Joshua 13-24, Volume 7B: Second Edition

By Trent C. Butler

Trent C. Butler's excellent commentary on Joshua is updated and revised. This new edition takes into account the most recent scholarly work on the book of Joshua. The commentary includes Butler's translation of the text, explanatory notes, and commentary to help any professor, student, or pastor with research and writing.

 

Features include:

-solid biblical scholarship for teachers, pastors, and students

-updated bibliography commentary for deeper study

-thorough coverage of the biblical languages

-close analysis of ancient manuscripts of Joshua

 

The Word Biblical Commentary series offers the best in critical scholarship firmly committed to the authority of Scripture as divine revelation. It is perfect for scholars, students of the Bible, ministers, and anyone who wants a theological understanding of Scripture.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Zondervan
• Release date: Oct 10, 2017
• ISBN: 9780310520139

Trent C. Butler

Trent C. Butler is a freelance author and editor. He served ten years on the faculty of the International Baptist Theological Seminary in Rüschilkon, Switzerland, and for twenty-two years as editor and editorial director for Holman Bible Publishers and LifeWay. He wrote the Word Biblical Commentary volume on Joshua, the Layman’s Bible Book Commentary on Isaiah, the Holman Old Testament Commentaries on Isaiah and Hosea through Micah, and the Holman New Testament Commentary on Luke. He served on the editorial Board of the Holman Christian Standard Bible, and edited the Holman Bible Dictionary. Dr. Butler has a Ph.D. in biblical studies and linguistics from Vanderbilt University, has done further study at Heidelberg and Zurich, and has participated in the excavation of Beersheba. 

Book preview

Word Biblical Commentary

Volume 7b

Joshua 13—24

Second Edition

Trent C. Butler

Old Testament Editor: Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford

New Testament Editor: Peter H. Davids

Editorial Board

Old Testament Editor: Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford (2011–)

New Testament Editor: Peter H. Davids (2013–)

Past Editors

General Editors

Ralph P. Martin (2012–2013)

Bruce M. Metzger (1997–2007)

David A. Hubbard (1977–1996)

Glenn W. Barker (1977–1984)

Old Testament Editors:

John D. W. Watts (1977–2011)

James W. Watts (1997–2011)

New Testament Editors:

Ralph P. Martin (1977–2012)

Lynn Allan Losie (1997–2013)

Volumes

*forthcoming as of 2014

**in revision as of 2014

ZONDERVAN

Joshua 13—24, Volume 7B

Copyright © 2014 by Trent C. Butler

Requests for information should be addressed to:

Zondervan, 3900 Sparks Dr. SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546

ePub Edition August 2017: ISBN 978-0-310-52013-9

Any Internet addresses (websites, blogs, etc.) and telephone numbers in this book are offered as a resource. They are not intended in any way to be or imply an endorsement by Zondervan, nor does Zondervan vouch for the content of these sites and numbers for the life of this book.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Table of Contents

Editorial Preface

Author’s Preface

Preface to First Edition

Abbreviations

Commentary Bibliography

Text and Commentary

II. God’s Geographical Guidance (13:1—19:51)

A. Reviewing Moses’ Allotments (13:1–33)

Excursus: The Philistines

B. Beginning with Caleb (14:1–15)

C. Judah and Joseph (15:1—17:18)

D. The Shiloh Selections (18:1—19:51)

III. Identifying Israel (20:1—24:33)

A. Setting Up Sanctuaries (20:1–9)

B. The Levitical Cities (21:1–42)

C. Gifts from God’s Goodness (21:43–45)

D. Authority and Aim of an Altar (22:1–34)

E. The Commander’s Concluding Charge (23:1–16)

F. Commitment to the Covenant (24:1–28)

G. Faithful to the Finish (24:29–33)

Scripture Index

Subject Index

Author Index

Editorial Preface

The launching of the Word Biblical Commentary brings to fulfillment an enterprise of several years’ planning. The publishers and the members of the editorial board met in 1977 to explore the possibility of a new commentary on the books of the Bible that would incorporate several distinctive features. Prospective readers of these volumes are entitled to know what such features were intended to be; whether the aims of the commentary have been fully achieved time alone will tell.

First, we have tried to cast a wide net to include as contributors a number of scholars from around the world who not only share our aims, but are in the main engaged in the ministry of teaching in university, college, and seminary. They represent a rich diversity of denominational allegiance. The broad stance of our contributors can rightly be called evangelical, and this term is to be understood in its positive, historic sense of a commitment to Scripture as divine revelation and to the truth and power of the Christian gospel.

