Irenaeus and the God of This World

In his wonderful book on the first millennium of Christian history (Yale, 2012), Robert Louis Wilken talks about biblical interpretation in Irenaeus and among the gnostics.

For Irenaeus the "rule of faith" handed on orally was the key to the interpretation of the Bible. The written books were to be understood in light of what was found in a simple confession of faith, that is, in the Church's tradition. Here was the rub for the gnostics. They were disdainful of what had been received from tradition, from earlier teachers, and preferred their own private interpretation to the rule of faith. Irenaeus found their views willful and doctrinaire. For example, they took the phrase "god of this world" in 2 Corinthians (4:4) to be a reference to a lesser God, the creator of the world, who had "blinded the minds of unbelievers." In fact the phrase refers to Satan, the anti-God. (p. 44)

This summary is a bit misleading. I have slowly been making my way through Irenaeus' Against Heresies in the English translation by Dominic Unger and published in the Ancient Christian Writers series (Paulist Press), now complete this year, with the publication of books 4–5 in one volume. Irenaeus brings up 2 Corinthians 4:4 twice (Haer. 3.7; 4.29), as you can find at Biblindex. The first appearance has a more detailed engagement with the biblical text, and here I quote from the ACW translation. 

They [= heretics] maintain that in the second letter to the Corinthians, Paul said openly, In their case, the God of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, and therefore they claim that there is one God "of this world" and another who is above every dominion and principality and power. But we are not at fault if these men, who assert that they know the mysteries which are above God, do not even know how to read Paul. For, in keeping with Paul's style, which makes use of transpositions [hyperbatis] as we have shown elsewhere by many examples, if any one reads it thus: In their case, God, and then puts punctuation and a slight pause, and reads the rest together, of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, he will find the true sense. [The passage] would read thus: God has blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this world. That is shown by distinguishing the phrases. For Paul is not speaking of the God of this world, as if he knew of some other above Him. God he acknowledges as God. But he does say that the unbelievers of this world will not inherit the coming world of incorruption. But how God has blinded the minds of unbelievers we will demonstrate from Paul himself, as our study proceeds, so that we do not have to digress from our present topic too much. (3.7.1)

The rest of the chapter provides further examples of transposed words in Paul (e.g., Gal 3:19; 2 Thess 2:8–9). At the end of the chapter he says: "Consequently, in that passage above [i.e., 2 Cor 4:4], we do not read about the God of this world, but about God, whom we truly call God" (3.7.2).  

The point I'm making is that for Irenaeus, the "God" mentioned in 2 Corinthians 4:4 is not Satan but rather the God revered by Paul and by Irenaeus, the Father of Jesus Christ. It is the true God, in the mind of Irenaeus, who has blinded the minds of unbelievers. 

While Irenaeus recognizes that such an assertion may trouble some people, at 4.29 he points to other passages in Scripture in which similar actions are attributed to God: the hardening of Pharaoh's heart; or the dominical quotation of Isaiah 6:9–10; Rom 1:28; 2 Thess 2:11–12. 

I haven't surveyed commentaries on 2 Corinthians 4:4, but I think that the interpretation that sees "the god of this world" in that passage as a reference to Satan is pretty common. I think it's the view commonly assumed by people I go to church with. It is the view argued in a monograph by Derek Brown. But it was not the view accepted (or even considered?) by Irenaeus, who instead related Paul's "god of this age" to the God of the Bible. This latter view has been defended in recent years in a dissertation by Ivor Gerard Poobalan at the University of Cape Town.

Why Did Navalny Return to Russia in 2021?

The memoir by Alexei Navalny deals a lot with the question posed in the title of this post. Navalny recovered in Germany from his 2020 poisoning, and he elected to return to Russia, against the advice of many people, such as Angela Merkel. When she visited him in the hospital and heard about his plans to return to Russia, she responded, "There's no need to hurry" (p. 23). 

I previously mentioned that the best chapter in the book is the out-of-chronological-order ch. 8, written from prison shortly after he was arrested in the Russian airport in January 2021. This chapter reveals that he and his team did not necessarily think he would get arrested straightaway; they gamed out several scenarios for how Putin might greet Navalny's return to Russia (pp. 137–41). Before he left Germany, the bevy of questions from reporters about whether he intended to return to his home country annoyed him. 

How do you like that, I thought irascibly…. You work for twenty years in the full glare of publicity, you write hundreds of articles, every day you back up your words with actions, and they still imagine I might be too scared to go back. (p. 131)

This response suggests that part of the reason for his return was—to put it cynically—to make a show of his bravery. I think a better and truer way of putting it: to provide an example for others, to provide hope. This interpretation is supported by an incident narrated later in the same chapter. Outside of a police station waiting to be transported to prison, he encountered some supporters. 

They took me outside and people started yelling. Unexpectedly for me, I yelled back to them, “Don’t be afraid of anything!” That was an important moment, the kind when you feel at one with your supporters. They are thinking about you and want to show they are with you. You are thinking about them, and that the regime needs this arrest to frighten them, and you do your utmost to help them not to be afraid. You keep your back straight and shout, “Don’t be afraid of anything.” (p. 162)

In a sense, bravery is the point. When the regime lives on fear, courage is resistance. 

A later chapter (ch. 15) prints Navalny's speech at the Yves Rocher trial. Now, this Yves Rocher case—in which Navalny and his brother, Oleg, were accused of, I think, embezzling funds—dragged on for years. I think this particular speech was delivered in court probably in 2015 or thereabouts. He repeatedly mentions how the judges and the prosecutors stare down at the table, which he interprets as an attempt to ignore all the evidence of corruption in the system, to render the verdict that the Kremlin expects. Toward the end of the speech (p. 240), he divides Russian society into a few categories. The whole system is a junta, controlled by about twenty billionaires. There are about a thousand people, but no more, “who are feeding at this junta’s trough,” and these people are “state deputies and crooks.” “There’s a small percentage of people who don’t agree with this system. And then there are the millions who are simply starting at the table. I’ll never stop my fight with this junta. I’m going to continue fighting this junta, by campaigning and doing whatever it takes to shake up these people who are starting at the table. You included. I’m never going to stop.” 

