Nevertheless, the Aleppo Codex (or “Crown of Aleppo”) remains a most important witness to the Massoretic Bible, though nearly half of it now has been lost. But, as a few fragments of that lost portion have in recent years come to light, it may be hoped that more of the codex will be recovered, not having been burned after all, but smuggled away and preserved in secret.

The reason for mentioning all this is so that I can point you to this article, a review of a new book on the Crown of Aleppo by Hayim Tawil and Bernard Schneider.

For more information about the Aleppo Codex, and even to view the extant portions, go to this amazing site.

This site is concerned mostly with Bible study, but also with later Christian History. One of the classes in the core curriculum is “church history”, so Zwierlein’s book is relevant in this regard.

But I wanted to mention it also because of the way Zwierlein treats one particular verse. Quoting van der Horst’s review: “Zwierlein persuasively argues that the reference to Babylon in 1Peter 5.13 cannot be regarded as a metaphor for Rome but only for the (Jewish and Christian) diaspora mentioned in 1.1.” Since I had thought that the equation of 1Peter’s Babylon with Rome was pretty standard in scholarship, and that therefore the First Epistle of Peter was written in Rome, I found it interesting that Zwierlein argued on the contrary, and in such a way that van der Horst considers the argument persuasive.

I’m sure that most of my readers won’t want to read Petrus in Rom, not least because of the language in which it’s written, but perhaps the English review will prove helpful as you think about the traditions surrounding Peter in later Christian history.

This means that the Gospel writers had particular purposes in mind for what they wanted to accomplish with their representation of the life of Jesus. The more precisely we understand that purpose, the better we will comprehend how the narratives that are selected for inclusion meet that purpose. It’s not good enough simply to say that the Gospels were written to tell us about Jesus, or even to generate faith in the readers, for John says plainly that many other episodes could have done this just as well as the ones he chose to record. What we want to know is, why did this Gospel writer choose to relate this episode at this place?

It would also be nice if we could provide a decent answer to why we have four Gospels. Do each of the four accomplish different things? That would mean that each of the four have distinct purposes, and the episodes recorded in that particular Gospel should contribute toward that purpose, even to the point of saying that a story recorded in all four Gospels (such as the feeding of the 5000: Mt. 14:31–21 // Mk. 6:32–44 // Lk. 9:10–17 // Jn. 6:1–13) might have a different meaning in each of the four, because the Gospel writer will have selected it for his own Gospel for his own purpose, thus emphasizing a certain aspect of the story as it relates to how he wants to depict Jesus. [Just as an example: one historian of America might describe Washington’s crossing the Delaware to emphasize his bravery, another might tell the same story to stress his cunning.]

Our focus on the Sermon on the Mount requires that we know something about Matthew’s distinctive purposes. One thing to note is that the First Gospel emphasizes Jesus’ descent from David much more than the other three, indeed, much more than any other writer in the NT.

This emphasis on Jesus as “Son of David” begins in the first verse of the Gospel.

“The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”

There follows a genealogy that also highlights David as ancestor of Jesus. Contrast this emphasis on David in Matthew’s genealogy (Mt. 1:1–17) with Luke’s genealogy (3:23–38), which barely mentions David. Following the genealogy, the angel Gabriel addresses Joseph, the “father” of Jesus, as “son of David” (1:20).

The rest of the First Gospel has these other references to Jesus as “Son of David”, with the speaker of this epithet in parentheses, and parallels to other Gospels noted.

9:27 (two blind men asking for healing)

12:23 (the crowds questioning the identity of Jesus)

15:22 (Syrophoenician woman; the parallel in Mark 7:24–30 does not use the title)

20:30–31 (Bartimaeus and friend; parallels with title in Mark 10:47–48; Luke 18:38–39)

21:9, 15 (the crowds at the Triumphal Entry; the parallel in Mark 11:9–10 has “our father David”; the parallel in Luke 19:38 has “the king”)

The final instance is in a story found in all three Synoptic Gospels (Mt. 22:41–46; Mk. 12:35–37; Lk. 20:41–44). In Matthew’s version, Jesus asks the Pharisees whose son the Messiah is. When they respond “the son of David”, he asks how this could be when David himself (the author of the psalms) called the Messiah “Lord” in Psalm 110:1. Of course, Jesus is saying that the Messiah would be “son of David” and more, indeed, even David’s Lord, against their expectations. Matthew’s Gospel has prepared us by this point to declare the Pharisees spiritually blind, since they are expecting the “son of David” but do not recognize the “son of David” when he’s standing before them.

