On prepositions and pre-existence

What follows is a largely a summary of Gregory E. Sterling’s paper, Prepositional Metaphysics in Jewish Wisdom Speculation and Early Christian Liturgical Texts.[1] This rather intimidating title disguises a fascinating essay with significant Christological implications, particularly pertaining to New Testament texts which ascribe to Christ a role in the creation of all things.

Sterling begins his paper by highlighting the role that significant prepositional phrases in the New Testament played in the Arian controversy.  He notes that ‘The tutor of the future emperor Julian had argued that the use of ἐξ οὖ in reference to the Father and δι’ οὖ in reference to the Son [in 1 Cor 8:6] marked a distinction between the two since dissimilar terms imply dissimilar natures.’[2]

He then asks whether early Christians used such prepositional phrases in the technical way in which they were used in Hellenistic philosophy.

For instance, the pseudonymous author of De mundo (c. 3^rd century BC) wrote: ‘all things are from God (ἐκ θεοῦ) and through God (διὰ θεοῦ) hold together for us’.[3] Aelius Aristides (2^nd century AD) addressed the god Serapis with the words, ‘For all things everywhere are through you (διὰ σοῦ) and have become for us on account of you (διὰ σέ)’.[4]

Aetius the doxographer (between 2^nd century BC and 1^st century AD) states the following concerning Plato’s view of causation:

Plato held there were three causes. He says: ‘by which (ὑφ’ οὖ), out of which (ἐξ οὖ), to which (πρὸς ὅ)’. He considers the by which (τὸ ὑφ’ οὖ) to be the most important. This was that which creates, that is the mind.[5]

Hellenistic Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria (1^st century AD) held a Middle Platonic position which described four causes:

For many things must come together for the generation of something: the by which (τὸ ὑφ’ οὖ), the from which (τὸ ἐξ οὖ), the through which (τὸ δι’ οὖ), and the for which (τὸ δι’ ὅ)…The by which (τὸ ὑφ’ οὖ) is the cause (τὸ αἴτιον), the from which (τὸ ἐξ οὖ) is the matter (ἡ ὑλη), the through which (τὸ δι’ οὖ) is the tool (τὸ ἐργαλεῖον), the for which (τὸ δι’ ὅ) is the purpose (ἡ αἰτία).[6]

Philo identifies each of these with reference to the cosmos:

[the] cause (αἴτιον) is God, by whom (ὑφ’ οὖ) it came into existence, its material (ἡ ὑλη) is the four elements out of which (ἐξ ὧν) it has been composed, its instrument (ὄργανον) is the Logos of God (λόγος θεοῦ) through whom (δι’ οὗ) it was constructed, the purpose (αἰτία) of its construction is the goodness of the Demiurge.[7]

He goes on to note that Philo does not speak exclusively of the Logos as the instrument of creation; he also uses the same expression for Wisdom (which he elsewhere equates with the Logos).[8]

Broadly speaking, Sterling identified two Hellenistic philosophical models for explaining causation: the Stoic model and the Middle Platonic. The former view holds that there is one cause which can be described in various ways (as in Pseudo-Aristotle and Aelius Aristides) while the latter holds that there are several causes which can be identified (as in Aetius’ citation of Plato, and Philo). The key claim of Sterling’s paper are that the NT texts which use prepositional phrases metaphysically do so with their technical philosophical meanings – some using Stoic formulations for God and others using Middle Platonic formulations for Christ.[9]

Sterling then turns to exegesis of New Testament texts which use such prepositional phrases metaphysically to denote cause, which is ‘almost always signaled through the reference to “all things” (πάντα)’.[10] He observes that these texts are all regarded as reflecting early Christian liturgical practice in some way.[11]

He regards Rom. 11:36 and Heb. 2:10 as Stoic formulations for God. In the former case, Paul wrote, ‘for all things are from him (ἐξ αὐτοῦ) and through him (δι’ αὐτοῦ) and for him (εἰς αὐτόν)’.[12] In the latter case, the author wrote, ‘it is fitting for him for whom (δι’ ὅν) are all things and through whom (δι’ οὖ) are all things…’[13] In both cases, multiple prepositional constructions (notably including διὰ + genitive) are used to refer to a single cause.