About halfway through the speech, he says: 

Why do you put up with these lies? Why do you just stare at the table? I’m sorry if I’m dragging you into a philosophical discussion, but life’s too short to simply stare down at the table. I blinked and I’m almost forty years old. I’ll blink again and I’ll already have grandchildren. And then we all will blink again and we’ll be on our deathbeds, with our relatives all around us, and all they’ll be thinking about is, It’s about time they died and freed up this apartment. And at some point we’ll realize that nothing we did had any meaning at all, so why did we just stare at the table and say nothing? The only moments in our lives that count for anything are those when we do the right thing, when we don’t have to look down at the table but can raise our heads and look each other in the eye. Nothing else matters. (p. 239)

The last chapter before the memoir becomes a prison diary (ch. 18), Navalny reflects on why he doesn't protect himself more. 

I have always tried to ignore the idea that I could be attacked, arrested, or even killed. I have no control over what might happen, and it would be self-destructive to dwell on it. Should I think, What are the chances that I’ll survive this morning? I don’t know; six out of ten? Eight out of ten? Maybe even ten out of ten? It’s not that I’m trying not think about it, closing my eyes and pretending the danger doesn’t exist. But one day I simply made the decision not to be afraid. I weighed everything up, understood where I stand—and let it go. I’m an opposition politician and understand perfectly who my enemies are, but if I were to worry constantly about them killing me, then it’s not worth my while living in Russia. I should emigrate or change what I do. (p. 271)

So, why doesn't he emigrate or change what he does? Navalny doesn't say so explicitly, but I believe the one action implies the other: emigrating entails changing what he does. What he did could only be done in Russia, because part of what got attention was the audacity of the bravery. Another way of saying it is that exile is a good way to make yourself irrelevant. While I don't remember Navalny in this memoir framing his return in that way, various things he says touch on the same idea, as we've seen. While reading Navalny's memoir, I couldn't help but think of the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who also (by his own choice) found himself in safety away from his home country and the brutal dictator in charge, and he also made the choice to return to his home country despite the dangers. In June 1939, Bonhoeffer, in New York, wrote to his friend Reinhold Niebuhr: 

Sitting here in Dr. Coffin’s garden I have had the time to think and to pray about my situation and that of my nation and to have God’s will for me clarified. I have come to the conclusion that I have made a mistake in coming to America. I must live through this difficult period of our national history with the Christian people of Germany. I will have no right to participate in the reconstruction of Christian life in Germany after the war if I do not share the trials of this time with my people. My brothers in the Confessional Synod wanted me to go. They may have been right in urging me to do so; but I was wrong in going. Such a decision each man must make for himself. Christians in Germany will face the terrible alternative of either willing the defeat of their nation in order that Christian civilization may survive, or willing the victory of their nation and thereby destroying our civilization. I know which of these alternatives I must choose; but I cannot make that choice in security. (DBWE 15, #129, p. 210, or here, or here) 

"I cannot make that choice in security." Why not? He says he would "have no right to participate in the reconstruction of Christian life in Germany after the war if I do not share the trials of this time with my people." I think he means that he would feel himself unworthy, a carpetbagger of sorts. I don't think he means that the German people after the war would not respect him, would view him as a carpetbagger if he tried to claim a leadership role in Germany after spending the war years in America, but I think that is another way one might look at it. Living in safety while others are suffering is a good way to make yourself irrelevant. 

That was not something that Navalny (or Bonhoeffer) was willing to do. In an Instagram post from prison on Navalny's 47th (and last) birthday (June 4, 2023), he wrote: 

But life works in such a way that social progress and a better future can only be achieved if a certain number of people are willing to pay the price for their right to have their own beliefs. The more of them there are, the less everyone has to pay. … 

But until that day comes, I see my situation not as a heavy burden or a yoke but as a job that needs to be done. Every job has its unpleasant aspects, right? So I’m going through the unpleasant part of my favorite job right now.  

My plan for the previous year was not to become brutalized and bitter and lose my laid-back demeanor that would mean the beginning of my defeat. (p. 459)

He saw it as a personal defeat if the regime cowered him or embittered him—and in that way controlled him. No doubt Navalny faltered at times, but he provides a compelling example. 

Frederick Douglass on the Devilish Decision of SCOTUS

Frederick Douglass, 1856, Wikimedia Commons

In March 1857, the US Supreme Court announced their decision in Dred Scrott v. Sandford, written by Chief Justice Taney, a decision that I suppose has long been in the lead on most people’s “worst decisions” lists. It “settled” the issue of slavery in favor of the pro-slavery argument, finding slavery enshrined in the US Constitution.

Dred Scott, ca. 1857, Wikimedia Commons

I put “settled” in scare quotes because, of course, this decision did not at all settle the issue, though Taney hoped it would. The same year as the decision, Frederick Douglass gave a speech, “The Dred Scott Decision,” in which he mocked the very idea that the issue had been settled, because in fact the slavery issue had been “settled” many times before (by the Missouri Compromise, by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, etc.). Douglass remarked: “The fact is, the more the question has been settled, the more it has needed settling” (p. 252).

Roger B. Taney, Wikimedia Commons

You can find Douglass’ speech in its original published form here. I am using the edition in The Portable Frederick Douglass (Penguin, 2016), where it appears on pp. 248–68.

Like most of what Douglass wrote, it’s a wonderful speech, eloquent, hopeful, scathing, Christian.

You will readily ask me how I am affected by this devilish decision—this judicial incarnation of wolfishness! My answer is, and no thanks to the slaveholding wing of the Supreme Court, my hopes were never brighter than now.  

I have no fear that the National Conscience will be put to sleep by such an open, glaring, and scandalous tissue of lies as that decision is, and has been, over and over, shown to be. (p. 253)

Douglass calls Taney’s decision full of lies. He means that Taney has misinterpreted the Constitution, and he will explain in what ways the Chief Justice has done so. But first he has some things to say about how Taney might be the highest law in the land, but not in the world.

