Lewis Bayles Paton

Bio: Lewis Bayles Paton is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Old Testament & Hebrew. The author has an hindex of 3, co-authored 14 publications receiving 222 citations.

Theology of the Old Testament

Abstract: Professor Davidson was one of the greatest Old Testament scholars of our generation. His Hebrew Grammar is the best student's manual in the field. His commentaries on Job, Ezekiel, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah in the Cambridge Bible are masterpieces of exposition. His articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica, in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, and in numerous theological and critical reviews are epoch-making contributions to the study of the Old Testament. From his classroom have gone out such famous scholars as Robertson Smith, George Adam Smith, Elmslie, Thomson, and Skinner. To his quiet influence is mainly due the general adoption by the Free Church of Scotland of modern critical views in regard to the Old Testament. It was with great satisfaction, therefore, that we learned a number of years ago that he had promised to write the volume on Old Testament theology in the International Theological Library. We have looked forward eagerly for the appearance of this book, and have anticipated that, when it appeared, it would be the greatest work on the subject in English, or perhaps in any language. When we heard of the author's death in I902, we were grieved to think that this longexpected volume would probably never be finished; but were presently comforted by the news that the manuscript had been left nearly complete and would soon be published under the able editorship of Principal Salmond. Dr. Salmond has at last completed his arduous labor of love in collecting and editing the notes left by his friend, and the result lies before us in this Theology of the Old Testament.' It is a book that one takes up with enthusiastic anticipation of pleasure and profit in reading it, but one lays it down with a keen feeling of disappointment. The material in it may all be Davidson's, but we miss the masterly power of co-ordination that is seen in his earlier writings. Apparently his notes were left in a scattered, fragmentary form, and the editor, who is not an Old Testament critic, was not able to fit them into a consistent

Canaanite Influence on the Religion of Israel

Abstract: I. Canaanite influence on the religion of Israel is probable from the gradual and incomplete manner in which the conquest of Canaan was effected by the Hebrews. In regard to this event the Old Testament traditions are singularly contradictory. The Deuteronomic editor of Joshua and the Priestly writer in the same book hold that the twelve tribes entered the land together under the leadership of Joshua, captured all the cities in a rapid campaign, and destroyed all their inhabitants (Jos. 1o:28-43; Ii:io-I2: 24, D ; chaps. 13-22, mainly P). On the other hand, the older JE passages that are included by the Deuteronomic editor mention a number of cities that were not taken by Joshua, e.g., Jerusalem (15:63), Gezer (i6:io), Taanach and Megiddo (17:II1-18), or that were captured by other persons, e.g., Hebron by Caleb (i5:14), Debir by Othniel (15:i 5-17), the Highland of Israel by the tribes of Joseph (i7:14-18). J and E also agree that the Canaanites were not annihilated, but continued to "dwell in the midst of Israel unto this day" (Exod. 23:29 f.; 34:II-16; Jos. I3:Ib, 13; 15:63; I6:io; I7:I2 f.). There can be no doubt that the older conception of JE is the more historical. Jerusalem was not taken until the time of David (II Sam. 5:6-9; cf. Judg. 9:10o-I2; against Jos. I2:io). The Canaanites were not expelled from Gezer until the time of Solomon (I Kings 9:16; cf. Judg. I:29; against Jos. I2:12). Beth-shan remained in the hands of the Philistines until the time of David

The Cult of the Mother-Goddess in Ancient Palestine

Abstract: The primitive Semitic race from which the Arabs, Ethiopians, Canaanites, Hebrews, Aramaeans, Assyrians, and Babylonians were descended dwelt in the great desert of central Arabia. This region was covered with bare mountains of volcanic rock interspersed with plains of arid gravel. The rain-fall was so slight that only the scantiest vegetation could exist and agriculture was impossible. Here and there springs were found, and near these the date-palm grew, and camels, goats, and sheep could be bred. Life depended upon the holding of an oasis where water could be obtained for man and beast and for the irrigation of the beneficent date-palm. Without organization the holding of such an oasis against enemies was impossible, hence from the earliest times the Semites formed themselves into clans, whose size was conditioned by the extent of the water supply. There is abundant evidence that these clans, like those of many other primitive peoples, were originally organized on a matriarchal basis. Marriage was a temporary union, during which the man left his own tribe and entered that of the woman. Marriages of this sort, which were called mot'a were common in ancient Arabia and are often mentioned by the early pre-Muhammadan poets. According to the Kitab al-Aghdni (xvi. io6), women divorced their husbands by turning their tents around. When the man saw this, he knew that he was dismissed and did not enter. Ammianus Marcellinus (xiv. 4) says of the Arabs, that marriage is a temporary contract, for which the wife receives a price. She gives the man a spear and a tent as dowry. When the term of the contract has expired, she is free to dismiss him. In the Old Testament survivals of this sort of marriage are seen in Delilah, who, although married to Samson, remained among the Philistines, and in the Canaanite wife of Gideon, who stayed among her own people in Shechem. The ancient formula, \"for this cause

