Having recently finished Gerard Russell's Heirs of Forgotten Kingdoms (Basic Books, 2014) I found myself once again irritated and put off by popular but erroneous narratives concerning Second Temple Judaism.
Somewhat reminiscent of William Dalrymple's From the Holy Mountain (though not as
interesting), the Russell book deals with the many minority sects scattered
across the Middle East – the Yezidis, Druze, Samaritans, Mandaeans,
Zoroastrians, and Copts. Syncretism plays a big part in the discussions as he
posits a great deal of cross-fertilisation between Hellenistic and Jewish
impulses as well as the powerful imprint left by Persian Zoroastrianism. Interesting
at times, it was typical of what one finds in comparative religious studies and
yet (I thought) overall poorly done and with the kind of arrogant irreverence
that so often typifies contemporary Western travel writing. I've read other
books like it (though more dated) and this one would not be placed at the top
of any list that I would compose.
What's troubling to me, is the suggesting that the Jewish
religion underwent radical influence and change during the time of its contact
with the Persian Empire which (as readers of Daniel will know) succeeded that
of Nebuchadnezzar's Neo-Babylonian Empire in the sixth century BC.
The contention is that prior to this period, Jewish thought
and theology possessed little to no concept regarding the afterlife, the
angelic realm, and the apocalyptic genre was unknown.
This is further argued by modern scholars on the basis and
assumptions of unbelief. Rejecting the supernatural, the very concept of Divine
revelation, and the possibility of predictive prophecy, the Old Testament is
deconstructed and becomes a composite of old and newer texts that were compiled
much later by figures like Ezra the Scribe, and in many cases did not find
their final form until what is usually referred to as the Inter-testamental
period – the largely Hellenistic era between the fourth century BC and the
first century AD.
Christians must reject these arguments as spurious. There are
many worthwhile inquiries and debates regarding the composition of the Old
Testament text and its dating, but it's safe to say that the Jews (by means of
Divine revelation) certainly had a concept of angels and demons, as well as the
afterlife well before the Babylonian and Persian exiles. The apocalyptic form
would become more popular in the latter days of the Old Covenant era to be sure
but it existed prior and can be seen in Isaiah, Joel, Amos, the Psalms, and
elsewhere. And unlike these unbelievers we argue and believe that Daniel was
written in the sixth-century BC, and that Job is not some late composition
dating from the days after the exile, but rather is ancient and in fact may be
as old as the Pentateuch itself – or even older.
These are unbelievers. We can answer their arguments and
assail the flawed foundations upon which they rest, but apart from the
transformative work of the Holy Spirit – they are lost and will continue to
fulminate, producing their lies and blasphemies. So be it.
But we have a larger problem because the Evangelical
community in its zeal for cultural relevance and standing has sought a place in
the academy and have an established record of compromise – pushing the limits
of their supposed Biblical fidelity in order to straddle the fence. They want
to maintain the faith even as they keep a foot solidly planted in the world of
secular academia – where they think they can make a difference.
As a consequence, many Evangelicals accept these same assumptions
and arguments regarding the Second Temple period and the related narratives
regarding the development of Judaism and the Old Testament. They simply re-cast
traditional understandings regarding the nature of what Scripture is and how
God works. The God-breathed Holy Writings are transformed into works of
appropriation as Hebrew scribes and scholars (apparently under some form of
inspiration) take and borrow concepts and imagery (even resorting to
pseudepigrapha or forgery) from the pagans and effectively sanctify them in
order to demonstrate Jehovah's victory. Rather than understand that the
parallels found in the pagan world in the imagery of Baal or the Great Flood
are counterfeits or distorted left-overs from primeval memory, they are granted
legitimacy as the original texts, the sources used by Biblical authors who
simply re-crafted them to conform to Hebrew cosmology and eschatological
expectation. In other words the Biblical accounts borrow or steal from them and
transform them. These Evangelical scholars claim that the process is guided by
a Divine inspirational hand and so it's not a problem. This way they can grant
the arguments of the Theological Liberals and Textual Critics even while
maintaining a form of Divine Inspiration and supernaturalism – having it both
ways as it were. It's very slippery and apparently a lot of people don't
understand the issues at stake. I have previously visited this point in my
discussions of the late Michael Heiser. While appreciative in one sense of what
he was trying to do in calling attention to neglected aspects of Biblical
cosmology and many of the points he elucidated – nevertheless I see his work as
potentially dangerous because his views of Scripture were basically liberal.
When Evangelicals embrace this type of thinking there are
other problems that emerge. They are quick to employ these critical arguments
in order to make their case against the cosmology of a non-canonical work like
1 Enoch or to repudiate the Apocrypha and attempt to deconstruct it.
But they do so at their own peril for the same arguments are
easily applied to the likes of Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, or Job, as the
liberal scholars will claim these works also borrowed heavily from Zoroastrian
cosmology. For the liberals (and we must here include Heiser) these works
become pseudepigrapha (counterfeits written by authors other than what they
purport to be). This is fine for the liberals (and liberal Evangelicals) who
don't care about the integrity of Scripture and the doctrine of inspiration, or
for liberal Catholics who argue that authorship isn't as nearly as important as
the Church's stamp of approval. For them authority doesn't rest on Scripture
itself but only on what the Church says about these writings and how it
interprets them. If the Church calls fraudulent texts Scripture – then they are
no longer fraudulent but Scripture.
But for those in the historic Protestant tradition, this is
unacceptable. If Daniel didn't write Daniel – then the book is a lie, a mere human
composition, a kind of parable or story. It cannot be authoritative in the way
it has been traditionally understood.
A great many changes certainly took place during the Second
Temple period, but those committed to the integrity and authority of Scripture
need to be clear on these points – and honest. Convenient arguments should not
employed to score a quick point against works that aren't accepted or liked
even while major concessions are being made in doing so.
It shouldn't surprise us that this spurious type of reasoning
has crept into Evangelical scholarship regarding the New Testament with growing
numbers accepting liberal arguments regarding the authorship of the Pastoral
Epistles, the Apocalypse (Revelation), and even the composition of the Gospels.
Red flags should go up when you hear supposed conservatives talking about 'Q'
as a source document for Matthew and Luke. Needless to say this often goes hand
in hand with certain attitudes and assumptions regarding textual criticism and
attempts to reconstruct the supposedly flawed text of the New Testament.
Such views represent a repudiation of Scriptural authority, and
the very concepts of revelation as taught in the New Testament. It rejects what
Scripture says about itself – or to put it in stronger terms, what the Holy
Spirit says about the writings He inspired.
If there was no concept of the resurrection prior to the
exile, then Christ was a liar when He in Matthew 22 argued that God's words in
Exodus teach the resurrection. The narratives surrounding Second Temple Judaism
won't allow for it and effectively grant validity to the arguments of the
Sadducees.
Like Christ we must say to them – you do err, not knowing the
Scriptures nor the power of God.
See also:
https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2019/07/heisers-unseen-realm-and-divine-council.html