Then, the commentaries in our series are all commissioned and written for the purpose of inclusion in the Word Biblical Commentary. Unlike several of our distinguished counterparts in the field of commentary writing, there are no translated works, originally written in a non-English language. Also, our commentators were asked to prepare their own rendering of the original biblical text and to use the biblical languages as the basis of their own comments and exegesis. What may be claimed as distinctive with this series is that it is based on the biblical languages, yet it seeks to make the technical and scholarly approach to a theological understanding of Scripture understandable by—and useful to—the fledgling student, the working minister, and colleagues in the guild of professional scholars and teachers as well.

Finally, a word must be said about the format of the series. The layout, in clearly defined sections, has been consciously devised to assist readers at different levels. Those wishing to learn about the textual witnesses on which the translation is offered are invited to consult the section headed Notes. If the readers’ concern is with the state of modern scholarship on any given portion of Scripture, they should turn to the sections on Bibliography and Form/Structure/Setting. For a clear exposition of the passage’s meaning and its relevance to the ongoing biblical revelation, the Comment and concluding Explanation are designed expressly to meet that need. There is therefore something for everyone who may pick up and use these volumes.

If these aims come anywhere near realization, the intention of the editors will have been met, and the labor of our team of contributors rewarded.

General Editors: Bruce M. Metzger†

David A. Hubbard†

Glenn W. Barker†

Old Testament Editor: Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford

Associate Editor: Lynn Allan Losie

New Testament Editor: Ralph P. Martin†

Associate Editor: Lynn Allan Losie

Author’s Preface

Joshua: An Evangelical-Critical Approach

The original edition of this commentary raised eyebrows and much more among my evangelical colleagues. The most interesting question came from Martin Woudstra, author of the at-that-time standard conservative commentary on Joshua. He asked whether the methods and presuppositions of my commentary would in any way become the norm within the evangelical community.

A to-the-point critique came in a kind way from David Howard, whose commentary is now the standard for evangelicals. Listing my work as number three under The Best Commentaries on Joshua, Howard recommends its purchase with the note that the work’s major flaw is its too-easy acceptance of higher-critical orthodoxy concerning the history of traditions and sources that supposedly went into the composition of the book, so it must be used with some caution.

Such reception of the work requires a new clarification of the methodology and presuppositions behind this commentary. I tried to state my lifelong love affair with God’s Word but found even that personal testimony to be misinterpreted as making me Barthian. So I will trace the writing of the commentary and the method behind it.

The series editors asked me to do extensive textual study. Doing this in Joshua revealed what was for me—at that time as a beginning scholar—an amazing fact. Joshua has been considered a work whose text was relatively easy to reconstruct with only a few major questions such as the placement of 8:30–35 and the bridge to Judges. I found such a description to be much too simplistic. Almost every verse raised questions of text from one angle or another. I was thus able to construct tables representing the various types of textual differences with hundreds of entities within the tables.

I could not solve a large number of the textual issues by simply repeating the normal response: a copyist made an obvious copying error. Rather, many of the textual differences had to be classified as literary improvements, homiletic interpretation and exegesis, or avoidance of unacceptable language. I began to recognize an unexpected freedom the early translators and scribes employed both in translation and transmission of the text. It appeared that concern for a final, standardized, unchangeable written text came into play at a quite late date in the literary, transmission, and translation work that went into developing the present text forms (i.e., Dead Sea Scrolls, Masoretic Text, Septuagint in its several manuscript forms, Old Latin, Vulgate, Targums, etc.).

If copyists and translators felt such freedom with the text in the later history of its transmission, why should I believe the early history of transmission did not reflect the same freedom of interpreting the text and passing it on to a new generation? Careful study then revealed how much of the language of Deuteronomy reappeared in Joshua. This gave some reason for adopting parts of Martin Noth’s theory of a Deuteronomistic Historian playing a significant role in preserving, interpreting, and passing on the stories of Joshua and the first battles in Canaanite territory. Similarly, removal of Deuteronomic language left complete stories moving from crisis to resolution, so that deeper literary study was required to understand the nature of the text and the literary genres that provided the core of the text.

