I Believe in Resurrection Sunday

Today, Christians acknowledge the single most important day in the history of the world, at least as far as the their faith is concerned. Today, Christ followers declare their faith that Jesus, who was crucified prior to the Sabbath, was raised to life the day after that Sabbath. Today, Christians declare their belief that on that Sunday morning, almost 2000 years ago, the tomb in which body of Jesus had been laid, was found empty.

But isn’t it overly dramatic to regard this the single most important day in the history of humankind as far as Christians are concerned? Not according to the apostle Paul. In 1 Corinthians 15:1–7, 14–19 he clearly laid out the implications if indeed Christ has not been raised from the dead:

·      The apostles’ preaching is futile

·      Christian’s faith is useless

·      The apostles are false witnesses

·      Christians are still in their sins

·      Christians who have died believing in Christ have simply perished

·      Christian hope in Christ is only for this life

·      Christians are to be pitied more than anyone

Is the resurrection of Jesus something that is easy to believe? No, actually it isn’t. According to the gospel accounts, even those who were present and witnessed the empty tomb and even some who saw Jesus alive after his death and burial struggled to believe. The Gospel accounts are honest about the very human reactions his followers experienced when confronted with the reality of Jesus’ empty tomb. However, the varied reactions they initially experienced—fear, bewilderment, uncertainty, disbelief, shock—were, person-by-person, eventually replaced with astonishment, joy, excitement, and ultimately confident faith and worship.

Even Thomas—the disciples with whom I personally most identify—went from a reaction of determined skepticism to a confident and no doubt, somewhat humbling declaration of faith: “My Lord and my God (John 20:24–29)!  

A song Christians often sing, asks the question “Were You There?” and the obvious and only truthful answer is “No, I wasn’t there.” Only a few, relatively speaking, were there. So, why do Christians believe? The bottom line Christians believe because they have chosen to trust the testimony of those who claimed to have been there and to have seen Jesus raised to live again. Each Christ follower has made a decision, at some point in her/his life, that these men and women were truthful in their testimony.

Still I think it is important that Christ followers deal with reality. Did you know that the written testimony in the four Gospel accounts, in Acts and in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, is not without its problems? These are not identical accounts as far as the details of who, what, when and where are concerned. (Check out the chart at http://www.religionfacts.com/charts/resurrection-accounts). The witnesses do not speak with one unified voice regarding every detail and, in fact, many of the details appear to be contradictory. Surely, it was an extremely traumatic and deeply emotional time for each witness. And it is known that even under the best of conditions human memory is fallible and typically witnesses of any event hardly ever describe the event with identical details.

However, what they do absolutely agree on is this: the tomb was empty and they each saw Jesus alive with wounds in his hands and side. Most of them claim to have seen him not just once, but on numerous occasions. As the author of the book of Acts states, “To the same apostles also, after his suffering, he presented himself alive with many convincing proofs. He was seen by them over a forty-day period and spoke about matters concerning the kingdom of God” (1:3). Biblical, even extra-biblical, history tells us that these apostles, and many others, who claimed to be eye-witnesses, went on to testify to Christ’s resurrection. And, not insignificantly, many of them paid the ultimate price for proclaiming their faith as they suffered persecution, imprisonment, torture and even death.

Christians choose to believe because of their testimony. They did not see Jesus for ourselves, yet they believe. As Jesus stated in John 20:29 to my friend Thomas, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are the people who have not seen and yet have believed.” After almost 42 years now, I continue to believe that Jesus died, was buried, but was raised to life again, and thus I also believe that he is coming back again, somehow, one day…and our lives in this world will be dramatically and eternally changed.

Some might ask, why, with only the testimony of some first century Jewish men and women to go by, I persevere in my decision to believe. My best answer—thanks to Rachel Held Evans—is simply this: “I am so compelled by the story of Jesus, that I am willing to risk being wrong.” Jesus’ life and his teachings (as recorded in the Gospel accounts) and the implications of his death, burial and resurrection (as declared in Acts and the NT epistles) are so compelling to me that I choose to believe. Thus, I continue to commit to doing my best, day-by-day, to imitate his example, obey his teachings and share my faith via my words and my actions. Yes, I have not seen, but yet I continue believe in “Resurrection Sunday.”

