianic Writings (i.e. the New Testament) without a proper context and understanding of the times, people, culture and worldview of the Scriptures original audience. Even then, understand that from Genesis to Malachi are the passage of hundreds, maybe thousands of years that the early sages of Judaism had to wade through to discern original intent – and as Dr. Heiser pointed out – even their context may be considered foreign or secondary to the original authors intent.
So, what does this do for us? How can we know the truth, and let it set us free? It takes study. Scholars like Dr. Heiser, John Walton, E. Theodore Mullen Jr., S.B. Parker, Matitahu Tsevat[11], and others, all have a take on the “Divine Council” or the unseen realm of God, in one form or another (see footnote 11). Are willing to look at the strange and wonderful world of the Biblical writers? Are we willing to delve deep into the worldview of the antediluvian world? The “Myth” is true. What the secular world regards as “myth” (i.e. the supernatural world, the Bible, etc.), what IF it is true – and I hold that it is – how does that change our perceptions of what is reality? Can it not be that which we experience here in this temporal world, this finite existence we exist in, is not the reality at all? What if there is an eternal world, unseen by our eyes, that governs all our affairs, charts the course of the heavens and the passages of time, gives us free will to choose to believe or not believe, but is unaltered in the eventual course in which the Divine will be revealed, and all will be put right again: what or how should we live our lives to the existence of such a reality?
Is doctrine not given according to our interpretation or is it given, hidden within the text of an ancient culture, a text that speaks of the Creator of the heavens and earth? How must we approach this, if it is true? Is rapprochement with fear and trepidation the correct answer, an answer to what we should believe and which cosmic force we should be loyal too? On what side of the fence do you stand, and are you sure of your beliefs and ways line up on the right side of destiny?
If you have to ask the question, then the answer must be sought. If the eternal is the true reality, and not this finite existence, then must we ignore it? What we believe is just as important as do we believe. Do we believe in a Creator God, Omnipotent, Omniscient & Omnipresent, or do we shrug Him off, willing to roll the dice on the chance that there is nothing that guides the sands of time and course of nations? If we are all there is, then we have made an unholy mess of the planet we live upon, and the dystopian future that the science fiction writers and the doom-and-gloom philosophers all predict in our future will come to pass.
The doctrines of the Holy Writ speak of hope, of reconciliation, of reward for the just and punishment for the wicked, a time that will be made right by a just Creator. His doctrines will be brought to bear, and all will see, and all will bow before Him, and creation will return to what it was intended to be – harmony with the Eternal. If we ignore our own ways, our own conceptions, our own presuppositions about the blueprint that was given to a specific people, but written for us as well, if we let the words speak for themselves and stop imposing our take upon them, then we can learn the ways, the precepts, the statues, the commandments of a Holy Creator, and the new heavens and earth that His word promises.
What if doctrine is not given, but lived? What if peace, love, charity, hope, and mercy are followed? What if religion dies, and relationships to the Almighty grow, and revival is kindled; is it not worth letting go of what we think we know, for that which is so? That is my question and answer for you. Can we finally let go of OUR ways, and take upon us HIS yoke?
Matthew 11:28-30:
Come to me, all who labor
and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn
from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your
souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
Go, study, learn of Him.
Doctrine awaits.
Till next time, may He richly bless
you all my beloved,
Amein.
ADDENDUM
There are ways to know Him, to study to show yourself approved. At the beginning of this blog was a picture of a software program, called e-Sword. We have bibles, yes, but we also have phones and computers. I have spent thousands of dollars for a program called Logos; you can get a free version of it at https://www.logos.com/ but it is somewhat limited in scope. E-Sword though is FREE: https://e-sword.net/ ; for the PC, Android, Apple Mac, iPad, and the iPhone also.
Many modules can be downloaded for free within the program; the picture here is of my own e-Sword program, the vast majority of what I use was free, though I have paid for some premium packages. Other good resources can be found at http://www.biblesupport.com/ (don’t be scared because they say it is not secure; I have used this site for years and never had an issue). If you want to purchase additional premium modules, you can go to https://www.estudysource.com/index.aspx and look at what they have to offer.
You can also find free Bible study software at https://theword.net/ .
This also is free: this is my setup. As you can see, there is also a wealth of options available for this software also.
One other option is also found here: https://www.swordsearcher.com/ . While this software is not free (full version is $69.95 plus tax unless you are non-profit) it does come with a large study library.
There are choices out there. Choose one of these or search for your own, but whatever you do, do this:
Know the Word
Know God.