The debilitating duo : shame and guilt in Psalm 32

Abstract: it defines and limits the meaning of selem. Second, the two words are interchangeable; no distinction is discoverable between them. Third, both words are included in Genesis 1:26. However, only selem is used in Genesis 1:27, but the omission of d§mu®t does not diminish the meaning. Preuss, noting the occurrence and semantic field of the verb and noun forms for t...wm√;d defines it as a “copy,” “reproduction” or “image” (Preuss 1997:3.259). The eighth century prophet Isaiah warns the nation of Israel not to pursue lRs‹RÚpAh “the idol” (Is 40:19), since wáøl ...wk√rAo¶A;tt...wäm√;d_hAm...w l¡Ea N...wâyV;mådV;t yTMIm_lRa◊w “to whom will you liken God? Or what likeness will you compare with Him?” (Is 40:18). Idols, which are creations of human hands, lack the “likeness” of the divine creator. Isaiah’s comparison is not applicable to the human, who is created in the “image...likeness” of God. The context of Isaiah 40 expresses comfort for God’s people (40:1), whose Lord has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand (40:12), sits enthroned above the circle of the earth (Is 40:22), and is the Everlasting God, Creator of the ends of the earth who does not grow weary or tired (40:28b). Idols do not compare. Feinberg (1972:236) notes the difference between sΩelem, which refers to human essence, and d§mu®t as the aspect of the person that changes. Both concepts evolve from the Greek and Latin father’s distinction between sΩelem, as the physical condition of the human, and d§mu®t which refers to the ethical expression of the divine image emanating from God. Although distinctions between image and likeness are noted, Kidner (2008:55) deduces that the words reinforce one another in Genesis 1:26, since the conjunction is absent

"Let Us Make 'adam": An Edenic Model of Personal Ontology

Abstract: “LET US MAKE םדא”: AN EDENIC MODEL OF PERSONAL ONTOLOGY by Marla A. Samaan Nedelcu Adviser: Richard M. Davidson ABSTRACT OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH DissertationOF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH Dissertation Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Title: “LET US MAKE םדא”: AN EDENIC MODEL OF PERSONAL ONTOLOGY Name of researcher: Marla A. Samaan Nedelcu Name and degree of faculty adviser: Richard M. Davidson, Ph.D. Date completed: April 2019 Personal ontology studies human constitution and human nature, an increasingly debated topic in Christian theology. Historically, the most prominent models of personal ontology in Christian theology have been substance dualist models. More recently, physicalist models have offered prominent alternatives. This dissertation studies the conflict of interpretations between these two major model groupings. By applying a canonical theology, it then presents an Edenic model of personal ontology that can address the current conflict of interpretations. To achieve this end, the dissertation briefly analyzes substance dualism and physicalism according to the rubrics of constitution and nature, using a model methodology. It then compares the advantages and challenges each offers, and asks whether a model based solely on the normative source of the biblical canon might prove beneficial to the current debate. This question is explored next through a close reading of the Eden narrative (Gen 1-3), which is the biblical pericope that is most foundational to a study of personal ontology. Utilizing the final-form canonical approach and phenomenological-exegetical analysis, this reading delivers answers to the questions of constitution and nature and reveals an Edenic model of personal ontology. In short, the Edenic model highlights both the physicality and the uniqueness of human ontology. It points to a human constitution that is physical, and yet it does not compromise humans’ unique identity or place in God’s creation. This is because the text shows the image of God to be the mark of human identity. This imago Dei is manifested in every function of human nature (all of which are physically constituted), and enables humans to fulfill God’s commission to them. Next, we compare the Edenic model with substance dualism and physicalism, using the same two rubrics of constitution and nature, to see which models may have higher explanatory powers in dealing with current questions of personal ontology. We see that a model of personal ontology that arises from the Eden narrative emphasizes both human physicality and human uniqueness. Such a twin emphasis proves helpful in the current debate in Christian theology, whereas substance dualism emphasizes human identity, and physicalism often highlights human physicality more than human identity. The dissertation ends by encouraging Christian theologians to explore further the new questions about personal ontology that are being raised, but to do so within these twin parameters and on the basis of a model that arises from Scripture. This approach will not only have implications for a study of personal ontology, but likely for an array of Christian beliefs and practices. Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary “LET US MAKE םדא”: AN EDENIC MODEL OF PERSONAL ONTOLOGY A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation

Abstract: new. In this context I propose to examine interactions between the Hebrew Scriptures and the Women's Liberation Movement. I am aware of the risks. Some claim that the task is impossible and ill-advised. The two phenomena have nothing to say to each other. As far as the East is from the West, so far are they separated. To attempt to relate them is to prostitute them. Others aver that the Bible and the Women's Movement are enemies. "Patriarchy has God on its side," declares Kate Millett, introducing her sexually-oriented discussion of the Fall. She maintains that this myth is "designed as it is expressly in order to blame all this world's discomfort on the female."' Making a similar point from within the Christian faith, Mary Daly writes of "the malignant view of the man-woman relationship which the androcentric myth itself inadvertently 'reveals' and perpetuates."2 For her this story belongs to a patriarchal religion oppressive to women. It is superfluous to document patriarchy in Scripture.3 Yahweh is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as well as of Jesus and Paul. The legal codes of Israel treat women primarily as chattel. Qoheleth condemns her "whose heart is snares and nets and whose hands are fetters," concluding that although a few men may seek the meaning of existence, "a woman among all these I have not found" (7:23-29). In spite of his eschatology, Paul considers women subordinate to their husbands,4 and, even worse, I Timothy makes woman responsible for sin in the world (2:11-15).Considerable evidence indicts the Bible as a document of male supremacy. Attempts to acquit it by tokens such as Deborah, Huldah, Ruth, or Mary and Martha only reinforce the case.

The Alpha and Omega and Lampstands Metaphors: A Linguistic Theory of Metaphor as Applied to the Book of Revelation

Abstract: ................................................................................................................................................. 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................................ 6 1 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 9 1.1 Genre and Language Theory ...................................................................................................... 27 1.2 Genre of the Book of Revelation ................................................................................................. 35 1.2.1 Epistle ................................................................................................................................. 37 1.2.2 Narrative ............................................................................................................................. 43 1.2.3 Prophecy ............................................................................................................................. 46 1.2.4 Apocalyptic ......................................................................................................................... 54 1.2.5 Apocalyptic Purpose ........................................................................................................... 62 1.3 Method ........................................................................................................................................ 67 1.4 Terminology ................................................................................................................................ 74 1.4.1 Imagery ............................................................................................................................... 78 1.4.2 Metaphor ............................................................................................................................. 81 1.4.3 Symbol ................................................................................................................................. 97 1.4.4 Analogy ............................................................................................................................. 102 1.4.5 Typology ............................................................................................................................ 107 1.5 Types of Linguistic/Literary Metaphors .................................................................................... 109 1.5.1 Verbs/Non-Copulative Sentences/Substantives ................................................................. 113 1.5.2 Copulative Sentences ........................................................................................................ 116 1.5.3 Genitive Case Metaphors .................................................................................................. 122 1.5.4 Attributive Construction Metaphors ................................................................................. 123 1.5.5 Prepositions ...................................................................................................................... 124 1.5.6 Associated Common Places .............................................................................................. 125 1.6 Review of Literature .................................................................................................................. 131 1.7 Conclusion to Methodology and Literature Review .................................................................. 145 2 CHAPTER TWO: A THEORY OF LINGUISTIC METAPHOR IN JOHN’S APOCALYPSE AS DEVELOPED FROM REVELATION 1 ................................................................................................. 147 2.1 Revelation 1:8 – I am the Alpha and the Omega ...................................................................... 148 2.1.1 Overview of Interpretations of I AM the Alpha and Omega ............................................. 149 2.1.2 Alpha and Omega as Merism ............................................................................................ 150 2.1.3 Alpha and Omega as Nomina Sacra ................................................................................. 152 2.1.4 Other Potential Sources of Alpha and Omega .................................................................. 162

Theology of Judgment in Genesis 6-9

Abstract: THEOLOGY OF JUDGMENT IN GENESIS 6-9