This emphasis on David in the First Gospel stands in contrast to the comparative neglect of David in the rest of the NT. To be sure, Luke’s infancy narratives do stress that the Jesus’ parents descend from David (1:27, 32, 69; 2:4, 11), but, excluding references to David as author of psalms, the rest of the Gospel has only the two instances noted above as parallels to Matthew’s stories. John’s Gospel mentions David only once (7:42).

Most of the rest of the NT merely thinks of David as author of psalms that prophecy the Christian dispensation. An exception is Acts 15:16, but this is quoting Amos 9:11. Paul refers to Christ as descendant of David only twice (Rom. 1:2; 2 Tim. 2:8), and he mentions David only twice more, both times as author of psalms (Rom. 4:6; 11:9). Hebrews mentions David twice (4:7; 11:32), neither in reference to Christ. Revelation contains three references to David, twice naming Christ as the “root of David” (5:5; 22:16), once proclaiming that Christ possesses the “key of David” (3:7).

So, it seems pretty clear that the eight appearance of the term “son of David” in the First Gospel, along with the prominence of David in Matthew’s genealogy of Christ, reveals a distinctive emphasis of this Gospel on Christ’s descent from David. Since this post is already getting fairly lengthy, I’ll save till next time how I think recognizing this theme might help us situate the Sermon on the Mount.

First, there is the historical context of the event in the “real world” life of Jesus. How old was he? How long had he ministered to others? Where was he? What was he trying to accomplish in his own time and place? What sorts of people were around him?

For much of this we can only take educated guesses. Even though we cannot definitively answer many of these questions, I do believe that it is helpful for us to conjure up in our minds what the situation was for Jesus. Sometimes this exercise will help us excise implausible notions from our minds about our perfect savior Jesus. The fact is, his life was far from perfect (I’m not talking about sin; I’m talking about what we think of as “the perfect life”—one of peace and happiness) and almost all the people with whom he came in contact eventually opposed him and demanded his death.

For some of the implausible notions that are often in our minds, just go to YouTube and search for “Sermon on the Mount”. The first few clips give typical depictions of this scene—Jesus walks around on the side of a mountain among an enormous crowd, all of whom hang on his every word. Some begin to weep as Jesus declaims the beattitudes, overturning cultural norms and giving hope to the countless masses while dramatic music ratchets up the drama. This is perhaps what we often think regarding the Sermon on the Mount, but a moment’s reflection should dispel this notion.

It seems more likely that the people far from Jesus couldn’t make out a word, or what they did hear they misunderstood (“Blessed are the cheesemakers”). Have you ever listened to a sermon outside in the open without a sound system? Most of the time for me it’s been impossible to hear if I’m more than 20 feet or so from the one speaking, especially if anyone’s whispering to his neighbor, or there’s any breeze. I imagine also that on that Galilean mountain mothers were holding crying babies, kids were running around, many people were getting impatient waiting for lunch. (Is this not what happens in our own lives every Sunday morning?) You might say, “But this is Jesus. The people would pay attention!” On the contrary, we know that the vast majority of the people following Jesus couldn’t care less about his message; they just wanted supper (John 6) or a sign (Matt. 12:38-45).

The people that actually cared about what Jesus was saying were probably few and probably crowding closer to him so that they could hear. This may be what Matthew intends for us to imagine, anyway (5:1–2). I know that the “crowds” were amazed at his authoritativeness (7:28), but it wouldn’t take a whole lot of concentration to discern the difference in this regard between Jesus’ Sermon and rabbinic teaching.

I say all this in order to make this point: the accounts we have about Jesus are literature (i.e., the Gospels), and this literature aims not to report exhaustively every episode in Jesus’ life (no literature could; cf. John 21:25), but to communicate most effectively the meaning of Jesus’ life in order to bring people to faith (cf. John 20:30–31). Therefore, it omits much historical detail deemed (rightly) irrelevant to this purpose, such as the exact number of people at this Sermon, or the various distractions that competed with Jesus for the attention of the people. When once we realize that sacred literature has no interest in imparting these details, we are free to imagine what would most likely be the case, based on any relevant data external to the text, even from our own experiences. If a casual reading of Matthew 5–7 creates the impression that Jesus was speaking under perfect conditions to a perfect audience, a consideration of the nature of the Gospel of Matthew should relieve us from feeling bound to this impression.

This previous paragraph is more about literary context than historical context, but that is the subject of the next post.

