圣经研究1——旧约的国度、圣约和正典 KOT

——第四课：旧约历史和正典

目录

一、介绍

二、正典当作镜子

基础

圣经特征

圣经例证

焦点

教义

榜样例证

个人需要

三、正典当作窗口

基础

圣经特征

圣经例证

焦点

共时镜像

历时追踪

四、正典当作图画

基础

圣经特征

圣经例证

焦点

作者

对象

文本

五、总结

一﹑介绍

当我们要长途旅行时，问一个对路程很熟悉的人要一份详细可靠的指南，常常很有帮助。当然，知道要去的大概方向自然很有重要，有一个大的蓝图也非常有好处。但是，在路途中我们往往面临复杂的情况，需要在适当的时候，合适的地点，决定一个正确的转向。因此，有详细的地图指引就变得非常有益处。

对基督的跟随者来说，有些事情也是这样的。我们正行走在一条最伟大的人生旅途中，这个旅途的尽头就是神的国如同在天上情形降临在地上。牢记这个最终的结局致关重要，它有助于我们了解整体的画面。但是，行走在这个基督信仰的路途中时，有时情形就会变得很复杂，我们需要的不光是这些广泛的概念和一般的原则，我们还需要有权威性的详细指导。而透过旧约《圣经》正典，神已经把这些详细的权威性指导给了我们。

本课是旧约纵览《旧约的国度、圣约和正典》的第四课。在前面的几课中，我们已经了解到，旧约讲的是有关神的国度和神透过圣约来治理他的国度。然而，我们把本课定名为「旧约正典」，旧约是我们的「正典」，正典是一个古老的词，意思是我们的「标准」或者「尺度」，这个正典为神的百姓生活在神的圣约中和寻求神的国度时，提供了权威性的、详尽指导。

本课，我们将探讨旧约正典如何向我们呈现更为详细的指导，以及我们如何发掘这些指导。我们将会看到，旧约主要用三种方法来教导神的百姓，我们用三个比喻分别来描述这些方法。第一，旧约对于我们就象一面的镜子，以极大的权威反映出了我们所关切的基本问题和主题。第二，旧约对于我们就象一扇通向历史的窗口，可以看到如何确凿地记载了过去发生的重大事件，&以此引导神的百姓去服事神；第三，我们看旧约就象一幅图画，透过神拣选的人类作者所创作的一系列文字描绘，以此独特的方式影响着神的百姓，不但过去是如此，并且应用在历世历代中。

这些不同的方法主要是表达出教导的不同侧重点。然而，为了便于我们的研读，我们会逐个分开来看。我们开始先来看旧约正典象一面镜子，反映出我们研读它时带来的问题和兴趣。

二﹑正典当作镜子

你是否注意到，当你和很多朋友们一起读一本书的时候，一些东西会引起你的兴趣，而另外一些东西会引起别人的兴趣？如果你问这些人，「这一章，你读到最重要的内容是什么？」得到的答案往往会是因人而异，大家各抒己见。很多时候，不是一个人正确或者另外一个人错误，而是每个人阅读时注意的重点不一样，因为大家所注重的都是自己认为很重要的东西。

读书的时候，我们常常把它当作一面镜子，以我们的兴趣和爱好来反射我们自己。男人找到的是他们所关心的东西，而女人常常发现的是她们感兴趣的事情。老年人和年轻人，这人和那人，从某种程度上来说，我们都以强调我们认为最重要的东西，来回应我们所读的。与此基本相同，忠信的基督徒把旧约看成一面镜子，常常反映他们自己的兴趣和爱好。我们寻求旧约怎样谈到我们所关心的事情和问题，即使那些主题在我们所读的《圣经》段落中是次要的，并不引人注目。我们称这种研读旧约正典的方法叫「主题式分析（Thematic analysis）」，因为这个方法着重在我们认为很重要的主题上。

为了探讨旧约的主题式分析，我们涉及两个问题，第一，主题式分析的基础；第二，主题式分析的焦点。让我们首先来看看用主题式分析法研读旧约的基础，也就是用这种方法的理由是什么？

基础

至少有两种方式让我们看到，主题式分析是发掘旧约正典权威性指导的一个合适工具。第一，《圣经》本身的特征鼓励我们用这种方法去研读；第二，我们有《圣经》作者和《圣经》人物使用主题式分析法的例证。让我们来看看《圣经》的特性如何证实主题式分析法。

《圣经》特征

主题式分析是一个研读旧约合适的方法，原因是象大多数著名的重要长篇文本一样，旧约的经文涉及到很多不同的主题。这些主题每一次都蕴含着不止一个要点。不幸的是，很多好心的基督徒常常过于简单化地理解旧约经文的含义，他们的做法好像是《圣经》经文提供的是一个微小激光光柱的扫描信息。一段经文说的是这个意思，而另一段经文说的是另一个意思。这些信徒常常只注重这些经文主要的或突出的主题，而忽略这些经文同时涉及到其它次要的主题。

但是仔细地解经帮助我们明白旧约经文的意思实际上相当的复杂。与其说它是一个激光光柱，多不如说这些经文的意思更接近一个逐渐扩散的光柱。首先，有一些主题十分重要，总体经文鲜明地照耀在这些主题上。我们称这些主题为这段经文的突出性主题（prominent themes）。其次，经文以较为边缘的方式涉及的其它主题，好像是被弱光照到的。我们称这些主题是这段经文的次要性主题（minor themes）；最后，一些主题太偏离这段经文的主要关注点，从实用的角度出发，我们可以说经文的这些主题几乎接近无光照的地方。我们称这些主题为无关性主题（extraneous themes）。主题式分析法包含这些主题的范围，而且常常关注这些经文涉及的次要的或者非重点的主题。如果这些次要的主题引起我们的兴趣，他们就成为我们主题式分析中的主要研究对象。

为了明白我们所说的意思，让我们看看《圣经》的第一句话，也就是创世记第1章第1节说，

「起初神创造天地。」( 创世记第1章第1节)

如果我们自问，「这节经文教导我们什么？」乍看之下，我们的答案可能很简单：创世记第1章第1节告诉我们「神创造世界」。我们大多可能会同意这是一个合理的方法来概述这节经文的意思。但是，如果我们把自己限定在这个中心主题上，我们就忽略了这节经文所涉及的很多和这个中心主题一样正确的其它主题。

那么，这节经文含有多少的主题或主旨？实际上，我们可以列举很多个。除了谈到神创造世界这个事实之外，这节经文也涉及很多神学主题，比如，「有一位神」，「神在创世之前就存在」，同时也告诉我们「神有能力从无造有」，「应该承认神是创造者」。创世记第1章第1节也涉及很多有关创造世界的事情。它告诉我们「有一个创造事件」、「创造界不是自存的」、「天空是创造界的一个空间」以及「地球是创造界的一个空间。」因为这节经文涉及了这些次要的主题，我们的焦点可以合理地集中到任何一个主题上面。

如果象创世记第1章第1节这样短短的一节经文就包含这么多的主题，可以想象更长的经文段落会出现多少的主题。旧约的大部分经文提到这么多的主题，这些主题可以与我们的兴趣和问题有着无数的关联，只要我们细心地把突出性主题和次要性主题，从无关性主题中分别出来，那么，用主题式分析法来认识旧约具有权威性的详细指导就十分恰当了。

《圣经》例证

另一个途径来了解主题式分析法的合宜性，是应该注意到受圣灵感动默示的《圣经》作者，他们也用这种方式。如果我们看看他们的例子，显而易见，他们常常注意旧约经文所涉及的相对次要方面的主题，因为这些方面符合他们自己的兴趣。看看希伯来书第11章第32节-34当中的显著例子：

凡熟悉士师记中耶弗他和参孙故事的人，都知道士师记并没有以赞许的方式来表现这两个人物。士师记的突出性主题几乎毫无例外地包含了这段历史时期内以色列领袖人格和道德上的失败，包括耶弗他和参孙。事实上，我们会在后面的课程中看到，突出强调这些失败的目的是为了证明士师们没有能力带领神的百姓。

然而，士师记确实也提到相对来说较为次要的主题，当耶弗他和参孙在信心上归向神的时候，他们都曾经有几次战胜过神的敌人。因此，希伯来的作者在寻求他自己问题答案的时候，能够突出这些人的正面成绩。即使希伯来书的作者把主题式的方法应用到士师记中，强调对他来说很重要的主题，但他也忠实于士师记的原文，使自己服从旧约正典之下。

既然我们已经看到用主题式分析法，来探讨旧约权威性的信息是合宜的，那么，我们就把我们的注意力转到主题式分析法所主要关注的焦点上。

焦点

由于引起我们兴趣的主题，因不同的人、不同的时间、不同的地点而千变万化，所以我们发现大量主题式研读旧约就一点也不奇怪了。同时，当基督徒寻求他们自己问题的答案时，我们也能够识别出他们遵循的某种趋向。我们首先提到的焦点是教义；接着是强调榜样的例证；第三是注意个人的需要。

教义

透过主题式分析来研读旧约最有影响的方法，或许就是用来奠定基督教的教义。几千年来，旧约已经被看作是神学真理的来源，这些真理被神学家整理成教义。

一个富有成效的主题式分析方法，就是去问一些来自于传统的系统神学范畴里所面临的问题。例如，我们可以问道，这段经文谈到神的什么属性？谈到人类的状况是什么？在这段经文里涉及到审判和救恩的教义是什么？几乎每一段旧约的经文都适合问这样类似的问题，因为《圣经》广泛地讲到这些内容。但是我们总应该意识这样的事实，就是这些主题不一定是我们读到一些特定经文中的主要关切点。这些主题常常是出自于我们在研究传统的神学时，自己的兴趣和需要。

这种主题式的焦点常常采用经文证据的形式、简要引用旧约特定经文的形式，来证明教义的立场。每当我们读一本有关系统神学、信仰告白或者正式的信经时，几乎每次，都会发现它们引用一连串的《圣经》经文来支持其教义立场。不幸的是，有时用经文证据来支持的教义和所引用的经文其实很不相关。当这些有意引用的经文和所要支持的教义出现风马牛不相及的时候，那么教义立场就显得草率，或者甚至不真实。实际上，一些神学家如此不谨慎地错误引用旧约经文，以致使其他人对经文证据的方法全盘否定。但是，仅仅因为对经文的滥用而放弃经文证据的方法却不是明智之举。良好精确的经文证据对研究《圣经》章节的主题经常是有效的而且是很有帮助的，即使这些主题不是章节的中心主题。

榜样例证

另外一个主題分析的形式和榜样例证有关，我们往往在旧约中找寻我们应该效法或抵制的人物形象。不幸的是，基督徒由于错误处理《圣经》人物的思想、言语和行为而导致滥用这个研读旧约方式，因为他们没有牢记《圣经》广泛和原则性的教导，情况往往就是基督徒把一些人物形象作为榜样加以赞扬，而这些人物实际上不应该成为特别的榜样和形象。这种滥用波及很广，以致很多学者也拒绝这种主题式分析形式。但是，尽管被滥用，对榜样例证的主题式分析仍然很有其价值。

例如，请思想撒母耳记上17章中大卫和歌利亚的故事。讲道的人不断讲说大卫是一个榜样，我们常常听赞扬大卫拒绝披戴扫罗的铠甲，相信神的能力，打败歌利亚。他的态度、言行和行为被看成我们需要在神里面有信心和从神得胜的行为典范。

令人伤心的是，最近几十年来，很多解经家坚持认为，把这段经文中的大卫当作信心典范的做法是完全偏离了要点。不错，这个故事的突出性的主题是神要高举大卫，取代扫罗做以色列的王。但是这也决不是意味着，这是这段经文唯一主题。大卫的信心是他得胜的泉源，这是故事的主要细节，因为它解释了神建立大卫和兴起大卫王朝的其中一个原因。所以，把大卫的信心看作是这段经文的次要主题也是对的，学习他的榜样也是对的。

事实是旧约充满了要效法或拒绝的榜样，搜寻这些榜样来探求旧约有权威的、详细的教导是合适的方法

个人需要

第三点，基督徒要获得一些个人所较关心之事的引导，比如寻求来自个人挣扎和个人需要的一些问题的答案，使用旧约主题式分析就变得十分合宜。

我们都听过以旧约为主题的讲道，比如，如何做一个好的父亲或母亲，工作中如何成功，如何敬拜 上帝，怎样处理个人和情感的挣扎。透过主题式分析的方法来正确地看待旧约经文，常常会涉及到这些很实际的问题。

例如，牧者们常常会分析大卫作为一个父亲的失败，也从雅各为了妻子做14年的苦力中得到原则。牧师们还会用麦基洗德和亚伯拉罕的故事为例来说明主日早上敬拜的成分，他们也查看以利亚在迦密山之后，灵里面低沉的情感挣扎。

主题式分析法把旧约作为一面镜子来看待，很有价值，不容忽视。当我们寻求探讨旧约正典详细有权威的教导时，我们完全有理由把注意力集中到神呈现给我们的所有主题上面，甚至那些次要的关注点。

既然已经明白了透过主题式分析法，能把旧约作为一面镜子来认识旧约正典中详细有权威的教导，现在我们可以转到我们的第二个主题：把旧约作为历史的一个窗口来研读。

三﹑正典当作窗口

当我们读一本记载过去事件的书，很自然，我们的注意力就会集中到所描写的历史事件上。有时我们尽然全神贯注到历史当中，会完全忘了顾及有关我们目前自己的人生问题，甚至略过这本书本身所涉及的很多其它方面，诸如，它的文字风格和艺术表现手法。与此相反，我们浏览整本书好像它是过去的一个窗口，想象所描述事件在当时是怎样的发生。

同样道理，旧约正典描述的是很久以前的社会，基督徒顺服旧约的权威，其中一个现存的方法就是利用旧约作为一个窗口，了解过去所发生的事件，《圣经》所记载的救恩历史。因为着重点在历史上，我们称这种探讨旧约正典的方法为历史性分析法。用这种方法，我们了解过去的历史事件、思想它们的重要性、并且把历史的经验教训应用到我们的人生中。

无论如何，忠实的基督徒一直是把旧约看作是历史的窗口。即使在主题式分析方法占主导的早期教会中，旧约的历史性也没有被忽略。然而，在过去的四百年中，尤其是最近100年来，这个事实变得更加明显，人们认识到旧约正典最重要的特征之一，就是旧约展现的是神对待他的百姓或与他的百姓交往的历史。结果，我们就看到，现今很多基督徒用历史性分析方法研究旧约正典，他们把注意力集中在旧约所提到的历史层面上。

为了探讨旧约正典的历史性分析，我们要看两个问题：首先，历史性分析的基础或理由；然后，历史性分析的焦点。让我们先来探究以历史窗口的角度来研读旧约的合理基础。

基础

有无数方法可以证明旧约历史性分析的合理正确性，但是我们需要将我们的讨论仅仅限定在两个考虑上面。一方面，《圣经》本身的特点鼓励我们把旧约看作一个历史的窗口；另一方面，很显然，《圣经》中很多的例子也支持我们用历史性分析法来正确研究旧约。让我们首先思想《圣经》特点的本身，就为历史性分析法提供了一个坚实可靠的基础。