Your fathers [Douglass says to his white audience] have said that man’s right to liberty is self-evident. There is no need of argument to make it clear. The voices of nature, of conscience, of reason, and of revelation, proclaim it as the right of all rights, the foundation of all trust, and of all responsibility. Man was born with it. It was his before he comprehended it. The deed conveying it to him is written in the centre of his soul, and is recorded in Heaven. Th sun in the sky is not more palpable to the sight than man’s right to liberty is to the moral vision. To decide against this right in the person of Dred Scott, or the humblest and most whip-scarred bondman in the land, is to decide against God. It is an open rebellion against God’s government. It is an attempt to undo what God [has] done, to blot out the broad distinction instituted by the Allwise between men and things, and to change the image and superscription of the everliving God into a speechless piece of merchandise. (p. 253)

Douglass does not find slavery instituted in Scripture nor in the US Constitution. This is an important point because plenty of people in his day, including his fellow abolitionists, said that it was instituted in both. A couple of times near the end of the speech (p. 267), Douglass puts Chief Justice Taney side-by-side with William Lloyd Garrison as twin advocates for the view that the Constitution enshrines slavery. (As Gordon Wood reminds us, Garrison described the Constitution as “a covenant with death” and “an agreement with hell.”)

William Lloyd Garrison, Wikimedia Commons

Garrison’s solution was disunion, emancipating the northern states from the pro-slavery Constitution. Douglass objected to the solution, and spends several pages urging against disunion, before turning to the main point of the speech, the lies in Taney’s decision (lies with which Garrison, apparently, agreed). In fact, the Constitution does not guarantee the right to enslave others.

When I admit that slavery is constitutional, I must see slavery recognized in the Constitution. I must see that it is there plainly stated that one man of a certain description has a right of property in the body and soul of another man of a certain description. There must be no room for a doubt. In a matter so important as the loss of liberty, everything must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. (p. 260)

Of course, the Constitution never mentions slavery or white people or black people, as Douglass points out. (Douglass never in this speech brings up the 3/5 clause, which, in any case, would not have overturned his point.) In fact, several pronouncements in the Constitution are incompatible with slavery, such as the prohibition of a bill of attainder (p. 262). Taney knows that the Constitution on its surface cannot support slavery; he says as much in his decision. But, he says, you have to look at the intention of the Constitution. Douglass quotes and paraphrases Taney’s decision to establish this line of reasoning (pp. 263–64).

It is this line of reasoning that Douglass declares to be a lie. Taney said that slavery was everywhere accepted at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. Douglass demonstrates the falsehood of the claim. He first cites statements from churches from the 1780s. Then the Founding Fathers themselves.

Washington and Jefferson, and Adams, and Jay, and Franklin, and Rush, and Hamilton, and a host of others, held no such degrading views on the subject as are imputed by Judge Taney to the Fathers of the Republic. 

All, at that time, looked for the gradual but certain abolition of slavery, and shaped the constitution with a view to this grand result. (p. 266)

On this account, Douglass prevails over Taney. The Chief Justice did, in fact, misrepresent the early history of the United States in order to substantiate his specious interpretation of the Constitution. Douglass’ account of the views of the Founding Fathers (at least the ones he names) stands in harmony with modern historical accounts, such as in Joseph Ellis’ book Founding Brothers.

Douglass:

In conclusion, let me say, all I ask of the American people is, that they live up to the Constitution, adopt its principles, imbibe its spirit and enforce its provisions. 

When this is done, the wounds of my bleeding people will be healed, the chain will no longer rust on their ankles, their backs will no longer be torn by the bloody lash, and liberty, the glorious birthright of our common humanity, will become the inheritance of all the inhabitants of this highly favored country. (pp. 267–68)  

Douglass’ speech fits into a broader discussion on the interpretation of the Constitution, one set out, for example, in brief in this book review by Gordon Wood on a book by James Oakes.

The Structure of Navalny's Memoir

I am not yet finished reading the memoir of Alexei Navalny, but I'm getting close. And I have looked ahead to see generally what is upcoming. So I know the structure of the book. That seems like a weird thing to say; usually readers know the structure of a book before reading—not always, with modern novels, for instance, but often even then you can figure it out pretty quickly. Navalny's memoir has an odd structure, half intentional memoir for publication, half prison diary. And there's no table of contents, or preface, or any sort of introduction. 

Should you want to know the structure of the book before reading? Maybe that knowledge will deprive you of the thrill of discovering its structure for yourself. I don't know. If you're planning on reading the book all the way through, maybe don't look at this post. On the other hand, maybe you're like me and you like to know what you're getting yourself into. Anyway, proceed at your own risk. 

By the way, going into the memoir, I was interested especially in two aspects of Navalny's life: his relationship to Christianity, and his bravery. Or, you might say, I was interested in why he returned to Russia after his 2020 poisoning—did it have anything to do with Christianity? Or what was the source of his courage? Or was it rather foolishness? I don't myself interpret his return to Russia as foolishness, but I have talked to people that I respect who do interpret it that way. Anyway, regarding his return and his faith, I have been taking notes, and I plan on posting some things about those topics. 

But here's the structure of the book, first in broad strokes, and then in more detail. The titles of the Parts (i.e., Part I, Near Death) are provided in the book. 

Part I, Near Death, chapters 1–2, pages 3–24

Part II, Formation, chapters 3–9, pages 25–174

Part III, The Work, chapters 10–18, pages 175–276

Part IV, Prison, pages 277–471

Epilogue, pages 473–79

It's Part IV that is the prison diary, with some social media posts thrown in (e.g., at Feb. 17, 2021; March 3, 2021). You could call it "Letters and Papers from Prison." This section covers a three-year period in four different calendar years, and the section is divided into entries dated according to those years. There are many more entries for the first year of Navalny's imprisonment, 2021, than for the subsequent years, and indeed there are more entries for the first half of 2021 than the second half. 

2021 contains entries totaling about 140 pages

2022, about 30 pages

2023, about 20 pages

2024, 4 pages

As for 2021, the first half of the year takes up about 120 pages, and the number of entries plummets in June. Every month of 2021 from June on has only a single entry, except for October, with two entries (one of substantial length), and December, with no entries. In contrast, February 2021 has an entry for every day until Feb 25, when he moves prisons. 

