Previous | Next

Spring 2021 · Vol. 50 No. 1 · pp. 44–55 

Heeding the logos/Logos: A Response to Doug Heidebrecht’s and Mark Wessner’s ‘Interpreting Scripture Today’

Robert J. V. Hiebert

I have been asked to write a response to the article by Doug Heidebrecht and Mark Wessner entitled “Interpreting Scripture Today: A Mennonite Brethren Model and Method.” 1 As the title suggests, Heidebrecht and Wessner have set out to articulate a strategy for interpreting Scripture, a strategy they consider to be consistent with Mennonite Brethren (MB) convictions about the place and function of the Bible within the community of disciples of Jesus and the history of the way in which that conviction has manifested itself within the denomination.

The written word of God in both Testaments is intended ultimately to prepare us to recognize and receive the incarnate Word of God.

Having read what they have written, I can summarize my general response by saying that their proposal constitutes a thoughtful approach to the reading, interpretation, and application of Scripture in accordance with its communicative intent. This response is, therefore, less of a critique and more of a reflection on aspects of the article with a view to {45} suggesting additional considerations and identifying areas of potential misunderstanding that might warrant further clarification.

The essence of their proposal is expressed in the following sentence: “The Interpretive Model is comprised of three elements centered around [sic] Jesus—Bible, Spirit, and Community—and three connections that describe the dynamic relationship between them—Authority, Understanding, and Discernment.” Apart from the fact that one centers on rather than around someone/something, this statement seems to me to highlight appropriate elements and dynamics in the process of the interpretation and application of Scripture within the context of a Christian community. A Jesus-centered hermeneutic is apt and serves as the point of departure for those who are committed to following the lead of their Lord whose life and ministry was informed by Scripture, namely the Hebrew Bible. And while it is true that after his resurrection Jesus said to the disciples that “everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled” (Luke 24:44), one must be clear on both what this does mean as well as what it does not mean with respect to Jesus and his connection with the Old Testament.

Jesus’s fulfillment of Old Testament Scripture does not mean that a random assortment of events in Jesus’s earthly life and ministry lined up with a series of predictions in the Old Testament. Thus, there is no passage that foretells, for example, that “a woman called Mary would give birth to a baby called Jesus.” 2 In fact, categorizing the messages of Old Testament prophets as predictions does not really do justice to what they are about. The prophets and biblical authors sketched out in broad strokes and painted in vivid colors what it would take for God’s design and purposes for the cosmos and humankind to be accomplished. That plan involved a partnership between the Creator and his human creatures in which humans were, in effect, designated as vice-regents and were called to play a vital role in extending divine rule and blessing throughout creation. According to the biblical narrative, when humans for all practical purposes abdicated this responsibility, God chose a particular people with whom he established a covenant and through whom his purposes were to be accomplished. This nation, too, fell short in fulfilling its calling to be a priestly kingdom and a holy nation to mediate divine blessing. These developments did not, however, nullify either the divine plan for the cosmos or the human vocation in the accomplishment of that plan. And according to the New Testament, it is in the person of Jesus that both plan and vocation converged. One must, therefore, immerse oneself in the Old, or First, Testament in order truly to appreciate the trajectory of the grand biblical story, in which the New Testament constitutes a point of peak significance. As Old Testament {46} theologian John Goldingay puts it, “only when people have learned to take the Old Testament really seriously can they be entrusted with the story of Jesus.” 3

In that light, it makes some sense to move from talking about a Christological or Christocentric reading of the Old Testament—terminology that leads some people to think that references to Christ are to be found in virtually every Old Testament passage—to what Peter Enns calls a Christotelic approach, in which Christ is to be understood to be the telos or goal or climax of Israel’s story as it is told throughout Scripture as a whole. 4 As historian and biblical scholar N. T. Wright puts it in a comment about the above-mentioned passage in Luke 24,