Another group of texts (Heb. 1:2; John 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16) uses Platonic formulations to describe the Son’s role in creation. Heb. 1:2 says concerning the Son, ‘through whom (δι’ οὖ) he made the worlds’.[14] This formulation makes a clear distinction between God and the agent of creation. In this way it aligns with Middle Platonism which developed the instrumental agency which developed in the first century BCE. (Sterling 233)

John 1:3, 10 says concerning the Logos (who is evidently personal at least in v. 10), ‘the cosmos came into existence through him (δι’ αὐτοῦ)’.[15] Col. 1:16 uses three distinct prepositional phrases to describe Christ’s relationship to creation: the familiar ‘through him’ (δι’ αὐτοῦ), as well as ‘in him’ (ἐν αὐτῷ) and ‘for him’ (εἰς αὐτόν). On this, Sterling comments, ‘I suggest that the Christians who first set out this material were expanding the cosmological functions of Christ just as Philo expanded the functions for the Logos’.[16]

Is Col. 1:16 referring to the original creation or only the new creation? Sterling thinks that a careful analysis of the literary structure of the passage reveals that it consists of three units: one cosmological (Col. 1:15-16), one soteriological (Col. 1:18-20) and a middle unit which makes the transition between the two (Col. 1:17). He concludes,

The close parallels between the first and third units suggest that the cosmological material became the basis for the soteriological, i.e. the distinctive Christian contribution lies in the soteriological application of the pre-existing cosmological schema.[17]

Most intriguing of all is what Sterling describes as a ‘mixed text’ which brings both cosmological and soteriological concerns together: 1 Cor. 8:6. This verse states, ‘But for us there is one God the Father, from whom (ἐξ αὐτοῦ) are all things and we for him (εἰς αὐτόν), and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom (δι’ οὖ) are all things and we through him (δι’ αὐτοῦ)’.[18] Here, ‘The first half of each phrase is cosmological; the second half is soteriological’.[19]

Sterling points out the parallel in the contrast of prepositions with 1 Cor. 11:12, which says, ‘For just as the woman is from the man (ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρός), so is the man also through the woman (διὰ τῆς γυναικός)’.[20]

Sterling concludes by asking what was the source of early Christian use of metaphysical formulations such as those above. He hypothesizes that ‘Stoic and Platonic formulations of prepositional metaphysics found their way into Jewish synagogue liturgies in association with both attempts to present God in philosophical categories and in Wisdom speculations’.[21] The early church adopted these formulations, Christianized them, and added a soteriological dimension.

The Christological implications of the texts discussed above are quite clear, especially in light of Sterling’s study: they imply Christ’s personal pre-existence and active participation in creation. The minority of scholars who deny this, notably Dunn, generally do so on the grounds that these texts are not actually talking about Christ himself, but about Christ as the embodiment of God’s power. For instance, Dunn in Christology of the Making comments on Col. 1:15-20,

The two strophes become quite consistent as soon as we realize that throughout the hymn we are not talking about God’s creative power per se, nor of Christ per se, but of Christ whom Christians came to recognize as the embodiment and definition of that power… Is then the Colossian hymn writer trying to say any more than that the creation and Christ must be understood in relation to each other; now that Christ has been raised from the dead the power and purpose in creation cannot be fully understood except in terms of Christ, and so too Christ cannot be fully understood except in terms of that wise activity of God which has made the world what it is (ἐν), which gives the world its meaning (διά) and which will bring the world to its appointed end (εἰς).[22]

Dunn offers a dubious interpretation of διὰ here in view of the genitive accompanying noun. Furthermore, while we can agree with him – especially in light of Sterling’s analysis of Philo’s Middle Platonism – that Jewish ideas about Wisdom lie behind the Christology of the hymn of Col. 1:15-20,[23] Dunn’s exegesis faces a significant problem that is obvious to lay and academic readers alike: ‘The first stanza is about a person, not merely the power of God exhibited in creation’.[24] Indeed, Dunn himself conceded that ‘it would appear to be clear that both Paul and the pre-Pauline hymn are attributing pre-existence to Christ’ in Col. 1:16[25] (Dunn, p. 189), and furthermore that ‘it is hard to imagine any first-century reader interpreting the first strophe except as a reference to the “old” creation’.[26] Dunn’s reading of this text is too complex to be convincing, leaving little doubt that this text says what it appears to say – that Christ actively participated in the creation of heaven and earth and everything in them.[27]

