I understand your frustration completely. I love Heiser. Some other insightful scholars are J. A. Sanders, Brevard Childs, Eugene Ulrich, John Walton, and Lee MacDonald. Best wishes to your studies.
Thank you Michael Heiser. I have been saying these same things regarding the OT writings to my Christian acquaintances, generally with negative reactions. "what? are you saying the Bible has been corrupted" or "So, you dont believe what the Bible says" or "God's word"? etc etc. I am accused of heresy or apostasy or what-have-you, with no attempt to examine the written works logically, with consideration to the fact that they were written over the course of 100's of years, and often translated from oral tradition from one person to another before being translated into script using a decipherable alphabet. So Yes, they do believe the Biblical books simply dropped from Heaven. As a born again Christian myself, Im insulted by their ignorance and the accusations that I "dont believe what the Bible says".
41:03 Ezekiel 40-48 temple issue. Bookmarking for personal research. Edit: Ah, so the temple in Ezekiel 40-48 is a metaphorical temple from a vision. I'll have to look into this even more, but it's an interesting perspectve.
40:05 timestamp Some of what he says about the Song of Solomon following this point is verifiably false. How can one call it a "modern view that tries to alleorize the book," I cannot understand. Especially one who is considered to be a scholar. I could point to two commentaries at this moment over 1500 years old that make the application Heiser basically asserts cannot be and is "modern," and that is by no means all the commentaries throughout church history that speak in this manner. Not quoting directly from the book is an argument from silence, and the new testament gives the framework for how to view the Scripture, with guidance by the Holy Spirit. Also, if you follow his logic, the Holy Spirit guided the people in the formation of the canon (which I do not necessarily disagree with), yet this book is in there for what reason? As an erotic poem of Solomon's with no deeper meaning? It's a strange position to take for sure. But a simple search of ancient commentaries proves that the claim that this is a "modern" view is (at best) an ignorant comment [I looked at several more since I began to type this, including Cyprian of Carthage who makes application of content from the Song to the relationship between Christ and the Church].
This brings up a terribly important question: if early scribes added to the Bible in order to give it more context... should we be doing the same? There are a lot of people who skip the Old Testament out of fear of not understanding, or they lack historical knowledge. Should we add to the text in order to give knowledge? Or are we already doing that by using footnotes?
I think the footnotes/vast library of study resources accomplish that. People these days have a near-infinite ability to press into the context of what's been written. If the scribes had left out those details long ago, there would be no way of knowing them. If we leave out contextual details now, all you need is Google or a library book or a footnote Bible to clarify.
We MUST understand the OT in order to understand the New. The OT contains "pictures", "symbols", "types", "teaching" (on the nature /character of God, trust, obedience, wisdom, the supernatural). God in history, what God is like? How do we follow Him? Does God move on our behalf? (OT FULL of examples!) God promises to reveal His word to those who diligently seek Him. I didn't know much about the OT as a new Christian, but have been studying, learning from others every chance I get. Gradually, God has shown me wonderous things in His word. Anyone ditching the OT is missing much!!!
Overall, this is very good treatment of the subject matter, and very well summed up at 28:20 when he talks about all of the processes that go into creating the final form of scripture. As he says, "it wasn't just dictated, it didn't just drop from heaven..." We would do well to come to scripture and the study thereof with a realistic, eyes wide open approach. With that said, Heiser makes some significant missteps in regard to canon here. Namely: By stating that by the time of Jesus and the apostles that the Jewish community had a Bible (far from the truth - at this time, there were a full five different collections of the Hebrew Bible) That the Pharisaical Canon was representative of the entire Jewish community (it was not, it was only the Canon of the sect that survived the Jewish wars of 70 and 135) That the LXX was only utilized because of the growth of the church to include Gentiles (it was the Bible of the Jewish diaspora, and was utilized by the Jewish authors of the NT, thus utilized by the church that followed). That the Song of Solomon 1) is absolutely not referring to Christ and the church, and 2, that this is a modern invention. It is, in fact, one of the most ancient interpretations of the Christian church, and a very good one when understood rightly.
Scripture Numbers 6:24-26 in Paleo Hebrew, written on the Silver Scroll Amulets from Ketef Hinnom have been proven to be pre Babylon exile date. Copies of originals, writing styles that could have been written as early as 1500 B.C. Which fits.
Michael, I'll suggest you look again at that word "genizah". A genizah is not simply a hiding place: it is a place where any writing with the Name of God outright, was to be buried, similar to a human grave, when the document was worn out. So we have a very mixed bag in any old genizah. We have practice work by scribe students. We have much deviant material, which even though it was considered deviant, still it had the Name of God full in writing, so it was not to be burned. Much modern scholarship seems to ignore this, but it is a very important part of the whole, because it means that regardless of age and preservation, there was a hierarchy of considered worth in any genizah, that hierarchy now being almost completely lost, because the administrators of the genizah not only left little besides it, but changed significantly over time.