《圣经》特征

根据耶稣及其它使徒们的教导，基督徒确定旧约是神所默示的，就是「神呼出的气」。就如保罗在大家都熟悉的提摩太后书第3章第16节所说的，

在这些课程中，我们对旧约的研究建立在我们确信《圣经》是从神而来的基础之上，即《圣经》是神呼出的气息这个事实，意思就是，旧约说是正确的事情，就是正确的事情。

我们可以这样说，旧约对历史上所发生的事情作了很多的陈述。当我们考虑这些陈述，以及和历史事实之间的关系时，作为跟随基督的人，我们确定《圣经》所作的每一个历史陈述都与真实的历史事实一致。旧约教导说发生了某事，这个教导就包含神自己的权柄。因此，我们可以确定这个事件就是真正的发生了。

然而，每一个熟悉旧约的人都知道，旧约和历史事实之间的一致对应性是需要加以解释的。

首先，我们必须要牢记，旧约对历史的记载是具有高度的选择性，省略的部分大大地超过所记载的部分。你可能记得在约翰福音第21章第25节，使徒约翰关于耶稣生平的记载，这样说，

耶稣所行的事还有许多；若是一一地都写出来，我想，所写的书，就是世界也容不下了。（约翰福音第21章第25节）

假如一本只是记载一个人他人生中一言一行、一举一动的书，都无法在整个世界里容下，那么，我们就应该充分地意识到，旧约中所记载和描述的只是数千年的历史当中，所发生的无数个事件之中很少的一部分。

第二点，我们必须承认，对旧约历史的可靠性有很多异议。不是每一个人都承认旧约的历史陈述和真实的历史事实之间具有对应性。有时，《圣经》和历史的一致性遭到质疑仅仅是出于不信。不管怎么讲，旧约正典毕竟不是一部世俗历史；在旧约的历史观点中，神和超自然的能力起了主要作用。因此，不信的人常常发现很难将旧约和历史相连起来。当然，与此相反，基督跟随者们在相信旧约所描写的这个超然的世界方面，应当是毫无障碍。

与此同时，一些对旧约历史可靠性的否定甚至常常对信徒产生一种挑战，因为这些否定的论据来自一些学者。很多有名望的考古学家、地质学家以及其他科学家提出一系列的证据资料，确信这些资料否定了旧约历史的可靠性。地质学家对有关创造世界的记载和挪亚时代全球范围的大洪水提出质疑。考古学家对应许之地征服的时间和性质提出质疑，同时也怀疑以色列和犹大列王们对应的时间，以及旧约提到的战争和其它事件的结果。

不幸的是，这些科学争论有时甚至说服了基督徒，以致否定旧约的历史可靠性。实际上，我们今天常常听到一些好意的神学家断言说，旧约中只有一些大的事件是像所记载的那样，真的发生了。有时他们则提到旧约的历史，不是发生在现实时空下的历史事件，只是象征性的「救恩历史」或「救赎历史」，只有太古时期的以色列人相信真的发生了，而现在有学问的人知道这种事情不可能发生。至于这些神学家所关心的是，旧约只在它的神学原则和道德原则上是全然可靠的。然而，事实上，旧约有关神学和道德的教导绝对离不开其历史的真实陈述。如果人们否定旧约历史的可靠性，也就同时破坏了相应的神学和道德教导的可靠性。

除了这些情况之外，我们还是应当承认旧约记录和历史之间的相互对应性不是那么的显然易见。为什么会这样？什么东西使旧约历史的可靠性变得模糊不清？

至少有三个原因，导致旧约有时看起来似乎和其它历史资料相冲突。首先，科学家有时会错误地理解了那些支撑他们论点的证据。即使我们尽可能尊重考古学家和其他科学家，毫无疑问的是，他们仍然会出现差错。他们的结论常常要根据以后的证据而不断修正。

例如，两百年前，很多专家学者坚持认为旧约有关赫的记载有误。但是上个世纪的考古学家发现赫人文化。实际上，赫人留下来的很多著作对旧约的研究提供了很多丰富的见解。同样，一个世纪前，一个主流的学术观点认为，旧约有关出埃及和征服迦南的日期发生于公元前1400年，是太早了。然而，最近这些年，重新评价考古学的资料，提出一个新的有力的论点，却是支持《圣经》的观点，即使是不信的人都倾向同意《圣经》的记载。这些以及其它无数的例子都证明，如果旧约和科学的观点不一致的时候，是科学家们错了。

第二，有时，《圣经》记载和历史之间明显的不一致是来自我们对《圣经》的误解。这种情形很经典的例子就是，发生在17世纪初，伽利略和教会权威之间的争斗。伽利略称地球是绕着太阳转，而教会却坚持太阳绕着地球转。这个争论大部分是围绕约书亚记第10章第13节而起的，经文这样说，

很多世纪以来，教会把这节经文照字面意思来教导太阳停下来，有段时间不绕地球来转动，从而排除了太阳系的可能性。

然而，今天科学研究已经更确实地证实，白天和黑夜是由于地球绕地轴自转而产生的。结果，很多现代的基督徒约书亚记第10章第13节的理解和他们的历史先辈们的理解完全不同。我们知道日头奇迹般地为约书亚停留，但是，我们也知道日头的停留只是以约书亚在地球上位置而言的一个表面现象。我们现在可能知道这节经文和其它类似的经文所用的是通常的 「现象性语言」，和我们现在所使用的日常语，和「日出」、「日落」是一样的。科学对太阳系的有力证据不会使我们拒绝旧约历史的可信性，相反，这样能帮助我们纠正我们对旧约《圣经》的解释。

第三，有时，科学观点和我们对《圣经》解释都不正确。因为我们知道科学家和解经家都会犯错，所以，我们必须保留有可能进一步调查研究的空间，以便证实双方的争论都错了。对科学和旧约两方面小心细致的研究，或许将来有一天会显示旧约记载和历史事实之间确实有互相一致对应。

我们必须时常记着，历史事实和我们对旧约《圣经》解释之间的一些显著差异可能永远解决不了。人类的罪性和有限性常常很难达到最终解决办法。每一个学科的研究领域，都会向我们对旧约历史可靠性的信心，继续不断地提出新的挑战，我们不可能期待逐个的全部解决。在很多很有能力的科学家中间也存在无数没有办法解决的争论。对旧约的解释也是这样。我们可能常常得到一定程度的理解，甚至提供一些可能答案，但是仍然不能达到消除一切问题的地步。

不管旧约和科学家之间出现什么争论，忠心的基督徒必须认定《圣经》的默示性建立了旧约的历史权威。有了这种对旧约历史可靠性的信心，我们才能把旧约作为权威的历史窗口加以正确透彻地研究。

既然我们已经明白了旧约的历史性分析是由《圣经》的特点所决定的，我们就转向来看这个观点的第二个基础：《圣经》中的例证。

《圣经》例证

旧约和新约的全部经文，没有任何一处《圣经》的作者怀疑旧约历史的确实性。

我们用两处明显的经文来作实例，说明这点。

首先，考虑历代志的作者在家谱的记载上怎样依赖旧约的历史事实。历代志上第1章第1节－4，作者这样开始他的家谱记载，

对于当代的基督徒来说，历代志的作者在这里做了一件很了不起的事情，他参考创世记前五章，把他们作为可靠的历史事实。从创世记的开始，他提到了13个人的名字，现代大多数人认为《圣经》对这些人的记载是来自传说或者编造的。但是历代志的作者证明了他完全信靠创世记前几章的历史可靠性。他使用创世记，就像他尊重旧约的其他经卷那样，把它们作为有权威的历史窗口。

同样地，思想路加在使徒行传第7章记载司提反讲道的例子。使用了旧约的很多部分，司提反提到了亚伯拉罕、以撒、雅各、约瑟、摩西、亚伦、约书亚，大卫和所罗门，都是历史人物，他确定旧约《圣经》上对他们的记载都是历史事实。司提反所关心的是，旧约的历史记载都是真实的，而且这个历史记载是他呼召其犹太人同胞悔改信靠耶稣的根本基础。

《圣经》的作者和人物反复不断地表明，他们相信旧约的历史陈述和历史事实之间相互的一致性。他们把旧约当作历史的窗口，就他们当时的情况从历史中得出神学结论。我们今天也要同样的跟随先贤们的足迹行。

焦点

我们既然已经明白把旧约看成有权威的历史窗口，是合理的研读旧约《圣经》的方法，我们现在就进入我们的第二主题：历史性分析的焦点是什么？这种研究旧约《圣经》方法的目标是什么？

上个世纪，出现一个流行的历史性分析形式，称作「圣经神学」，现在，这个名词包含一个广泛的意义，涉及几种当代不同的《圣经》研究方法。但是其中最有影响力的一个圣经神学形式，其焦点可描述为两个基本步骤：第一，设立「共时镜像」，把旧约历史的某一阶段看成一个瞬间单元来研究；第二，进行「历时追踪」，在整个历史演变中来看每个事件之间的联系。当然，从很多方面，这两个步骤彼此相关、互为配合的。圣经神学家经常二者交替融合使用。但是，为了配合我们的目的，我们要分开单独讨论。首先，让我们看一看设立共时镜像的过程。

共时镜像

共时镜像的方法中，圣经神学家把旧约分成不同的时段，探讨在这些时期内《圣经》的教导是什么。他们主要集中在《圣经》历史的片断，总结那个时期发生的一系列复杂事件，把他们看成一个同时代的个体单元，一个时间片断。随着旧约的神学中心，他们常常集中在这些事件怎样刻画神和他百姓之间的互动。结果，旧约的每一个时期都会产生一个共时镜像。

这里我们需要小心，我们前面的课程已经看到，旧约历史象河水流向大海一样川流不息，《圣经》历史的发展是统一的，不是切割成截然不同的片断，而是向着神国度更伟大的蓝图不断演进。因此，把旧约划分成不同的阶段总是有人为的因素，就像把一条长河分成截然不同的河段一样。就像在不同的地点，人们可以把河流进行分段，从而得到不同的益处，同样地，人们也有很多种有益的方式，来分割旧约历史产生出不同的共时镜像。

事实上，我们用来把旧约划分成不同时代的标准，会极大地影响我们的划分。

例如，在本系列前面的课程中，讲到神的国在地上的发展时，我们是按照太古时期和以色列国家历史时期来讲。当然，在这些旧约分期之外，我们加上了新约时期。这些划分显示了神国度计划的主要步骤。

在讨论圣约的那一课里，我们谈到普世性的圣约时代和以色列的圣约时代，我们同时加上新约的时代。接着，我们将普世性的约细分为亚当时期的基础之约和挪亚时期的稳定之约；将以色列的国家之约时代细分为亚伯拉罕时期的应许之约、摩西时期的律法之约和大卫时期的王权之约。同样地，我们又加上基督里的新约完成之约。这些划分帮助我们明白神如何用圣约来管理他的国度。

把旧约划分成共时时段的另外一种方式，出现在韦斯敏斯特信仰告白的第七章。它是按照人类犯罪前和犯罪后，以神对待人类有重大的改变为标准来划分。信仰告白把旧约历史划分为亚当犯罪前的「行为之约或工作之约」时期，和涵盖其它《圣经》历史的「恩典之约」时期。接着，信仰告白又将「恩典之约」划分为两个部分：在「律法之下」，即旧约时代，和在「福音之下」，即新约时代。

上个世纪，备受尊敬的圣经神学家范氏纪哈德（Geerhardus Vos），根据神的启示形式和内容的主要变化为标准来划分旧约。他将堕落前称为「前救赎时代」；紧接着亚当和夏娃的犯罪和被逐出伊甸园，称为「最初救赎时代」；从堕落到挪亚洪水日子的时代；从洪水之后和过渡到族长时代；族长时代；摩西时代；摩西之后的先知时代；当然，他也提到新约时代。范氏这样划分，因为他相信神启示的形式和内容中发生的主要变化，推动着历史从一个时代发展到另一个时代。

一旦确定了一个时间段，圣经神学家的工作就是集中在一系列历史事件的关联上，从而揭示出这时间段中 上帝的作为和旨意。当然，在每一个历史阶段所发生的一切历史事件都是相互关联的。但是，在一段特定的时期，一些事件比另外一些事件起到更大的塑造作用。圣经神学家特别着重旧约每一阶段里那些有影响性的或者关键性的事件。

例如，圣经神学家可能集中在旧约历史的一个片断，常常是众所周知的应许阶段、以色列族长时期，亚伯拉罕、以撒和雅各。他们常常看到神在这个时间，主要透过直接说话、异象、异梦的方式启示自己；他们注意到对特定的民族描述集中到亚伯拉罕、以撒和雅各的后代上；他们发现这些先祖们在很多祭坛上进行敬拜；他们描述到给这些先祖们将拥有众多后裔的应许；同时，他们也注意到神给这些先祖们土地应许的重要性。这些观察试图把族长时期作为一个整体来描述，确定整个时间段中起主要作用的塑造事件。

圣经神学家也可能选择着重探讨律法时代，就是摩西带领以色列出埃及，征战进入神应许之地的时代。这段时期，神用不同的方式启示自己，但是主要的是透过摩西的律法来显示。特定的种族描述集中在以色列如何发展成为一个国家上。帐幕被建造，并成为集中敬拜的中心。以色列的人数大大加增；神带领以色列占领应许之地。这些事件刻画了摩西时代的整个特征，使我们对这段《圣经》历史时期有一个瞬间的镜像画面。

历时追踪

除了《圣经》历史中特定阶段的共时镜像之外，神学导向的历史性分析常常运用第二个步骤，就是历时追踪。「历时追踪」这个术语就是「穿越年代」的意思。因此，历时追踪的焦点在于，《圣经》事件在整个历史中，从一个时代到另外一个时代，彼此之间的联系。

我们这样来概述建立一个历时追踪的过程。当确定了每一个阶段塑造性的主要事件，每个时代与其紧密相关的事件就显而易见了。这些事件彼此之间的联系可能有不同的原因，但是圣经神学家注意这些联系，追踪探索所发生的系列事件，如何反映出一个历史阶段到另一历史阶段的发展。不同时代的历史事件之间的比较，常常可以显明旧约遵循的航道、方向和路线。它们能使我们领悟到神国度的发展进程。

让我们看一个历时追踪的例子。我们可以按时代顺序从族长的应许时期开始。为了达成我们的目的，我们将集中在神给亚伯拉罕在迦南地的应许上面。创世记第15章第18节这样说，

从其它地方我们也可以看得到，这个时期，神应许亚伯拉罕把迦南地赐给他的后裔，这个事件是族长时期一整套塑造事件系列的中心。

但是，在族长时期，单一地理解神应许土地的事件远远不够，圣经神学家也想知道，「过去什么样的背景形成了拥有迦南地的应许？而且将来的事件怎样揭示这个应许的重要性？」所以，他们就转向一个历时追踪方法来加深他们对这个事件的理解。