When Luke says that Jesus interpreted to them all the things about himself, throughout the Bible, he doesn’t mean that Jesus collected a few, or even a few dozen, isolated texts, verses chosen at random. He means that the whole story, from Genesis to Chronicles (the last book of the Hebrew Bible; the prophets came earlier), pointed forwards to fulfilment which could only be found when God’s anointed took Israel’s suffering, and hence the world’s suffering, on to himself, died under its weight, and rose again as the beginning of God’s new creation, God’s new people. This is what had to happen; and now it just had. 5

Heidebrecht and Wessner talk about the inspiration of the Bible and allude to the reference in 2 Timothy 3:16 that it is “God-breathed.” They say this means that “the Bible is unlike any other book.” 6 In one sense, this is quite true, but in another sense it is not. It is true that, for believers, “the authority of the Scriptures is directly tied to the Spirit as the source of God’s revelation as well as his active involvement at every stage: from the Bible’s formation to its reception by readers and its ongoing impact in people’s lives.” 7 On the other hand, the Bible is like other books in the sense that human beings wrote it, making use of the same kinds of tools and methods as those that other authors employ. This means, among other things, that human authors and redactors worked in the language systems with which they and their intended audiences were familiar (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek), relied on both written and eyewitness sources for information, 8 and reported their distinctive versions of the same events. 9 Thus the formation of Scripture was a collaborative venture involving God and human beings, in the same way that God desires to involve people in other tasks such as administering justice and expressing love and compassion in practical service to others and caring for his creation. As New Testament scholar {47} George Eldon Ladd puts it, “the Bible is the Word of God given in the words of men in history.” 10

Heidebrecht and Wessner cite the MB Confession of Faith, which describes “the Bible as the infallible Word of God and the authoritative guide for faith and practice.” 11 This statement merits a few comments. The first pertains to the word infallible, which, according to the Oxford English Dictionary means “Not liable to fail, unfailing. . . . Not liable to prove false, erroneous, or mistaken.” 12 This characterization of Scripture is preferable to that which one often encounters in doctrinal statements that assert that the Bible is “inerrant in the autographs,” 13 otherwise known as the original documents penned by the biblical authors. Such an assertion cannot, of course, be verified since we do not possess any of the autographs. What we do, in fact, possess are many thousands of handwritten copies, produced before the invention of the printing press, and no two of those handwritten copies are absolutely identical. Nevertheless, because these copies agree with one another to a considerable extent and because scribes who did make unintentional copying mistakes tended not to do so in the same places, it is generally possible for textual scholars to reconstruct what was originally written in the earliest biblical versions with a high degree of probability. Even where uncertainties persist regarding the wording of a given passage, the overall meaning and intent are not in question. 14

A second comment regarding the idea of the Bible’s infallibility comes in the form of a caveat, namely that this does not mean that there are no discrepancies to be found in the Bible. 15 For example, 2 Samuel 24:1 reports that “the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, ‘Go count the people of Israel and Judah.’ ” 1 Chronicles 21:1, however, states that “Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to count the people of Israel.” This census, according to 2 Samuel 24:9 in the Hebrew Masoretic Text, revealed that “in Israel there were eight hundred thousand soldiers able to draw the sword, and those of Judah were five hundred thousand,” whereas according to 1 Chronicles 21:5 the numbers were one million one hundred thousand in Israel and four hundred seventy thousand in Judah. Afterward, David concluded that he had sinned by ordering the census, and in fact the LORD sent a pestilence that killed 70,000 people. The prophet Gad then instructed David to erect an altar on the threshing floor of a man named Araunah. David did so, purchasing from him the threshing floor and oxen for a burnt offering for the price of fifty shekels of silver, as reported in 2 Samuel 24:24-25. According to 1 Chronicles 21:25, however, David paid the man, now called Ornan, six hundred shekels of gold. This kind of discrepancy is typical when {48} comparing these particular books, inasmuch as numbers in Chronicles tend to be higher than those in Samuel and Kings. The interpreter needs to recognize that numbers are not always used in the Bible to provide exact tallies, but they can also be employed metaphorically for other purposes. 16

