Is Acts Pseudo-History - CourtneyR.dev's 2nd Brain

Is Acts Pseudo-History? 🔗 **Source:** [Is Acts Pseudo-History?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=padPaApIIJo) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [biblical-studies, acts-7, septuagint] > author: Data Over Dogma > source: YouTube > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=padPaApIIJo > date created: 2024-12-19 12:00 > > # 🏷️ Title: Is Acts Pseudo-History? >  ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Compare Hebrew Bible chronologies with Acts 7 claims — verse-by-verse analysis #biblical-studies - [H2] Research Second Temple period angelology traditions — interpretive framework #theology - [H3] Examine Septuagint translation differences from Masoretic text — textual criticism #manuscripts ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ### 🔗 References - [Data Over Dogma YouTube Channel](https://www.youtube.com/@DataOverDogma) ## 📝 Summary - Dan Mlelen and Dan Beecher analyze Acts 7 (Stephen's speech) for historical accuracy and source materials - Multiple chronological and factual discrepancies found between Acts 7 and Hebrew Bible accounts - Evidence suggests Luke relied on Greek Septuagint translation rather than Hebrew sources - Stephen's speech appears to be literary composition, not historical transcript - Demonstrates Second Temple period interpretive traditions influencing New Testament narratives ## 📖 Main Content Acts 7 presents Stephen's lengthy historical survey of Israel before his martyrdom, but scholarly analysis reveals significant problems with its historical claims. The speech contains multiple chronological errors, conflated narratives, and details that align with the Greek Septuagint rather than Hebrew Bible sources. Key discrepancies include timeline issues with Abraham's departure from Haran, conflation of burial sites and land purchases by different patriarchs, and adoption of Second Temple angelology traditions not found in original biblical texts. These patterns suggest the author of Acts was working from Greek translations and interpretive traditions rather than direct Hebrew sources. The analysis indicates Stephen's speech represents sophisticated literary composition reflecting Second Temple period theological concerns rather than a historical transcript of courtroom testimony. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/padPaApIIJo?t=0) — Introduction to Acts 7 Analysis - Key idea: Examining Stephen's speech for historical accuracy and source materials - Evidence: "We're going to be talking about Acts 7 as a chapter and verse, but specifically we're going to get into how the New Testament authors interacted with and New Testament characters interacted with the Hebrew Bible" #### ⏱️ [03:45](https://youtu.be/padPaApIIJo?t=225) — Stephen's Speech Context - Key idea: Stephen delivers 52-verse historical survey before martyrdom - Evidence: "Stephen basically takes the opportunity to just wax historical for 52 verses, basically outlining the history of the people of Israel starting from Abraham" #### ⏱️ [05:12](https://youtu.be/padPaApIIJo?t=312) — Abraham Chronology Problem - Key idea: Acts contradicts Hebrew Bible timeline for Abraham's departure from Haran - Evidence: "The author has Stephen stake a pretty clear claim that Abraham did not leave Haron until after his father Terara died" #### ⏱️ [07:30](https://youtu.be/padPaApIIJo?t=450) — Mathematical Discrepancy - Key idea: Genesis chronology shows Terah lived 60 years after Abraham left Haran - Evidence: "Tara was 70, Abraham 75. Put them together, what do you get? 145 years... Tara was 205 years old when he died in Haron" #### ⏱️ [09:15](https://youtu.be/padPaApIIJo?t=555) — Septuagint Dependence Evidence - Key idea: Author relied on Greek translation rather than Hebrew sources - Evidence: "The texts are written are are very clearly written in Greek and are very clearly appealing to the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible" #### ⏱️ [11:20](https://youtu.be/padPaApIIJo?t=680) — Egyptian Sojourn Duration - Key idea: Acts chooses Genesis timeframe over Exodus for length of Egyptian oppression - Evidence: "Genesis 15:13, there's this prophecy about the Abraham's descendants being oppressed 400 years, but if you go to Exodus 12:40, the time that they were in Egypt was 430 years" #### ⏱️ [13:05](https://youtu.be/padPaApIIJo?t=785) — 75 vs 70 People Discrepancy - Key idea: Acts follows Septuagint's 75 people rather than Hebrew Bible's 70 - Evidence: "Genesis 46:27 as well as Exodus 1:5 says there were 70 people who came down to Egypt, but if you go look at the ancient Greek translation, the Septuagent of Genesis 46:27, it says 75" #### ⏱️ [15:30](https://youtu.be/padPaApIIJo?t=930) — Burial Site Confusion - Key idea: Acts conflates different patriarchs' burial sites and land purchases - Evidence: "Abraham never bought anything in Sheckchum and not from any sons of Haymore. Abraham bought land and a cave which was used as a tomb at Machella which is near Hebron" #### ⏱️ [17:45](https://youtu.be/padPaApIIJo?t=1065) — Geographic Confusion - Key idea: Shechem and Machpelah are geographically distant locations - Evidence: "Hebrron is closer to Jerusalem. Sheckchham is way up north in the northern kingdom... it's a long walk between those two places" #### ⏱️ [19:20](https://youtu.be/padPaApIIJo?t=1160) — Conflated Purchase Accounts - Key idea: Acts merges Jacob's Shechem purchase with Abraham's Machpelah purchase - Evidence: "Jacob, not Abraham, pays the sons of Hore an amount of silver to purchase some land in Sheckchum... It's Joseph who was buried at Sheckchham according to Joshua 24:32" #### ⏱️ [22:10](https://youtu.be/padPaApIIJo?t=1330) — Angels Mediating Law - Key idea: Stephen claims law was given through angels, not directly by God - Evidence: "You were the ones who received the law as ordained by angels... But the law was not given through angels" #### ⏱️ [24:15](https://youtu.be/padPaApIIJo?t=1455) — Second Temple Interpretive Traditions - Key idea: Angelology reflects later theological developments to distance God from direct action - Evidence: "This is second temple interpretive tradition that is standing in between the text... as a way to kind of distance God from what's going on here" #### ⏱️ [26:30](https://youtu.be/padPaApIIJo?t=1590) — Angel of the Lord Conflation - Key idea: Divine-angelic identity conflation provided interpretive flexibility - Evidence: "The identity of God and the angel is kind of conflated... this kind of literary prophylaxis... became very useful in the second temple period to distance God from what was going on" #### ⏱️ [29:00](https://youtu.be/padPaApIIJo?t=1740) — Literary Composition Conclusion - Key idea: Stephen's speech represents careful literary construction, not spontaneous testimony - Evidence: "This is obviously something that took some care and some time and thoughtfulness on the part of the author... it is a creative and an ongoing kind of negotiation with the author's own heritage" ## 📚 References - [Data Over Dogma Patreon](https://patreon.com/dataoverdogma) - Genesis 11-12 (Abraham chronology) - Genesis 23 (Machpelah purchase) - Genesis 33 (Shechem purchase) - Joshua 24:32 (Joseph's burial) - Exodus 12:40, 19-20 (Egyptian sojourn, law giving) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - Acts 7 contains multiple historical inaccuracies when compared to Hebrew Bible sources, suggesting dependence on Greek translations - The speech reflects sophisticated theological interpretation rather than spontaneous historical recitation by Stephen - Evidence points to literary composition incorporating Second Temple period interpretive traditions about angels and biblical chronology ## 📰 Newsletter **New Testament Sources: When Greek Translations Shape Christian Narratives** Biblical scholars are uncovering fascinating insights about how New Testament authors used their source materials. A recent analysis of Acts 7 reveals that Stephen's famous historical speech contains multiple discrepancies with Hebrew Bible accounts, suggesting the author relied primarily on Greek translations rather than original Hebrew sources. The implications are significant for understanding early Christian literary practices and the complex relationship between Jewish traditions and emerging Christian interpretations. **Key Findings:** - Chronological errors in patriarchal narratives - Geographic and genealogical conflations - Adoption of Second Temple angelology traditions This research demonstrates the sophisticated literary craftsmanship behind biblical narratives while highlighting the interpretive layers that shaped early Christian understanding of Jewish history. Resources: [Society of Biblical Literature](https://sbl-site.org/), [Biblical Archaeology Review](https://biblicalarchaeologyreview.com/), [Early Christian Writings](http://earlychristianwritings.com/) ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Developer advocacy: Create accessible biblical studies resources demonstrating textual criticism methods - Education: Design workshops on comparative source analysis for religious studies students - Community engagement: Foster respectful dialogue between academic and faith communities #### Community - Academic: Coordinate cross-disciplinary collaboration between biblical studies and digital humanities - Educational: Support public access to scholarly biblical research through open platforms - Interfaith: Facilitate conversations about textual interpretation across religious traditions ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Acts author primarily relied on Septuagint rather than Hebrew Bible sources for historical narratives - Stephen's speech represents literary composition reflecting Second Temple interpretive traditions rather than historical transcript - New Testament authors systematically adapted Jewish traditions through contemporary theological frameworks - Geographic and chronological errors indicate distance from Palestinian Jewish context ### 📊 Methodology - Comparative textual analysis between Acts 7, Hebrew Bible, and Septuagint versions - Chronological calculation verification using biblical genealogies and timelines - Historical-critical examination of Second Temple period interpretive traditions ### ❓ Questions - What other New Testament passages show similar dependence on Greek rather than Hebrew sources? - How did Second Temple angelology traditions specifically influence early Christian theology? - What can source analysis reveal about the geographic and cultural contexts of New Testament composition? ### 🔮 Future Research - Systematic comparison of New Testament Old Testament quotations with Hebrew and Greek sources - Investigation of Second Temple interpretive traditions in early Christian literature - Analysis of geographic knowledge accuracy in New Testament narratives ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Biblical interpretation must account for translation and transmission factors affecting accuracy - Education: Teaching biblical literacy requires understanding of textual criticism and source analysis methods - Policy: Academic freedom protections needed for scholars conducting critical biblical research - Interfaith: Honest engagement with textual complexities can enhance rather than threaten religious dialogue ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: Grade 12-14 #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: Timeline comparisons, geographic maps of biblical locations - Improve: Parallel text charts showing Hebrew vs Greek differences #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Podcast format with clear verbal explanations - Improve: Audio pronunciation guides for biblical names and terms #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Clear definitions of technical terms, analogies explaining textual criticism - Improve: Glossary of biblical studies terminology #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: Step-by-step methodology for textual comparison - Improve: Interactive exercises comparing different manuscript traditions #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Mathematical chronology calculations, systematic source comparison - Improve: Decision trees for evaluating textual variants #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Conversational podcast format with two hosts - Improve: Discussion questions for study groups #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Self-directed research methodology - Improve: Individual reflection questions on textual interpretation #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Historical development patterns in textual traditions - Improve: Analogies connecting textual evolution to natural processes ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Clear chapter/verse citations, logical heading structure - Improve: Alt text for any visual timeline or map elements #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard podcast playback controls - Improve: Transcript with timestamp navigation links #### Contrast and readability - Present: Clear audio quality, distinct speaker voices - Improve: Visual transcript with high contrast formatting #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: Responsive transcript formatting - Improve: Adjustable font size options for transcript #### Media and captions - Present: Full transcript available - Improve: Closed captions with speaker identification #### Forms and interactions - Present: Simple podcast playback interface - Improve: Accessible bookmark and note-taking features ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Academic approach respecting multiple religious perspectives - Improve: Include diverse scholarly voices in biblical criticism #### Inclusive language - Present: Respectful treatment of religious traditions - Improve: Plain language explanations of technical terms #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Clear structure with logical progression - Improve: Visual organizers for complex chronological arguments #### Representation - Present: Two male academic voices - Improve: Include female scholars and diverse academic perspectives #### Psychological safety - Present: Respectful approach to challenging religious assumptions - Improve: Explicit acknowledgment of potential sensitivity for faith communities ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: Strong logical progression from textual evidence to conclusions about source dependence - Inductive strength: Multiple examples build convincing case for Septuagint reliance - Causal reasoning: Clear connection between translation choices and theological motivations - Analogical strength: Effective comparisons between different biblical passages #### Fallacies - Argument from silence: Assuming Hebrew sources unavailable without considering other possibilities - Hasty generalization: Extending conclusions about Acts 7 to entire New Testament without sufficient evidence #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Academic, respectful, conversational with appropriate humor ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: No denial tactics present - Attack: No attacks on accusers or opposing viewpoints - Reverse victim/offender: No victim/offender reversal - Emotional cues and rhetoric: Respectful academic discourse with light humor ## 🎯 Conclusion This analysis of Acts 7 demonstrates that Stephen's historical speech contains multiple discrepancies with Hebrew Bible sources, indicating the author's reliance on Greek translations and Second Temple interpretive traditions. Rather than representing a spontaneous courtroom defense, the speech appears to be a sophisticated literary composition reflecting early Christian theological concerns. The evidence suggests biblical studies must account for the complex layers of translation, interpretation, and theological development that shaped New Testament narratives. This scholarly approach enhances rather than diminishes our understanding of these important texts and their historical contexts. ## 🧱 Refactor Appendix ### 📚 Literature Split Pad Purpose: Stage CEE units that become Literature notes. Split level: H3 ### [H1] Acts 7 contains multiple historical inaccuracies compared to Hebrew Bible sources > [!quote] [Is Acts Pseudo-History? --- ## Full Transcript [00:02] Hey everybody, I'm Dan Mlelen and I'm [00:04] Dan Beecher and this is Data Over Dogma [00:08] where we increase public access to the [00:09] academic study of the Bible and religion [00:11] and we combat the spread of [00:12] misinformation about the same. How are [00:15] things Dan? [00:16] >> Things are good. It's uh it's a [00:18] beautiful day outside here in Salt Lake [00:21] City. Uh in stark contrast to what I [00:25] just got [00:25] >> things are going Yeah. back from which [00:28] was [00:29] you viewers will uh will remember that a [00:32] couple weeks ago there was some very bad [00:35] weather in the eastern part of North [00:37] America and I was in the northern I was [00:40] I was in Canada and uh and I'm I'm lucky [00:44] to have made it out alive. It was cold. [00:47] It was bad. [00:48] >> Some flights got got complicated. So [00:50] >> yeah, I I I I had to stay an extra day. [00:54] Uh which, you know, is great when [00:57] there's when it's [01:00] >> when it is so cold. Yeah, there was [01:02] nothing to do. It was it was a little [01:04] rough. It was a Monday, so even the [01:07] museums were closed. It wasn't [01:09] >> that wasn't very good. [01:10] >> Oh man. [01:11] >> But uh but yeah, it's it's beautiful [01:14] today and I'm excited about today's [01:19] episode. today's uh segment because [01:21] we're going to be talking uh for the [01:24] next two segments, this one and the next [01:26] one. Uh we're going to be talking about [01:30] um a both of them take the same jumping [01:34] off point, which is Acts chapter 7. Mhm. [01:38] >> Uh today's we're going to be looking at [01:40] Acts 7 as a chapter and verse, but [01:42] specifically we're going to get into how [01:46] the New Testament authors interacted [01:49] with and New Testament characters [01:52] interacted with the Hebrew Bible. And I [01:55] think that's going to be a really [01:57] fascinating discussion. So [01:59] >> yes indeed. [02:00] >> Let's dive in with chapter and verse. [02:05] All right. So chapter uh and verse is [02:09] Acts chapter 7. [02:10] >> Yep. [02:11] >> Uh a lot of verses actually we should [02:14] call it chapter and verses. [02:16] >> Um but [02:17] >> let's where do you want to start with [02:19] this? Do you want to start with uh [02:21] Stephen talking about stuff? [02:23] >> Well, let's just lay our scene uh in in [02:26] >> in Fair Verona. [02:28] >> Yes, exactly. Uh two houses alike in [02:31] dignity. Uh we have we have some uh the [02:34] leaders of the synagogue uh are [02:37] basically call Steven to task. He's [02:39] doing great signs and wonders among the [02:42] people and uh they call him to uh to uh [02:48] they bring him before uh the the council [02:51] and they uh say, "Hey, you've been doing [02:54] all this stuff that people said you've [02:55] been doing." And Stephen basically takes [02:58] the opportunity to uh just wax [03:01] historical for 52 verses. Uh basically [03:06] outlining the history of the people of [03:09] Israel starting from Abraham and then [03:11] going all the way down to uh verse 53 [03:16] and saying you you know the there was [03:18] the coming of the righteous one and and [03:20] you have become his betrayers and [03:21] murderers and you have not kept the law. [03:24] And then they become enraged. They grind [03:27] their teeth at Steven. They go and then [03:30] they cast stones at him. [03:32] >> Yeah. That's that's not great. That's [03:34] not the outcome you're looking for. [03:36] >> Yeah. But uh you know, it's it's not a [03:39] good review of his history of Israel. [03:43] But um but I think it's it's interesting [03:45] because what it represents is the author [03:48] of the book of Acts, [03:50] negotiation with the history of Israel [03:53] as told in the Hebrew Bible as they have [03:56] access to it and as they have negotiated [03:59] with it. And I just wanted to to jump [04:01] around to a handful of verses and talk [04:03] about some of the ways that they are [04:05] representing the history that might [04:07] indicate they're going from the Greek [04:09] and not the Hebrew. that might indicate [04:10] they're they're picking and choosing [04:12] which passages they're basing this on [04:15] and some places where they even [04:16] contradict what's going on in the Hebrew [04:18] Bible and contradict themselves. Uh and [04:21] so I think I think it's just a [04:23] fascinating study of how the New [04:26] Testament one New Testament author [04:28] anyway is engaging with the traditions [04:30] of the Hebrew Bible. And I want to start [04:33] in uh verse two. Uh this is the very [04:37] beginning of uh of Steven's uh [04:40] performance. Brothers and fathers, he [04:42] says, listen to me. The God of glory [04:44] appeared to our ancestor Abraham when he [04:46] was in Mesopotamia before he lived in [04:49] Haran and said to him, "Leave your [04:51] country and your relatives and go to the [04:53] land that I will show you." Then he left [04:55] the country of the Caldanss and settled [04:56] in Haron. After his father died, God had [05:00] him move from there to this country in [05:03] which you are now living. And so this is [05:06] this is basically the end of Genesis 11 [05:09] and the beginning of Genesis 12. But we [05:12] the author has Stephen stake a pretty [05:14] clear claim that Abraham did not leave [05:17] Haron until after his father Terara [05:21] died. [05:22] >> Okay. [05:22] >> And this is where we're seeing uh the [05:25] author's interpretation of kind of a [05:28] squirrely part of of Genesis. Because if [05:30] we go to Genesis 11, uh we have uh Haron [05:36] has some kids. Uh [05:39] when Tara had lived 70 years, he became [05:41] the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haron. [05:44] So that's Genesis 11:26. So Tara is 70 [05:48] years old, Abraham is born when Tara is [05:51] 70 years old. Now we have down toward [05:55] the end of uh chapter 11 that uh Abraham [06:02] was 75 years old um when he takes up and [06:08] leaves picks up and leaves. Excuse me. [06:11] Um I'm I'm trying to find the exact [06:13] verse where it says this. Yes. So Abram [06:17] went this is Genesis 12:4. So Abram went [06:20] as the Lord had told him and Lot went [06:21] with him. Abram was 75 years old when he [06:24] departed from Haron. So Tara was 70, [06:28] Abraham 75. Put them together, what do [06:31] you get? 145 years. Abraham leaves Haron [06:35] when Tara is 14 45 years old. It says [06:39] according to Genesis 11:32, however, [06:41] that Tara was 205 years old when he died [06:44] in Haron. [06:45] So if you go by Genesis 11 and 12, Abram [06:51] departed from Haron, waved bye-bye to [06:53] his dad when his dad was 175 years old. [06:57] He he lived for another or excuse me 145 [07:00] years old. He lived for another 60 years [07:03] in Haran without Abraham, [07:05] >> right? [07:05] >> Abram, except in Acts, the author says [07:09] that Abram didn't leave Haron until [07:13] Terara had died. So, we've got a a [07:16] little bit of a a problematic thing [07:18] there. And and that's probably just [07:19] because the author of Acts is not doing [07:23] the math, is not looking closely at this [07:25] and being like, "Wait a minute, that [07:26] doesn't add up, right?" [07:28] >> Um, and so Tara had to have lived for 60 [07:30] more years after Abraham left. [07:32] >> I mean, you're blaming the author of [07:34] Acts. You could just as easily blame [07:35] Stephen. [07:38] >> Stephen could have gotten it wrong. [07:40] Well, I I I'm gonna There are a number [07:43] of places where uh I blame the author [07:46] and not the character precisely because [07:50] the texts are written are are very [07:52] clearly written in Greek [07:54] >> and are very clearly appealing to the [07:56] Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, [07:59] which indicates it's probably not this [08:02] Jewish person talking in a Jewish [08:04] synagogue um when they're being [08:07] represented as speaking Aramaic or or [08:09] maybe even Hebrew. [08:11] >> So what you're saying, if I can just [08:12] sort of repackage it a little bit, is [08:14] that Steven himself would have been [08:17] would have read it in the Hebrew. He [08:19] would have been a Hebrewspeaking [08:22] Jewish person. Uh and so if he had [08:26] encountered the old the the the Hebrew [08:29] Bible, he would have encountered it in [08:30] Hebrew and not made some of the mistakes [08:32] that we're about to talk about. Is that [08:34] what [08:34] >> either? Yeah. either Hebrew or in uh [08:38] some Aramaic translation, one of the [08:39] Targum or something like that. But [08:41] >> oh, okay. [08:42] >> But what we see is that the author of [08:43] the book of Acts is relying on the [08:46] Septuagent. And we see this even more [08:48] clearly in in Acts 15. And I I think [08:50] we've talked about this before. This is [08:52] the Jerusalem Council. And there's a [08:54] part where they talk, excuse me, they [08:57] talk about how um the the tabernacle of [09:00] David will be restored um and for the [09:04] the remnant of humanity who seek after [09:06] the Lord. And this is the Septuagent [09:09] pretty flagrant mistransation [09:11] of a a part of Amos that in the Hebrew [09:14] says something entirely different that [09:16] has no relevance at all to the context [09:19] where it's being deployed in the book of [09:21] Acts. So it has to have been the Greek [09:25] that was being um being used. And so [09:28] yeah, there's [09:29] >> it's it's definitely a literary [09:32] composition here. Okay. [09:34] >> We are we do not have the verbatim [09:37] recording or transcription of somebody [09:40] speaking in Aramaic or Hebrew, [09:42] >> right? [09:42] >> Um so yeah, it's problematic. Um another [09:45] another interesting one, we we can um [09:47] scoot down to verse six. Uh this is [09:49] where we're talking about uh the [09:52] Israelites in Egypt and God spoke in [09:55] these terms that his descendants would [09:57] be resident aliens in a country [09:59] belonging to others who would enslave [10:02] them and mistreat them during 400 years. [10:07] And so this is the time that the the [10:09] Israelites are in Egypt. And if we go to [10:13] like Genesis 15:13, [10:16] there's this prophecy about um the [10:20] Abraham's descendants being uh you know, [10:23] they'll be oppressed 400 years, [10:25] >> right? [10:25] >> But if you go to Exodus 12 40, the time [10:29] that they were in Egypt was 430 years [10:34] being oppressed. So you've got you've [10:36] got two different ways that the Hebrew [10:37] Bible is is uh representing the length [10:41] of uh the sojourn in Egypt. It's either [10:45] 400 or 430 years. And so here we see [10:48] that the author of the book of Acts is [10:52] siding with Genesis over and against [10:55] Exodus about the story that is actually [10:57] in Exodus. So picking and choosing here. [11:01] This is an example of of uh the author [11:04] deciding to go with one and not the [11:06] other. [11:07] >> Yeah. I mean, you know, you start in [11:09] Genesis, you might as well hang out [11:10] there. [11:11] >> Yeah. Yeah. [11:13] >> When you know, when you're talking about [11:15] Abram and whatever. Yeah. Just stick [11:18] stick with what you with what you know. [11:20] Why read a whole other book? [11:23] >> And and here's another uh instance where [11:25] we can see that the author is pulling [11:27] from the Septuagent. Then Joseph sent [11:30] and this is verse 14. Then Joseph sent [11:32] and invited his father Jacob and all his [11:34] relatives to come to him. 75 in all. [11:39] Great. We can go look at Genesis um 46 [11:45] 27 as well as Exodus 15 and it says [11:49] there were 70 people who came down to [11:52] Egypt. Uh but if you go look at the [11:55] ancient Greek translation, the [11:57] Septuagent of Genesis 46:27, hey, what [12:00] do you know? It says 75. So [12:04] >> that's interesting. What accounts for [12:05] that discrepancy? Do you know? Do you [12:07] have a sense of why they just changed [12:10] the number? [12:11] >> Um I I don't you know, this is this [12:13] would be interesting to look into [12:15] because 70 is a really important number [12:18] in the ancient world. you know, you the [12:21] uh the table of nations in Genesis 10 [12:23] has 70 nations. If you have 70 uh and [12:27] you know, Deuteronomy 32:8, we have the [12:30] Llon or excuse me, just Elon, the most [12:33] high divides up the nations according to [12:34] the number of the sons of God in the [12:37] early Hebrew, but in the Maseretic text, [12:40] it's sons of Israel. And that [12:41] traditional number is 70. So, you would [12:44] think that they would uh want to stick [12:45] with 