追溯回顾，我们转到《圣经》历史的最早时期，即从亚当延伸到挪亚的太古历史时期。正如我们在另外一课学到的，这个时期，神首先确定了人类作为他的代理，并指示人类管理支配全地。创世记第1章第28节这样记载，

起初，神创造人类，并命定人类作为他在全地的代理之时，这个世界没有犯罪，因此，支配管理是一个不必经过辛酸困苦、就可以达到的目标。但是罪恶使治理的过程变得复杂棘手，使人类的努力变得困难重重、收效甚微。正如神自己在创世记第3章第17节－19这样对亚当说，

然而，即使在犯罪堕落之后，神仍然期望人类继续争取治理大地。即使在人类的罪恶不断增长，以致神在挪亚的日子想要毁灭世界之时，神仍然持守他的计划，把他的国度透过他信实的子民带到地上。创世记第9章第1节，洪水过后，神立即指示挪亚说，

从太古历史的记载中，我们知道尽管由于罪恶而变得困难重重，但是， 上帝仍然期望被救赎的人类能够征服治理全地，就和他起初的命令一样。

了解这个背景可以帮助我们明白神给族长们土地的应许，使实现神呼召人类进行治理全地这一目标，向前迈进了一步。在太古时代，神呼召他自己的形象拥有者们，透过在罪恶虚浮的世界中进行治理来在地上建立神的国度。后来，这种治理有了进一步的表达，就是在神呼召亚伯拉罕和他的后裔占领所应许的迦南地。

在族长时期完成这一步的本身并不是结束：神对族长们土地的应许只是迈向将来更加美好成就的一步。正如神在创世记第22章第18节应许亚伯拉罕的，

这节经文提醒我们，神把应许之地赐给亚伯拉罕和他的后裔作为一个立足点，一个起点，以此，他们要带领地上的万族走向救赎的祝福，敬畏神，进行支配治理全地，就像神最初对人类的命令一样。

因此，我们对人类支配治理的历时追踪就应该向前进到出埃及和进迦南阶段，就是摩西和他的仆人约书亚的时代。这个阶段，神把应许之地建立成以色列的国土。神让以色列占领这块土地，使神对族长们的应许又向前迈进了一步。就如神在约书亚记第1章第6节对约书亚说的，

人类最初进行治理的使命和设计、神应许给亚伯拉罕的土地，随着以色列对应许之地的占领而又往前迈进了一步。

在出埃及和征服时期对土地的最初占领随着以色列拥有自己的国王和圣殿而进一步发展。这个时期，以色列抵御外敌来保障领土，成为成熟的大王国。大卫家室对国家提供着安全保障，进一步巩固而且扩展了最初占领的土地。但是这个阶段王国早期的情况也预示了将来有一天，大卫家族公义的治理将能够达到完全统治全地的地步。我们从诗篇第72章第8节－17能够读出从大卫的后裔而来的这种盼望：

王国时期的盼望在于大卫的家要保证对神充满信心，以及王国向外扩展，为全地带来救赎，并忠实地治理全地。

不幸的是，在被掳时期和失败的复兴期，大卫家这个伟大的盼望面临一个可怕的崩溃，没有走向进一步的实现，而是完全失败的时期。这段时期成了神的百姓统治全地的一个倒退时期。神的审判临到他的百姓，使南国和北国的人都离开他们的地土，被掳掠到外帮。不但如此，这段时期的结果也是失败。由于神的怜悯，神将一部分百姓带领回来，兴起了大卫的后裔所罗巴伯，作为百姓的领袖，使他在列国面前得胜。哈该书第2章第7节－9节这样说，

如果以色列一直很忠心，就会得胜，救赎统治的祝福就会开始扩展到全地。但是一次又一次，归回的以色列民违背 上帝。因此，祝福和扩展一直没有成就。实际上，复兴变成了极大的失败。

要亚伯拉罕和挪亚实行统治的呼召，对族长们的应许，在出埃及和征服时期国家的建立，君王时期的成功，早期复兴的希望，都土崩瓦解。到旧约的最后时期，人类要统治全地，进而达成扩展神国度的目的遭到了破坏。

就是在这一点上，基督教圣经神学家开始转向《圣经》历史的最后阶段，新约中的历史高潮，新约向基督徒郑重宣告神在基督里的工作，已开始扭转过去被掳时期的失败，复兴时期的失败，并实现被赎的人类对全地的统治。耶稣来翻转了被掳的咒诅，让人脱离罪的辖制，带来自由和救赎，让任何跟随他的人，就可以有权和他一起在全地治理。就如耶稣自己在启示录第2章第26节说的，

这个历史性分析的例证应该很显然的说明，历史性分析可以提供很多帮助。旧约是神与人类之间关系往来的权威性记载。透过了解整本旧约背后的历史，我们可以发现有很多种方式来顺从旧约正典，以它作为我们权柄性的详细指导。

我们已经明白，旧约既象一面镜子透过主题式分析，又象一扇窗口透过历史性分析，来引领我们，那么，我们就该转到研读旧约的第三个比喻，一幅图画的比喻。

四﹑正典当作图画

或许你去过一个收藏精美艺术品的博物馆，或者你曾经看过一些著名油画作品的照片。仔细地欣赏一幅著名的油画令人愉快，但是读一读画家的生平以及画这幅画的时间背景，也会有很大的帮助。我们可以对着油画沉思，特别注意它们的艺术品质。但是我们也能注意到艺术家怎样透过他们的着色、线条、和质感来向人们表达他们的观点和情感。

同样，我们可以把旧约经卷当成一幅图画，透过一个过程，我们称之为文字性分析的方法来研究。使用这种方法，我们把旧约经卷看成集大成的文字作品，这些书卷都是精心写成的。我们不但学会欣赏旧约的文字艺术，而且我们也探讨理解旧约的作者怎样透过他们的努力，向原初的读者们表达他们的立场。同时，以文字性分析来探讨旧约时，我们会发现旧约正典甚至在更多的方面对我们发挥淋漓尽致的权威作用。

基督徒虽然在一定程度上，已经考虑《圣经》各卷书的文字价值，但是，直到最近几年人们才把这个方法置于显著地位。过去，大多数的神学家通常使用主题式分析和历史性分析的方法来研究《圣经》。但是最近几十年，很多学者已经强调一切信息的尝试，无论是《圣经》的之内或是《圣经》之外的，都超过解释者们的兴趣和历史的事实所要表达的。基本上，作者精心地组织他们的素材，来表达他们自己的立场，竭尽全力影响他们读者们的人生和看法。文字性分析的目的在于揭示旧约《圣经》作者这种特意的传达能力。他们对最初写作对象的传达能力，以及应用到我们现今人生时，所具有的同样能力。

为了探讨如何把旧约看成一幅图画，我们使用和前面一样的方法。首先，我们会谈到使用文字性分析这种方法的基础或理由；然后，我们探讨文字性分析的焦点。让我们先来看看使用文字性分析的道理，为什么这种研究旧约的方法是站得住脚的？

基础

文字性分析的合理性可以从很多方面来论证，但是本课程我们将着重两个比较熟悉的原因，来理解为什么文字性分析的方法对研究旧约很有帮助。第一，旧约本身的特点指出这种方法的合理性；第二，我们从《圣经》作者的例证说明这种方法研究旧约的重要性。首先，我们来思考旧约本身的特点如何指出文字性分析的价值。

《圣经》特征

从许多方面讲，论证用文字性分析方法研究旧约的合理性，不需要花费太大气力。从旧约本身几个明显的特点就可以确认。第一，旧约正典以不同书卷或文字单元组成；第二，这些书卷显示精密深奥的文字素质；第三，旧约的书卷展现了大量不同的文字题材。让我们首先看看旧约正典以不同书卷或文字单元组成这个事实。

从最基本的层次上讲，文字性分析的方法基于整本旧约是文字大成这一事实，有不同的文字单元组成。快速浏览一下现代《圣经》的目录发现旧约包含39卷书，我们大多都很熟悉这些书卷：创世记，出埃及记，利未记，民数记，申命记， 约书亚记，士师记， 路得记，撒母耳记上下，列王记上下，历代志上下，以斯拉记，尼希米记，以斯帖记，约伯记，诗篇，箴言，传道书，雅歌，以赛亚书，耶利米书，耶利米哀歌，以西结书，但以理书，何西阿书，约珥书，阿摩司书，俄巴底亚书，约拿书，弥迦书，那鸿书，哈巴谷书，西番雅书，哈该书，撒迦利亚书，和玛拉基书。

熟悉这些经卷目录很重要，同样重要的是，当我们从文字性分析的角度去研究这些书卷的时候，应该在脑子里面记住几个特点。首先，我们现今旧约每卷书的名字并不是起初《圣经》正典的名字。一些书名来自比较古老的犹太传统，一些来自非常有影响的旧约古希腊文七十士译本[Septuagint]，还有一些来自更晚些时候的基督教传统。但是在这里，最重要的细节是与撒母耳记上下、列王记上下、及其历代志上下有关。我们现代《圣经》里面的这六卷书，最初只是三卷书：撒母耳记，列王记和历代志。除了这个之外，许多解经家指出像以斯拉记和尼希米记这两卷书起初可能也是一卷。当我们用文字性分析的方法来读旧约《圣经》时候，我们会关心到查验旧约最初所列经卷的构成单元。因此，很有必要记住这些特征。

第二点，旧约中各卷书的顺序在整个历史中也不一样。我们现代《圣经》的顺序主要取决于希腊文七十士译本的传统。但是以犹太人的传统，旧约《圣经》的后半部分和我们的不一样，称之为圣卷，包括以下几书卷：诗篇，箴言，约伯记，雅歌，路得记，耶利米哀歌，传道书，以斯帖记，但以理书，以斯拉记，尼希米记，和历代记上下。

总体来说，尽管存在这些差异，仍然很明显，旧约正典是一部文字经典的全集，因此，我们分析它们的时候，保持文字单元的完整性是再适当不过了。

与主题式分析和历史性分析相比较，透过文字性分析的方法把旧约看成一幅图画，尝试按照旧约本身的结构模式来构架我们对旧约理解的结构模式。在文字性分析中，我们寻求以旧约正典里文字单元的编排方式，来安排我们的神学性评估。当然极端来说，为了避免重新安排整理我们在旧约里面的发现，唯一完美的方法，就是精确地保持旧约正典的原样：不要分析、不要解释、不要应用－甚至都不用翻译。所以，有一些重新安排是不可避免的。

然而，文字性分析寻求最小限度地重新整理，寻求文字单元，以及旧约自己的优先次序。当我们以图画来研究旧约时，我们探讨辨别每卷书截然不同的神学重点，创世记的就是创世记，出埃及记的就是出埃及记，利未记的就是利未记，民数记的就是民数记，申命记的就是申命记，依此类推。除此之外，我们要尽量强调原来就是强调的地方；这些书卷里面突出的地方，也是我们解释时要突出的地方。

旧约正典与其说包含了主题和历史元素，不如说包含了文字单元，除了这个事实之外，旧约书卷展现了精美丰富的文字品质，这个事实也证明了文字性分析的方法的合理性。如果旧约书卷是一些简单肤浅、毫无趣味的散文，文字性分析或许也就不那么重要了。但是旧约书卷文字上精美丰富性，要求我们仔细注重他们的文字特质。

就一般经验而言，我们都知道有些著作比其它一些著作展现较为复杂的文体，以及错综复杂的文字艺术。例如，如果购物单写成词语华丽的十四行诗，就令人奇怪了。一个临时备忘录就不会象一篇精美小说那样有艺术魅力。我们读一些简单的作品，通常不需要为了充分地理解内容而特别注意他们的文字性。但是，当我们读一部著名小说或一首情谊盎然的诗，看到他们的复杂性，为了能完全充分地欣赏，我们必须注意到他们精美的文字品质，分析辨别作者老练深奥文字技巧来帮助我们理解其中含义。

实际上，考古学家发掘了旧约时代大量不同的文字材料。我们有简单的信函、清单、收据、以及其它类似的，这些都没有什么文字复杂性。但是考古学家从古代近东地区发掘了奇妙的文字作品。这些《圣经》时代伟大的文化包含精美的神话和传说、复杂的法律文献、多样的宗教礼仪原文。很多人听说过以努玛.以利施、吉加墨史诗、以及巴力的循环。这些都是著名文字作品的写作都是非常精美复杂。

但是毫无疑问，旧约的书卷在古代世界也是属于著名的精美文字著作之列。有哪一个剧本比约伯记更为深奥复杂？有哪个叙事体比创世记的结构更加错综复杂？有哪首诗比诗篇23篇更令人长久不忘？以最高的标准来讲，旧约的各个书卷和当时古代世界最伟大文化中的最伟大文献的文字艺术相比，至少是并驾齐驱甚至超越其上。

不幸的是，基督徒着重主题和历史性的兴趣时，常常忽略文字性。实际上，旧约文本的文字品质本身赋予了它们极强的传达能力。旧约文字的艺术特性正是旧约作者们传递和表达他们信息的重要方法。只有我们理解了如何欣赏他们的文字品质，我们才能明白旧约书卷沟通传达的力量－有意识的影响。由于这个原因，当我们要把我们自己完全顺服在旧约的权柄之下时，文字性分析就变得非常重要。

使用文字性分析，除了是因为旧约包含文字单元和展现精美深奥的文字品质之外，我们用文字性分析的方法来研究旧约，是因为它也包含了丰富多样的文字体裁。旧约正典不是一成不变地使用一种写作方法，从头到尾平铺直叙。相反，它蕴涵不同的风景，有高山、河流、湖泊、肥沃的平原、沙漠和海洋。换句话说，旧约的书卷代表不同的体裁和各样的文字类型。

一些旧约的书卷以叙事为主导，比如创世记、民数记、约书亚记、士师记和路德记。这些书只有一小部分混合了其它的体裁、象家谱、诗歌、敬拜和社会规章。其它一些书卷是以诗体为主导：比如诗篇、约伯记、和阿摩司书。还有其它的一些书卷主要以散文为风格，比如，传道书和玛拉基书。除此之外，申命记这样的书是以讲论为主。我们可以一直列举下去。

认识到旧约有不同的体裁非常重要，因为每一种体裁都有自己的惯例，都有自己传递其影响的方式。我们必须了解每一个体裁传递作者本意以及能使我们读《圣经》时应用这些知识的方法，律法必须按律法来读，讲论必须以讲论来读，故事就是要按故事来读，诗歌就按诗歌来歌唱，格言就按格言来读，异象就要读成异象，家谱部分就是要读成家谱。为了揭示旧约经文能够改变我们生命的巨大力量，我们必须考虑旧约作者采用什么样的文字体裁，以此来向他们的读者们传达信息。因此，这类的文字体裁考量就成了文字性分析的根本核心。