Did not listen to all of it, admittedly. But was really hoping someone could give me a layman like tutorial on how the Old Testament came about. He is a scholar, but from the jump, was talking way over my head.
Two years later and you could listen to this again and probably understand a little better b/c you have certainly grown in knowledge since then. The OT came about the same way the NT came about. People writing things down. But it's no less God's word b/c God hovers over His word to make sure what we have in the Bible is what He wanted to have in the Bible. It meshes so well in illustration, and types and symbols and especially prophecy that the Bible HAD to have supernatural oversight! When Moses wrote the 1st 5 books of the Bible, he already had writings from those who came before him. So essentially, Moses just compiled the writings into these 5 books. But God was overseeing this, too. There are severe warnings in scripture for anyone who tried to mess with God's book and change the words...either by adding to what was written, or taking away what was written. God still watches over His word.
Honest question: Knowing that the Bible has gone through countless revisions and there has never been a consistent canon, how can Christians say the Bible was inspired by God?
because, all the revisions are orthodox and continually highlight the glory of God, and we can trust that God allowed humans to use their agency to create the bible, yet he also oversaw the whole process to make it complete.
There is a certain perfection noticeable particularly in prophecy. Historic events that are predicted hundreds of years before they happen. That Jesus would be born of a virgin. That the Jewish temple would be destroyed at an exact time...and it was! That there would be a flood. That the Messiah would die on a cross. etc. etc. There are "pictures"(descriptions) of things in the Old Testament that really happened to a person in the New Testament. In other words, in the OT, God's people had to sacrifice a lamb every year for sin. In the NT, Jesus is called the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. And Jesus was sacrificed for sin, just like the lamb was in the OT. Stuff like that. And there's literally hundreds of things like that from Genesis to Revelation that had to have supernatural oversight. Things just line up too perfectly.
THIS is the info I have been looking for. You have no idea how many videos I have listened to about history without the info I have needed
I understand your frustration completely. I love Heiser. Some other insightful scholars are J. A. Sanders, Brevard Childs, Eugene Ulrich, John Walton, and Lee MacDonald. Best wishes to your studies.
I totally agree! One could go to church for 85 years and never learn this knowledge.good stuff!!
Thank you Michael Heiser. I have been saying these same things regarding the OT writings to my Christian acquaintances, generally with negative reactions. "what? are you saying the Bible has been corrupted" or "So, you dont believe what the Bible says" or "God's word"? etc etc. I am accused of heresy or apostasy or what-have-you, with no attempt to examine the written works logically, with consideration to the fact that they were written over the course of 100's of years, and often translated from oral tradition from one person to another before being translated into script using a decipherable alphabet.
So Yes, they do believe the Biblical books simply dropped from Heaven. As a born again Christian myself, Im insulted by their ignorance and the accusations that I "dont believe what the Bible says".
It's no less "God breathed". God watches over His word.
I took this course on Logos by him. Awesome
This is absolutely brilliant. Between Heiser and Dan Wallace I’ve learned so much that makes sense about how we got our bible. Thank you!
Thank you for putting this up on the tube... great stuff!!! God is enough
awesome! youre welcome
41:03 Ezekiel 40-48 temple issue. Bookmarking for personal research.
Edit: Ah, so the temple in Ezekiel 40-48 is a metaphorical temple from a vision. I'll have to look into this even more, but it's an interesting perspectve.
This is fascinating. I have learned some things that makes sense out of what made no sense.
I wonder if the late Dr Heiser knew of the ministry of Dr James White?
Great stuff l, thank you
I understood that the Dead Sea Scrolls are mostly congruent with the Masoretic text -- with some variations but not a lot.
40:05 timestamp
Some of what he says about the Song of Solomon following this point is verifiably false. How can one call it a "modern view that tries to alleorize the book," I cannot understand. Especially one who is considered to be a scholar. I could point to two commentaries at this moment over 1500 years old that make the application Heiser basically asserts cannot be and is "modern," and that is by no means all the commentaries throughout church history that speak in this manner. Not quoting directly from the book is an argument from silence, and the new testament gives the framework for how to view the Scripture, with guidance by the Holy Spirit. Also, if you follow his logic, the Holy Spirit guided the people in the formation of the canon (which I do not necessarily disagree with), yet this book is in there for what reason? As an erotic poem of Solomon's with no deeper meaning? It's a strange position to take for sure. But a simple search of ancient commentaries proves that the claim that this is a "modern" view is (at best) an ignorant comment [I looked at several more since I began to type this, including Cyprian of Carthage who makes application of content from the Song to the relationship between Christ and the Church].
Jesus is LORD
This brings up a terribly important question: if early scribes added to the Bible in order to give it more context... should we be doing the same? There are a lot of people who skip the Old Testament out of fear of not understanding, or they lack historical knowledge. Should we add to the text in order to give knowledge? Or are we already doing that by using footnotes?