70, but for whatever reason, the [12:47] Septuagent changed it to um 75. And I'm [12:51] just going to look [12:52] >> I'm going to dive in really just really [12:53] quickly and remind everybody what the [12:55] Septuagent is because we've been [12:56] referencing it and we want to we're [12:58] going to keep referencing it. And uh [13:00] it's so it's the Greek translation of [13:03] the Hebrew Bible. [13:05] >> Yes. [13:05] >> That was produced uh when was it [13:08] produced? somewhere in the [13:09] >> uh between like the 3rd century BCE and [13:13] like the 1st century BCE. So the books [13:16] were translated independently and kind [13:18] of came together over the centuries. [13:20] >> Okay. And and so anyone so the what [13:23] we're talking about is that anyone who [13:25] was a Greek a reader and probably [13:29] speaker of Greek around this time who [13:33] wanted to read uh the the Hebrew Bible [13:36] would have read it as the Septuagent in [13:38] this form. [13:39] >> Okay. [13:40] >> And uh technically the Septuagent really [13:43] refers to the translation of the first [13:45] five books of Moses. Those would have [13:46] been the first books translated each one [13:49] by a different translator. and and they [13:51] were not coordinating. It was not a [13:53] systematic process. Uh but you know [13:56] there's kind of the narrow sense of what [13:57] the Septuagen is and then the broader [13:59] sense. We're speaking about the broader [14:01] sense and the Septuagent also has 75 in [14:04] Exodus 1. [14:05] >> So both both of the passages that in the [14:08] Maseretic text say 70 are 75 in the [14:10] Septuagent. So, we have another example [14:13] of of the author uh relying not on the [14:16] Greek but uh on the [14:20] uh or excuse me, not on the Hebrew but [14:21] on the Greek. [14:22] >> Right. [14:23] >> And then the next two verses I think are [14:25] are really fascinating. I really like uh [14:27] verse 15 and 16 because says, "So Jacob [14:31] went down to Egypt. He himself died [14:34] there as well as our ancestors. And [14:38] their bodies were brought back to [14:40] Sheckchham [14:42] and laid in the tomb that Abraham had [14:45] bought for a sum of silver from the sons [14:49] of Hymor in Sheckchum. [14:53] So that's pretty clear. Jacob, all the [14:57] the sons of Jacob who came down to uh to [15:00] stay in Egypt, they all died. bodies [15:02] were brought back. They were all buried [15:04] in Sheckchum in a tomb that was [15:05] purchased by Abraham. [15:08] The problem is that Abraham never bought [15:10] anything in Sheckchum and not from any [15:14] sons of of uh Haymore. Abraham bought uh [15:19] land and a cave which was used as a tomb [15:22] at Machella [15:24] which is near Hebron. Okay, [15:26] >> from Ephron the Hittite. And you can go [15:28] to Genesis 23 for the story of this [15:31] purchase. This is where this there's [15:33] kind of this haggling back and forth. [15:35] Um, [15:36] >> it's a weird it's it's it's uphagling. [15:38] It goes in the wrong direction [15:39] >> cuz the Hitittite's like, "Let me just [15:41] give it to you." And Abraham's like, [15:43] "Good try. I'm going to pay for it." And [15:47] and really the point, [15:48] >> come on. What What's 400 shekels between [15:51] friends? [15:52] >> Yeah. And and you get to the end and [15:53] he's like, "Huckles." Um, and and I [15:57] think the point there is really what the [16:00] story is supposed to illustrate is that [16:02] this really does legally and fully [16:05] belong to Abraham and his family and [16:08] they did pay for it. Cuz you know if [16:10] they if they were like just take it and [16:11] he just takes it, it's kind of like ah [16:14] that was that wasn't a real legitimate [16:17] transfer of property. That was uh that [16:20] was a gift or something like that. It it [16:22] it weakens the claim to the property. [16:23] But if if Abram can say, "No, I'm paying [16:26] for it." Um, uh, then then that's really [16:29] his property. So, so Abraham buys that [16:32] plot and that is where Jacob is buried [16:37] according to Genesis 49 and 50. So, [16:41] yeah. So, nothing to do with [16:43] >> Sheckchum. [16:44] So I just to just to be clear are [16:47] Sheckchum and [16:50] Mach Pala are not they're they're not [16:53] next door no to each other. Where where [16:55] are we talking about? I don't know. [16:56] >> Uh Hebrron is is uh a little bit is is [16:59] closer to Jerusalem. Sheckchham is way [17:01] up north in the um the northern kingdom. [17:05] >> Okay. [17:05] >> So we're talking close to [17:07] >> very very different places. [17:08] >> Yes. Yes. You it's it's a long walk [17:11] between uh those two places. So, Ste [17:13] Steven wasn't just uh just getting a [17:16] little confused here. He was [17:17] >> No. And and we'll talk about what likely [17:20] uh