Similar examples of differences in reports about the same event can be found in the New Testament. For instance, there appears to be a divergence between the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and John’s Gospel as to when Jesus’s farewell meal with his disciples prior to his betrayal by Judas and his arrest by the religious authorities took place. John says that it was “before the festival of the Passover” (13:1), which is confirmed when his accusers meet Pilate outside the praetorium early the next morning “so as to avoid ritual defilement and to be able to eat the Passover” (18:28), and when it is made clear that Jesus’s death and burial take place on “the day of Preparation” (19:31-42). The Synoptic Gospels, however, state that the farewell meal took place “[o]n the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb is sacrificed” (Mark 14:12; cf. Matt 26:17 and Luke 22:7) and that this was the Passover meal (Mark 14:12-25; Matt 26:17-29; Luke 22:7-23). Likewise, in the account of Paul’s Damascus road encounter with Jesus, in Acts 9:7 it says that the men who were accompanying him “heard the voice but saw no one,” whereas in Acts 22:9 Paul reports that those who were with him “saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking.”

These kinds of differences with respect to details are typical of what occurs when witnesses to real events give their accounts of what has occurred from their unique and varying perspectives and when the authors who record such testimony set it down in ways that reflect their distinctive construals of those events and individual modes of expression. The fact that such differences persist and that there appears to have been no attempt to harmonize accounts to remove inconsistencies attests to the authenticity of such testimony and the historicity of the events to which these accounts give witness.

Heidebrecht and Wessner link Scripture’s uniqueness to the nature and character of God when they comment that “the Bible is infallible because God is true and trustworthy.” In the light of the preceding qualifiers regarding the assertion about the Bible’s infallibility, it might be better to focus on the one who inspired Scripture, rather than make the Bible the center of attention and thereby risk falling into bibliolatry. This can occur whatever language one may use when speaking about the Bible, whether the adjective employed is “infallible,” “inerrant,” “inspired,” or “authoritative.” N. T. Wright and Michael Bird, while {49} acknowledging that Scripture “is in some sense ‘authoritative,’ ” allude to the prelude to the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18 when they assert, “Jesus did not tell his disciples that all authority is vested in the books that they would write; he insisted that it was vested in his own person.” 17 New Testament scholar Marcus Borg points out that “one of the defining characteristics of Christianity is that we find the revelation of God primarily in a person, an affirmation unique among the major religions of the world.” 18 Bruxy Cavey, Anabaptist pastor of The Meeting House, says that in his congregation they are fond of saying, “We believe in the holy, infallible, inerrant, authoritative Word of God—and his name is Jesus. 19 Or, citing Brad Jersak, he writes: “The Word of God is infallible, inerrant, and totally inspired. And when He was about 18, He grew a beard.” 20

The terminology of the Word of God can, of course, have more than one meaning. It can refer to the Bible in general, to a revelatory utterance attributed to God in the Bible, or to the Word made flesh as described in John 1. At times when one reads the article by Heidebrecht and Wessner, one may not at first be sure which sense is intended when the Word/word of God is referred to, as is the case, for example, in the following sentences:

How does the Spirit of Christ, who is present within the community, illuminate the Scriptures, guide the discernment process, and transform people’s hearts and actions through the Word? . . . The authority of Scripture is affirmed by the community, not just in doctrinal statements, but through its “willingness to live according to the teachings of the Word of God.” 21

One wonders if the ambiguity might be cleared up by capitalizing “Word” when Jesus is being referred to and not capitalizing “word” when the reference is to the Bible.

Of greater significance, however, is coming to understand what is communicated by the reference to Jesus as the incarnate Word in John 1:1, 14:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . 14 And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.

Not only does this amazing declaration add a new and personal dimension to the reality of God’s communicative activity that is attested to throughout the Old Testament (e.g., “the word [dāḇār] of the LORD {50} came to . . .”), 22 but it also personalizes the Greek concept of the word or logos.