Now back to the memoir section, Parts I–III. Part I has two chapters recounting his 2020 poisoning, including his growing realization on an airplane that he felt not quite right, his recovery in Germany, and his decision to return to Russia. 

Below, I'll attempt to give titles or short descriptions of the chapters in Parts II–III. All of the chapters in the memoir are untitled. 

Part II, Formation

Chapter 3, memories of the USSR before Gorbachev

Chapter 4, memories of the period under Mikhail Gorbachev

Chapter 5, the end of the USSR

Chapter 6, getting into university

Chapter 7, the Yeltsin era

Chapter 8, Navalny's arrest upon his return to Russia (18 Jan 2021). This chapter is out of chronological sequence, but it is in my mind the most engrossing chapter of the book. 

Chapter 9, Yulia

Part III, The Work

Chapter 10, the beginnings of Navalny's political involvement in the early 2000s

Chapter 11, forming an organization called the Democrat Alternative

Chapter 12, Kirov and Yale

Chapter 13, the Anti-Corruption Foundation

Chapter 14, being prosecuted and running for mayor of Moscow

Chapter 15, Oleg Navalny in prison

Chapter 16, from blogging to YouTube, and eventually TikTok

Chapter 17, the presidential campaign in 2017

Chapter 18, bravery? Or: why do I do what I do?

Harpalus, An Unfaithful Servant

Alexander the Great had a courtier named Harpalus, whose story is told by various ancient authors. Here is the account in the first-century BC historian Diodorus Siculus (17.108.4–6; LCL edition, pp. 435–37)

Harpalus had been given the custody of the treasury in Babylon and of the revenues which accrued to it, but as soon as the king had carried his campaign into India, he assumed that Alexander would never come back, and gave himself up to comfortable living. Although he had been charged as satrap with the administration of a great country, he first occupied himself with the abuse of women and illegitimate amours with the natives and squandered much of the treasure under his control on incontinent pleasure. He fetched all the long way from the Red Sea a great quantity of fish and introduced an extravagant way of life, so that he came under general criticism. Later, moreover, he sent and brought from Athens the most dazzling courtesan of the day, whose name was Pythonicê. As long as she lived he gave her gifts worthy of a queen, and when she died, he gave her a magnificent funeral and erected over her grave a costly monument of the Attic type. 

After that, he brought out a second Attic courtesan named Glycera and kept her in exceeding luxury, providing her with a way of life which was fantastically expensive. At the same time, with an eye on the uncertainties of fortune, he established himself a place of refuge by benefactions to the Athenians. 

When Alexander did come back from India and put to death many of the satraps who had been charged with neglect of duty, Harpalus became alarmed at the punishment which might befall him. He packed up five thousand talents of silver, enrolled six thousand mercenaries, departed from Asia and sailed across to Attica. 

Diodorus continues the story just a bit longer, showing that Harpalus found himself unwelcome and, pretty soon,  murdered.

This story reminded me of the Parable of the Unfaithful Servant, told in Matthew 24:45–51.

But if that wicked slave says to himself, “My master is delayed,” and he begins to beat his fellow slaves, and eats and drinks with drunkards, the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know. He will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 24:48–51; cf. Luke 12:35–48)

I have long found that last bit of Jesus’ parable to be sort of incredible. Would a master really punish a slave in that way? After reading some ancient histories of Alexander, I am less surprised by the master’s treatment of his slave. Alexander could deal harshly with any hint of insubordination, as you can tell from the passage above about Harpalus, who got scared because Alexander was executing insubordinate servants. I don’t recall a story in which Alexander cut anyone up in little pieces (as in Jesus’ parable), but there are some gruesome things in ancient histories, so while Jesus might be exaggerating for effect (hyperbole), he wasn’t exaggerating much.

My New Study of the Book of Daniel for Churches

A new book of mine—a study of Daniel designed for churches—was published a couple weeks ago by Heritage Christian University Press. This is the fourth book in a series; previous books of mine in this series have focused on the book of Exodus, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Gospel of Luke. How should I describe this series? These studies are beefy—usually fairly long chapters for books aimed at churches (sometimes 6000 words per chapter or more)—and are informed by scholarship but are trying to arrive at a devotional or theological meaning of the text relevant in the twenty-first century. 

This new book on Daniel is unique in the series because my son, Josiah, drew pictures for the book, appearing before each chapter. The cover art of the book is one of his original drawings, representing the mountain of Nebuchadnezzar's dream in Daniel 2.

My book has an introduction and twelve chapters, one for every chapter of Daniel. As I said, it's designed for churches, so I tried to write the chapters in such a way that the book would be useful for teaching or preaching in a church context. That goal determined some of what I chose to discuss, specifically that I do not have discussions of the major critical issues regarding the book of Daniel. I think I mention the historical obscurity of Darius the Mede, but I do not dwell on it, because that issue seems to me completely unimportant when trying to understand the story of the lions' den in Daniel 6—or, at least, when trying to understand how the story might help Christians. For the same reason, I never broach the issue of the date of Daniel. 

Here is a section of the preface that describes the approach of my study. 

Daniel is a difficult book, deceptively difficult. The first six chapters are so familiar to most Christians, even very young ones, that we might think that the book is filled with children’s stories. While the stories in the first half of the book present complexities of their own, it’s the second half of the book where the real difficulties lie. Some Christians spend all their time here, in the apocalyptic visions of Daniel 7–12, trying to relate these ancient prophecies to today’s headlines, attempting to discern how close to the end times we live. Other Christians avoid these visions like the plague. This book encourages a different approach. I do not think that God gave us the apocalyptic visions in order to map out a scheme of the end of history, but he most definitely intended for believers to read and value these chapters. While I acknowledge that the reading strategy I propose in this book is not void of its own share of complexity, I have tried not only to explain the nature of the visions and some of their details but also to show how they can help us cope with life as it is now. 