Be blessed,
Shalom
[1] Author’s note:
I have a large body of readers
from Micronesia (my wife included). Therefore, I will also be including
Scripture references from their Bible, the Paipel as appropriate. The main text
can be found at https://fsm.bible/chk/index.htm. I pray dear brethren, you
don’t mind.
[2] NOTICE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS:
Unless otherwise cited, all material found on this
blogsite (original text, opinions, conclusions, and other material not related
to cited sources remains the collected intellectual property of the author of
this site, David E. Robinson, Elder Teacher, and are owned and controlled by me
and are protected by copyright and trademark laws and various other
intellectual property rights and unfair competition laws of the United States,
foreign jurisdictions, and international conventions. Any errors found within, rest solely upon me; please do not blame the
Father for my mistakes. I am teachable and correctable, not infallible. 😊
FAIR USE DISCLAIMER:
This blog site may contain content that is not authorized
for use by its owner. All such materials will be cited back to its original
source. According to Section 107 of the Copyright Act: “…the fair use of a
copyrighted work […] for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, is not an infringement of copyright…” I have made and will continue
to make every effort to stay within all ethical and moral guidelines in the use
of material presented here, and the use of these materials is solely intended
for educational purposes only, and all efforts to obtain or sustain fair use of
non-owned material will be made.
ADDITIONAL AUTHOR’S NOTES:
This site is for education only and is not affiliated
with any institution, organization, or religious group. It is the sole
production of its editor. Use of information from Jewish-themed websites (or
any other source material) should not be construed as these sites endorsing or
confirming any thesis introduced by the author of this epistle. I present the
information from their respective sites for instructional purposes only and/or
to aid the readers understanding of the subjects discussed.
In addition, throughout this study, I will be using the
NET Bible® and the NET Notes®. Within these notes, you will see symbols like
this: ( א B Ψ 892* 2427 sys). These (and
others) are abbreviations used by the NET Bible® for identifying the principal
manuscript evidence that they, authors and translators of the NET Bible®, used
in translating the Bible, in both Testament, “Old” and “New”. Please go to https://bible.org/netbible and see their section labeled “NET Bible Principals of Translation” for a
more complete explanation on these symbols and other items pertinent to the way
the NET Bible uses them.
In all my studies, I will also include, from various
sources, the notes that come along with the passages I cite, but these need a
bit of a disclaimer though. As in all things, not everything that is noted is
something that I necessarily at this time, agree with. I am not saying the
interpretations that I give in the main
body of my epistles, where my gentle dissent belongs, is better, but is only my
humble opinion. Most (but not all) of the differences will come when I quote
from a source that displays a decidedly Western/Greek mindset, as opposed to a Hebraic perspective. I am giving you
the notes so that you can see the information contained within them. It truly
is not my place to edit them; if they state anything that is in opposition to
what I believe to be right, then so be it; I will address these issues or
contradictions as needed. You are free to draw your own conclusions.
I have to be intellectually honest – I am biased toward
the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, His nation Israel, and His son, Yeshua
the Messiah [מָשִׁיחַ māšīaḥ
or mashiach] [or Jesus Christ, if
you prefer]. I pray then that we all can find common ground as we study the
Scriptures.
[3] The moniker “Old Testament” is something I despise. See note vi below.
[4] Marcion was a second-century
anti-Jewish Christian theologian, and either a prosperous ship owner or the son
of the Bishop of Sinope on the Black Sea. He was born around 85 CE, was active
in Rome around 140-144 CE, and significantly influenced early Christianity’s
development. Marcion’s influence
on the development of the New Testament canon came about by challenging the early church's understanding of Scripture; eventually he came to be considered a heretic, but he was
the first to develop a distinct canon of Scripture that included only a
modified version of Luke's Gospel and ten of Paul's letters, plus his own
‘Gospel”. He rejected the Old Testament
entirely, claiming that the God of the Old Testament was different from the God
of the New Testament, whom he saw as a God of grace and love. Along with the
portions of Scripture mentioned above, his own version of the Gospel in his
canon, the Antitheses,
[which has not survived the test of time] is known only through references to
it by others, among those being early church fathers Epiphanius, Irenaeus, and
Tertullian. Marcion's actions highlighted the need for an authoritative
collection of texts, which eventually led to the formalization of the New
Testament canon by the end of the fourth century through councils such as those
at Hippo and Carthage. His influence
is evident in the way early church leaders, like Irenaeus, responded by
affirming the existing authoritative scriptures and rejecting Marcion's
alterations and exclusions. His heresies though, lived on throughout the fourth
century, or even today, still have sway in the 21st century.