Schenck follows Dunn in taking a similar approach to Heb. 1:2c. Schenck states, ‘To speak of Christ as creator is to recognize that he is the wisdom of God par excellence, the final goal and purpose of God for creation.’[28] This neglects the point that the writer could have made precisely this point simply by following διὰ with an accusative pronoun. That he instead followed it with a genitive pronoun implies that he intended something different - namely, Christ’s direct involvement in creation. Hence, Talbert rightly states, ‘Pre-existence is implied in the prologue’s statement that Christ is the agent of creation (1:2).’[29]

Similar arguments apply to 1 Cor. 8:6. A careful analysis of these texts leaves me confident that I made the right choice to leave behind the unitarian Christology which I was taught growing up and acknowledge Jesus as the pre-existent Lord of all creation.

---

[1] Sterling, G.E. (1997). Prepositional Metaphysics in Jewish Wisdom Speculation and Early Christian Liturgical Texts. The Studia Philonica annual, 9, 219-238.

[2] Sterling 1997: 219.

[3] Pseudo-Aristotle, De Mundo 397b, cited Sterling 1997: 223.

[4] Aelius Aristides 45.14, cited Sterling 1997: 223-224.

[5] Aetius, Plac. 1.11.2, cited in Sterling 1997: 226.

[6] Philo, On the Cherubim 124-127, cited in Sterling 1997: 227.

[7] Philo, On the Cherubim 124-127, cited in Sterling 1997: 227.

[8] See Sterling 1997: 229.

[9] Sterling 1997: 232.

[10] Sterling 1997: 232.

[11] Sterling 1997: 231.

[12] trans. Sterling 1997: 233.

[13] trans. Sterling 1997: 233.

[14] trans. Sterling 1997: 233.

[15] trans. Sterling 1997: 233.

[16] Sterling 1997: 235.

[17] Sterling 1997: 235.

[18] trans. Sterling 1997: 235.

[19] Sterling 1997: 236.

[20] trans. Sterling 1997: 235. This can assist us in understanding the sense of the διὰ + genitive as used for Christ’s role in creation. It clearly does not mean ‘because of’ or ‘for the sake of’, but implies a direct, instrumental role.

[21] Sterling 1997: 237.

[22] Dunn, J.D.G. (1980). Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. London: SCM Press, pp. 193-194.

[23] Note Moo’s comment: “however common or basic such parallels might be, Paul’s identification of Christ with Wisdom constitutes no reason to deny personal preexistence in the key texts.” (Moo, D.J. (2005). The Christology of the Early Pauline Letters. In R.N. Longenecker (Ed.), Contours of Christology in the New Testament (pp. 169-192). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 178.)

[24] Witherington, B. III. (2007). The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 132.

[25] Dunn 1980: 189.

[26] Dunn 1980: 190.

[27] On the qualification of the ‘all things’ into various categories in in Col. 1:16, Wilson remarks: ‘These words emphasize the absolute completeness of τὰ πάντα… it is the whole of creation that is in view, things invisible as well as those which can be seen. This includes the thrones, dominions, rulers and powers: they are part of the creation, and therefore subordinate to the one ‘‘in whom” all things were created.’ (Wilson, R. McL. (2005). Colossians and Philemon. London: T&T Clark, p. 139).

[28] Schenck, K. (1997). Keeping His Appointment: Creation and Enthronement in Hebrews.

Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 19(66), 91-117. Here p. 106.

[29] Talbert, C.H. (2011). The Myth of a Descending-Ascending Redeemer in Mediterranean Antiquity. In The development of Christology during the first hundred years and other

essays on early Christian Christology (pp. 83-112). Leiden: Brill, p. 107.

A note on Josephus' belief in demon-possession and exorcism

In an article[1] of a few months ago, I argued at length that the "accommodation theory" concerning demon-possession and exorcism in the Synoptic Gospels (which had its heyday in the 18th century but remains popular among Christadelphians) is out of touch with current biblical scholarship.