If you end up reading this book, you'll probably get tired of my saying that I don't know the best interpretation of a passage. I don't know what to do with the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9. I don't know how to interpret all the details of Daniel 11, especially at the end (but I shy away from an Antichrist interpretation, the traditional Christian approach). Even in the absence of confidence on these matters, I think these chapters have relevance to believers today.

Navalny on Soviet Deception

Perhaps I'll post some more on Alexei Navalny's memoir when I've read more of it. (I'm about a hundred pages in at the moment.) But I thought it worth noting his memories from his childhood about how the Soviet government responded to crises. This is in the third chapter, which is the first chapter that narrates his childhood. Chapters 1–2 are on the poisoning he suffered in 2020. 

Navalny was born in 1976, and when he was ten years old part of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant exploded. Chernobyl is a couple hours' drive north of Kiev. 

The standard and completely moronic response of the Soviet—and subsequently of the Russian—authorities to any crisis is to decide that it is in the interests of the population that they should be lied to endlessly. Otherwise, the reasoning goes, people are sure to run out of their homes, rush around in a state of anarchy, set buildings on fire, and kill each other!

The truth of the matter is that nothing of that sort has ever happened. In most cases the population is prepared to behave in a rational and disciplined manner, especially if the situation were to be explained to them and they were told what needed to be done. Instead, as I have since seen on a less dramatic scale many times, the first official reaction is invariably to lie. There is no practical benefit to the officials doing so; it is simply a rule: In an awkward situation, lie. Play down the damage, deny everything, bluff. It can all be sorted out later, but right now, at the  moment of crisis, officials have no option but to lie, because the imagined idiot population is not yet ready for the truth. 

In the Chernobyl affair, it is pointless to look for even a scintilla of rationality. God forbid the people should have been told to stay indoors for a week and not go outside unless absolutely necessary. In Kiev, the capital city of Ukraine with a population in the millions, a May Day parade was held just five days after the explosion, for the same propaganda purposes—to pretend that all was well. We know now how those decisions were made. The leaders of the Communist Party, sitting in their offices, wanted foremost to ensure that neither the Soviet people nor—horror of horrors—foreigners should know anything about the atomic disaster. The health of tens of thousands of people was sacrificed in the cause of a grand cover-up that was ridiculous, because the radioactive fallout was so extensive it was registered by laboratories all over the globe. (p. 31)

He also describes how his parents were afraid of Soviet agents listening in to their conversations in their house through the telephone, so when they started talking about anything that might be construed to be critical of the government, his mom would hide the phone under a pillow. “Here were grown-ups talking about completely ordinary matters, like the impossibility of finding Bulgarian ketchup in the shops and having to get in the queue for meat at five o’clock in the morning. I could not see what there was to be afraid of. … That meant there must be people not allowing you to say what was obviously true” (p. 43).

Brad East on the Church

I've just read the newest book by Brad East, a theologian teaching at Abilene Christian University whose essays appear, it seems, several times a week in various outlets (e.g., Christianity Today, Commonweal, or his own blog). This new book is on The Church and it's part of Lexham's Christian Essentials Series. The books in this series are brief theological overviews of an important—essential—topic. The twelve chapters of East's book cover about 160 pages. It's a quick and rewarding read. 

East loves the church. I recall reading somewhere (in a blurb? in an introduction? I can't find it now) that this book is a love letter to the church. This is a very positive account of the nature of the church as God's people and as the body of Christ. That's the dominant note: love, or maybe wonder at God's grace in investing a people with such glory. This is a book that explores how Paul (or Saint Paul, as East would say) could tell husbands to love their wives "just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Eph 5:25). 

The subtitle of the volume is "A Guide to the People of God," and of course the "people of God" did not start with the ministry of Jesus and the apostles. East begins his story with Abraham, and perhaps half of the book treats the Hebrew Bible. 

One part made me chuckle (or chortle?). Near the end of the book, he mentions "the oft repeated phrase of biblical scholar N. T. Wright, 'The world is put to rights'" (p. 145). The citation provided by East says, "The phrase probably appears in every book he has published, but see Wright, How God Became King" (p. 180 n. 86).  

This is not a book for people looking to find things wrong with the church. East sometimes acknowledges those issues. He briefly mentions "our divisions, lamentable though they are" (p. 142). He recognizes that he could have said more about the unity of the church, and he points readers to resources on this topic (p. 177 n. 68). But his longest discussion of something that might be considered negative is on pp. 146–47, in a section that begins: "It must be said at once that failure is characteristic of the Church, for never has there been a time in the Church's life when she has wholly succeeded in following Christ." Here one reads: "'The world' is within the Church, not only without." 

There are other books that explore this territory in nauseating depth. The one that springs to mind is Jesus and John Wayne by Kristin Kobes Du Mez (2020). The nausea is a product of the topic about which Du Mez writes, not any failure on her part as a writer or reporter. Indeed, as I have told my students many times, the value of Du Mez's book is that she brings the receipts in her footnotes. She amply documents that "The world is within the Church, not only without." 

But for those who have gotten their fill of the (much-needed!) exposés of the Church, or for those looking to balance that portrait with something more positive, East is a cheerful guide. We have been inundated with the fact that the devil can be found in the Church, but that is not East's project. He concentrates instead on the positive case that "Christ is to be found in His Church" (p. 136). 

The Septuagint and the Canon: A Post-Mortem?

What influence did the LXX have on the development of the canon of Scripture? Several years ago, I started a series of posts on the LXX and Canon, in which I reviewed some scholarly works that addressed the question. (See here, here, here, and the five-parter on Hengel: part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.) My laziness prevented me from reviewing more works. Perhaps this post represents a post-mortem on that series, if not on the topic. That blog series was my attempt to work through some of the issues and develop my own thoughts, and I guess that paid off. 

My own approach to the issue of how the LXX influenced the development of the biblical canon is that it didn't. In my 2021 book on the LXX—which mostly deals with the reception of the LXX as text in the early church (see the front matter at my academia page)—the longest chapter concerns the canon, implicitly (or, maybe, explicitly) responding to the oft-repeated claim that early Christians viewed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture because they found these books in the LXX. This is nonsense. 