Reflection on the idea of logos has a long and rich history in Greek thought. For the sixth-fifth century BC philosopher, Heraclitus, the logos was the always existent reality in accordance with which all things happen, the intelligence/thought/knowledge (gnōmēn) by which all things are steered, the one divine law by which all human laws are nurtured. 23 For Stoic thinkers, the logos was “the common law of nature, immanent in the universe and maintaining its unity, the divine fire, the soul of the universe.” 24 For Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BC–c. 50 CE), the logos was the divine utterance by which everything was made: 25

the agent of creation. . . . the medium of divine government of the world . . . the captain and pilot of the universe. . . . the High Priest through whom men come to God, and Advocate (paraklētos) for the forgiveness of sins. . . . the Father’s ‘eldest Son,’ his ‘Firstborn.’ 26

The verbal cognate of the noun logos is legō, which, among other things, denotes “say” or “speak.” 27 Thus, as indicated by Philo, the concept of speech is inherent in logos terminology as well. For Israelites/Jews as well as for other peoples of the Ancient Near East such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Egyptians, “the Word, especially the Word of God, was not so much an expression of thought as a powerful action.” 28 Thus the poet in Psalm 33:6 says, “By the word (dāḇār) of the LORD the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath (rûaḥ) of his mouth.” In the Old Testament and in later Judaism, as well as among Israel’s neighbors, the Word comes to be associated with wisdom. 29 This concept is personified as a woman who speaks in Proverbs 8, declaring that she was birthed by Yahweh (vv. 1, 22-25), but then goes on to say:

27 When he established the heavens, I was there,
when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
28 when he made firm the skies above,
when he established the fountains of the deep,
29 when he assigned to the sea its limit,
so that the waters might not transgress his command,
when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
30 then I was beside him, like a master worker [’āmôn] 30;
and I was daily his delight,
rejoicing before him always,
31 rejoicing in his inhabited world
and delighting in the human race. (Proverbs 8:27-31) {51}

The linkage between the logos and wisdom is explicit in a first century BC or first century AD apocryphal text, 31 Wisdom of Solomon 9:1-2:

1 God of the fathers and Lord of mercy,
who have made all things by your word [logos]
2 and by your wisdom [sofia] formed human beings . . . 32

A work that dates to sometime in the second or first century BC depicts wisdom descending from heaven in an ultimately unsuccessful quest to find a place on earth in which to dwell:

1 Wisdom could not find a place in which she could dwell;
but a place was found (for her) in the heavens.
2 Then Wisdom went out to dwell with the children of the people,
but she found no dwelling place.
(So) Wisdom returned to her place
and she settled permanently among the angels.
3 Then Iniquity went out of her rooms,
and found whom she did not expect.
And she dwelt with them,
like rain in a desert,
like dew on a thirsty land. 33 (1 Enoch 42:1-3) 34

A more positive scenario with respect to an earthly abode for wisdom is described by the second century BC sage, Joshua ben Sira / Jesus son of Sirach, who portrays wisdom as having issued from the mouth of the Most High and as having been assigned a particular place to dwell:

Sirach 24:1-12, 21-23:

1 Wisdom [sofia] will praise her soul,
and in the midst of her people she will boast.
2 In an assembly of the Most High she will open her mouth,
and before his power she will boast.
3 “I came forth from the mouth of the Most High,
and like a mist I covered the earth.
4 I encamped in the heights,
and my throne was in a pillar of cloud.
5 A circle of sky I encircled alone,
and in the deep of abysses I walked.
6 In the waves of the sea and in all the earth
and in every people and nation I led.
7 With all these I sought repose,
and in whose inheritance I would settle. {52}

8 “Then the Creator of all commanded me,
and he who created me put down my tent [skēnē]
and said, ‘Encamp in Iakob,
and in Israel let your inheritance be.’
9 Before the age, from the beginning, he created me,
and until the age I will never fail.
10 In a holy tent [skēnē] I ministered before him,
and thus in Sion I was firmly set.
11 In a beloved city as well he put me down,
and in Ierousalem was my authority.
12 And I took root among a glorified people,
in the portion of the Lord is my inheritance. . . .