One claim made by Christadelphian defenders of the accommodation theory is that belief in demons was uncommon in Judea and Jerusalem relative to Galilee. Snobelen cites a rather dated source[2] which he says implies that belief in demons was "virtually nonexistent among Judaean rabbis" in the first century AD.[3] He infers from this that belief in demons, and consequently cases of alleged demon possession, were prevalent in Galilee due to local folk beliefs but severely reduced or non-existent in Judea because these beliefs were not widespread there. This is said to explain why the Synoptic Gospels record Jesus performing exorcisms only in Galilee and not in Judea: there was no need to accommodate such beliefs in Judea.

I responded to these claims by making four observations:[4]

1. The vast majority of Jesus' healing ministry was in Galilee
2. Distinction is made between demonic and non-demonic affliction in the Galilean context
3. Exorcisms did occur involving Judeans
4. Judeans and Jewish religious leaders believed in demons

Here I would just like to add one point which further substantiates the fourth observation. We have clear evidence that one particular well-educated first-century Jew from Jerusalem believed in demon possession and exorcism. I am referring to the historian Josephus. His background and early life are described thus in the Mercer Dictionary of the Bible:

In 37 C.E. Josephus was born in Jerusalem of a rich and distinguished family. His father, Matthias, had the advantage of belonging to one of the aristocratic priestly families which ran the affairs of Jerusalem and Palestinian Jewry during the Roman occupation. Josephus was endowed with a keen intellect, an amazing memory, a compelling charm, and an ability to adapt to all circumstances of life. Instead of joining the aristocratic Sadducees he threw in his lot with the Pharisees, but only after he had tried the Sadducees and Essenes as well.[5]

Here we have a picture of an intelligent, well-educated Judean Jew who was undoubtedly familiar with the prevailing teachings of the Jerusalem elites concerning demons. If Snobelen and Burke are correct, Josephus is just the sort of person whom we would expect to have expressed disbelief in demon-possession and exorcism. Instead, we find just the opposite. Commenting on accounts of exorcism outside the NT and prior to the end of the first century AD, Stuckenbruck states:

Perhaps the most well known instance of an exorcism is the story of ‘a certain Eleazar’ recounted by Josephus (Ant. 8.46-49) as an illustration of the continuing potency of exorcistic cures attributed to Solomon. The extraction of the demon from the man through a foul-smelling root prescribed and incantations composed by Solomon leaves it beyond doubt that Josephus thought that the demon had been inside the man’s body.[6]

Hence, rather than repudiating a belief in demons, we find that Josephus assumes and perpetuates such a belief. This, together with other evidence discussed in my paper, strongly suggests that belief in demons in first-century Judea was neither rare nor limited to the uneducated classes.

---

[1] Farrar, T.J. (2015). ‘When an unclean spirit goes out of a person’: An Assessment of the Accommodation Theory of Demon Possession and Exorcism in the Synoptic Gospels. Published online at http://www.dianoigo.com/publications/When_an_unclean_spirit_goes_out_of_a_person_Jan2015.pdf

[2] Loewe, H. (1911). ‘Demons and spirits (Jewish).’ In J. Hastings, J.A. Selbie & L.H. Gray (Eds.),

Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (Vol. 4). Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

[3] Snobelen, S. Quoted in Burke, J. (2007). Satan and Demons: A Reply to Anthony Buzzard. Unpublished work, made available by permission of the author at http://www.dianoigo.com/writings_by_others/Satan_And_Demons.pdf, p. 169.

[4] See Farrar 2015: 20-25.

[5] Smith, T.C. (1990). Josephus. In W.E. Mills & R.A. Bullard (Eds.), Mercer Dictionary of the Bible (p. 470). Macon: Mercer University Press.

[6] Stuckenbruck, L.T. (2008). Jesus’ Apocalyptic Worldview and His Exorcistic Ministry. In G.S. Oegema & J.H. Charlesworth (Eds.), The Pseudepigrapha and Christian Origins: Essays from the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas (pp. 68-86). London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, pp. 77-78. Emphasis added.

The Meaning of the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4)

What follows is a slightly expanded version of an assignment submitted as part of my theological studies.

Consisting of only six words in Hebrew (שְׁמַע יִשְׂרֵָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָֽד   ), this text is known as the Shema due to the transliteration of the first word (properly š^emaʻ). Despite its brevity and syntactical simplicity, consensus as to its meaning has eluded modern biblical scholars. Our purpose here is to survey the various options, highlight their strengths and weaknesses, and draw a conclusion as to the most likely sense.