·
See also: The article “Marcion
and the Stranger God”, https://web.archive.org/web/20080222042247/http://members.aol.com/didymus5/ch9.html
· Miller, J. David (2004) "The Story of the Christian Canon," Leaven: Vol. 12: Iss. 1, Article 3. Available at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol12/iss1/3 [Your author highly recommends this reading, for it gives one a grasp of the complexity of the creation of what we call today “the Bible”.]
[5] Tanakh: “…TaNaK (Hebrew: תנ״ך), or Tanakh, is an acronym for the Hebrew Bible consisting of the initial Hebrew letters (T + N + K) of each of the text's three major parts. Since the ancient Hebrew language had no clear vowels, subsequent vowel sounds were added to the consonants resulting in the word “TaNaK”. The major portions of the Hebrew Bible represented by these three letters are:
· Torah (תורה) {Ta-}meaning "Instruction" or "Law." Also called the Chumash חומש meaning: "The five"; "The five books of Moses." Also called the "Pentateuch." The Torah is often referred to as the law of the Jewish people.
· Nevi'im (נביאים) {-Na-} meaning "Prophets." This term is associated with anything to do with the prophets.
·
Ketuvim (כתובים) {-Kh}meaning "Writings." This part of the Tanakh is
further separated into different sections including a group of history books,
wisdom books, poetry books and psalms…”
· In Hebrew, the Tanakh is also called מקרא, Mikra or Miqra, meaning "that which is read. The Tanakh is not only sacred scripture for the Jews but is also considered by Christians to be divinely inspired…” from New World Encyclopedia contributors, 'TaNaK', New World Encyclopedia, , 27 February 2023, 02:04 UTC, <https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/p/index.php?title=TaNaK&oldid=1102158> [accessed 8 December 2024] {Bold embellishments and bullet points are mine. DER}
[6] “…The Old
Testament, a name coined by Melito of
Sardis in the 2nd century ce, is longer than the Hebrew Bible, in part
because Christian editors divided particular works into two sections but also
because different Christian groups consider as canonical some
texts not found in the Hebrew Bible…” Quoted from the article found in
Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Old Testament."
Encyclopedia Britannica, November 22, 2024. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Old-Testament.
·
The reason I despise the term
“Old Testament” is simple: by and of itself, this term’s definition implies
that something “old” is ”… old, ancient, venerable, antique, antiquated, archaic,
obsolete mean having come into existence or use in the more or less distant
past… old may apply to either actual or merely relative length of existence.…”
[from “Old.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/old . Accessed 8
Dec. 2024].
·
Notice the synonyms:
“…ancient…antiquated…archaic…obsolete…” This in many ways (and in the Christian
traditions) means that three-quarters of
the Bible rendered to nothing more than a back-story, or color- commentary, and
of little or no use in the theology of the “Church”.
·
It is true that the OT is still
venerated of course, but only to serve a point, that the “new has come, and the
old is done away with”. Also, the following points can be seen as either
contentious or relevant:
o
Connotation of obsolescence:
"Old" suggests something worn out or no longer useful; while this can
also be construed as misleading since many Christians believe the Old Testament
contains important truths and prophecies that are still relevant, others simply
choose to ignore that the heart of the Creator is found within its pages.
o
Focus on discontinuity: It can imply a
sharp break between the Old and New Testaments, even when a sense of continuity
exists between the Testaments.
o
Misinterpretation of
"Testament”: “Testament" is often associated with a will or
covenant in English, but the Hebrew term behind it signifies a
"contract" or "agreement" between God and his people, which
is understood as a continuous relationship.
Given the diverse and varied treatment that the “Old Testament” is given within the various denominational factions of Christianity, one can say that the influence of Marcion still affects the “Church” today.(refer back to footnote ‘iv’)
[7] “Old.”
Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/old . Accessed 9
Jan. 2025.
[8] I have “borrowed” this
term “Jurassic Bible” from the late Dr. Michael S. Heiser’s book “The Bible Unfiltered:
Approaching Scripture on its own Terms” copyright 2017 Lexham Press, chapter
30.
1 Jack Horner and James Gorman, How to Build a Dinosaur:
Extinction Doesn’t Have to be Forever (New York: Dutton, 2009). Horner was also
the technical advisor for all the Jurassic Park films.
[9] Michael S. Heiser, The Bible Unfiltered: Approaching Scripture on
Its Own Terms (Bellingham, WA:
Lexham Press, 2017), 119–121.
[10] 1
Tertullian lived around AD 160–225. Irenaeus lived around AD 130–200. Augustine
lived around AD 354–430.