21 “. . . Those who eat me will hunger for more,
and those who drink me will thirst for more.
22 He who obeys me will not be ashamed,
and those who work with me will not sin.”
23 All these things are the book of the covenant of the Most High God,
a law that Moyses commanded us,
an inheritance for the gatherings of Iakob. 35

This sage, then, equates wisdom with Torah, namely the instruction that comes from God as recorded in Scripture and that has taken up residence in the Israelite/Jewish sanctuary.

In the Gospel of John, the author says that the logos became flesh and tented/tabernacled (eskēnōsen) among us (1:14). Contrary to Sirach 24, logos/wisdom becomes human rather than being embodied in Torah, and in fact replaces the Herodian temple. (Remember Jesus’s words after his so-called cleansing of the temple, “Destroy this temple [referring to his own body], and in three days I will raise it up” [John 2:19, 21].) And contrary to 1 Enoch 42, logos/wisdom pitches its tent with humans and, as the Lamb of God, “takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), rather than abandoning humankind and settling permanently with the angels while iniquity takes its place among human beings. 36

All of this highlights the idea that, for the Christian, the written word of God in both Testaments is intended ultimately to prepare the reader/hearer to be able to recognize and receive the incarnate Word of God. And as Heidebrecht and Wessner state with regard to the appropriate handling of the written word, “The interpretive process is not complete until we have done something about what we have read and heard.” 37 {53}