Block (2004) lists five possible renderings of the Shema.

(1) Hear, O Israel:[1] Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one

(2) Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our God is one Yahweh

(3) Hear, O Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one

(4) Hear, O Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is One/Unique

(5) Hear, O Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh alone (p. 196)

Bord & Hamidović (2002), McConville (2003) and Fuhrmann (2010) give the same list except that they do not distinguish (4) from (3). Bord & Hamidović offer a sixth rendering (which they view favourably) under which Yahweh is the direct object of שְׁמַע:

(6) Hear, O Israel, Yahweh our God: Yahweh is unique! (p. 28).

Proponents of the first translation include MacDonald (2001), McConville (2002) and Kraut (2011), though the latter adds a nuance to be discussed below. In support of this view, as well as (2) and (6), אֱלֹהִים elsewhere occurs only in apposition to יְהוָה in Deuteronomy (312 times!) and never as a predicate. The main difficulty for (1) is that “the second YHWH appears to be superfluous” (MacDonald, 2001, p. 86).

The main weakness with rendering (2) is that it appears tautologous to say that Yahweh is one Yahweh. Ancient Israelite inscriptions have been found associating Yahweh with particular locales, e.g. ‘Yahweh of Teman’ (Block, 2004; Tigay, 1996) which raise the possibility that the Shema is opposing poly-Yahwism, that is, belief in multiple Yahwehs. However, as Kraut (2011) observes, “if this proposal were to represent the actual intent of Deut 6:4, it would be the only instance in the Bible in which this danger is addressed” (p. 587). 

Views (3) and (4) (which are grammatically equivalent) are defended by Janzen (1987) and Gordon (1970) respectively, although both of these writers are more interested in the meaning of אֶחָֽד. On this reading, “it is unclear why it would be necessary to make the declaration ‘YHWH is our God’” (Macdonald, 2001, pp. 85-86). Moreover, these renderings, along with (5), require interpreting יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ as a subject-predicate combination. As noted earlier, such usage occurs nowhere else in Deuteronomy and, according to Kraut (2011), “no earlier than the Book of Chronicles” (p. 586).

The main strength of view (5) is its close correspondence to the broader context of Deuteronomy, in which exclusive devotion to Yahweh is a primary concern (Block, 2004; Christensen, 2001; Tigay, 1996; cf. Deut. 6:14-15). However, this rendering faces several philological difficulties. Firstly, there is the subject-predicate issue referred to above. Secondly, Hebrew normally expresses ‘alone’ with לְבָד, not אֶחָֽד (Tigay, 1996). Block (2004) addresses this by pointing out that, as an adverb, לְבָד is inappropriate in a nominal statement. However, Bruno (2009) identifies two nominal statements in the Old Testament in which לְבָד does occur (2 Kgs. 19:15; Isa. 37:16). Thirdly, ancient exegesis runs counter to this interpretation. The LXX rendering, which is also adopted in Mark 12:29, explicitly includes a verb (ἐστιν) in the second clause. It is thus consistent with the first four renderings but not (5). The Nash Papyri (second century B.C.E.) adds הוּא after אֶחָֽד, which similarly makes the verbal connotation of the second clause unmistakable (Biddle, 2003; Block, 2004). Furthermore, some Samaritan inscriptions from the Christian era add לְבָד after אֶחָֽד, suggesting that these writers did not take אֶחָֽד adverbally (MacDonald, 2001).

View (6) is very improbable in view of the fact that “Nowhere else in the bible is anyone enjoined to listen… to YHWH with ‘YHWH’ appearing as the direct object of the verb” (Kraut, 2011, p. 590). Deuteronomy prefers to refer to hearing the voice (4:30; 5:24-26; etc.), the words (4:10; 18:19; etc.), or the commandments (11:27) of Yahweh. Moreover, in all the other occurrences of שְׁמַע יִשְׂרֵָאֵל in Deuteronomy, it is followed by the content of the proclamation without any direct object (5:1; 9:1; 20:3; 27:9). Finally, the LXX translators clearly did not interpret the Shema according to (6) since the first κύριος is nominative and not accusative.