圣经例证

除了《圣经》本身的特点之外，文字性分析也基于《圣经》人物和作者，用这种方式来寻求旧约对我们的引导这一事实。实际上，我们可以说每一次《圣经》的作者解释旧约经文，特别注意人类作者向其读者的主要用意，他们主要使用文字性分析的方法。

例如，马可福音第10章第4节，在处理申命记第24章第1节中提到的离婚的问题时，耶稣着重在文字性分析上。我们读这段经文，知道一些法利赛人在这件事上考问耶稣说，

在耶稣时代，一些法利赛人解释这节经文，教导说一个人可以以任何实际的借口休妻，只要他写一个休书即可。但是，耶稣注重以文字角度来更正这种错误的解释。耶稣在马可福音第10章第5节这样解释申命记第24章第1节，

耶稣指出来摩西允许离婚，是对以色列人心硬的一个迁就。

这里为了我们的目的，明白耶稣没有单单只看申命记24章的文字，只解释它的语法和内在品性。相反，根据对作者摩西的了解，和以色列人作为最初的写作对象，耶稣以此来清楚地看待这段经文。他知道以色列人的心刚硬，他明白律法传给以色列人时，摩西对以色列人的关切。法利赛人没有能够适当考虑文字所涉及的，尤其是摩西对其心硬读者的用意。然而，耶稣知道这些事实的重要性，正确地总结了摩西的规条实际上是一种迁就，而不是理想。

另外一个文字性分析的例子是在加拉太书第4章第22节－24节，听一听保罗怎样写道旧约亚伯拉罕的妻子撒拉并她儿子以撒的故事，还有撒拉的使女夏甲并她的儿子以实马利的故事，

当然，这段经文和涉及到的复杂背景有太多需要加以解说的，但是让我们专注到保罗这里解经的中心点。24节，保罗说亚伯拉罕与撒拉和以撒，以及与夏甲和以实马利的之间的彼此关系，「这都是比方」因为她们「就是两个约」。换句话说，保罗明白亚伯拉罕和这些人物的关系，暗含一个极大的神学概念，表明人活在与神的圣约关系之中。

为了领会这些神学含义，让我们先来看看亚伯拉罕人生中的事件。创世记记载得很清楚，与神相关的两条道路中，亚伯拉罕面临一个选择：一条路是撒拉和以撒，另一条路是夏甲和以实马利。一方面，当依赖神，相信神持守他的应许要从撒拉生一个孩子，亚伯拉罕忠实于神。依赖神和神的应许这条路很艰难，但却是神的祝福之路。另外一方面，当依赖他自己人为的努力，透过埃及使女夏甲生孩子，亚伯拉罕不忠实于神。这条路依赖自己的努力，结果是亚伯拉罕落在神的审判里。记住这些简单的模式，我们转到摩西利用这些模式，带领以色列进入应许之地。

当然，在摩西描述亚伯拉罕的生平时，他是全然知道亚伯拉罕的选择所具有的重大意义。事实上，他在创世记讲述的这些故事中，所呈现出两种截然不同的人生道路，正是当年以色列读者们要面对的。 一方面，摩西呼召以色列忠实于神，透过依赖神会实现他的应许，让他们进入应许之地，依赖神和神的应许这条路很艰难，但却是祝福之路。另外一方面，摩西呼召以色列百姓不要依赖自己的努力，转回埃及地，象亚伯拉罕转向埃及使女夏甲那样。回头的结果将会导致神对以色列的审判。

跟随摩西的原意，保罗把这些故事应用到加拉太的众教会所面临的选择。加拉太人需要在保罗所传真实的福音和耶路撒冷一些人所传虚假的福音之间，做一个选择。真实的福音是一种救恩，这种救恩来自完全纯粹地相信神在基督里的应许。虚假的福音叫人离开对神应许的信心，依靠人的努力遵守律法来获得救恩。就像保罗在加拉太书里面说的，那些相信神的应许，顺从真福音的人，就是撒拉的儿女，是承受应许的。但是，那些顺从错误福音，则是夏甲的儿女，是不能承受救恩的礼物。保罗阐述得很清楚，真实的福音，相信神的应许会带来祝福，虚假的福音，顺从律法，只有带来审判。这就是保罗关注文字性分析，注重摩西在创世记故事中文字描绘的人物，从而导致他能把创世记恰如其份地应用到加拉太的教会。

既然我们已经了解把旧约看成一个文字图像的原因，现在我们就转到文字性分析的焦点。用这个方法研究旧约，我们应该关注什么？我们的着重点是什么？

焦点

有很多方式我们可以描述文字性分析的焦点，但是为了配合我们的目的，我们考虑三方面的焦点是有帮助的。首先，我们关注经文的作者；第二，我们注重经文起初写作的对象；第三，我们关切研究具体的文本或经文。让我们先来思想探讨旧约作者的重要性。

作者

毫无疑问，神是整本旧约根本的作者。他启示监督整本旧约正典的写作。但是，就像我们在另外一门课里面学到的，这种默示是有机的默示。神使用人类作者的背景、思想、感情、和意愿来创作《圣经》的各个书卷。读旧约的时候，我们应该考虑到这些人类的因素。当我们考虑注重作者时，我们应该研究两个方向：一方面，要明白存在一些危险；另一方面，要知道也有大量的益处。

当我们注重旧约的作者陷入一种推测的时候，会出现很多的危险。过去，很多解经家注重作者的方式会产生杂乱交织的心理学猜测和社会学猜测。他们这样做，部分地是提出这类的问题：作者精确的身份，他们面临的具体情况，以及他们神学动机的细枝末节。这些问题可能看起来很要紧，但是同样要紧的是，如果我们寻求答案超过我们所知道的，我们就会根据我们肤浅的猜测来解释《圣经》。这种过于注重作者的现象可以称之为「意图的谬误」，过于强调我们重建作者的意图。

但是，另外一方面，如果我们小心谨慎，尽职尽责，注重作者会给我们很多好处。后面的课程我们会学到，我们可能没有办法知道《圣经》作者的方方面面，但是我们所知道的仍然能够帮助我们理解他们所写的。我们对作者的身份、他们主要的情况、以及他们基本的神学动机，能够有不同程度了解。

以历代志的作者或通称为历代志编者为例。我们不知道这个人到底是谁，我们不知道他的名字，也不知道他确切的社会地位，以及他生存的年代和写这卷书的具体时间。我们对他的心理趋向和他的个性优点和缺点知之甚少。因此，我们解释他的书时，如果过度依赖这些考量会使我们建立在一个错误的假设上面。

然而，我们可以从旧约本身来获得关于作者很有价值的信息。例如，我们知道历代志作者的生活和写作时间大约在被掳之后的某个时间，许多以色列返回应许之地。这一点比较确定，因为历代志上第9章第1节－44 的家谱记载了返回的人的名单，以及书卷的最后一节，即历代志下第36章第23节，提到了波斯王古列（Cyrus the Persian）的诏令，要犹太人回归他们的本地。

我们也知道他是受过教育的以色列精英分子之一，他大量引用撒母耳记和列王记的内容，也参考其它经卷。不但如此，象在历代志上第27章第24节节中，作者提到王室编年史的内容，象在历代志下第9章第29节节，作者甚至参考旧约《圣经》中没有出现的先知预言书集。

除此之外，把他的书与撒母耳记和列王记相比，我们知道编者有很多重要的神学立场。他非常委身大卫家室的惯例以及耶路撒冷圣殿的洁净。他不断重复提到摩西的律法是以色列信心和生活的指导。由于注意到他如何列举很多例子，说明犯罪和顺服的直接后果，因这一代极度地忠诚或不忠诚，我们就知道历代志的作者很注重神祝福和咒诅他百姓的方式。

我们还可以讲到其它一些关于历代志作者的信仰和盼望方面的事情，但是关键点在这里：我们有足够的对历代志作者的知识，可以用来分析他使用各种文字技巧来影响他原本读者的途径。另外，我们对其它《圣经》作者就了解的就更多，以至于我们释经时通常专注于作者本身必能产生相当大的益处。

对象

除了将焦点放在作者本身以外，对旧约尽职尽责的文字性分析也要考虑最初的写作对象。他们的情况是什么？他们读《圣经》的时候，对他们产生怎样的影响？我们探讨旧约书卷的作者时，有危险，也有益处，同样，注重《圣经》起初写作对象的时候，我们也需要明白既有危险，也有益处。

一方面，就象对待《圣经》的作者，一些文字性分析的形式存在太多的猜测，而另外一些就过分注重写作对象的详细知识。他们猜测写作对象的详细身份，他们重建写作对象详细的情况，他们凭空想象读者的心理状况，也过多夸大想象读者的优缺点。如果这些东西在解经中占中心位置，我们就会再一次冒险进入心理和社会的猜测里面。由于这个原因，对于过多注重写作对象的现象，我们称之为「感动的谬误。」

以历代志为例，我们实在不知道历代志的作者是否只写给特定的一群人，比如祭司或大卫的家人，或者写给一般的平民。我们不知道有多少人拒绝或者顺服这卷书。我们也不确定读者是生活在以斯拉和尼希米之前的时代、相同的时代、还是之后的时代。毫无疑问，知道这些东西可能对我们的解经有额外的光照，但是，现在我们没有办法确定这些情况，如果我们不对写作对象妄加猜测，我们的解释反而会更加尽职尽责。

然而，同时，考量写作的对象又可以使我们得到很多的益处，因为我们常常可以知道很多有用的一般信息。一般来讲，我们知道选定的读者即使不能读，但是也明白古希伯来文。我们也常知道他们的大概位置，我们也知道他们经历的一些重大的事件，我们知道在众多的人群中，一些人在神面前忠实圣约的责任，而有一些人不忠实于圣约的责任。

就历代志来说，我们还是知道很多关于最初读者的信息。历代志上9章家谱的记载结束时，提到返回应许之地之人的名单，这个事实表明历代志的作者在应许之地写给和他生活在一起的人们。我们从哈该书、撒迦利亚书、玛拉基书、以斯拉记和尼希米记等书卷中，也知道他们一般的社会状况。这是一个艰难时期，和先知的盼望相反，只有一些以色列人返回了应许之地，圣殿的敬拜软弱无力，大卫家的王位没有重新建立，国家面临经济危机。同时，以色列面临频繁的冲突和战争的威胁。我们能够十分清楚地了解读者的这些状况，而不会陷入凭空的猜测。

我们对原初读者的了解能够帮助我们更深入地欣赏历代志的目的，以及最初的用意。结果，对历代志每一段独特经文的解释，就会遵循我们对起初读者的了解而进行。

我们已经触及到了对作者和读者进行了解的重要性，我们应该转到旧约文字性分析的第三个，也是主要的焦点：对文本自身的关注。

文本

我们使用「文本」（Document）这个词，是指我们看到的旧约经文的任何部分，无论是一两个句子、一两节经文、或者一部分经文，一整章经文、一卷书的一部分、一整卷书、几卷书、或者是整本的旧约正典。简而言之，文字性分析的核心就是我们要专注在文本上。

不幸的是，最近几十年，许多解经家强烈呼吁，经文本身就是我们解经所需要的全部。在考量作者和读者时，为了试图避免不确定性，这些学者辩论说，我们没有必要重视经卷的作者和写作的对象。实际上，这不是一个安全的方向，因为同一个文献，不论是《圣经》之内的，或是《圣经》之外的，不同的作者，写给不同的人，意义就大不相同。解释的人单单注重文本自身，而忽略文本的作者和写作对象，就会弄错，我们可以称这个错误为「刻画的谬误」，对文本本身寄予太多期望。

为了举例说明以作者和读者的角度去仔细考虑经文文本，我们来看看历代志下第33章第1节－20记载玛拿西的统治。我们研究这段经文的时候，最有利的是我们可以来比较列王记下第21章第1节－18对玛拿西统治的记载。实际上，圣灵带领历代志的作者借用列王记下21章的内容，重新改写、取舍和增加，这些方面对文字性分析法是至关紧要的。让我们先看看列王记下的记载。

列王记下21章分成5个对称的部分：首先，第1节，玛拿西开始作王；第二，2－9节，玛拿西犯拜偶像的罪；第三，10－15节，先知谴责玛拿西；第四，16节，玛拿西其它的暴力罪行；第五，17－18节，玛拿西统治的结束。

这个大纲显示，列王记下21章，对玛拿西刻画自始至终都是邪恶的。开始介绍他是个大罪人，故事的第二部分详细说明他敬拜偶像，他用偶像玷污圣殿，带领百姓行恶，要比周围的迦南人有过之而无不及。叙述的第三部分，总述神的先知极其可怕地谴责玛拿西。根据这几节经文，玛拿西的罪最终导致耶路撒冷的被毁和他的百姓被掳到外帮。记述的第四部分，提到玛拿西使耶路撒冷也充满了无辜人的血。最后第五部分，记载玛拿西的死和埋葬。列王记下21章显示，在玛拿西的人生中没有表现出什么被救赎的特征。

让我们现在来看看历代志下33章对玛拿西统治的记载。此记载与列王记下21章的没有矛盾，但却是很不一样。历代志下第33章第1节－20节，也分成5个主要部分：首先，第1节，玛拿西开始作王，主要是直接引用列王记下；第二，2－9节，叙述玛拿西敬拜偶像，和列王记下第21章第1节－9只是略微有所不同。至此，历代志下的记载基本类似于列王记下的记载。两卷书都把玛拿西介绍为大罪人。

但是，历代志下33章第三、第四和第五部分的记载和列王记下的记载就有很大不一样。第三部分，10－13节，历代志的作者，没有选择像列王记下记载先知的预言，说犹大将来会被掳到外帮。相反，作者记载说，在他的有生之年玛拿西本人要被掳到巴比伦。然而在被掳之地，玛拿西认罪悔改，得到饶恕。接着，在第4部分，14－17节，没有提到玛拿西的暴力罪行，作者却记载玛拿西回到耶路撒冷，重建圣城，在圣殿恢复对神应有的敬拜。最后，历代志下第33章第18节－20节，玛拿西的统治结束，也扩展了列王记下的叙述，提到了另一处玛拿西悔改祷告的事实。

通过和列王记下做比较，历代志作者的记载就更加的正面。两者都记述了玛拿西可怕的罪行。列王记下记载了先知的谴责和玛拿西对耶路撒冷居民的暴行。但是历代志的作者略去了列王记记载的这部分故事。相反地，历代志的作者增加了玛拿西被掳到外族，悔改，被饶恕的记载。他也增加了玛拿西返回耶路撒冷，修复圣城和圣殿。最后，虽然两者都以记载了玛拿西的死为结束，历代志下增加了玛拿西悔改的提示。因此，一句话，列王记下展现的玛拿西是一个顽固的罪人，但是历代志下所展现的是一个悔改的罪人。