In reporting such study, I evidently raised hackles from some of my friends and colleagues, who could not correlate my methodology with a strong commitment to an inerrant Scripture. Still, year after year I have committed myself to the Evangelical Theological Society by signing the statement of belief and by presenting papers in the annual sessions. I simply see from the evidence of the text a different method God used to create, preserve, interpret, and transmit his holy text than do some of my colleagues.

My commitment to the Word has never wavered. My method of interpreting the Word has gradually changed over the years. I remain convinced that the Word that led a small boy down the aisle of First Baptist Church in Sweetwater, Texas, so many years ago, still leads a retired editor in service to Christ and his church. I do not seek to change other peoples’ statements of belief or practice of exegesis. I simply want to testify to the depth I find in the biblical text the deeper I dig into it with standard tools of investigation.

While reviews in more critical journals greeted the first truly theological commentary on Joshua, the more evangelical reviewers simply spoke of the dedication to critical method and literary development. My intent was and remains to use the critical methods—which I find justified by their results—and show how they lead to results more in touch with more conservative scholarship.

The spring 1998 issue of Review and Expositor published my article on the theology of Joshua. Unexpectedly, several of my harshest Joshua commentary critics wrote to say how much they appreciated and valued the article and the great change it showed in my perspective. The outline for the article came directly from the commentary and must have shown how a bit of more mature reflection on how to communicate validated the conclusions to which I came even if my methodology remained suspect.

In the meantime, evangelical, conservative scholars writing on Joshua and Judges, such as Block, Hess, and Hubbard, also have begun to recognize the ties to Deuteronomy but have talked more about what Daniel I. Block speaks of as an independent literary composition, written in light of the authentically Mosaic theology of Deuteronomy.¹ K. Lawson Younger allows for an exilic date or afterwards for Judges.² Hubbard sees that Joshua comprises an edited compilation of source materials. . . . Acceptance of a deuteronomistic historian does not deny the antiquity of the contents of much of Deuteronomy nor does it preclude the possibility that the DH, or at least part of it, may have found written form as early as the early monarchy.³ Hubbard then concludes one may tentatively regard the Deuteronomist as its author, whatever date one assigns him, since that person effectively wrote it drawing on earlier sources.⁴ Such conservative opinions certainly do not verify the opinions of my Joshua commentary but do show that evidence is pushing conservatives to join in seeing a connection of an important kind between Joshua and Deuteronomy and between Joshua and Samuel/Kings.

Interestingly, the same type of study when used to create my Judges commentary in this series did not lead to the same literary results, for I found very little reason to attribute Judges materials to a Deuteronomist. I hope this shows some objectivity on my part in using the various methods I employ to see the history of the transmission, preservation, and canonization of the text. At the same time as I was writing the Judges volume, many other scholars began questioning the existence and/or contributions of the Deuteronomistic editor. Most of them went in a direction quite distinct from my own as they pushed the date late into the Persian period and discovered more and more sources or editors or redactors for the book. This, in my view, is critical scholarship gone wild with their methods and assumptions. Each new theme, new vocabulary word, or new variation on a theme does not necessarily lead to a new editor. New study continues to tie Deuteronomistic language and Priestly language together at some late point in the process.

I cannot see how the small kingdom of the united monarchy or of Judah and of Israel could have developed competing scribal schools whose theological and cultic language and views were so nicely separated from one another. The assumed rather small number of literate scribes in Jerusalem would certainly understand and could utilize both the theological and the Priestly language of the day. The task of the exegete thus becomes a much simpler duty than to see how many contributors one can find in one brief text.

My view of the development of the present text of Joshua is quite simple, far too simple for the dedicated redaction critics of today. I have divided the task into the following sections for analysis, conscious that observations in one area influence conclusions in another. The exegete works in many methodological disciplines.

I. Text

An examination and comparison of the various Joshua manuscripts leads to decisions as to the reconstruction of a Hebrew text that comes as close as possible to the earliest Hebrew source, with the understanding that literary differences appeared early in the text’s history and continued well into the postexilic period. Text notes attempt to show major manuscript variations, scholarly options, and the understanding of the current writer.

II. Translation

A study of lexicons, commentaries, grammars, and translations leads to decisions about how to render each Hebrew phrase or sentence into understandable English, which is more literal at most points in the commentary than in a translation one would produce for public and devotional reading. Here one seeks for consistency in the rendering of key literary and theological words and concepts, knowing that no English translation can reproduce exactly the meaning of Hebrew terms that by the nature of language have either broader or narrower semantic ranges than the English terms chosen. Text notes and comments attempt at key points to show the distinctive meanings.