To summarize, the best rendering on philological grounds is (1). The main difficulty of this rendering is the apparent superfluity of the second Tetragrammaton; however, Kraut (2011) has offered a plausible solution on this point. He proposes that “the verse represents an assertion garbed in poetic syntax – namely, in the AB//AC pattern commonly referred to as ‘staircase parallelism’” (p. 591). When staircase parallelism is present, the sense can be reduced to prose as ABC. Hence, while a literal translation would follow (1), the meaning is simply, “Yahweh our God is one” (p. 592). He offers Exod. 15:6 and Hos. 12:5 as other instances of staircase parallelism with ‘Yahweh’ as the repeating item. He notes that while classic cases of staircase parallelism occur in “unquestionably poetic contexts” (p. 594), there are other examples in biblical prose (e.g. Judg. 19:23).

Our conclusion, then, is that rendering (1) is the best literal translation of the Hebrew, but the sense is simply, “Yahweh our God is one.”

We now turn to the question of the meaning of אֶחָֽד. Again, a number of possibilities exist. Perhaps surprisingly, in light of the almost creedal use of this text in later Judaism (Biddle, 2003; Foster, 2003), most scholars do not regard the Shema as a direct statement of monotheism. MacDonald (2001) concludes that it expresses Yahweh’s uniqueness for Israel, which is actually close to the sense of rendering (5). Bord & Hamidović (2002) take uniqueness (more broadly) as the meaning, appealing to the echo of the Shema in Zech. 14:9. Janzen (1987) argues that it refers to the “integrity or moral unity” of Yahweh’s character (p. 291). Gordon (1970) takes the surprising view that אֶחָֽד functions as a personal name here, but offers little supporting evidence.

Numerous scholars think the oneness of the Shema is multivalent (Biddle, 2003; Craigie, 1976; Fuhrmann, 2010; McConville, 2002; Willoughby, 1977). Craigie interprets אֶחָֽד in terms of uniqueness and unity. McConville sees the Shema as expressing both the indivisibility and integrity of Yahweh. Willoughby regards it primarily as an oath of allegiance to Yahweh alone but also an implicit declaration of monotheism. Biddle and Fuhrmann both allow for intentional ambiguity by which Yahweh’s unity, uniqueness and exclusive claim to Israel’s worship are in view. Since these are all major concerns in Deuteronomy, it is best to allow for a multiplicity of meanings. Block (2004) states, “The question addressed here by Moses is not, ‘How many is Yahweh?’ or ‘What is Yahweh like?’ but ‘Whom will the Israelites worship?’” (p. 208). In fact, the beauty of the Shema is that in just four words it answers all three of these questions.

In closing, a brief comment is in order on the implications of this text for the Trinitarian debate. Scholars rightly observe that it would be anachronistic to import the theological concerns of a later age back into this passage (Block, 2004; Janzen, 1987). From a grammatical-historical point of view, the Shema does not address philosophical issues around Yahweh’s essential nature (Brown, 2000). The Shema neither affirms nor denies the notion that Yahweh is a compound unity (as in the sense of אֶחָֽד in Gen. 2:24). The Shema itself is consistent with Trinitarian and Unitarian views of God, both of which uphold Yahweh’s uniqueness in relation to all other reality, exclusive claim to worship, and unity of character. Only in certain Christological allusions to the Shema in the New Testament (Mark 2:7f and especially 1 Cor. 8:6) does the internal complexity of Yahweh’s unity become apparent (Bauckham, 2008; Kim, 2008).

References

Bauckham, R. (2008). Paul’s Christology of Divine Identity. In Jesus and the God

of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s

Christology of Divine Identity (pp. 182-232). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Biddle, M.E. (2003). Deuteronomy. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon:

Smyth & Helwys.

Block, D.I. (2004). How many is God? An investigation into the meaning of

Deuteronomy 6:4-5. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 47(2),

193-212.

Bord, L.-J. & Hamidović, D. (2002). Écoute Israël (Deut. VI 4). Vetus

Testamentum, 52(1), 13-29.

Brown, M.L. (2000). Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus (Vol. 2). Grand

Rapids: Baker Books.

Bruno, C.R. (2009). A Note Pertaining to the Translation of Deut 6:4. Vetus

Testamentum, 59(2), 320-322.