I recognize that by not quoting any particular scholar here, I open myself to the charge of caricature or straw-manning the argument. I will let readers decide whether I have correctly articulated a common position among scholars regarding the inclusion of the apocrypha/deuterocanonicals in the LXX. Or, better yet, get my book, where I think I do demonstrate that the view I am critiquing here is a common assumption among biblical scholars. (Or see my JBL article mentioned at the end of this post.)

The downfall of the assumption that the LXX included the deuterocanonicals is in the identity of the LXX. What is the LXX? I think when biblical scholars say things like, "The LXX included the books of Maccabees" or even "The LXX included the book of Isaiah," they are thinking that the LXX = the Greek Old Testament, and so whatever *we* consider a part of the Greek Old Testament is necessarily a part of the LXX. And to confirm whether a work is in the LXX, we can just pick up our copy of Rahlfs-Hanhart, which after all is called Septuaginta. 

But if we are talking about ancient Christianity, we should consider what ancient Christians thought about the identity of the LXX. As far as I can tell from reading their statements, they did not think that the LXX included all Jewish religious literature in Greek, or all Jewish Greek Scripture, or whatever. Rather, the concept of the LXX referred to a story of translation, having to do with Ptolemy II (usually) and his assembly of some Jewish scholars for the purpose of translating Jewish Scripture. Just which books did they translate? Or, rather, which books did ancient Jews and Christians say that Ptolemy's assembled scholars had translated? 

Ah, there's the question. Different ancient authors provide different answers to it, and those answers (I think) falsify the assumption that ancient Christians received the deuterocanonicals as Scripture because they found them in the LXX. And if that assumption proves invalid, I'm not sure how the LXX exerted any particular influence on the development of the biblical canon. Thus, the first sentence of the canon chapter in my aforementioned book: "The Septuagint had no bearing on the development of the canon of Scripture." 

If you want a taste of my argument, you can now get it at the wonderful Text & Canon Institute website, where the fine folks over there recently published my essay Paul and the Septuagint Canon. They have assigned it to the level of three dots—rather than one or two dots—which means that it might be slow-going for some readers unaccustomed to biblical scholarship. But I hope you read it and I hope you find it helpful. 

One more reference to my own work: a few months ago, the Journal of Biblical Literature published my article on the same topic: "Suddenly and Then Gradually: The Growth of the Septuagint and Its Canon" (here). If you can't get access to it, email me and I'll send you a copy. Here's the abstract. 

The Septuagint defies easy definition. Biblical scholars routinely use the term to designate the Greek Old Testament, though they recognize that such language is similar to talking about “the English Bible” or “the German Bible”: there is no such thing, or rather there are many such things. In this article, I urge closer attention to the way ancient people described the translation, particularly its scope. While modern scholars often seem (tacitly or not) to assume that the Septuagint began as the Greek Torah and then expanded its borders to welcome new Jewish scriptural books as they continued to be translated into Greek, ancient authors did not depict the Septuagint in this way. All ancient Jewish sources that mention the translation restricted the Septuagint to the Pentateuch, whereas most patristic sources attributed a Greek version of the entire Hebrew Bible to the Seventy translators. The most significant moment in the “growth of the Septuagint” was when it suddenly swelled from five books to perhaps a couple dozen or more. These ancient ideas on the extent of the Septuagint have implications for our notions of the Septuagint canon and for the use of this Greek version in the New Testament.

Why Does Satan Do What He Does?

My sister recently asked me what the Bible says, or what people have said, about Satan's motivations. What is it that has caused Satan to tempt humans or harm them? Why would he be so mean? 

This is a question that the Bible does not answer—or, not in any sort of direct way. People have found answers to this question in the Bible, in Isaiah 14 or Ezekiel 28, for instance, but of course those passages do not mention Satan. Indeed, I would argue that the entire Old Testament does not mention Satan, even where it does mention Satan. What I mean is that in the passages where Satan makes an appearance in our English Old Testaments (such as Job 1–2; Zechariah 3; 1 Chronicles 21:1), the Hebrew word satan does not function as a name (Satan, with a capital s) but would be better translated as opponent or adversary or executioner. In Christian Scripture, Satan is a character of the New Testament and not of the Old—at least if we're trying to interpret the texts according to their most probable original meaning. 

So, if you're going to look for Satan's motivations, it does you no good to look in the Old Testament, but neither does the New Testament really tell us anything about why he tempts or torments people. It just takes it for granted that he does these things. 

And yet there are ancient stories about Satan that fill in the details. One of the earliest (though hard to date) and most detailed accounts of Satan's fall from grace is in a work called The Life of Adam and Eve. I have been working on a project (as yet unpublished) that involves ancient traditions about Satan, and below I have pasted what I've written about this text. I have omitted the footnotes, but below the excerpt I have included some bibliography. The Life of Adam and Eve many centuries was asking the very same question as my sister recently asked, and it provides a fascinating answer, though I think one that would be a surprise to many of the people I go to church with. 

Here's the excerpt....

Perhaps the fullest ancient form of the legend of Satan’s fall is found in some versions of a work known as the Life of Adam and Eve. Now, this work, the Life of Adam and Eve, exists in several forms in different languages (Greek, Latin, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic), and the different versions do not all include the same episodes. It’s sorta like different iterations of Spiderman. (Thanks to my wife, Jodi, for help with this analogy.) If you mention Spiderman, everyone knows what you’re talking about, but everyone also knows that there are different versions of the story of Spiderman—the Toby Maguire movies, and the inferior movies starring other actors, not to mention the comic books with their own various iterations of the character and different storylines, and the television shows, etc. Gwen Stacy is a character in many of these Spiderman versions, but not all of them, and when she does appear, her storylines are often very different in the different versions. Sometimes the alter ego of Spiderman is not even Peter Parker, but Miles Morales, such as in the Spider-Verse franchise that has produced the greatest Spiderman moves (sorry, Toby).