In order to cover the entire curriculum in 8 years, we have to limit the Book of Genesis to a single 13-week quarter. We have to limit Romans to a single quarter. When you only have 13 40-minute class sessions to cover these books, you really must fly through them.

By “fly through them”, though, I don’t mean that you should prepare enough material to cover sufficiently your biblical book, and then talk really quickly so that you can get it all in. Since the point of the class is not to have all the information enter the air in the room, but actually to enter the minds of the students and stay there, every class must always be geared toward helping these particular students understand in the most useful way this particular book. Since time is limited, that will usually not involve going in to great detail about individual verses of the book.

Actually, I think this might be good—our inability to go in to great detail. I think sometimes our churches get lost in the details when studying books like Genesis or Romans (not to mention Revelation), and at the end of the class, which may have taken a year or more, the students still don’t know what the book is about. Maybe they could talk about the meaning of individual verses or passages, but they might not see how it all fits together, how the book itself works as a book (or a letter, or a collection of psalms or proverbs, or whatever), with a certain progression designed to communicate an overall message.

It should be obvious, though, that if one cannot identify the purpose or argument of an entire book, then one will necessarily take the individual verses or passages out of context when interpreting them (even if one can go into great detail about their interpretation) because one doesn’t understand the context, or hasn’t even given thought to the context.

What we need is to see the books of the Bible as complete entities, and from there we can move on to interpret the individual pieces. The Bible class curriculum will allow us to accomplish only one of these aims, so the first one demands our attention. The pieces will not escape our notice, but we will typically consign them to the sermons during worship services, where more detail on a limited passage proves more beneficial. Moreover, the elective classes may serve as times when we can spend a quarter-length study on a smaller portion of scripture, as I mentioned in another post.

Therefore, when teaching a biblical book, we should (I think) focus on the book as a whole. I would recommend highlighting in your preparation and teaching the following elements.

Context—the situation that generated this book. This will cover the typical “introductory” issues such as authorship, date, provenance, audience, etc. Every biblical book has its own setting (what scholars call the Sitz im Leben), which will help us understand why the book was written.

Purpose—why was the book written? What is the book trying to accomplish? What situation is addressed, and what does this book want to do about that situation? A British scholar named David Clines is well known for writing a few articles with the title “What is the Book of X [insert name of biblical book] and What Does It Do to You If You Read It?” Keep this question in mind for your biblical book, and you may learn to look at Bible study (and the Bible!) in a new way and bless your students, too.

Content—what does the book say? An outline of the book would be helpful, one emphasizing not just the section breaks but how the different sections of the book fit together to form one, coherent whole. How does Paul’s argument move from ch. 1 to ch. x? How do the Gospel writers move the action along? How does Gen. 1–11 prepare us for Gen. 12? Whereas earlier we examined the historical context of the book, here we look at literary context of the pericopes (another good scholarly word—feel free to use these in casual conversation; I do [maybe that’s why I don’t have any friends?]) so that we understand how they all fit together.

Theology—how does this book help us to understand God? The point of Bible study is not just to comprehend the nature of each biblical book, but to see God more clearly and learn how to be like him, to bear his image well in our daily lives. We certainly want to synthesize the teaching about God throughout the Bible so that we have a single, coherent view of him. But we also want to know where this synthesis came from, the individual portraits of God found in the various biblical books. If we don’t do this latter step, we run the very real risk of constructing a distorted view of God based more on what we think he should be like rather than what he has said about himself in his revealed word. So, the goal of this final and most important step of Bible study is twofold: (1) to understand the view of God contained in this individual book of the Bible, and (2) to understand how the view of God in this book contributes to the overall portrait of God throughout the Bible.

I hope this outline of topics proves beneficial in your Bible study.

Would you approach teaching the Bible differently from the way I’ve presented it here? Would you tweak anything, make any additions, or modify an emphasis? Let me know about what you would do in the comments.

Go here for a news story, with pictures, about the recent discovery of an ancient Israelite wall, dating perhaps to the tenth century BC. The archaeologists involved in the discovery suggest that King Solomon built the wall. This claim will certainly be disputed, and we are well-advised by Jim Davila to wait until further information is available before drawing any conclusions. It would be nice if further investigation revealed an ascription on the wall with something to the effect of “Built by Solomon, son of David, in the year 950 before the coming of the Messiah,” but I wouldn’t get my hopes up.