I think the footnotes/vast library of study resources accomplish that. People these days have a near-infinite ability to press into the context of what's been written. If the scribes had left out those details long ago, there would be no way of knowing them. If we leave out contextual details now, all you need is Google or a library book or a footnote Bible to clarify.
We MUST understand the OT in order to understand the New. The OT contains "pictures", "symbols", "types", "teaching" (on the nature /character of God, trust, obedience, wisdom, the supernatural). God in history, what God is like? How do we follow Him? Does God move on our behalf? (OT FULL of examples!) God promises to reveal His word to those who diligently seek Him. I didn't know much about the OT as a new Christian, but have been studying, learning from others every chance I get. Gradually, God has shown me wonderous things in His word. Anyone ditching the OT is missing much!!!
were judges and ruth ever rolled into one scroll ?
t there books found at the dead sea that they thought were orignally written in greek that were written in hebrew?
Great video!!!
Overall, this is very good treatment of the subject matter, and very well summed up at 28:20 when he talks about all of the processes that go into creating the final form of scripture. As he says, "it wasn't just dictated, it didn't just drop from heaven..." We would do well to come to scripture and the study thereof with a realistic, eyes wide open approach.
With that said, Heiser makes some significant missteps in regard to canon here. Namely:
By stating that by the time of Jesus and the apostles that the Jewish community had a Bible (far from the truth - at this time, there were a full five different collections of the Hebrew Bible)
That the Pharisaical Canon was representative of the entire Jewish community (it was not, it was only the Canon of the sect that survived the Jewish wars of 70 and 135)
That the LXX was only utilized because of the growth of the church to include Gentiles (it was the Bible of the Jewish diaspora, and was utilized by the Jewish authors of the NT, thus utilized by the church that followed).
That the Song of Solomon 1) is absolutely not referring to Christ and the church, and 2, that this is a modern invention. It is, in fact, one of the most ancient interpretations of the Christian church, and a very good one when understood rightly.
Scripture Numbers 6:24-26 in Paleo Hebrew, written on the Silver Scroll Amulets from Ketef Hinnom have been proven to be pre Babylon exile date. Copies of originals, writing styles that could have been written as early as 1500 B.C. Which fits.
The founding of masoretic text in this lecture is highly speculative.
Michael, I'll suggest you look again at that word "genizah". A genizah is not simply a hiding place: it is a place where any writing with the Name of God outright, was to be buried, similar to a human grave, when the document was worn out. So we have a very mixed bag in any old genizah. We have practice work by scribe students. We have much deviant material, which even though it was considered deviant, still it had the Name of God full in writing, so it was not to be burned. Much modern scholarship seems to ignore this, but it is a very important part of the whole, because it means that regardless of age and preservation, there was a hierarchy of considered worth in any genizah, that hierarchy now being almost completely lost, because the administrators of the genizah not only left little besides it, but changed significantly over time.
Michael Heiser passed away in 2023.
Fascinated by the threefold division of the Old Testament as in the law, the prophet, & the writings was talked about by Jesus in Luke24:44 in 33:54
1:03:50
👊✌
Did not listen to all of it, admittedly. But was really hoping someone could give me a layman like tutorial on how the Old Testament came about. He is a scholar, but from the jump, was talking way over my head.
Two years later and you could listen to this again and probably understand a little better b/c you have certainly grown in knowledge since then. The OT came about the same way the NT came about. People writing things down. But it's no less God's word b/c God hovers over His word to make sure what we have in the Bible is what He wanted to have in the Bible. It meshes so well in illustration, and types and symbols and especially prophecy that the Bible HAD to have supernatural oversight! When Moses wrote the 1st 5 books of the Bible, he already had writings from those who came before him. So essentially, Moses just compiled the writings into these 5 books. But God was overseeing this, too. There are severe warnings in scripture for anyone who tried to mess with God's book and change the words...either by adding to what was written, or taking away what was written. God still watches over His word.
@@kristenspencer9751 Thanks for your reply. I believe 100% in the word of God. It's the truth. I appreciate you taking the time to write a response.
Honest question: Knowing that the Bible has gone through countless revisions and there has never been a consistent canon, how can Christians say the Bible was inspired by God?
because, all the revisions are orthodox and continually highlight the glory of God, and we can trust that God allowed humans to use their agency to create the bible, yet he also oversaw the whole process to make it complete.
There is a certain perfection noticeable particularly in prophecy. Historic events that are predicted hundreds of years before they happen. That Jesus would be born of a virgin. That the Jewish temple would be destroyed at an exact time...and it was! That there would be a flood. That the Messiah would die on a cross. etc. etc. There are "pictures"(descriptions) of things in the Old Testament that really happened to a person in the New Testament. In other words, in the OT, God's people had to sacrifice a lamb every year for sin. In the NT, Jesus is called the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. And Jesus was sacrificed for sin, just like the lamb was in the OT. Stuff like that. And there's literally hundreds of things like that from Genesis to Revelation that had to have supernatural oversight. Things just line up too perfectly.