The ancient text known as the Life of Adam and Eve exists in a variety of forms reminiscent of these different Spiderman properties. The basic storyline and characters are more-or-less the same across the different versions of the Life of Adam and Eve, but there are also major differences between the Greek version and the Latin version (and other versions). For example, the episode that interests us right now (and is quoted below), in which the devil explains his fall from grace, is not contained in the Greek version of the Life of Adam and Eve, but it is contained in the Latin and Armenian and Georgian versions. Usually scholars argue (or assume) that the Greek form of the story preserves the earliest form of the text, and that the earliest form of the text may date as early as 100 BC—though everything about the origins of the Life of Adam and Eve is debated, even whether its author was Jewish or Christian. The earliest Greek manuscripts date to the eleventh century AD. Since the Greek text (presumably the earliest) does not include the story of Satan’s fall, that story was apparently added to (some versions of) the Life of Adam and Eve sometime in the early Christian era. 

At any rate, the story of Satan’s fall in the Life of Adam and Eve (when it is included) represents the devil as jealous of the first humans. When God created Adam in his own image, he commanded all the angels to bow before Adam. The devil and some other angels refused. (chs. 11–17). He is called here the devil and Beliar (17:2). He describes his pre-fall nature: “My wings were more numerous than those of the cherubim, and I concealed myself under them” (12:1). Then the devil describes his rebellion, speaking to Adam. 

The very day when you were created, on that day I fell from before the face of God, because when God breathed a  spirit onto your face, you had the image and likeness of Divinity. And Michael came; he presented you and made you bow down before God. And God told Michael, “I have created Adam according to (my) image and my Divinity.” Then Michael came; he summoned all the troops of angels and told them, “Bow down before the likeness and the image of Divinity.” And then, when Michael summoned them and all had bowed down to you, he summoned me also. And I told him, “Go away from me, for I shall not bow down to him who is younger than I; indeed, I was master before him and it is proper for him to bow down to me.” When the six classes of other angels heard that, then my speech pleased them and they did not bow down to you. Then God became angry with us and ordered us, them and me, to be cast down from our dwellings to the earth. As for you, he ordered you to dwell in the Garden. When I had realized that I had fallen by your power, that I was in distress and you were in rest, then I aimed at hunting you so that I might alienate you from the garden of delights, just as I had been alienated because of you. (Life of Adam and Eve 13:2–16:3)

This story explains most of what we would want to know about the origins of Satan. He was created good and became evil by his own choice due to his jealousy of Adam. This all happened immediately after the creation of Adam. The devil wants to bring pain on Adam and pain on God in order to exact revenge for his own fall from grace.

Bibliography

John R. Levison, The Greek Life of Adam and Eve, Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2023).

Gary A. Anderson and Michael E. Stone, eds., A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), where the episode narrating Satan’s fall is labeled “pericope 5.”

Forerunners and Heirs of Origen's Hexapla

This weekend I received in the mail my contributor's copy of a new book on the Hexapla. My mom happened to be visiting us in Alabama from Kentucky, and she saw me open the package and examine the volume, prompting her question, "What's a hexapla?" 

The hexapla is an ancient parallel Bible—the Jewish Scriptures, the Christian Old Testament—six columns in two different languages (Hebrew and Greek), compiled under the direction of Origen, the Greek Christian author who died in the mid-third century. The two Hebrew columns featured (1) the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and (2) Greek transliteration of the Hebrew text, while the other four columns contained four Greek translations of the text, those known as (3) Aquila, (4) Symmachus, (5) LXX, and (6) Theodotion. The Hexapla would have been enormous, and while portions of it were copied, there was probably no second copy of the whole thing, and it has largely been lost to time. Only fragments of portions of the Hexapla have been preserved. 

The new volume—blessedly open access—contains 12 studies by various scholars covering different aspects of the study of the Hexapla. Most of the papers were presented at a conference at Phoenix Seminary in November 2021, the inaugural conference of the Text & Canon Institute (TCI). The volume was edited by John Meade, my one-time co-author and the co-director with Peter Gurry of the TCI. 

There are two bonus studies in the volume: a brief paper by Felix Albrecht on "Origen's Fifth Column/Old Greek of Psalms" that was not presented at the conference; and a classic paper by Dominique Barthélemy on "Origène et le Texte de l'Ancien Testament," now translated into English by Peter Gentry. 

My contribution is called "The Hexapla in the Church According to Jerome," and the basic idea is to study what Jerome (the Latin scholar at the turn of the fifth century) said about the influence the Hexapla had on the church's Bible. Jerome's testimony is important both because he had actually seen the Hexapla (or so he says) and because he was the foremost biblical textual scholar of his day. He used Origen's text critical on the Old Testament as a model for his own work, though Jerome pushed beyond Origen in various ways. My essay contains two appendices: (1) a collection of all of Jerome's comments on the Hexapla (in Latin and English), along with discussion about the information about the Hexapla to be gleaned from Jerome; and (2) a translation of Jerome's four preserved prefaces to his translation of the LXX. I think this might be the first English translation published for some of these prefaces. 

Let me briefly explain what that second appendix contains. (And, again, the volume is open access, so go have a look yourself.) Jerome is most famous today as the chief translator of the Latin Vulgate, which for most of the Old Testament contains Jerome's translations of the Hebrew Bible into Latin. Jerome also published some Latin translations of the LXX—specifically, translations of Origen's new and improved recension of the LXX. We have the Latin text of these translations for the Psalms (that's the Gallican Psalter, which is in the Vulgate), Job, and Song of Songs, and we have prefaces to Jerome's translation of Greek Chronicles and the Greek Solomonic Books (not just Song of Songs, but also Proverbs and Ecclesiastes). So we know Jerome published these four translations of the LXX. Again, those are the Psalms, Chronicles, Solomonic books, and Job. We don't have all the translations, but we do have the prefaces. He may have produced more translations of the LXX, but we lack the evidence to say for sure. The second appendix of my paper in this volume contains an English translation of the four preserved prefaces of Jerome's translations of the LXX. 

Podcast About Scripture

For a couple of years now, I have presented (almost) weekly chapel lessons at my place of employment, Heritage Christian University. These are lessons are usually recorded, and the video is put up on YouTube (here), while the audio is made available as a podcast called About Scripture. You can find it on most podcast distributors. 