考虑到列王记下和历代志下这两个类似记载的比较，我们必须问另外一个文字问题，为什么这两个记载如此不同？为什么他们对玛拿西的生活表现出如此不同的观点？总而言之，这种不同只能解释为列王记和历代志的作者不同，写作的对象也不同，每一位作者有他自己的目的来描述玛拿西统治。

后面的课程我们会学习到，列王记作者的记载主要是解释被掳到巴比伦，为什么耶路撒冷被毁，以及为什么他们会被驱逐出应许之地。他的答案就是玛拿西的罪带来了整个国家的惩罚。但是，就如我们所看到的，历代志作者的情形就不一样，他在被掳后记载历史，试图激发复兴回归的群体努力向前，忠心地服事神。

因此，历代志作者略去、增加了一些有关玛拿西的真实情形，来配合他的目的。他这样作是透过揭示玛拿西人生的细节，来比较当时他同时代的以色列读者的人生细节。玛拿西犯极大的罪，他们也犯极大的罪。玛拿西曾被掳到巴比伦，他们也曾被掳到巴比伦。玛拿西曾经认罪悔改，被神饶恕，他们也是这样。最重要的是，一旦玛拿西返回，他就重新修了建耶路撒冷城，恢复了应有的敬拜。这对作者当时的写作对象来说，是一个很大的挑战。他们愿意以玛拿西为榜样，在耶路撒冷城修建和恢复对神应有的敬拜吗？历代志作者的主要观点是，如果那个导致了犹大国被掳的国王，在他回归国土后，都能够重建和复兴王国，那么，作者写作的对象们也应该能作同样的事。

这个简单的对历代志下33章记载有关玛拿西统治的文字性分析，可以说明旧约文字如何传达权威性信息的欣赏价值。我们考量了书卷的作者、写作的对象、以及旧约文本的文字特性，我们就能够更加明白旧约正典每一部分主要的写作目的。了解这些目的能够帮助我们理解旧约的权威信息，这些信息不单是写给起初的读者，也是写给今天的我们。

五﹑总结

本课，我们探讨了旧约是一本充满权威的书，是一本神的百姓面临各种境况时，用来引领他们的正典经卷。我们已经看到神的百姓如何以三种方式来顺服在旧约正典的权柄之下。当把旧约作为一面镜子来进行主题式分析时，我们了解到旧约经文各个主题的重要意义，包括次要主题，都回答了我们生活里面的所出现的问题；在把《圣经》作为一扇窗口进行历史性分析时，我们又了解到旧约所记载历史事件的重大意义；当把《圣经》作为一幅图画进行文字性分析时 ，我们了解到如何看出旧约经文有计划地，要对神的百姓产生的关键性影响或意义。

当我们继续研读旧约纵览这个系列的时候，我们会不断来回重复这三种方法。从这三个有益的观点来探讨旧约，不仅帮助我们理解旧约《圣经》怎样在过去引领神的百姓，同时也帮助我们明白，即便是在今天，旧约从很多方面都是引领我们人生的权威。

INTRODUCTION

When we take a long journey, it often helps to get detailed, reliable instructions from someone who knows the way. Yes, knowing the general direction to go can be very helpful; and it's always good to have a broad overview. But we often face complex situations along the way where we need to take just the right turn at just the right time. So, it helps to have detailed directions as well.

Well, something like this is true for followers of Christ. We are on one of the greatest journeys imaginable, and it is a journey that will end with the coming of God's kingdom to earth as it is in heaven. Now it's good to have this ultimate destiny in mind; it helps to know the big picture. But traveling this Christian road can be so complex at times that we need more than broad concepts and general principles; we also need authoritative, detailed instructions. And God has given us these kinds of directions in the canon of the Old Testament.

This is the fourth lesson in our survey of the Old Testament called Kingdom, Covenants and Canon of the Old Testament. In earlier lessons, we have seen that the Old Testament is a book about God's kingdom and that God administers his kingdom through covenants. But we have entitled this lesson "The Old Testament Canon." The Old Testament is our "canon," an older word meaning our "standard" or "measure", and this canon provides God's people with authoritative, detailed instructions as they live in covenant with God and seek his kingdom.

In this lesson, we will explore how the Old Testament canon presents rather specific guidance and how we may find it. As we will see, there are three main ways that the teaching of the Old Testament comes to the people of God, and we will describe these ways in terms of three metaphors: first, we will see how the Old Testament functions for us as a mirror, reflecting authoritatively on questions and themes that rise primarily out of our concerns; second, we will speak of the Old Testament as our window to history, seeing how it provides authoritative records of significant events in the past that guide God's people as they serve him; and third, we will look at the Old Testament canon as a picture, as a series of literary portraits designed by their human authors to influence the people of God in particular ways in the past and to be applied throughout the ages.

Now, the differences in these approaches amount largely to matters of emphasis, but for the sake of our study we will look at them separately. Let's begin by looking at the ways the Old Testament canon is like a mirror, reflecting on questions and interests that we bring to reading it.

CANON AS MIRROR

Have you ever noticed that when you read a book with a group of friends, some things grab your attention and other things grab the attention of others? If you ask the group, "What is the most important thing you read in this chapter?" you'll often get very different answers from different people. Now, many times it isn't that one person is right and the others are wrong; rather, people focus on different aspects of what they read, because they all notice things that are particularly important to them.

When we read books, we often treat them as mirrors, seeing ourselves as the books reflect our interests and concerns. Men find things that concern them; women often find other things more interesting. Old and young, this person and that person to one degree or another, we all respond to what we read by focusing on what matters most to us. In much the same way, faithful Christians often approach the Old Testament as if it were a mirror reflecting their interests. We look for what the Old Testament has to say about our concerns and our questions, even if those themes and topics are secondary or minor aspects of the biblical passages that we are reading. We will call this approach to the Old Testament canon "thematic analysis" because it emphasizes themes or topics that are important to us.

To explore thematic analysis of the Old Testament, we will touch on two issues: first, the basis of thematic analysis; and second, the focus of thematic analysis. Let's look first at the basis of exploring the Old Testament with thematic analysis. What justification is there for this approach?

Basis

There are at least two ways to see that thematic analysis is an appropriate tool for discovering the authoritative instructions of the Old Testament canon. First, the very character of Scripture encourages us to read it this way; and second, we have examples of biblical writers and characters using thematic analysis. Consider first how the character of Scripture validates thematic analysis.

Character of Scripture

Thematic analysis is an appropriate way to read the Old Testament, because like most well written texts of significant length, Old Testament passages touch on many different topics. They have implications for more than one issue at a time. Unfortunately, many well‐meaning Christians often think of the meaning of Old Testament passages in far too simplistic terms. They act as if biblical passages presented a very thin laser beam of information. One passage means this and another means that. These believers often focus exclusively on the main or prominent themes of a passage and disregard the minor themes that the passage also touches.

But careful interpretation helps us to see that the meaning of Old Testament passages actually is much more complex. Rather than being like a laser beam, meaning compares more closely to a gradually diffused beam of light. In the first place, some themes are quite important; the passage shines brightly on them. We may call these the prominent themes of a passage. In the second place, other topics are touched in a more peripheral manner, as if illumined by weaker levels of light. We may call these the minor themes of a passage. And in the third place, we should add that some topics or themes are so far removed from the concerns of a passage that we may say that, for all practical purposes, these passages shed next to no light on them. We may call these extraneous themes. Thematic analysis recognizes this range of themes and often draws attention to the array of secondary or minor topics that Old Testament passages address. When they are interesting to us, these minor topics become the primary objects of study for thematic analysis.

To see what we mean, let's look at the first verse of the Bible, Genesis 1:1. There we read:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).

Now, if we were to ask ourselves, "What does this verse teach?" at first glance we might think that the answer is very simple Genesis 1:1 tells us that "God created the world." Most of us would probably agree that this is a fair way to summarize the main idea of this verse. But as true as this summary may be, if we restrict ourselves to this central topic, we ignore many other themes this verse touches.

Just how many themes or motifs appear in these words? Actually, the list is very long. Besides speaking of the fact that God created the world, this verse touches on theological themes like there is a God, and God existed before creation. It also tells us that God is powerful enough to create, and that God should be acknowledged as the Creator. Genesis 1:1 also touches on a number of matters that focus more on the creation. It tells us the fact that there was a creation event, that creation is not self‐sufficient, that heaven is a dimension of creation and that the earth is a dimension of creation. Because this one verse touches on all these minor themes, we can legitimately focus on any of them.

Now, if so many themes appear in just one verse like Genesis 1:1, imagine how many themes appear in larger passages. Most Old Testament passages speak of so many topics that they can have countless connections with the many interests and questions that we bring to them. So long as we are careful to distinguish prominent and minor themes from extraneous topics, it is quite appropriate to use thematic analysis to discern the Old Testament's authoritative detailed instruction.

Biblical Examples

Another way we can see the legitimacy of thematic analysis is to notice that inspired biblical writers themselves approached the Old Testament in this way. As we look at their examples, it quickly becomes evident that they often drew attention to relatively minor aspects of Old Testament passages because these aspects corresponded to their own interests. Consider the striking example from Hebrews 11:32‐34:

Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies (Hebrews 11:32‐34).

Now, anyone familiar with the stories of Jephthah and Samson in the book of Judges knows that Judges did not present these two men in a very favorable light. The prominent themes in the book of Judges consist almost exclusively of the personal and moral failures of Israel's leaders during this period of history, including Jephthah and Samson. In fact, as we will see in later lessons, these failures were highlighted to prove that the judges were not capable of leading the people of God.

Nevertheless, as relatively minor themes, the book of Judges does mention that both Jephthah and Samson achieved some victories over God's enemies when they turned to God in faith. Because of this, the writer of Hebrews was able to highlight the positive accomplishments of these men as he looked for answers to his own questions. Even though he was applying a thematic approach to the book of Judges, stressing themes that were important to him, the writer of Hebrews was remaining faithful to the text of Judges and was submitting himself to the Old Testament canon.

Now that we have seen that thematic approaches to the Old Testament's authoritative message are legitimate, we should turn our attention to the main concerns or the focus of thematic analysis.

Focus

Because the themes that interest us vary so much from person to person, time to time, and place to place, we should not be surprised to find that there are many different thematic approaches to the Old Testament. At the same time, we can identify certain trends that Christians follow as they look for answers to their questions. We will speak first of a focus on doctrines; second, of an emphasis on examples; and third, of attention to personal needs.

Doctrines

Perhaps the most influential way the Old Testament has been approached through thematic analysis has been for the support of Christian doctrines. For millennia, the Old Testament has been viewed as a source of theological truths that theologians may arrange into doctrines.

One very fruitful way of thematic analysis is to ask questions that derive from the traditional categories of systematic theology. For example, we may ask, "What does this passage say about the character of God? What does it say about the condition of humanity? What does it say about the doctrine of judgment and salvation?" These kinds of concerns are legitimate questions to raise with nearly every passage in the Old Testament because they are widely addressed in the Scriptures. But we should always be aware of the fact that they are not always the main concerns of particular passages we may be reading. They often rise out of our own interests prompted by our study of traditional theology.

This kind of thematic focus often takes the form of proof‐texts, quick references to specific Old Testament passages to justify doctrinal positions. Nearly every time we read a book on systematic theology, a confession of faith, or an official doctrinal statement, we find a number of Old Testament references that are mentioned to support doctrinal positions. Unfortunately, sometimes the doctrines that proof‐texts are supposed to support are actually extraneous to the verses cited. When the verses in view have practically nothing to do with the doctrine they are used to support, the doctrinal position can appear careless or even dishonest. In fact, some theologians have so grossly mishandled Old Testament texts in this way that others have rejected the process of proof‐texting altogether. But to abandon proof‐texting because of abuses is not the path of wisdom. Well‐established proof‐texts are usually valid and helpful ways of referring to themes in biblical passages, even when these themes are not central to the passages.

Examples

Another common form of thematic analysis is a concern for examples. Often, we look to the Old Testament for characters whom we should imitate or reject.

Unfortunately, some Christians have abused this approach to the Old Testament by mishandling the thoughts, words and actions of biblical characters. Because they do not keep the broader teaching of Scripture in mind, it is often the case that Christians exalt some Old Testament characters as models when, in fact, the characters are not so exemplary. This kind of abuse has been so widespread that many scholars have also rejected this type of thematic analysis. But despite its abuses, the thematic concern for examples can be very valuable.

For example, consider the well‐known story of David and Goliath in 1 Samuel 17. Time and again preachers have appealed to David as an example. We frequently hear David extolled for refusing Saul's armor, for trusting in the power of God, and defeating Goliath. His attitudes, words and actions are treated as models of the ways we need to have faith in God and receive victory from him as well.

Sadly, in recent decades a number of interpreters have insisted that treating David as an example of faith in this passage completely misses the point. Now, it is true that the prominent theme of this story is that God raised David to replace Saul as Israel's king. But that in no way implies that this is the only theme of this passage. David's faith was his way to victory; it is a critical detail of this story because it explains one of the reasons that God established David and his dynasty. So it is right to notice David's faith as a minor theme in this passage, and it is right to follow his example.

The fact is that the Old Testament is full of examples to be imitated or rejected. And searching for these examples is a legitimate way to find the authoritative, detailed teaching of the Old Testament.

Personal Needs

In the third place, it is quite legitimate for Christians to use thematic analysis of the Old Testament to gain guidance in other sorts of more personal concerns, such as answers to questions that come from our personal struggles and needs. We have all heard sermons from the Old Testament on subjects like these how to be a good father or mother, how to be successful at work, how to worship God, how to deal with personal and emotional struggles. Old Testament passages are often rightly viewed through thematic analysis as a way of addressing these kinds of practical concerns.

For instance, ministers often analyze David's failures as a father. They derive principles from Jacob's fourteen years of labor for his wife. Pastors turn to the story of Melchizedek and Abraham to illustrate elements of Sunday morning worship. They look at Elijah's emotional struggles after Mt. Carmel for the signs of spiritual depression.

Thematic analysis treating the Old Testament as a mirror is of such value that we must never ignore it. As we seek to discover the detailed authoritative teaching of the Old Testament canon, it is right for our attention to be drawn toward every theme that God presents, even the minor ones.

Now that we have seen that we may discern the authoritative, detailed teachings of the Old Testament canon by approaching it as a mirror through thematic analysis, we are in a position to turn to our second topic: approaching the Old Testament canon as a window to history.

CANON AS WINDOW

When we read a book that concerns events from the past, it is only natural for our attention to move toward those historical events it describes. Sometimes we are so engrossed in the history that we stop thinking about issues in our own lives and we even ignore many aspects of the book itself, such as its style and its artistic presentation. Instead, we look through the book as if it were a window to the past, imagining how things must have been in the days it describes.

In a similar way, the Old Testament canon describes a world that existed long ago. And one of the ways Christians have submitted to the Old Testament's authority has been to use it as a window to discover events from the past, the history of salvation recorded in the Bible. Because of its focus on history, we will call this approach to the Old Testament canon historical analysis. In this approach, we learn about past events, ponder their significance, and apply the lessons of that history to our lives.

