Conceptually, this chapter can be covered with much the same ground as offered in other chapters, and does not need to go greatly into detail.

The section on "misquotations" alleges that NT authors misquoted or altered quotes from the OT. Among the charges made are those of changes in tense (past/present/future), changes in punctuation, and complete changes in wording, misapplication (this has to do with typology), as well as "nonquotation" (a non-existent quote).

The reasons for these variations are many, and as our subject is merely applying modern rules of citation to ancient writers, it will suffice here to offer these general replies. Unless our subject shows that one or more of these do not apply, and also explains why, if they do apply, the application is unsatisfactory, he is doing no more than strolling carelessly through the modern English text to the beat of a stunning anachronism. To refer to these textual changes with terms like "perversion", "incorrect representation", "major distortion", "erroneous reproduction",

1. Differences in Jewish exegetical methods. (For more on this, see Glenn Miller's relevant article. Our subject is enslaved to modern, literalistic notions of interpretation which have no bearing upon accepted exegetical practices in Judaism. If the NT writers are doing it wrong, then so were the Alexandrians, the Qumranites, and the rabbis.
2. NT writer often used the LXX or another Hebrew/Aramaic version of the text. As today, one might say that there were different "versions" of the OT available. The LXX, or Greek translation of the OT, was one of these. At least 16 of Paul's cites of the OT come from the LXX, and many more are influenced by the LXX. Our subject neither shows awareness nor makes any distinctions in this regard.
3. These are allusions rather than quotations. This was of course the era prior to quotation marks. Our subject can hardly insist on a "misquote" or a "perversion" when he makes no attempt to ascertain whether a literal quote is what is intended.
4. Exact quotation was not the rule in antiquity. Minor variations in word order, or in word usage, were entirely the norm for writers of the period. For more on this, see our response to Earl Doherty.

The bottom line: While our subject may insist, in spite of the above, on finding "error" in these practices, he does so by using an anachronistic concept of what an "error" actually is in these contexts. The writers of this period did not consider these methods and techniques to be erroneous. A non-Christian Jew might disagree with Paul's conclusion on a given verse, but he would not fault Paul's technique, and would use practically the same process to derive his own interpretation. Neither would this person have hauled off on Paul for using a different word than was found in the OT text. Our subject's objections here are nothing but the result of a grossly anachronistic presumption.

We would like to note two interesting cites from the "nonquotes" section:

Matthew 12:5 Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent?

Our subject says, "Nowhere does the Old Testament state that priests in the temple profaned the sabbath and were considered blameless." Our subject needs to consult Numbers 28:9-10, where priests were instructed to offer sacrifices on the sabbath. Though this technically violated the sabbath no-work rule, the priests were held blameless.

Then our subject notes Hebrews 11:35 --

Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection.

He tells us that the OT does not say that anyone suffered torture because they expected a better resurrection. But the OT is not the entirety of Jewish history, as anyone with an ounce of relevant knowledge knows: The situation in this verse fits well descriptions of events that happened in the Maccabean period. For example, a man named Eleazer who refused to eat pork was offered release by Antiochus, but refused it. In another case, a young man who was to be martyred urged his brothers to follow in his footsteps for the sake of obtaining resurrection. [Att.Hb, 349-50] That our subject is ignorant of Jewish intertestamental history to this degree indicates how little scholarship goes into his pet projects.

A few words in order about "ignored teachings": There is a certain double-edged sword in what remarks I make here, since many within the church are just as confused about the applicability and usage of the Bible's moral laws as our subject is. When our subject speaks of "the selectivity of apologetic compliance" and complains of "selective adherence" he is now and then right, but now and again guilty of the same sorts of errors many in the church are. As A. J. Mattill did, and as many do, there are many instances where one honors their own "canon" within canonized Scriptures. The results of such disobedience need not be delineated here. Each reader must deal with their own conscience in this regard. For now, it is sufficient to offer several examples of citations which demonstrate our subject's incompetence in regards to interpretation and application of Biblical law.

1. Ancient Near Eastern law codes served a didactic purpose and were not designed for direct application, which was handled on a "courtroom" level. In this context, it is enough to point out that it is rather a simplification for our subject to refer to "equally valid maxims" to items found in the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, or Paul's preaching. Once again our subject is utterly oblivious to necessary genre distinctions, and treats an ANE law code as though it served the same purpose and had the same requirements as an ethical discourse and as an occasional letter. Once again, our subject simply ignores contexts and perceives all through the distorted lens of his modern mind.
2. Laws within codes served different purposes. We discussed this in our article here. Our subject, after offering a critique of several OT laws, writes: "...All of these maxims are part of the Old Covenant and of equal import." [426] This is an extremely naive view: To grant all laws in the Bible equal strength and consider them all universal is as silly as doing the same for a modern set of state statutes. The law against murder is hardly on the same order as the law requiring sneeze guards on salad bars or the one outlawing velocipedes on state highways; yet by our subject's reasoning, their very presence in the same set of statute books would have to make them equally universal and equally powerful. Finally:
3. The church is NOT the "new Chosen People". Although many think so, there is no reason to think that the church has automatically assumed the covenant obligations of Israel. Our subject apparently thinks that this view is itself the standard view, but it is far from that, and the actual relationship between the OT covenant and the NT church is far more complex...
4. Our subject fails to understand the context of several teachings, in particular the relevance and application of the OT law for today. He also fails to notice (like Michael Martin) that some instructions are given only to individuals, such as the indication to the rich young ruler to give away his wealth.

At any rate, here are a few worthwhile cites:

• Quoted is Luke 14:33 --

  In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.

  Our subject believes that this indicates that one should be poor and give away all of their possessions. But the context indicates no such thing; this verse is the close of a parable with a point:

  "Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.' "Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.