2 Late
Antiquity is the historical period from around AD 250–750 in the ancient
Mediterranean and the ancient Near East. The Middle Ages are the period of
European history from roughly the fall of Rome in the 5th century AD to the
beginning of the Renaissance in the 15th century AD. The Protestant Reformation
took place in western Europe in the 16th century AD. The Puritans were a group
of English Protestants, mainly associated with the 16th–17th centuries AD.
Michael S. Heiser, The Bible Unfiltered: Approaching
Scripture on Its Own Terms (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2017), 11–13.
[11] Some
articles and Scholars to look at:
·
E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., “Divine
Assembly,” The Anchor Yale Bible
Dictionary, vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 215–216
·
S. B. Parker, “Sons of (The)
God(S),” Dictionary of Deities
and Demons in the Bible (Leiden; Boston; Köln; Grand Rapids, MI;
Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999)
·
Michael S. Heiser, “Divine
Council,” The Lexham Bible
Dictionary (ed. John D. Barry and Lazarus Wentz; Bellingham, WA:
Lexham Press, 2012)
·
Michael S. Heiser, “Divine
Council,” in the Dictionary of
the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry, and Writings (Downers Grove,
Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2008
·
E. Theodore Mullen, The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early
Hebrew Literature (Harvard Semitic Monographs 24; Chico, CA:
Scholars Press, 1980)
·
Lowell K. Handy, Among the Host of Heaven: The
Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
1994)
·
Matitiahu Tsevat, “God and the
Gods in Assembly,” Hebrew Union
College Annual 40–41
(1969–1970): 123-137
·
Mark S. Smith, “Astral Religion
and the Representation of Divinity: The Cases of Ugarit and Judah,” Prayer, Magic, and the Stars in the Ancient
and Late Antique World (ed. Scott Noegel, Joel Walker, Brannon
Wheeler; University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003),
187-206
·
Alan Scott, Origen and the Life of the Stars: The
History of An Idea (Oxford Early Christian Studies; Oxford
University Press, 1994.
·
Casper J. Labuschagne, The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old
Testament (E. J. Brill, 1966)
·
Catrin H. Williams, “I am He”: The Meaning and Interpretation of
“ANI HU” in Jewish and Early Christian Literature (WUNT 113, Reihe
2; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1999)
·
Nathan MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of”
Monotheism (FZAT 1, Reihe 2; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2012)
·
Mark S. Smith, The origins of biblical monotheism: Israel’s
polytheistic background and the Ugaritic texts. Oxford University Press,
2001.
·
Kline, M. G. “Creation in the
Image of the Glory-Spirit.” WTJ 39
(1977) 250–72.
·
J. M. Lundquist, “What Is a
Temple? A Preliminary Typology” In The
Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George Mendenhall (Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 205-219
·
J. M. Lundquist, “The Common
Temple Ideology of the Ancient Near East,” in The Temple in Antiquity (Religious Monograph Series 9; ed.
T. G. Madsen; Provo, Utah, 1984), 53-76
·
I. Cornelius, “גַּן,” New
International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. W.
A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997), 1.875–78
·
Daniel T. Lioy, “The Garden of
Eden as a Primordial Temple or Sacred Space for Humankind,” Conspectus: The Journal of the South African
Theological Seminary 10 (2010): 25-57
·
I. Cornelius, “The Garden in the
Iconography of the Ancient Near East,” Journal of Semitic Studies 1 (1989) 204–28
·
G. J. Wenham, “Sanctuary
Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story,” in “I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood”: Ancient Near Eastern
and Literary Approaches to Genesis 1–11, ed R. S. Hess and D. Tsumura
(SBTS 4: Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994) 19–25
·
L. Michael Morales, The Tabernacle Prefigured: Cosmic Mountain
Ideology in Genesis and Exodus (Biblical Tools and Studies 15;
Peeters, 2011
· John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 123-124, 196-198
On the Watchers in Daniel 10 and Daniel 10 more generally:
·
John J. Collins, “Watcher,” Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the
Bible (ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der
Horst; Leiden; Boston; Köln; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans,
1999)
·
M. J. Davidson, Angels at Qumran. A Comparative Study of
1Enoch 1–36, 72–108 and Sectarian writings from Qumran (JSP Sup 11;
Sheffield 1992), 38–40
·
R. Murray, “The Origin of
Aramaic ʿîr, Angel, Orientalia 53 (1984): 303–317
·
Aleksander R. Michalak, Angels as warriors in late Second Temple
Jewish literature(Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2
Reihe 330; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012
·
Skinner, J. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
Genesis. ICC. 2d ed. Edinburgh: Clark, 1930
·
Johann Jakob Stamm, “Die
Imago-Lehre von Karl Barth und die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft,” Antwort. FS Karl Barth, Zürich-Zollikon (1956):
84-98.