To one degree or another, faithful Christians have always treated the Old Testament as a window to history. Even in the early church, when thematic analysis was dominant, the historical nature of the Old Testament was not ignored. But in the last four hundred years, especially in the last one hundred years, it has become clear that one of the most central features of the Old Testament canon is that it presents the history of God's dealings with his people, and as a result, in our day, we find many Christians approaching the Old Testament canon with historical analysis, focusing their attention on the history to which the Old Testament refers.

To explore the historical analysis of the Old Testament canon, we will look at two issues: first, the basis or justification of historical analysis; and second, the focus of historical analysis. Let's look first at the basis upon which we may legitimately approach the Old Testament as a window to history.

Basis

There are countless ways to justify historical analysis of the Old Testament, but we will have to limit our discussion to just two considerations. On the one hand, the character of Scripture itself encourages us to treat the Old Testament as a window to history, and on the other hand, biblical examples make it clear that we may rightly approach the Old Testament with historical analysis. Let's think first about the ways the character of Scripture provides a solid basis for historical analysis.

Character of Scripture

Following the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, Christians affirm that the Old Testament is inspired by God, that it is "God‐breathed." As Paul put it in the well‐known words of 2 Timothy 3:16:

All Scripture is God‐breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16).

In these lessons, we will build our study of the Old Testament on the conviction that the divine origins of Scripture, the fact that they are God‐breathed, means that when the Old Testament claims that something is true, then it is true.

We can put the matter this way the Old Testament makes many claims about what happened in history. When we consider these claims and their relationship with actual historical facts, as followers of Christ we affirm that every historical claim the Scriptures make corresponds to actual historical events. When the Old Testament teaches that something happened, it speaks with the authority of God himself, so we can be sure that it happened. Nevertheless, everyone familiar with the Old Testament knows that the correspondence between the Old Testament and actual history must be qualified.

First, we must always keep in mind that the Old Testament is highly selective in the history it reports. It omits much, much more than it mentions. You will recall that the apostle John said this about the life of Jesus in John 21:25:

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written (John 21:25).

If it is true that the world cannot contain the books required to report everything about just one man's life, we should realize that the Old Testament only reports a tiny portion of the innumerable events that took place in the millennia that it describes.

In the second place, we have to admit that there have been many objections to the historical reliability of the Old Testament. Not everyone has accepted the correspondence between the historical claims of the Old Testament and the facts of history. Sometimes, the correspondence between Scripture and history is questioned simply out of disbelief. After all, the Old Testament canon is no secular history; God and supernatural powers play major roles in the Old Testament outlook on history. So, unbelievers often find it difficult to believe that the Old Testament corresponds to real history. By contrast, of course, followers of Christ should have no problem believing in the supernatural world that the Old Testament describes.

But at the same time, some objections to the Old Testament's historical reliability even challenge believers because they come from the evidences raised by scholars. Many respected archaeologists, geologists, and other scientists have pointed to data that they believe disproves the historical reliability of the Old Testament. Geologists raise questions about the creation account and the worldwide flood in Noah's day. Archaeologists question the date and the nature of the conquest of the Promised Land, as well as the dates of kings of Israel and Judah, and the outcomes of wars and other events mentioned in the Old Testament.

Unfortunately, these scientific arguments sometimes persuade even Christians to deny the historical reliability of the Old Testament. In fact, today we often hear well‐meaning theologians affirm that only a few of the major events in the Old Testament actually took place as reported. Sometimes they speak of the history of the Old Testament not as actual events in space and time, but as "salvation history" or "redemptive history," merely what primitive Israelites believed had happened, and things that sophisticated modern people know could not have happened. As far as these theologians are concerned, the Old Testament is fully reliable only in its theological and moral principles. But of course, the theology and moral teachings of the Old Testament are inextricably tied to its historical claims. To remove historical reliability from the Old Testament is to destroy theological and moral reliability as well.

Now, in addition to these qualifications, we should also admit that the correspondence between the Old Testament and history is not always easy to see. Why is this so? What kinds of things obscure the historical reliability of the Old Testament?

There are at least three reasons why the Old Testament sometimes seems to be in tension with other sources of historical information. First, sometimes scientists misunderstand the evidence supporting their claims. As much as we should value archaeology and other sciences, it should be obvious that scientists make mistakes. Their conclusions are always subject to correction by further evidence.

For example, two hundred years ago, many expert scholars insisted that the Old Testament was in error when it referred to the Hittite people. But in the last century archaeologists discovered the Hittite culture. In fact, the many writings from the Hittites have provided very fruitful insights into Old Testament studies. In much the same way, a century ago it was a settled scholarly opinion that the Old Testament's date for the exodus and conquest around 1400 BC was much too early. In recent years, however, the archaeological data has been evaluated again, and strong arguments have been put forth even by unbelievers in favor of the biblical portrait. These and countless other examples demonstrate that when the Old Testament does not correspond to scientific opinion, the scientists may simply be wrong.

Second, sometimes apparent incongruities between the biblical record and history arise from our misunderstanding the Old Testament. The classic example of this kind of situation is the struggle between Galileo and church authorities near the beginning of the 17th century. Galileo argued that the earth revolved around the sun, whereas the church argued that the sun revolved around the earth. Much of this controversy centered around Joshua 10:13 where we read these words:

So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped… The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day (Joshua 10:13).

For centuries, the church had taken this verse to teach that the sun literally stopped revolving around the earth for a time and they ruled out the possibility of a solar system.

Today, however, scientific investigation has established with much certainty that day and night are caused by the earth spinning on its axis. As a result, most modern Christians understand Joshua 10:13 differently from their historical predecessors. We know that daylight was miraculously extended for Joshua, but we also know that the halting of the sun was only an appearance of things relative to Joshua's position on the earth. We may now take this verse and others like it as ordinary, phenomenological language, akin to the way we still speak in the modern world of "sunrise" and "sunset." The strength of scientific evidence for the solar system has not caused us to reject the historical reliability of the Old Testament. Rather, it has helped us correct our interpretation of the Old Testament.

Third, sometimes both scientific opinion and our interpretation of the Old Testament are in error. Because we know that both scientists and biblical interpreters are prone to error, we must be open to the possibility that further research will demonstrate that both sides of the controversy are mistaken. Careful work both in science and with the Old Testament may one day demonstrate that the Old Testament actually does correspond to historical fact.

Now, we must always keep in mind that some apparent discrepancies between actual history and the Old Testament may never be solved. Human sin and limitations often make final resolutions unattainable. Every discipline of study will continue to present new challenges to our trust in the historical reliability of the Old Testament, and we should not expect to resolve them all. There are countless disagreements among competent scientists that seem to have no resolution, and the same is true in the interpretation of the Old Testament. We may often gain a degree of understanding, and even offer some possible solutions, but still not come to the point that all questions are eliminated.

No matter what tensions arise between the Old Testament and scientists, faithful followers of Christ must conclude that the inspiration of Scripture establishes the historical authority of the Old Testament, and as a result of this belief in the historical reliability of Scripture, we can rightly and thoughtfully approach the Old Testament as an authoritative window to history.

Now that we have seen how historical analysis of the Old Testament is supported by the character of Scripture, we should turn to a second foundation for this outlook biblical examples.

Biblical Examples

In all of the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures, there is not one instance of the biblical writers questioning the historical veracity of the Old Testament. We will mention just two telling passages by way of illustration.

First, consider the way the writer of Chronicles relied on the historicity of the Old Testament in his genealogies. In 1 Chronicles 1:1‐4 he began his genealogies in this way:

Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah. The sons of Noah: Shem, Ham and Japheth (1 Chronicles 1:1‐4).

For modern Christians, the Chronicler did something remarkable here. He turned to the first five chapters of Genesis and treated them as historically reliable. He mentioned thirteen men from the opening chapters of Genesis. Most modern people consider the biblical record of these men to be legendary or fictional. But the Chronicler demonstrated a full trust in the historical reliability of the early chapters of Genesis. He used Genesis, as he did many other books in the Old Testament, as an authoritative window to history.

In a similar way, consider the example of Luke's record of Stephen's speech in Acts 7. Using various portions of the Old Testament, Stephen spoke of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, David and Solomon as historical figures, and he affirmed that the stories about them recorded in the Old Testament were factual. As far as Stephen was concerned, the history reported in the Old Testament was true, and that historical record served as a basis for calling his fellow Jews to repentance and faith in Christ.

Time and again biblical writers and characters demonstrated their belief in the correspondence between the Old Testament's historical claims and actual historical facts. They looked at the Old Testament as a window to history and drew theological conclusions for their own day from that history, and following their examples we must do the same today.

Focus

Now that we have seen that there is a legitimate basis for approaching the Old Testament canon as an authoritative window to history, we should turn our attention to a second issue what is the focus of historical analysis? What is the goal of this approach to the Old Testament canon?

In the last century, one form of historical analysis has grown in popularity under the title "biblical theology." Now, this is a fairly broad term that refers these days to several different approaches to the Scriptures. But one of the most influential forms of biblical theology can be described as focusing on two basic steps: first, creating a "synchronic snapshot," looking at a period of time in the Old Testament as a unit; and second, performing a "diachronic trace," looking at the connections between events through time. Of course, these two steps are inter‐related and work together in countless ways. Biblical theologians constantly go back and forth between them. But for our purposes it will help to look at each of them separately. Let's look first at the process of creating a synchronic snapshot.

Synchronic Snapshot

In the synchronic step, biblical theologians divide the Old Testament into periods of time and explore what the Scriptures tell us about those periods. They focus on a segment of biblical history and summarize the complex network of events that occurred at that time, treating them as a synchronized unit, a slice of time. Following the theological focus of the Old Testament, they usually concentrate on the ways these events characterize God's interactions with his people. As a result, a synchronized snapshot is created for each epoch of the Old Testament.

Now we need to be careful here. As we have seen in an earlier lesson, Old Testament history flows continuously, like a river flows toward the sea. Its history is developmentally unified, not dividing into distinct segments but moving forward in a continuum toward greater developments of the kingdom of God. So, dividing the Old Testament into periods is always somewhat artificial. It is like dividing the length of a river into distinct segments. Just as a river can be divided at different points along the way with different benefits, there are many beneficial ways to divide Old Testament history to create synchronic snapshots of the Old Testament.

In fact, the criteria we use to divide the Old Testament into ages heavily influence the divisions we create. For instance, in earlier lessons in this series, when we had in mind the developments of God's kingdom on earth, we spoke in terms of the primeval period, and the period of Israel's national history. And of course, we added the New Testament period to these Old Testament divisions. These divisions brought to light the major steps of God's kingdom plan.

When we focused in another lesson on covenants, we spoke of the age of the universal covenants and the age of the covenants with Israel. And we added the New Covenant for the New Testament. Then we sub‐divided the universal covenants into the times of Adam (the covenant of foundations) and Noah (the covenant of stability). And we sub‐divided the period of national covenants into the times of Abraham (the covenant of promise), Moses (the covenant of law), and David (the covenant of kingship). And as always, we then added the new covenant in Christ (the covenant of fulfillment). These divisions helped us see how God used covenants to administer his kingdom.

Another way of separating the Old Testament into synchronized periods appears in the seventh chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Following the criteria of major changes in God's dealings with humanity before and after the fall into sin, the Confession of Faith divides Old Testament history into the time of the "covenant of works" before Adam sinned and the "covenant of grace" which covers the rest of biblical history. It then speaks of an important division in the covenant of Grace between the period called "under the law," meaning the time of the Old Testament, and the period called "under the gospel" meaning the New Testament.

In the last century, the widely respected biblical theologian Geerhardus Vos divided the Old Testament according to the criteria of major shifts in the form and content of divine revelation. He spoke of the pre‐redemptive era before the fall; the first redemptive era following the fall and preceding Adam and Eve's expulsion from the garden; the period leading from the fall to the flood of Noah's day; the period after the flood leading to the patriarchs; the period of the patriarchs; the period of Moses; and the prophetic period after Moses; and, of course, he spoke of the New Testament as well. Vos followed these divisions because he believed that the major changes that took place in the form and content of divine revelation moved history from one age to the next.

Now, once a period of time is identified, the job of the biblical theologian is to focus on the network of historical events that revealed God and his will in that period. Of course, in every historical period all the events that took place were interrelated. But in a given period, some events have much larger formative roles than others. Biblical theologians typically focus on the more formative or central events of each period in the Old Testament.

For example, biblical theologians may focus on the slice of Old Testament history often known as the period of promise, the time of Israel's patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They often observe that God revealed himself in this time primarily through direct speech, visions and dreams. They note that there was a narrowing of the ethnic focus to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They see that the patriarchs performed worship at many altars. They describe the promise of many descendants given to the patriarchs, and they notice the importance of the promise of land to the fathers. These kinds of observations are attempts to characterize the patriarchal period as a whole, identifying formative events that play major roles throughout that timeframe.

Biblical theologians may also choose to focus on the period of law, the time of Moses who led Israel through the exodus and toward the conquest of the Promised Land. In these times, God revealed himself in a variety of ways, but primarily through the law of Moses. The narrowed ethnic focus on Israel grew into a national focus. The tabernacle was constructed and worship was centralized there. Israel had grown to large numbers, and God led Israel to possess the Promised Land. These kinds of events characterized the period of Moses as a whole and give us a snapshot of this moment in biblical history.

Diachronic Trace

In addition to synchronic snapshots of particular periods in biblical history, theologically‐oriented historical analysis usually moves to a second step, a diachronic trace. The term "diachronic" simply means "through time." So, the diachronic trace focuses on the ways biblical events connect with each through time, from one period to another.

We can summarize the process of establishing a diachronic trace in this way: As the formative events of each period are identified, it becomes apparent that closely associated events happen in each age. These events may be associated with each other for different reasons, but biblical theologians take note of these associations and trace how the resulting series of events reflect developments from one period of history to the other. Comparisons of events in each age often reveal vectors, directions or paths which the Old Testament followed. They give insights into the progress of God's kingdom.

Let's consider an example of diachronic tracing. We may begin our study synchronically with the patriarchal period of promise. For our purposes, let's concentrate on God's promise to give the land of Canaan to Abraham. In Genesis 15:18 we read these words:

On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates" (Genesis 15:18).

As we have seen elsewhere, at this time God promised Abraham the land of Canaan for his descendants, and this event is very central to the entire network of formative events in the period of the patriarchs.

But understanding the event of God's promise of the land in the patriarchal period alone is not good enough. Biblical theologians also want to know, "What past events form the background to this promise of possessing the land of Canaan? And how do future events unfold its significance?" So, they move to a diachronic approach to increase their understanding of this event.

Moving retrospectively, we may turn to the earliest period of biblical history, the primeval period stretching from Adam to Noah. As we have seen in another lesson, during this time God first established humanity as his vice‐regents and instructed them to take dominion over the entire earth. As we read in Genesis 1:28:

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground" (Genesis 1:28).