LINGUISTIC DATING OF BIBLICAL TEXTS - Introduction (Part 2)

The Linguistic Biblical Dating Debate: An Overview    

The debate as to whether or not we can date biblical texts on the basis of their linguistic characteristics has been carried on through scores of journal articles, conference presentations, encyclopedia entries, edited volumes and monographs, as well as scholars’ blogs and website posts. The seeds of the debate were sown in the mid 1990s but came to full view starting in 2003 with the publication of Biblical Hebrew: Studies In Chronology and Typology, edited by Ian Young.  Over the past fifteen years, scholars have attempted either to explain and defend the linguistic dating of biblical texts or to refute that theory and present alternatives.  While the two sides of this debate agree on certain aspects of Biblical Hebrew, they come to very different conclusions about the value of linguistic features for dating purposes, despite the fact they examine the same texts.

The proponents of the linguistic dating theory hold to the three-part division of Biblical Hebrew and contend that each type occupies a very specific chronological period.[1] 

1. Archaic Biblical Hebrew can be found mostly in the poetry of the Pentateuch, written in the pre-monarchic period (ca. 1200–1000 BCE). 
2. Classical Biblical Hebrew was primarily written during the monarchic period (ca. 1000–586 BCE). 
3. Late Biblical Hebrew  was the literary language of post-exilic Judea (539 BCE–70 CE).

Their theory is based on the assumption that by means of a linguistic analysis of any biblical text it can be determined which books, or portions thereof, can be attributed to each of the above periods. The proponents use the linguistic features of the biblical texts which most scholars acknowledge as having been written in the post-exilic period as features of Late Biblical Hebrew. Thus, a text that predominantly features linguistic aspects of Late Biblical Hebrew is determined to have had its origin in the post-exilic period, even if there are some features of Classical Biblical Hebrew or Archaic Biblical Hebrew in the text. Also, then, a text that is dominated by features of Classical Biblical Hebrew or Archaic Biblical Hebrew is considered pre-exilic even if there are a few features of Late Biblical Hebrew found within. (Suggestion: Read this last paragraph again.)

If this reasoning seems somewhat circular, that is exactly one of the arguments that the opponents of linguistic dating make.[3] The common debate terminology for this reasoning is that “typology equals chronology.” In other words, whatever linguistic features are predominant in a text, these are indicative of when the text was initially written. The challengers’ main critique, however, is that the specific typology of a text cannot be clearly identified. Moreover, even if a text exhibits mostly one type of Biblical Hebrew, this cannot be equated to a specific chronological period because these different types co-existed over a large part of both pre- and post-exilic periods. They acknowledge that Biblical Hebrew changed over time, but that the distinct periodization of Biblical Hebrew (see above listing), as outlined by the proponents, is faulty. They propose that in the later pre-exilic and through most of the post-exilic periods authors and redactors had multiple types of Biblical Hebrew at their disposal. For example, a text that has Classical Biblical Hebrew features cannot with certainty be dated as pre-exilic in origin because the linguistic features of all types of BH were accessible to post-exilic scribes. The challengers also stress the impact that the transmission process of biblical texts has had on the linguistic features. Even if a text was initially composed in the pre-exilic period, due to later scribal amendments, as will be discussed later, it would be impossible to determine the beginning period of any text.  The reality is that all of the biblical manuscripts we possess date from the third century BCE at the earliest and these, they contend, have been significantly impacted by scribal redaction.

The gap that exists between the two sides of the debate is clear. The proponents understand that the challengers are arguing against any convincing connection between typology and chronology.[4] And the challengers clearly state, primarily for the reasons noted above, that most linguistic features cannot be restricted to a definite time period but can be understood to be present due to other factors such as dialect and editorial or scribal variations.  

The study that follows will demonstrate that there are weaknesses and strengths in the arguments on both sides of the debate. Thus, instead of opting for an “either/or” approach regarding the usefulness of linguistic dating theory, a “both/and” methodology is more consistent with the evidence. In other words, while linguistic features alone are insufficient evidence, that does not mean that they are necessarily inconsequential in efforts to date biblical texts.

---

[1] Kutscher 1982, 12.

[2] Some scholars advocate for the designation of Transitional Biblical Hebrew (TBH) covering the period just prior to the exile to just after the return. See Hornkohl 2013, 322. However, others deny a specific transitional period in the development of BH.

[3] Davies 2003, 153.

[4] Hurvitz 2006, 192.

[5] Rezetko 2003, 222.