III. Tradition History

Tradition study seeks to determine the earliest origin and use of the material behind a present unit of literature. The origin may be oral or written. Much of the material in Joshua fits the pattern that Nadav Na’aman describes for the Saul and David stories: In my opinion, the pre-Deuteronomistic story cycle of Saul, David and Solomon was inspired by a genuine antiquarian and literary interest of the scribes and their audience, and rested on a cycle of oral narratives that were passed down orally to their authors in the court of Jerusalem.⁵ Na’aman would date the writing after 800, while the current writer places the Joshua materials in the Solomonic period. At any date, oral tradition is involved in preserving and interpreting the materials.⁶

Tradition study assumes that biblical materials were not created in the final form of the present text. This is not so evident in Joshua, where only one generation appears on the stage. It is much more apparent in Genesis and in Judges, where centuries intervene between the narratives. Narratives were told and preserved individually before gradually being collected together to create a new literary whole that we call the Pentateuch. Tradition study seeks to isolate the appearance of the literary unit within the life of Israel prior to its compilation into a larger literary unit. Thus individual tribal boundary and/or city lists apparently began as written individual tribal lists before being united with other tribal lists to serve political, military, or religious interests. These were then joined into the present form combining both city lists and boundary lists with relations to each other and with summary and final totals being added. On the other hand, stories such as that of Rahab sound like fireside entertainment delivered by early Israelite storytellers. That most likely means we have one rendition of the story among several that storytellers used to bring fun and instruction to their audiences. Tradition study uses the best possible literary and oral tools to isolate elements of the oral narrative from material inserted by a compiler or editor to incorporate the story into the larger narrative. This shows us the sources available to those who put the biblical material together in its present form. Tradition history gives more place to the Hebrew community and less place to an individual writer in the creation of biblical narrative.

IV. Source and Redaction Study

Here is where I have written in ways that were easily misunderstood and opposed. To use the term source is to call to mind the critical source theories of JEDP. To hear the term priestly is to categorize something as belonging to a very late, exilic/postexilic source. Neither of these understandings is what I mean now, nor is it precisely what I intended to convey in the first edition of this commentary. For me, a source may be oral or written. It may utilize cultic language at home among the priests, story language of the fireside entertainers, legal language of the courts, military language of the soldiers, etc. At a more complex level, a source may represent a compilation of oral or written materials. For this I should use compilation or some kindred term other than source. The assumption is that all Israel knew most of the priestly language at a very early time in the nation’s history and did not have to put it to writing in the exile or later for the people to suddenly discover it. An author in any period after the development of the temple ritual could converse in and use most priestly terminology.

The same goes for deuteronomistic language. This may well have originated in northern Israel, perhaps among Levites at local shrines. Solomon’s temple building or Jeroboam I’s rebellion may have driven many Levites south, where their theology now supported the Jerusalem temple and called for worship of Yahweh alone. These Levitical priests may well have compiled the conquest stories into a whole.

Some of these northern Levites and their comrades may well have fled south even earlier to support David over against Saul and Mephibosheth. If so, they would have brought the northern traditions of Benjamin and Manasseh with them from Gilgal, Shechem, Shiloh, and Bethel. At this point they may well have combined the basic Judges narratives into a whole. Quite likely, the two sets of traditions—conquest and Judges—were joined into literary wholes during the Rehoboam/Jeroboam confrontations in support of a unified people of God.

The redaction part of the study seeks to determine the new emphasis of materials compiled together from the earliest written or oral souces into compilation and then into a complete book. How does placing the individual narratives such as that of Rahab into the present order with theological transitions and literary connections between narratives create a meaning greater than the meaning of the individual original sources? How does becoming part of the canon of Scripture extend or interpret the meaning of the original narratives and the redacted book?

To see God working through generations, and at times centuries, to collect amazingly well-told stories into collections of stories and finally into canonical books sets us on the path to determine the meaning and the extension in meaning all along the path of storytelling, collection, and final redaction. That is source and redaction study.

V. Form

Form criticism determines the type or genre of literature a particular literary unit represents. We begin with the present piece of literature and attempt to trace it back to its earliest source. Comparison with other biblical and ancient Near Eastern literature reveals common components that make up an oral or written genre. Applied to a specific writing, this analysis shows how the individual unit compares to and contrasts with the genre in general. Analysis determines the function of the genre within ancient society and the setting within which the genre functions and is preserved. Thus individual battle reports can be incorporated into a larger conquest annal preserved in national military records or on monuments to support or memorialize a military and political leader. Taken up into a larger literary unit, the one-time battle report becomes a component of a conquest narrative preserving a nation’s land claims against an opposing nation or tribe (cf. Judg 10).