When God first created humanity and ordained them as his vice‐regents over the earth, the world was without sin, so dominion was an attainable goal that could be reached without hardship. But sin complicated the process of dominion, making humanity's efforts difficult and futile. As God himself said to Adam in Genesis 3:17‐19:

Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground (Genesis 3:17‐19).

Nevertheless, even after the fall into sin, God expected human beings to continue to strive for dominion over the earth. Even when humanity's wickedness grew so great that God was moved to destroy the world in the flood of Noah's day, God still maintained his plan to bring his kingdom to earth through faithful men and women. As God instructed Noah immediately after the flood in Genesis 9:1:

Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth (Genesis 9:1).

In the primeval record we learn that despite the difficulties caused by sin, God expected redeemed humanity to subdue and have dominion over the earth, just as he had ordained in the very beginning.

Knowing this background helps us understand that God's promise of land to the patriarchs was a step forward in the fulfillment of the call to humanity to have dominion. In the primeval times, God called his image to build his kingdom on earth by having dominion in a world of futility and sin. This dominion came to further expression in God calling Abraham and his descendants to take possession of the promised land of Canaan.

Now, this step of fulfillment in the patriarchal period was not an end in itself: the promise of a land to the patriarchs was a step toward an even greater fulfillment in the future. As God promised Abraham in Genesis 22:18:

Through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed (Genesis 22:18).

This verse reminds us that God gave the promised land to Abraham and his descendants as a foothold, a beginning point from which they were to lead all families of the earth toward the blessings of redemption and God‐honoring dominion over the entire earth as God originally ordained for humanity.

For this reason, our diachronic trace of humanity's dominion should move forward toward the period of the exodus and conquest, the days of Moses and his servant Joshua. In this period, God established Israel in the Promised Land as her national homeland. The promise to the patriarchs was furthered by God giving Israel the land in conquest. As God said to Joshua in Joshua 1:6:

Be strong and courageous, because you will lead these people to inherit the land I swore to their forefathers to give them (Joshua 1:6).

The original ordination of humanity to have dominion, and God's promise of land to Abraham were furthered when Israel took possession of the Promised Land.

The initial possession of the land in the days of the exodus and conquest were also fulfilled further in the period of the empire when Israel had a king and temple. This was the time when Israel secured the land against enemies and matured into a great empire. The security of the land provided by the house of David was a further step toward solidifying and expanding the initial conquest of the land. But the imperial realities early in this period also anticipated a day in the future, a day when the righteous rule of the house of David would reach dominion over the entire earth. We read about this hope in David's house in Psalm 72:8‐17:

He will rule from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth… All kings will bow down to him and all nations will serve him… All nations will be blessed through him, and they will call him blessed (Psalm 72:8‐17).

The hope of the period of the empire was that David's house would prove to be faithful to the Lord and that the kingdom would expand bringing redemption and dominion of the faithful over the entire earth.

Sadly, this great hope in the house of David faced a horrible collapse during the time of exile and failed restoration. Rather than being a time of further fulfillment, it was actually a time of failure. This period became a terrible setback for the dominion of God's people over the earth. God's judgment came against his people and he sent both the northern and southern kingdoms out of their land and into exile. And more than this, this period even ended in failure. In his mercy God brought back a number of Israelites to the land and raised up Zerubbabel, the descendant of David, as the governor of his people and offered him great victory over the nations of the earth. As we read in Haggai 2:7‐9:

I will shake all nations, and the desired of all nations will come, and I will fill this house with glory… The glory of this present house will be greater than the glory of the former house… And in this place I will grant peace (Haggai 2:7‐9).

Had Israel been faithful, this victory would have occurred and the blessing of redemption and dominion would have begun to spread throughout the world. But time and again the Israelites who returned to the land rebelled against God, so that the offers of blessing and expansion never materialized. In fact, the restoration was a miserable failure.

The call for Adam and Noah to have dominion, the promise to the patriarchs, the establishment of a national homeland in the exodus and conquest, the successes of the monarchical period, and the hopes of the early restoration all collapsed. By the end of the Old Testament, the goal of humanity's dominion over the earth for the spread of God's kingdom was in ruins.

It is at this point that Christian biblical theologians turn to the final stage of biblical history, the climax of history in the New Testament. The New Testament assures believers that God acted in Christ to reverse the failures of the exile and failed restoration and to bring fulfillment of the dominion of redeemed humanity over the earth. Jesus came to reverse the curse of the exile, to bring freedom and redemption from sin so that those who follow him may rule over the earth with him. As Jesus himself said in Revelation 2:26:

To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations (Revelation 2:26).

This illustration of historical analysis should make it apparent that historical analysis has much to offer. The Old Testament is God's authoritative record of his dealings with humanity. By looking through the Old Testament to the history behind it, we can find many ways to follow the Old Testament canon as our authoritative, detailed guide.

Now that we have seen how the Old Testament gives us guidance both as a mirror through thematic analysis and as a window through historical analysis, we should turn our attention to a third metaphor for the Old Testament, the metaphor of a picture.

CANON AS PICTURE

Perhaps you've been to a museum of fine art, or you've seen photographs of great paintings. It is wonderful to look carefully at a great painting, but it is also a great help to read a bit about the artists and the times when they painted. We can ponder paintings, giving special attention to their artistic qualities. But we can also notice how artists express their outlooks and feelings for others to see by the ways they use color, line, and texture.

In much the same way, we may approach the canon of the Old Testament as a picture through a process that we will call literary analysis. In this approach, we treat the Old Testament canon as a collection of literary works, books that were skillfully composed. We learn to appreciate the literary artistry in the Old Testament, but we also seek to understand how Old Testament writers conveyed their outlooks to their original audiences through their efforts. And, as we explore the Old Testament with literary analysis, we will discover even more ways that the Old Testament canon exerts detailed authority over us.

Although followers of Christ have always taken the literary qualities of biblical books into account to some degree, it is only in recent years that this approach to the Old Testament has moved to the foreground. In the past, most theologians approached the Old Testament through thematic and historical analysis. But in recent decades, many scholars have emphasized that every attempt at communication, whether in the Bible or not, speaks to much more than the interests of interpreters and the facts of history. By and large, writers carefully construct their documents to express their own outlooks in an attempt to influence the opinions and lives of their readers. The goal of literary analysis is to uncover this intended communicative power of the writers of the Old Testament canon, their power over the people who first received it, and then to apply that same power to our lives today.

To explore how the Old Testament may be treated as a picture, we will take the same approach we have taken before. First, we will speak of the basis or justification of using literary analysis on the Old Testament; and second, we will look into the focus of literary analysis. Let's look first at the justification of literary analysis. Why is this approach to the Old Testament valid?

Basis

The legitimacy of literary analysis can be established in many different ways, but in this lesson we will emphasize two familiar reasons why it is helpful to approach the Old Testament with literary analysis: first, we will see that the character of the Old Testament itself points to the legitimacy of this approach; and second, we will note that examples from biblical writers indicate the importance of this perspective on the Old Testament canon. Consider first how the character of the Old Testament itself indicates the value of a literary approach.

Character of Scripture

In many respects, literary analysis is the approach to the Old Testament that requires the least effort to justify. It is validated by some obvious characteristics of the Old Testament. First, the Old Testament canon comes to us in books or literary units; second, these books display sophisticated literary qualities; and third, the books of the Old Testament represent a great deal of literary variety. Let's think first about the fact that the Old Testament comes to us in the form of books or literary units.

At a very basic level, literary analysis is based on the fact that the Old Testament is a collection of literature; it consists of literary units. A quick glance at the table of contents of a modern bible reveals that our Old Testament's contain thirty‐nine books. The list is familiar to many of us: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

Now as important as it is to be familiar with this list of books, we should mention several qualifications that should be kept in mind as we approach these books from the perspective of literary analysis. First, the names of Old Testament books that we find in our Bibles are not original to the canon. Some titles come from older Jewish traditions, some come from the Septuagint, the influential ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, and some even come from much later Christian traditions. But the most important detail at this time has to do with 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles. These six books in our modern Bibles were originally just three Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. In addition to this, many interpreters have pointed out that it is likely that Ezra and Nehemiah were also originally one book. As we read the Old Testament with a view to literary analysis we are concerned with observing the books of the Old Testament as they were originally given. So it is important to keep these qualifications in mind.

Second, the order in which the books appear in the Old Testament has differed throughout history. The order of our modern Bibles depends heavily on the Septuagint (or Greek) tradition. But in Jewish tradition, the last section of the Scriptures is different from ours. It is called the writings, and contains the books: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah and 1 and 2 Chronicles.

In all events, despite these variations, it is still clear that the Old Testament canon is a collection of literary works, so that it is only appropriate that we maintain the integrity of these literary units as we analyze them.

In contrast with thematic and historical analysis, treating the Old Testament as a picture by means of literary analysis is an attempt to pattern our understanding of the Old Testament after the patterns of the canon itself. In literary analysis we seek to arrange our theological assessments in ways that parallel the literary units in the canon. Now, of course, the only way completely to avoid rearranging what we find in the Old Testament is to leave the Old Testament canon precisely as it is: unanalyzed, un‐interpreted and unapplied even un‐translated. So, some re‐arrangement is unavoidable.

Nevertheless, literary analysis seeks to minimize rearrangement, looking for the literary units and priorities of the Old Testament itself. When we approach the Old Testament canon as a picture, we seek to discern the distinct theological concerns of Genesis as Genesis, of Exodus as Exodus, of Leviticus as Leviticus, of Numbers as Numbers, of Deuteronomy as Deuteronomy, and so on. And in addition to this, we try to give weight to what is weighty, to make prominent in our interpretation what is prominent in these books.

In addition to the fact that the Old Testament canon consists of literary rather than thematic or historical units, literary analysis is also justified by the fact that Old Testament books exhibit sophisticated literary qualities. If the books of the Old Testament were simple, colorless prose, literary analysis might not be so important. But the literary sophistication of Old Testament books calls for careful attention to their literary qualities.

From common experience, we all know that some kinds of writings exhibit much more sophisticated style and intricate literary artistry than others. It would be strange, for instance, to find a shopping list written with the flare of a sonnet. A quick memo seldom receives the artistic attention that an elaborate novel receives. When we come upon simple writings, we do not usually need to pay much attention to their literary qualities to understand them adequately. But when we read a wonderful novel or a lovely poem, when we see their intricacies, we find that in order to appreciate them more fully, we must concentrate on their elaborate literary qualities. Discerning the sophisticated literary techniques of the writers helps us understand their texts.

As it turns out, archaeologists have discovered a wide range of written materials from the world of the Old Testament. We have simple letters, lists, receipts and the like that do not exhibit much literary complexity. But archeologists have also discovered wonderful literary works from the Ancient Near East. The great cultures of biblical days had elaborate myths and legends, complex legal documents, intricate ritual texts. Many of us have heard of Enuma Elish, the Gilgamesh Epic, and the Baal Cycles. These were outstanding literary works composed with great artistry.

But without a doubt, the books of the Old Testament are among the most elaborate literary works known from the ancient world. What drama could be more sophisticated than the book of Job? What narrative could be more intricately constructed than the book of Genesis? What poetry could be more memorable than the 23rd Psalm? By most standards, Old Testament books equal or surpass the literary artistry of the greatest literature of the greatest cultures of the ancient world.

Unfortunately, Christians often overlook these literary qualities as they pursue thematic and historical interests. But in reality, it is the literary qualities of Old Testament books that enable their communicative power. The artistic qualities of Old Testament literature are the means by which Old Testament writers communicated their messages. We understand the communicative force the intended influence of Old Testament books only when we learn how to appreciate their literary qualities. And for this reason, literary analysis is vital when it comes to submitting ourselves to the authority of the Old Testament canon.

In addition to employing literary analysis because the Old Testament comes in literary units and exhibits sophisticated literary qualities, we should pursue literary analysis of the Old Testament because of the variety of literature that it contains. The Old Testament canon is not a flat terrain with the same kind of writing appearing on every page. Instead, it is a varied landscape of mountains, rivers, lakes, fertile plains, deserts, and oceans. In other words, the books of the Old Testament represent a variety of genres or types of literature.

Some Old Testament books are predominantly narrative, such as Genesis, Numbers, Joshua, Judges and Ruth. These books have only slight mixing of other genres such as genealogies, poems, and worship and social regulations. Then there are other books that are predominantly poetry: the Psalms, Job, and Amos, for instance. Still other books are highly stylized prose, such as Ecclesiastes and Malachi. Beyond this, speeches characterize the book of Deuteronomy. The list goes on and on.

Realizing that there are various genres in the Old Testament is important because each genre has its own conventions, its own ways of communicating its influence. We must learn the ways each genre communicates the intentions of writers and apply that knowledge as we read the Old Testament. Law must be read as law, speeches must be read as speeches, stories as stories, poems as poems, aphorisms as aphorisms, visions as visions, genealogies as genealogies. To uncover the power of Old Testament passages to transform our lives, we must take into account what kind of literature Old Testament writers employed to communicate to their audiences, and genre considerations like these are at the very heart of literary analysis.

Biblical Examples

In addition to the character of Scripture itself, literary analysis is based on the fact that biblical characters and writers sought the guidance of the Old Testament canon in this way as well. In fact, we may say that every time biblical writers interpreted Old Testament passages with careful attention to the main concerns of the human writer toward his audience, they were employing a significant measure of literary analysis.

For instance, in Mark 10:4, Jesus focused on literary analysis as he dealt with the topic of divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1. As we read in this passage, some Pharisees challenged Jesus on this matter, saying these words:

Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away (Mark 10:4).

In Jesus' day, some Pharisees had interpreted this verse to teach that a man could divorce a woman for practically any reason, so long as he gave her a certificate of divorce. But Jesus corrected this false interpretation by focusing on literary considerations. Commenting on Deuteronomy 24:1, he said these words in Mark 10:5:

It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law (Mark 10:5).

Jesus pointed out that Moses had permitted divorce as a concession to the hard hearts of the Israelites.

For our purposes here, it is important to see that Jesus did not look exclusively at the text of Deuteronomy 24 and interpret its grammar or internal qualities alone. Instead, he explicitly viewed the passage in the light of what he knew about Moses as the author and the ancient Israelites as Moses' audience. He knew about the hardness of the Israelites' hearts and he knew the concern Moses had for Israel when he gave them his laws. The Pharisees had failed to account for proper literary concerns, especially Moses' intentions toward his hardened audience. Jesus, however, knew the importance of these factors, and rightly concluded that Moses' regulation was actually a concession, not an ideal.

Another example of literary analysis appears in Galatians 4:22‐24. Listen to what Paul wrote there about the Old Testament stories of Abraham's wife Sarah and her son Isaac, and Sarah's handmaiden Hagar and her son Ishmael:

For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants (Galatians 4:22‐24).