This past semester (Spring 2024) my series of chapel talks was on the book of Daniel. I try as best I can to make a devotional point in these lessons, and sometimes I achieve moderate success. I try to combine academic biblical studies with a theological and confessional approach to the text. My approach is decidedly non-dispensational; there's a lot in the text I take as intentionally figurative. 

These episodes on Daniel just dropped on the podcast maybe a day or two ago, so I thought it would be a good time to mention it on this blog. Earlier seasons of the podcast (i.e., earlier semesters of chapel talks) involved study of the character of Joseph in the book of Genesis and a study of what the Bible says about angels and demons. 

A new semester is about to begin (!), so I'm trying to figure out what topic will occupy me in my weekly chapels. 

Robert Kennedy (Sr.) and Edith Hamilton

At the gravesite for Robert F. Kennedy (wikipedia) in Arlington National Cemetery, one of the inscriptions (image, another one) quotes Kennedy quoting Aeschylus.

Aeschylus...wrote, "Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God." What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness; but is love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black.

This quotation from Kennedy is from his famous, impromptu announcement of the death of Martin Luther King, Jr., one of the great speeches in American history, certainly one of the greatest more-or-less unplanned speeches in American history. See the Wikipedia entry on the speech, and watch it below. 

It's a remarkable speech that shows starkly the value of a humanities education. To be able to pull that quote from Aeschylus—well, that doesn't just happen. That takes preparation, not for this specific moment, but just for life in general. The ability to deliver such a speech in such a moment requires deep reflection on these issues years beforehand, in conversation with some of the great minds in world history. See this ten-minute video documentary on RFK's speech. 

Where does the quotation from Aeschylus come from? The basic answer is that the lines quoted by Kennedy come from the opening choral ode in the play Agamemnon, the first play of the trilogy called The Oresteia, first performed in 458 BC. 

More specifically, Kennedy's quotation came from the translation of these lines by Edith Hamilton in her first published work, the popular book The Greek Way (1930), at the very end of her chapter on Aeschylus. 

I was reminded of Kennedy's affection for Hamilton a couple days ago when I was alerted to a new review of a recent biography of Hamilton. The biography (which I have not read) is Victoria Houseman, American Classicist: The Life and Loves of Edith Hamilton (Princeton, 2023), and the review is by Robert L. Pounder at BMCR (here). (By the way, Pounder really liked the book.)

In his first paragraph, Pounder recounts a fleeting encounter he had with RFK in Athens in 1966. Pounder reports that the memory of this brief meeting is still fresh. 

Almost sixty years later I can still see the intense look in Kennedy’s eyes as he asked me my name, where I was studying, and whether I had read Edith Hamilton’s The Greek Way. When I responded that I had not read the Hamilton book, a collection of essays on mythological, literary, archaeological, philosophical, and historical topics first published in 1930, a cloud of disbelief passed over Kennedy’s face as his interest in me waned. It was as if I had committed heresy or disgraced myself shamefully. I was a big disappointment.

This wonderful anecdote provides more context for Kennedy's speech in April 1968. 

The translation of those lines by Aeschylus as quoted by Kennedy—and, by the way, Kennedy's memory failed him at one or two points, especially substituting "despair" for Hamilton's "despite"—was not the only translation produced by Edith Hamilton for those lines. She later produced a full translation of the Agamemnon, in which she offers this translation. 

Knowledge won through suffering.

Drop, drop—in our sleep, upon the heart

sorrow falls, memory’s pain, 

and to us, though against our very will,

even in our own despite,

comes wisdom

by the awful grace of God. (p. 170)

Kennedy was clearly relying on Hamilton's translation from The Greek Way and not from her full translation of the play. Hamilton herself had a deep affection for this passage from Agamemnon, as she highlights in his her aforementioned chapter on Aeschylus in her first work, as well as in the preface to the play in her translation of the full work (p. 161). Sarah Ruden has more recently translated the Agamemnon (here), and she also calls attention to this particular passage in her preface to her translation (p. 48). Her translation of the passage goes like this: 

Zeus puts us on the road

to mindfulness, Zeus decrees

we learn by suffering. 

In the heart is no sleep; there drips instead

pain that remembers wounds. And to unwilling 

minds circumspection comes. 

But this is the gods’ favor, I suppose, 

claiming by violence the place of awe, the helmsman’s bench.

(Agamemnon 176–183)

Finally, for reference, here is the Greek text and the prose translation by Herbert Weir Smyth in the LCL edition. I've also included in the English translation my attempt to determine which Greek words were being rendered by Smyth's English. 

τὸν φρονεῖν βροτοὺς ὁδώ-

σαντα, τὸν πάθει μάθος

θέντα κυρίως ἔχειν. 

στάζει δ᾽ ἔν θ᾽ ὕπνῳ πρὸ καρδίας

μνησιπήμων πόνος· καὶ παρ᾽ ἄ-

κοντας ἦλθε σωφρονεῖν. 

δαιμόνων δέ που χάρις βί-

αιος σέλμα σεμνὸν ἡμένων. 

Zeus, who (τὸν) leadeth (ὁδώσαντα) mortals (βροτοὺς) the way of understanding (φρονεῖν), Zeus, who (τὸν) hath stablished (θέντα) as a fixed ordinance (κυρίως ἔχειν) that “wisdom cometh by suffering” (πάθει μάθος) But even as trouble (πόνος), bringing memory of pain (μνησιπήμων), droppeth (στάζει) o’er the mind (πρὸ καρδίας) in sleep (ἔν ὕπνῳ), so to men in their despite (παρ᾽ ἄκοντας) cometh wisdom (ἦλθε σωφρονεῖν). With constraint (βίαιος), methinks (που), cometh the grace (χάρις) of the powers divine (δαιμόνων) enthroned (ἡμένων < ἧμαι) upon their awful seats (σέλμα σεμνὸν). (p. 19)

One more thing: Kennedy quotes "the Greeks" another time in his brief speech; on that quotation, see this article.