VI. Structure or Narrative Criticism

Narrative study seeks to discover how components of a narrative are combined to show the literary movement from crisis to resolution. A storyteller or narrative writer retains the audience’s attention and interest by utilizing (1) an introductory exposition, (2) leading to a crisis that introduces an unmistakable problem or tension that must be resolved, (3) introducing complications that deter the resolution, (4) building to a climax or turning point in the narrative, (5) that eases the tension and prepares for the (6) resolution that solves the crisis and provides the meaning of the narrative so that the storyteller or narrator can bring the story back to the (7) calm stage of the conclusion.

Narrative criticism often works with the final form of the text, removing it from a historical setting for the events related or for the lifetime of the author. In addition, narrative criticism can limit itself to one element of the narrative.

VII. Setting

The setting reasons out the historical or chronological and geographical/social setting in which a narrative unit was first created and preserved. This may be a cultic site like Gilgal, a social group such as Levites, a political unit such as David’s court, or a chronological period such as the exile. Placing the narrative within such a setting helps determine why a literary unit was preserved, how it functioned, and its meaning as it is incorporated into larger literary units. Thus the ceremonies of Josh 8:30–35 and 24:1–28 relate closely to the cultic site(s) at Shechem and reveal Israel’s control of that part of the land even without related conquest stories. Such cultic rites bring points of climax and resolution for a people called to obedience to God’s law.

VIII. Comment

Comment sections dig into the text verse by verse to show the literary function and theological importance of each component of the narrative and to give deeper meanings and information about various items the text mentions. Here one finds information about archaeological discoveries, the nature of the Jordan River, the history and meaning of Passover, the meaning of the covenant relationship of God and Israel, and the various meanings and functions of important Hebrew words.

IX. Explanation

The final unit in each section of the commentary seeks to bring all the information gained in the above methodological steps together to show the meaning of the literary unit in its historical and literary settings.

The explanation of method presented above does not deal with history. The same method may be used to discuss and study a myth, a novel, an epic poem, a biography, and a historical annal. By arriving at a setting for the unit, the exegete determines whether the piece is intended strictly for entertainment and is thus fiction or whether it has roots in history and must be categorized with historical genres and understood as historical event. Here was the great weakness of my first edition in the eyes of many readers. I did not lay out my assumption of historicity for the materials. I assumed the larger portion of the readership shared and expected me to share in the belief in the historicity of the materials.

But one must ask what historicity means. Is it simply a fit into the practices of a certain period in history based on ancient Near Eastern parallels as produced particularly by Hess, Younger, and Kitchen? How much literary hyperbole is allowed in a work we want to identify as historical? Is it a complete presentation of Israel’s conquest of the land? Is it simply a historian’s presentation of his own view of the historical era seeking to teach a certain perspective on Israel’s life? Is it the result of oral tradition that has gradually molded the materials into a canonical form with gradual changes along the way that are inherent in oral tradition? Is it merely an outline of historical fact shaped many centuries later into an apology, thereby creating an identity for a landless or powerless people?

To claim for an appreciative audience that something is historical and true generalizes the issue to far too great a perspective. One must deal with an understanding of narrative formation, author’s intention, oral tradition transmission and preservation, textual accuracy, and narrative plot and function. No two human writers are going to tell the story the same way as seen in Chronicles and its work with Kings and Samuel or in the first three Gospels and their telling of the same stories with different vocabulary and literary and theological twists.

Thus my first edition sought to methodologically trace, as clearly as possible, the routes various elements in the biblical text took as they developed in oral tradition, cultic liturgy, battle reports, administrative lists, etc. Such developments of individual stories led to compilations of stories; to a book giving more concrete form to the compilations; to a collection of books like Joshua and Judges and then Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings; and then the ultimate history adding these books to the Pentateuch; until finally the thirty-nine Hebrew testament books were united into one.

This preface must report that my beloved Mary fought cancer for four strong months before entering her eternal reward in April of 1996. Her loving strength will always form part of my identity. I can also report that God in grace and goodness brought another Mary into my life as on August 5, 1999, Mary Martin Spears became my wife and began showing an emotional strength and strong support as we blended our families. As of this writing together we have four adult sons, each with a lovely wife, a charming daughter, five granddaughters including two energetic twins, and two grandsons. This larger family, each person in an individual way, has accepted, loved, and encouraged me through the challenge of this second edition of Joshua.