  1. Doug Heidebrecht and Mark Wessner, “Interpreting Scripture Today: A Mennonite Brethren Model and Method,” Direction 49 (Fall 2020): 115–22.
  2. John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, vol. 1: Israel’s Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2003), 27.
  3. Goldingay, 21.
  4. Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2015), 109-10, 143-44, 167-68.
  5. N.T. Wright, Luke for Everyone (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 294-95. Cf. N.T. Wright, The Day the Revolution Began: Reconsidering the Meaning of Jesus’s Crucifixion (New York: HarperOne, 2016), 87, 103, 280 passim.
  6. Heidebrecht and Wessner, “Interpreting Scripture Today,” 117.
  7. Heidebrecht and Wessner, 117.
  8. See, for example, Josh 10:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:41, 14:19; 14:29; 1 Chr 29:29-30; 2 Chr 9:29; Luke 1:1-4.
  9. Note the different ways of wording what Jesus said at the Last Supper: Matt 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-25.
  10. George Eldon Ladd, The New Testament and Criticism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967), 12.
  11. “Article 2: Revelation of God,” Confession of Faith: Commentary and Pastoral Application (Winnipeg, MB: Kindred, 2000), 23.
  12. Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021), s.v. “infallible.”
  13. “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs” (“Doctrinal Basis,” The Evangelical Theological Society website,
  14. To be sure, there can be variability in text forms when one compares, for example, the Hebrew Masoretic Text, Qumran manuscripts, and the Old Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, but even so, the essence of the biblical message is evident.
  15. None of the following examples of discrepancies are due to scribal errors. The English translations reflect what would have been found in the original forms of the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek New Testament.
  16. In commenting on the inflated price of the threshing floor (2 Sam 24:24-25; 1 Chr 21:25), which would become the site of Solomon’s temple (1 Chr 21:28-22:1), Roddy L. Braun says, “To glorify the temple was to glorify God, and one way to glorify the temple was to escalate the cost of the site upon which it was built” (1 Chronicles, Word Biblical Commentary 14 [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986], 217). Others characterize this kind of strategy on the part of biblical authors as “rhetorical mathematics in order to enhance the glory of the ancient narratives” (William S. LaSor, David A. Hubbard, and Frederic Wm. Bush, Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form and Background of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids: {54} Eerdmans, 1996], 544). David M. Fouts observes that “Israel’s use of the literary convention of numerical hyperbole may be seen as both polemical and theological, as the most frequent use of the largest numbers anywhere in the ancient Near Eastern corpus of historical inscriptional literature are found in the Bible” (“Numbers, Large Numbers,” in Bill T. Arnold and H. G. M. Williamson, eds., Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2005], 750-54, here, 753).
  17. N. T. Wright and Michael F. Bird, The New Testament in Its World: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the First Christians (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2019), 77-78.
  18. Marcus J. Borg, The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003), 80.
  19. Bruxy Cavey, The End of Religion: Encountering the Subversive Spirituality of Jesus, expanded ed. (Harrisonburg, VA: Herald Press, 2020), 268; italics original.
  20. Cavey, 263.
  21. Heidebrecht and Wessner, “Interpreting Scripture Today,” 118; italics original. The last phrase is a citation from a review by David Ewert of Harold Lindsell’s The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976) in Direction 6 (April 1977): 40,
  22. Gen 15:1; 1 Sam 15:10; 2 Sam 7:4, 24:11; 1 Kgs 6:11, 16:1, 18:1, 21:17; 2 Kgs 20:4; 1 Chr 17:3; 2 Chr 11:2, 12:7; Isa 38:4; Jer 29:30, 32:26, 33:1, 19, 23, 34:12, 35:12, 36:27, 37:6, 39:15, 42:7, 43:8; Ezek 1:3; Jonah 1:1, 3:1; Zech 1:1, 7, 7:1, 8.
  23. Heraclitus, On the Universe 1-2, 18-19, 91 (Loeb Classical Library 150 [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press]); James Adam, The Religious Teachers of Greece: Being Gifford Lectures on Natural Religion Delivered at Aberdeen, ed. Adela Marion Adam (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908), 216-21.
  24. George R. Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary 36, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 6.
  25. Philo, On Flight and Finding 94-95 (Loeb Classical Library 275); On the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel 8 (Loeb Classical Library 227).
  26. Beasley-Murray, John, 6. See Philo, On the Creation of the World 20 (Loeb Classical Library 226); On the Cherubim 27-28, 36 (Loeb Classical Library 227); Who is the Heir of Divine Things? 205-6 (Loeb Classical Library 261); On the Life of Moses 2.134 (Loeb Classical Library 289); On the Confusion of Tongues 62-63, 146 (Loeb Classical Library 261).
  27. H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H. S. Jones, eds., A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed., vol. 3 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1940), s.v. λέγω [legō].
  28. Beasley-Murray, John, 7.
  29. Beasley-Murray, John, 8.
  30. Or confidant (David J. A. Clines, ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew [Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 1993-2011]; cf. Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, eds.; M. E. J. Richardson, trans. and rev., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament [Leiden: Brill, 1994-2000]), or {55} child, which is Goldingay’s preference; cf. הָאֱמֻנִים [hā’ĕmunîm] “those who were brought up” Lam 4:5 (Israel’s Gospel, 121 and n. 146. Cf. Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, s.v. אמן [’mn] II.2b; Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, s.v. II אמן [’mn]; Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952], s.v. אָמַן [’āman] 1.4a).
  31. Samuel Holmes, “The Wisdom of Solomon: Introduction,” in R. H. Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, 2 vols., vol. 1, 520-21; David Winston, “Solomon, Wisdom of,” The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 6:122-23.
  32. Michael A. Knibb, “Wisdom of Salomon,” in Pietersma and Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford / New York: OUP, 2009, 2014), electronic edition (NETS), 705,
  33. E. Isaac, trans., “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 33.
  34. The consensus of critical scholars is that the “Similitudes” section of 1 Enoch (chapters 37-71) is to be dated to ca. 105-64 BC (Isaac, “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” 7).
  35. Benjamin G. Wright, “Sirach,” in New English Translation of the Septuagint, 738-39,
  36. N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, vol. 1 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992), 413-16.
  37. Heidebrecht and Wessner, “Interpreting Scripture Today,” 121.
Robert Hiebert is Professor of Old Testament Studies and Director of the John William Wevers Institute for Septuagint Studies at Trinity Western University in Langley, BC.

Previous | Next