This may also be a good time to mention the Qeiyafa inscription. Some readers of this blog (if there are any) may have heard of this inscription as very early evidence for the authenticity of the Bible (see the link for the Wikipedia write-up). Unfortunately, even if the inscription says something about a king and poor people (as some have alleged), this would provide but dubious evidence for the authenticity of biblical texts, and it is not at all clear that the inscription says anything relevant at all. See Christopher Rollston‘s alternative interpretation.

These two recent discoveries display clearly some of the problems with archaeology, or perhaps with the public perception of archaeology. A widespread notion associates a level of exactitude and “science” with archaeology that is simply not practical, at least, not when the discoveries are recent. People make these discoveries, and people are the ones interpreting their significance, and as long as people are involved in the process, there will be plenty of disagreements. If these two discoveries don’t provide sufficient evidence, surely the history of research on the Dead Sea Scrolls shows abundantly that archaeological discovery does not end debate but simply provides new data to debate.

One of the reasons the electives were put into place in the schedule was that I thought it would be easier to get people to teach if they could choose the topic, rather than having me tell them what to teach. I have found just the opposite to be the case. When I give potential teachers the option of teaching a subject I have picked, or one they get to select, almost invariably they opt for my assigning the topic.

So, now I’m in a bit of a bind. (Okay, not much of a bind yet, since I’ve got several months before I have to find teachers for the winter quarter.) I need to find someone who wants to teach a subject not in the core curriculum. So, does anyone have a class you’ve been wanting to teach? Volunteer for one of the elective slots!

To stimulate your thoughts, let me throw out some options for elective topics.
–Eschatology
–Biblical Covenants
–Jewish background to the NT
–Role of Woman in the Church
–History of Israel
–Life of Paul
–The Messianic Promise
–Life of David
–Ten Commandments

If these don’t strike your fancy, what topics not in the core curriculum do you think would be especially needed and helpful in a church Bible class? Leave me a comment with your suggestion.

But, the internet has also proven its worth in making easily available all manner of wonderful tools, and this also applies to biblical studies. The trick is knowing where to go for good information, and how to recognize the false/crazy views.

In terms of recognizing the bad information, there is no better way than to nourish yourself on good information. When you have read widely in the Bible and biblical studies, you will get a feel for what sorts of data are likely to be true, or what sorts are misleading, or even false/crazy. I don’t think there’s a shortcut to this.

But there is a shortcut to finding good information online. Let me recommend two websites that collect links to scholarly resources available on the internet.

I have already mentioned on this blog the NTGateway, operated by Mark Goodacre. Dr. Goodacre is a professor of NT at Duke University.

For the OT, I recommend iTanakh, operated by Chris Heard, professor of OT at Pepperdine.

These two websites do not link to Bible class materials. Instead, they link to websites that contain scholarly information on the OT or NT. Some of the views expressed on these websites will be opposed to your beliefs, no doubt, but the views should be based on a careful reading of the text, and should always prove stimulating, even if not convincing.

As a confession, I also admit to visiting Wikipedia quite often to get basic information on just about anything. Wikipedia can disseminate poor information, as is often noted, but the vast majority of the time it succeeds in providing an elementary introduction (and sometimes much more than that) to a subject, and even references bibliography for further research. In terms of my view of Wikipedia, I am in complete agreement with the opinions expressed frequently by Mark Goodacre. Typically, I use Wikipedia for two reasons: (1) to get my bearings on a topic about which I know nothing–in these instances, Wikipedia shows me a way forward, helps me know where to go next; (2) to see what the “common view” of a topic is. I suggest you use it in these ways, as well.

If you have suggestions for further websites that serve as good “one-stop shops” for biblical studies, let me know about them in the comments.

Here it is: The Biblical Monarchs.

The chart shows at the top the three kings of the United Monarchy–Saul, David, and Solomon. Saul’s name is italicized because the Bible depicts him as pious at the beginning of his reign. The Bible further relates that Saul turned from fearing God later in his reign, and so his name is not in bold. Notice that David’s name is italicized and in bold, meaning that the Bible’s depiction of David is one of piety throughout his reign, despite certain (shall we say) infelicities. Solomon’s name, like Saul’s, is italicized and not bold. The only king on the chart whose name is bold and not italicized is Manasseh, king of Judah in the seventh century. This is because Chronicles (note: not Kings) relates that Manasseh turned to God at the end of his life, though he had been fiercely opposed to faithful worship of the Israelite God for most of his reign. Manasseh’s name is bold because he feared God at the end of his reign, but it is not italicized because he did not fear God earlier.