Again, the work has strengthened my faith and brought me closer to our Lord even as it has continued to leave intriguing questions that I suppose I will research until the Father calls me away from the books and into his place prepared just for me.

Trent C. Butler

Gallatin, Tennessee

New Year’s Day 2011

Preface to First Edition

What type of person would devote years in Switzerland to a study of the conflicts and conquests of the book of Joshua? Why would one look down from the majesty of the Swiss mountains to the horror of Hebrew holy war—ḥērem?

The answer lies, I suppose, in the accidents of human history under God. I drove out of the dusty heat of West Texas into the classrooms of Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, ready to put aside the pat answers of childhood because they no longer seemed to have meaning in the face of questions brought to the fore by the recent death of my adopted hemophiliac brother and a near-fatal accident that forced me to spend university graduation night unconscious in the hospital.

I began looking for answers in the normal places. Strangely, exegesis of Genesis, Galatians, John, seemed to join systematic theology in raising new questions rather than solving the old ones. Finally, Professor Don Williams offered a seminar course in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History. I joined a team including my roommate Paul Redditt, who also later joined the ranks of Old Testament professors. We explored the Hebrew Passover in enough depth to develop wild new theories on the most varied aspects of Hebrew worship, faith, and the origin of the Hebrew Scriptures. Actually, I learned few real answers in the seminar, but I learned something much more important. I learned how to ask significant questions of the biblical materials. I lost my preoccupation with the standard unanswerable questions and devoted my life to the excitement of biblical exegesis.

Then God introduced a new excitement into my life. Mary Burnett of Nashville, Tennessee, entered Southern Seminary. Soon she occupied more of my time than did the classroom excitement I had just discovered. The marvelous mystery of a trusting, loving personal relationship began to supply answers to many of the questions, whose answers I had sought in vain in my many books. After sixteen years of marriage and two exciting, loving sons, the excitement keeps increasing, and the answers continue to appear mysteriously when they are most needed.

The academic quest continued at Vanderbilt University with a seminar on methods in biblical scholarship, demanding research on historical method as illustrated in the study of Josh 1—12. Exploring the history of research revealed the flood of questions I had never asked, questions to which I would devote the next ten years of my life. Archaeological results, literary studies, sociological theories, textual investigations, linguistic developments, and other information all had to be sorted out and fitted into theological presuppositions to form a new theological perspective. The more study I devoted to Joshua, the more I became convinced that a solution to its problems would yield a solid foundation for constructing a literary and theological history of the Old Testament, if not of the entire Bible. Joshua offered the keys to understanding the time-honored Pentateuch/Hexateuch debate, the origin and nature of Israel’s worship prior to the temple, the nature of premonarchical government, and the home and meaning of covenant theology. What was more, Joshua presented both the fulfillment of the promises to the ancestors and the establishment of the promises to the exiles.

Sad to report, the present commentary, as all others, cannot provide keys to the locks to all these tantilizing subjects. We must suffice with a report along the scholarly way. We can report that the years devoted to the venture have raised not only new questions but have raised new levels of personal faith for the author.

For this faith-provoking venture, I want to express personal thanks to the many compatriots who have helped and encouraged me along the way: church members at Hopewell Baptist Church, Springfield, Tennessee; Calvary Baptist Church, Lilburn, Georgia; Ruschlikon Baptist Church, Ruschlikon, Switzerland; and the several congregations of the European Baptist Convention, English Language. Further thanks are due the constantly questioning, yet supporting, students at Atlanta Baptist College (now Mercer University, Atlanta); Baptist Theological Seminary, Ruschlikon, Switzerland; Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky; and the many others at guest lectures throughout Israel, Yugoslavia, Germany, Poland, and Portugal.

The greatest gratitude goes to Mary, Curt, and Kevin, who have endured the lonely days while Daddy wrote the Book. Their support and love have made the endeavor worthwhile.

A final word must be directed to John Watts and his editorial staff for enduring with me to the end.

Trent Butler

Nashville, Tennessee

September 21, 1982

Abbreviations

Periodicals, Reference Works, and Serials

Texts, Versions, and Ancient Works

Biblical and Apocryphal Books

Old Testament

Apocrypha

New Testament

Miscellaneous