  Clearly, this parable demands not the giving up of wealth or possessions, but submission to the authority of God. That MAY require giving up possessions (as with the rich young ruler) but it does not in and of itself require it. The actual meaning of this command is revealed also in that:

  1. The phrase "gives up" is the same as in Luke 9:61, where a man says he will "say goodbye" to his family. Obviously, the man's family would not cease to be his family when he left them. This leads to a more nuanced exegesis than our subject's "read it like a newspaper" superficial literalism:
  2. Schmidt [Schm.BBB, 181ff] calls attention to the total context of the parable:

     It is possible to understand the parables in a new way by stressing their linguistic connection to the conclusion rather than the phrase "count the cost". The key is the idea of ability. In vv 26, 27, and 33, one is or is not able to be a disciple. In v 31, the king must be able to meet the opposing army. The implication in both parables is that the subjects do not have sufficient resources and that they will be mocked if they begin the task. In v 8, the one who acts on the assumption of the adequacy of his resources (takes the place of honor) will be mocked (told to sit in a lower place). If, however, he begins by renouncing his resources (taking the lower place), he will be a disciple (moved to a place of honor).

     The theme is thus not absolute renunciation of wealth, but reliance on one's resources and to giving them up -- and the added concept that by giving up what you call your own, you will be given much more that comes from God: "Humble yourself and you will be exalted: renounce tower and war making and you will escape ridicule; renounce family and possessions and you will be rewarded." Of course this is a concept that has been abused by the modern televangelist who says that the Cadillac he drives has been given to him by God; but that extreme is no reason to posit another extreme as our subject does. Neither Jesus nor his disciples (not even Paul, Phil. 3:8, which our subject also quotes) because of this command threw away all of their clothes and ran around naked; and Paul said he gave up "all things" in spite of the fact that he still was gainfully employed as a tentmaker. The essence of the teaching is no that you have no "possessions" as such, but that what you do "have" is not your own. In essence, you have what you have by the grace of God. This is the interpretation which honors the full context of the command where our subject's supposition of total poverty is a misapprehension.

• Matt. 7:1 is noted as though it prohibits "judges, juries, voters, employers, teachers, and many other professionals" from doing their jobs, because they are "constantly making judgments of others"! This is a ridiculous interpretation of Matt. 7:1, which we have shown has nothing to do with making judgments as such. Here again our subject shows profound ignorance of the principles of context.
• Our subject also cites several laws from the OT and wonders why they are no longer kept. This question can only be answered here on a general basis. Certain moral laws with strict penalties are not enforced by Christians today because of the difference in covenant terms: The previous covenant was one of God over community as a whole; the new covenant revolves around the individual's relationship with God. Hence Paul's instructions to submit to governmental authority, for now, theocracy is replaced with individual conscience, and human government takes the place of rule.

  More specifically, our subject obviously has no understanding of laws in context. We see no reason to correct each of his many misapprehensions, but may offer two examples to prove his incapacity. First, his words on Deut. 22:8 --

  When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof.

  Of this he says, "One would be hard-pressed to find home builders" who follow this rule. But actually they do follow the modern equivalent. As Craigie [Crai.BD. 289; Tig.Dt, 201] points out, the flat roof of a house "would be used for many purposes, such as sleeping (in the summertime), a number of household chores, and entertaining." These chores included drying and storage of produce; even today the roof is used for such things in modern Arab nations. Once again our subject is time out of mind in his criticisms of ancient law. We don't use our roof the same way -- the modern equivalent is a balcony. Our builders certainly do make sure that they follow the point of this rule to the letter!

  Second, here are his words on Exodus 22:2-3, which tells readers:

  If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

  Of this, our subject says, "One can readily understand why this rule is not quoted, since the time of day would have little relevance to whether or not a killing was manslaughter. Justice and Old Testament teachings are often at odds." [424] Yea, so says our subject, a man in the age of flashlights, personal handguns, 911 service, and home security systems: But let his chauvinistic mind imagine now an age in which none of these things existed, and he will read a different story. If the OT is at odds with justice, then so likewise were other ancient law codes that distinguished between crimes committed in the daylight and at night, including the Code of Hammurabi and the Roman law of Twelve Tables. Perhaps it is our subject who is out of touch, rather than the law codes!

  So let us now put ourselves in the shoes of the ancient property owner. Hyatt [Hy.Ex, 237] explains:

  At night, when the intruder's intentions could not be judged (he might be intending to murder someone) and the property-owner could not clearly identify the intruder and take care only to restrain him, there was no bloodguilt.

  And Sarna [Sar.Ex, 130] adds:

  Because the burglar is likely to encounter the occupants and must anticipate that they will use force, his nocturnal timing causes a presumption of homicidal intent.

  We speak of people today who "take the law into their own hands" when they shoot intruders; but there was no "law" to call upon in these perilous times. Add this to the lack of modern lighting implements, and therefore the extra vulnerability of the property-owner at night, and we now see why these laws were perfectly in tune with justice.

  
  
  Sources
  1. Att.Hb -- Attridge, Harold W. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Fortress Press: 1989.
  2. Crai.BD -- Craigie, Peter C. The Book of Deuteronomy. Hodder and Stoughton, 1976.
  3. Hy.Ex -- Hyatt, J. P. Exodus. Eerdmans: 1971.
  4. Sarn.Ex -- Sarna, Nahum. Exodus. Jewish Publication Society, 1991.
  5. Schm.BBB -- Schmidt, Thomas. "Burden, Barrier, Blasphemy: Wealth in Matt. 6:33, Luke 14:33, and Luke 16:15." Trinity Journal 9, 171-189.
  6. Tig.Dt -- Tigay, Jeffery. Deuteronomy. Jewish Publication Society, 1996.

  ---

  Go Home!