You’ll also notice that Saul’s name is underlined, as is David’s, whereas Solomon’s name is not underlined. The underlining signifies that this king was not the son of the previous king. Of course, Saul was the first king of Israel, so his father was obviously not king. But usually the underlining indicates a change in dynasty, or something else peculiar going on, since one would normally expect a son to succeed his father if there is a peaceful transition of power.

After the names, you will find references to the biblical passages (in Samuel [S] or Kings [K], and then Chronicles [C]) where this king’s reign is described. Between the references to S/K and C, there is a bold number and another verse reference. This bold number is the length of the king’s reign, and the verse reference is the passage containing this information.

Finally, there is a possible date for the beginning of the king’s reign. Ancient Israelite chronology is sometimes very difficult, especially when it comes to these kings. The chart suggests some possible reasons for this difficulty, and gives a reference for further information.

After the United Monarchy comes the Divided Monarchy, when the kingdom split into the northern nation of Israel (on the right) and the southern nation of Judah (on the left). This split of the kingdom is described in 1K 11-12, and according to 1K 12:23, the southern nation consisted of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, whereas the northern nation comprised the rest of the tribes. The southern nation maintained the Davidic dynasty, whereas there was quite a bit of dynastic turnover in the north, as will be clear from the number of names that are underlined on the right side of the chart.

I hope this chart proves helpful to you as you study and teach God’s word.

The first thing to do when preparing to teach the Sermon on the Mount is to read the Gospel of Matthew. Reading the whole book will allow the teacher to discern the place and function of the Sermon within Matthew’s presentation of the Savior. During such a reading, one should take careful note of the development of Jesus’ ministry as related in Matthew, as well as the recognition of Jesus’ identity among the Jewish people (i.e., Who do the people think Jesus is?). Following this reading, the teacher would do well to read a brief introduction to the Gospel, especially one highlighting its literary structure. Good introductions now appear online, and the NTGateway will prove helpful in locating them. A scholarly introduction will surely reveal aspects of the Gospel that a casual reading overlooks. Also, the first part (chs. 1–5) of Talbert’s book (referenced above) should aid in setting the Sermon on the Mount in its historical and literary context in the First Gospel.

The teacher should next consider Luke 6 and 12. These chapters have a different setting than the Sermon on the Mount as found in Matthew, and yet many of the teachings of Jesus are similar or even identical. Perhaps the teacher will want to reflect on the historical or literary relationships between Luke’s presentation of these teachings and that of Matthew. A good commentary should help in this regard. The relationship between Matthew and Luke for this material is part of the extremely thorny Synoptic Problem, which refers to the striking similarities and obvious differences among Matthew, Mark, and Luke. For a good audio introduction to the Synoptic Problem, along with some of its proposed solutions, go to the NTPod by Mark Goodacre (episodes 23, 24, 25, and 26; or the extended episodes 1, 2, and 3).

As a final step in the teacher’s preparation, the teacher would benefit from reading a book about the meaning of the entire Sermon, what Jesus was trying to accomplish, and how the individual parts of the Sermon connect to make one or several main points. The book by Talbert will serve this function for the upcoming class at the Florence Blvd. congregation.

A teacher may find helpful the following outline for teaching the Sermon on the Mount in a congregational setting. [Note: this quarter-length study will have only twelve lessons, rather than the usual thirteen, because our congregation devotes one Wednesday evening each quarter to singing.]

1. Introduction, Matthew’s presentation of Jesus, the literary context of the Sermon.

2. Overview of the Sermon, including an outline, relationship to Luke 6 and 12

3. The Beattitudes (5:3–12)

4. The Salt of the Earth (5:13–16)

5. The Fulfillment of the Law (5:17–48), overview of Jesus’ teaching in this section

6. Personal Relationships (5:21–26, 33–48)

7. Adultery and Divorce (5:27–32)

8. The Nature of Piety (6:1–18)

9. Material Possessions (6:19–34)

10. Righteous Judgment (7:1–12)

11. The Way of Life (7:13–23)

12. A Solid Foundation (7:24–29), including a summary of the entire Sermon.

For each lesson, the teacher should make every effort to link what Jesus is saying to what he has already said. Talbert’s book should help with this, along with the plethora of commentaries on Matthew that are available at the Overton Memorial Library on the campus of Heritage Christian University.

The focus of each lesson should be on what Jesus’ instructions meant to his contemporaries on a practical level, and what they mean to us. How would it help the church fulfill its mission if the modern followers of Jesus lived out the message of Jesus as presented in the Sermon on the Mount?