Now there is far more in these verses and their surrounding context than we can address at this time, but let's focus on the heart of Paul's interpretation here. In verse 24, Paul said that Abraham's interactions with Sarah and Isaac, and with Hagar and Ishmael, "may be taken figuratively" because they "represent two covenants." In other words, Paul understood that Abraham's interactions with these characters had grand theological implications for the ways people relate to living in covenant with God.

To grasp these theological implications, let's look first at the events in Abraham's life. The Genesis record made it clear that Abraham faced a choice of two ways of relating to God: Sarah and Isaac on the one hand, and Hagar and Ishmael on the other. On one side, Abraham was faithful to God when he relied on God to keep his promise of a child through Sarah. This path of relying on God and his promise was difficult, but it was the way to God's blessing. On the other side, however, Abraham was unfaithful to God when he relied on his own efforts to have a child through Hagar, the Egyptian handmaiden. This path of relying on his own efforts resulted in the judgment of God against Abraham. With these basic patterns in mind, let's turn to the ways Moses used these patterns as he led the Israelites toward the Promised Land.

Now, as Moses wrote about the life of Abraham, he was fully aware of the grand significance of Abraham's choices. In fact, he told these stories in Genesis so that they represented two ways of life that his Israelite readers faced in their day. On the one side, Moses called the Israelites to be faithful to God by relying on God to fulfill his promises of giving them possession of the Promised Land. Relying on God and his promise was difficult, but it was the way of blessing. On the other side, Moses called the Israelites not to rely on human efforts by turning back to Egypt like Abraham had turned to the Egyptian handmaiden Hagar. Turning back would result in the judgment of God against Israel.

Following this direction of Moses' original meaning, Paul applied these stories to the choices facing the churches in Galatia. The Galatians had to make a choice between the true gospel from Paul and a false gospel that had come to their churches from representatives of Jerusalem. The true gospel was that salvation comes purely by trusting in the promises of God in Christ. The false gospel turned people away from faith in the promises of God to human effort of obedience to the law as the way of salvation. And as Paul said in Galatians those who follow the true gospel of faith in God's promises are children of Sarah and heirs of the promise, but those who follow the false gospel are children of Hagar and not heirs of the gift of salvation. Paul made it clear that the true gospel of faith in God's promises leads to blessings and the false gospel of obedience to the law leads only to judgment. It was Paul's concern with literary analysis, his attention to the ways Moses used literary figures in the stories of Genesis, that led him to apply Genesis so poignantly to the churches of Galatia.

Now that we have seen the basis of treating the Old Testament as a literary portrait, we should turn our attention to the focus of literary analysis. What is to be our concern in this approach to the Old Testament canon? On what should we concentrate?

Focus

There are many ways we could describe the concerns of literary analysis, but for our purposes it helps to think in terms of a threefold focus. First, we are concerned with the writer of a passage; second, we focus on the original audience of a passage; and third, we are interested in the actual document or text we are studying. Let's think first of the importance of considering the writers of the Old Testament.

Writer

Now, without a doubt God is the ultimate author of the entire Old Testament. He inspired and superintended the writing of the entire Old Testament canon. But as we have seen in another lesson, this inspiration was organic. God used the backgrounds, thoughts, feelings, and intentions of human writers to create the books of the canon, and we should be concerned with these human elements as we read the Old Testament. As we consider a focus on writers, we should look in two directions: on the one hand, we should be aware of a number of dangers and on the other hand we should see a number of benefits.

Many dangers come from a focus on human writers of the Old Testament when we become involved in speculation. In the past, many interpreters have focused on writers in ways that produce tangled webs of psychological and sociological speculations. They have done this, in part, by pressing issues like the precise identification of the writer, the specific circumstances he faced, and the details of his theological motivations. As important as these kinds of issues may be, if we press for answers beyond what we know, we can make our interpretations depend on flimsy speculations. This kind of overemphasis on the writer may be dubbed, "the intentional fallacy", giving too much weight to our reconstructions of a writer's intentions.

But on the other hand, there is great benefit in focusing on writers if we are careful and responsible. As we will see in later lessons, we may not know as much about biblical writers as we would like to know, but we can still know much that can help us understand their writings. We can have varying degrees of general knowledge about their identities, about their broad circumstances, and about their basic theological motives.

Take, for example, the writer of Chronicles, or the Chronicler as he is often called. Now, we do not know with certainty who this man was. We do not know his name or his precise social standing, or exactly when he lived or wrote his book. We do not know very much about his psychological tendencies or about his personal strengths and weaknesses. So, to rely heavily on these sorts of considerations as we interpret his book runs the risk of building on wrong assumptions.

Nevertheless, we can derive valuable information about him from the Old Testament itself. For example, we know that the Chronicler lived and wrote sometime after the exile, when a number of Israelites had returned to the Promised Land. This is certain because the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 9:1‐44 list those who returned, and the last verse of his book, 2 Chronicles 36:23, mentions the command of Cyrus the Persian that the Jews should return to their land.

We also know that he was among the educated elite of Israel. He quoted from large sections of the books of Samuel and Kings, and referred to other biblical books as well. And more than this, in passages like 1 Chronicles 27:24 the Chronicler mentioned the content of royal annals, and in verses like 2 Chronicles 9:29 he referred to collections of prophetic oracles that do not even appear in the Old Testament.

Beyond this, by comparing his books with Samuel and Kings, we know that the Chronicler had a number of very important theological commitments. He was very committed to the rule of David's house and the purity of the temple in Jerusalem. He repeatedly referred to the law of Moses as the guide for Israel's faith and life. And by noticing how he piled up examples of immediate consequences for sin and obedience we know that the Chronicler was very interested in the way God blessed and cursed his people within a generation of significant fidelity and infidelity.

There are a number of other things we could say about the Chronicler's beliefs and hopes, but the main point is this: we have sufficient knowledge about the Chronicler to analyze the way he used literary techniques to influence his original readers. And we have even more information about other biblical writers, so that regularly focusing on the writer in our interpretations can be quite beneficial.

Audience

Now, in addition to focusing on the writer, responsible literary analysis of the Old Testament also considers the original audience. What was their situation? How were they to be influenced by the Scriptures they received? Once again, just as there are dangers and benefits as we consider the writers of Old Testament books, we also need to be aware of the dangers and benefits of focusing on the original audiences.

On the one hand, just as some forms of literary analysis speculate too much regarding the writers of Scripture, others depend far too heavily on detailed knowledge of the audience. They speculate as to the precise identification of the audience. They reconstruct specific details of the audiences' circumstances. They imagine the psychological conditions of the audiences. They go too far imagining their strengths and weaknesses. When these kinds of positions are too central in interpretation, we once again run the risk of psychological and sociological speculation, and for this reason, an overemphasis on the audience may be called "the affective fallacy."

For instance, in the case of Chronicles, we don't really know if Chronicler just wrote for a select group of people, such as the priests or the family of David, or for the general populace. We don't know how many people were resistant or compliant. We don't know for sure if they lived before, during, or after the times of Ezra and Nehemiah. Without a doubt, knowing these things might shed additional light on our interpretations. But at this time we have no way to be certain of such things, and our interpretation is more responsible when we do not speculate regarding them.

At the same time, however, there are many benefits we can derive from considering the audience because we usually know lots of helpful general information. In very general terms, we know that the intended audiences could understand, if not read, ancient Hebrew. We often know their general location. And we frequently know some of the major events that they had experienced. And we know that as with most groups of people, some were faithful and others were unfaithful to their covenant responsibilities before God.

In the case of Chronicles, we still know much about the original audience. The fact that the genealogies in 1 Chronicles 9 end with a list of people who had returned to the land indicates that the Chronicler wrote in the Promised Land for people who lived there with him. We can also learn a lot about their general social conditions from books like Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Ezra and Nehemiah. These were difficult times. Contrary to the prophets' hopes, only a few Israelites had returned to the land. Temple worship was weak at best, and the throne of David was not re‐established. The nation faced economic hardships. And Israel suffered repeated threats of conflict and war. We can know these kinds of things about the condition of the audience with great clarity and without involving ourselves in speculation.

What we know about the original audience helps us gain a deeper appreciation for the purpose and original meaning of Chronicles. And as a result, interpretations of every particular passage in Chronicles should proceed in the light of what we know about the original audience.

Now that we have touched on the importance of considering what we know about the writer and audience, we should turn to the third and primary focus of a literary analysis of the Old Testament a concern with the document itself.

Document

As we will use the word "document," it refers to any portion of the Old Testament that we may have in view, whether it be just a sentence or two, a verse or two, a section of verses, a chapter, a section of a book, a whole book, a corpus or group of books, or even the entire Old Testament canon. In all events, our focus on the document is central to literary analysis.

Unfortunately, in recent decades, a number of interpreters have urged that the document itself is all we need for interpretation. In an attempt to avoid the uncertainties entailed in considering the writer and audience, these scholars have argued that we must downplay the writer and audience. In reality, this is not a safe direction to follow because the same document, whether biblical or not, can mean very different things depending on who wrote it and for whom it was written. When interpreters try to focus exclusively on the document and ignore the writer and audience, they fall into a mistake that we may call "the graphic fallacy," placing too much hope in the document by itself.

In order to illustrate the importance of looking carefully at the document in the context of the writer and the audience, we will examine the reign of Manasseh in 2 Chronicles 33:1‐20. When we study this passage, we have a great advantage of possessing a parallel account of Manasseh in 2 Kings 21:1‐18. In fact, the writer of Chronicles copied, changed, omitted and added to 2 Kings 21 in ways that are very important for literary analysis. Let's start by looking at the account of 2 Kings.

2 Kings 21 divides into five symmetrical parts: first, verse 1, the opening of Manasseh's reign; second, verses 2‐9, Manasseh's sin of idolatry; third, verses 10‐15, the prophetic condemnation of Manasseh; fourth, verse 16, Manasseh's additional sin of violence; and fifth, verses 17‐18, the closure of Manasseh's reign.

As this outline suggests, in 2 Kings 21, Manasseh is characterized as evil from beginning to end. He is introduced as a great sinner. The second portion of the story elaborates on his idolatry he defiled the temple with idols and led the people to do more evil than the Canaanites. The third part of the narrative amounts to a horrifying condemnation of Manasseh by the Lord's prophets. According to these verses, Manasseh's sins resulted in Jerusalem's destruction and the exile of its people. The fourth portion of the narrative mentions that Manasseh also filled the streets of Jerusalem with innocent blood. Then the final portion simply reports that Manasseh died and was buried. In 2 Kings 21, there is not one redeeming quality in Manasseh's life.

Now let's turn to the record of Manasseh's reign in 2 Chronicles 33. This account does not contradict 2 Kings 21, but it is very different. 2 Chronicles 33:1‐20 also divides into 5 main parts: first, verse 1, the opening of Manasseh's reign which is largely copied directly from 2 Kings; second, verses 2‐9, Manasseh's idolatries are recounted with only slight differences from 2 Kings 21:1‐9. So far, the Chronicler's account closely resembles that of 2 Kings. In both records Manasseh is presented as a terrible sinner.

But the third, fourth and fifth sections of the account of 2 Chronicles 33 differ dramatically from 2 Kings. In the third section, verses 10‐13 the Chronicler chose not to include the prophecy in 2 Kings that Judah would be exiled in the future. Instead, the Chronicler stated that Manasseh himself was exiled to Babylon in his own lifetime. While there, Manasseh repented of his sins and received forgiveness. Then, in the fourth section, verses 14‐17, instead of mentioning Manasseh's violence, the Chronicler reported that Manasseh returned to Jerusalem, rebuilt the city, and restored proper worship of God at the temple. And finally, in 2 Chronicles 33:18‐20, the closing of Manasseh's reign expands on 2 Kings by including another reference to Manasseh's prayer of repentance.

By comparison with 2 Kings, the Chronicler's record is much more positive. Both accounts report Manasseh's terrible sins; 2 Kings reports the prophets' condemnation of Manasseh as well as Manasseh's violence against the people of Jerusalem. But the Chronicler omits these portions of the story in 2 Kings. Instead, the Chronicler added that Manasseh was exiled, repented and was forgiven. And he also added that Manasseh returned to Jerusalem, and restored the city and temple. And finally, although both accounts end with Manasseh's death, 2 Chronicles adds a reminder of Manasseh's repentance. So, in a word, 2 Kings presents Manasseh as a consistent sinner, but 2 Chronicles presents him as a repentant sinner.

Considering these differences between the parallel accounts in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, we must ask another literary question. Why are these accounts so different? Why do they offer such different outlooks on Manasseh's life? In a word, the differences can be explained only by the fact that Kings and Chronicles were written by different people and for different audiences. Each writer had his own purposes for giving an account of Manasseh's reign.

As we will learn in a later lesson, the writer of Kings wrote primarily to explain to the exiles in Babylon why the destruction of Jerusalem had occurred, and why they had been driven from the Land of Promise. His answer was that Manasseh's sins had brought these curses upon the nation. But as we have seen, the Chronicler's situation was very different. He wrote his history after the exile in an attempt to motivate the struggling restored community to move forward in faithful service to God.

For this reason, the Chronicler omitted and added true things about Manasseh that fit with his purposes. He did this by bringing to light details from Manasseh's life that paralleled details in the lives of his own Israelite readers. Manasseh had sinned terribly, and they had done the same. Manasseh had been exiled to Babylon, and they had been too. Manasseh had repented and been forgiven and so had they. Most importantly, once Manasseh had returned, he had rebuilt the city of Jerusalem and had restored proper worship. And this was the very challenge that the Chronicler's audience faced in his day. Would they follow Manasseh's example by rebuilding and restoring the proper worship of God in Jerusalem? The Chronicler's main point was this, if the king who had caused Judah's exile also rebuilt and restored the kingdom when he returned to the land, surely the Chronicler's own audience should do the same.

This brief literary analysis of Manasseh's reign in 2 Chronicles 33 illustrates the value of appreciating how Old Testament literature communicates its authoritative message. As we consider the writers, the audiences and the literary qualities of Old Testament documents, we can discern the main purposes for which the various parts of the Old Testament canon were written. And knowing these purposes will help us understand the Old Testament's authoritative message not only for its original audience, but also for us today.

CONCLUSION

In this lesson we have explored the Old Testament as a collection of authoritative books, a canon designed to guide the people of God in the situations they faced. We have seen how God's people have submitted to the authority of the Old Testament canon in three main ways. In our exploration of the Old Testament as a mirror through thematic analysis, we have learned the value of looking at all of the themes in Old Testament passages, including minor themes, for answers to the questions that arise in our own lives. Through using the Bible as a window, in historical analysis, we have seen the significance of the historical events that the Old Testament reports. And by looking at the Old Testament as a picture through literary analysis, we have learned how to discern the main purposes or influences Old Testament passages were designed to have over God's people.

As we continue this survey of the Old Testament canon in future lessons, we will return to these three approaches time and again. Exploring the Old Testament from these three vantage points will not only help us understand how the Old Testament canon led God's people in the past. It will help us see the many ways it is our authoritative guide even today.