Christensen, D.L. (2001). Deuteronomy 1-21:9 (Vol. 6A). Grand Rapids:

Zondervan.

Christensen, D.L. (2002). Deuteronomy 21:10-34:12 (Vol. 6B). Mexico City:

Thomas Nelson.

Craigie, P.C. (1976). The Book of Deuteronomy. The New International

Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Foster, P. (2003). Why did Matthew get the Shema wrong? A study of Matthew

23:37. Journal of Biblical Literature, 122(2), 309-333.

Fuhrmann, J.M. (2010). Deuteronomy 6-8 and the History of Interpretation: An

Exposition on the First Two Commandments. Journal of the Evangelical

Theological Society, 53(1), 37-62.

Gordon, C.H. (1970). His Name is ‘One’. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 29(3),

198-199.

Janzen, J.G. (1987). On the most important word in the Shema (Deuteronomy VI

4-5). Vetus Testamentum, 37(3), 280-300.

Kim, H.T. (2008). The Shema and Early Christianity. Tyndale Bulletin, 59(2),

181-206.

Kraut, J. (2011). Deciphering the Shema: Staircase Parallelism and the Syntax of

Deuteronomy 6:4. Vetus Testamentum, 61(4), 582-602.

Longman III, T. (2007). The Messiah: Explorations in the Law and the Writings.

In S.E. Porter (Ed.), The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments (pp. 13-

34). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

MacDonald, N. (2001). One God or one Lord? Deuteronomy and the meaning of

'monotheism' (Ph.D dissertation). Durham University.

McConville, J.G. (2002). Deuteronomy. Apollos Old Testament Commentary.

Downers Grove: IVP Academic.

Sherwood, S.K. (2002). Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Berit Olam: Studies

in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press.

Tigay, J.H. (1996). Deuteronomy. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: The

Jewish Publication Society.

Willoughby, B.E. (1977). A Heartfelt Love: An Exegesis of Deuteronomy 6:4-19.

Restoration Quarterly, 20, 73-87.

---

[1] Block’s commas have been changed to colons here to highlight the distinctiveness of translation (6).

Current writing projects (or, Why I haven't written)

It has been almost two months since I've posted, so I thought would just write an update here about writing/research projects currently underway which have taken time away from the blog.

1. New Testament Satanology papers


I'm currently working on two papers on New Testament Satanology. This is a collaborative effort with a UK-based academic. It is a real privilege for an unpublished undergraduate like myself to be able to work with an established scholar so I'm very grateful for this exciting opportunity. Both papers are in the final editing stages but I will refrain from providing any more details until the proper time. "Don't count your chickens before they hatch," as my grandfather used to say.



Cape Flats Religion and Worldview Survey


This has more to do with my day job but together with some of my students I'm currently working on a survey of the religious beliefs and worldview of residents of the Cape Flats area of Cape Town (which consists mainly of communities which were disadvantaged under apartheid). The results have been very interesting so far and I hope to publish them eventually, after also getting some mileage out of them for my theological studies program which has an empirical research module within it.



Deuteronomy study


I've been working on a module on Deuteronomy for several months for my theological studies program and have nearly completed the assessments. One part of the assessment is an exegesis of the Sh^ema` (Deut. 6:4) and I hope to post this on the blog soon. The reason I haven't done so yet is that if I post it online before handing it in, the blog post may be found by the plagiarism software and lead it to think that I've plagiarized it.



Satanology of the Apostolic Fathers


I've been studying Satan in the Apostolic Fathers writings for some time now and have a written work on the subject which is about 80% complete. I previously wrote a very cursory survey on this subject but it contained virtually no exegesis apart from the Didache. I've now conducted detailed exegesis of all relevant texts in the Apostolic Fathers and have about 12 pages of material on the Didache alone. However, I've put this project temporarily on hold because it is a logical sequel to the New Testament Satanology project and I would rather do it properly in the hope of publishing.



Christology of Quadratus paper


I've previously blogged on this subject but am now working on a full-length study of the Christology of this early second-century fragment. It's kind of on the back burner with the above projects taking priority but I'm hopeful of publishing it someday.

Once a couple of these projects are out of the way I hope to get back to posting blogs more regularly. But for now, that is an update of what I've been working on. I hope that these projects may be of value in the service of the Lord's church. Soli deo gloria.