Steven was doing, but so so where's [17:22] the sons of Haymore and Sheckchham [17:24] coming from? Well, that's coming from [17:27] Genesis 33 where Jacob, not Abraham, [17:31] pays the sons of Hore an amount of [17:35] silver to purchase some land in [17:38] Sheckchum. And then it wasn't Jacob who [17:40] was buried there. Jacob's buried in [17:42] Makalah. It's Joseph who was buried at [17:45] Sheckchham according to Joshua 24:32. [17:49] >> Okay. [17:49] >> And so what we have is Jacob's burial in [17:52] Machella, the place that was purchased [17:54] by Abraham and Joseph's burial in [17:56] Sheckchum in the place that was [17:57] purchased by Jacob. And the author seems [18:00] to be just just squishing them together [18:04] and says and and you know there some of [18:07] the folks who want to argue that this is [18:09] not actually a contradiction uh will [18:11] argue well it says Jacob died and then [18:13] all the ancestors and when it says they [18:16] were brought to Sheckchum. It just means [18:17] the ancestors Joseph specifically since [18:21] he was actually buried in Sheckchum. And [18:23] so there there are attempts to try to [18:26] kind of dodge what the text uh is what's [18:29] actually in the text. Uh but you can't [18:32] get around the fact that Abraham did not [18:35] purchase the plot of land in Sheckchum. [18:37] That was Jacob who purchased that. So, [18:40] what seems to be the uh the problem is [18:43] he just instead of taking the time cuz, [18:46] you know, they're already picking up [18:47] rocks and and they're taking getting a [18:49] good look at at a good round rock and [18:52] he's like, "Okay, I got to hurry. I'm [18:54] going to just squish these accounts [18:56] together and just be like, eh, they were [18:58] all buried in Sheckchham and and you [19:02] know, just save some ink. [19:04] >> Save a little bit of papyrus. Our [19:06] current president can't keep Iceland and [19:08] Greenland straight. It makes sense to me [19:10] that a guy would like maybe mess up who [19:13] was buried where, especially when he's [19:16] >> uh facing down some very angry audience [19:20] members. [19:20] >> If if someone as sharp and as insightful [19:24] as Trump can talk about the airports [19:27] being taken during the Revolutionary [19:29] War, uh I think we can forgive Stephen [19:32] uh this this little pecadillo. um that [19:36] uh by messing up exactly what's going on [19:40] with uh the the graves. But yeah, that's [19:43] that's another instance of uh of [19:46] engagement with and negotiation with the [19:49] tradition coming from uh the Hebrew [19:51] Bible. [19:52] >> Yeah. [19:53] >> Um and there are there are a handful [19:55] more that I that I think are uh are [19:59] interesting. One of them is um well [20:02] actually I want to go all the way down [20:04] to the last verse 53 [20:08] because I I think this is pretty [20:09] interesting. Um Acts 7:53. You are the [20:13] one and and we've gotten all the way [20:15] down to um [20:18] to Jesus. Uh we're verses 42 and 43 have [20:22] some interesting stuff in it we're going [20:23] to talk about in another segment. Uh but [20:26] in in Acts uh 7:53, Steven's conclusion [20:30] is you were the ones who received the [20:32] law as ordained by angels and yet you [20:35] have not kept it. And then they say, [20:38] "How dare you?" They and then they uh [20:40] they take their their shiny new stones [20:43] uh and they stone him. [20:45] But the the law was not given through [20:49] angels. At least that's that's not [20:51] really what we find. And we find the the [20:53] law being given directly by Adonai the [20:55] God of Israel uh in Exodus 19 and 20 [20:59] >> and so h where are these angels coming [21:02] from the uh this is uh not exactly what [21:07] we see even in in the Septuagent and [21:09] here it's not that we're going directly [21:12] from the text here it is second temple [21:15] interpretive tradition that is standing [21:18] in between the text and and what we see [21:21] Steven saying because you had a bunch of [21:23] traditions about uh angels mediating [21:26] what's going on as a way to kind of [21:28] distance God from from what's going on [21:31] here. So uh rather than God themselves [21:35] being the ones the one to deliver the [21:38] law, God's presence is represented or [21:42] born by angels. And and I think this [21:45] probably has a little bit to do with [21:47] this concept of the angel of the [21:48] presence or the the angel of the Lord [21:51] who is kind of the the identity of the [21:54] angel is conflated with the identity of [21:57] God in in a handful of stories. And [21:59] we've talked about this before on the [22:01] show. You have Hagar uh runs into God in [22:05] the wilderness and it you know in one [22:08] verse it says it's the angel of God but [22:10] then Hagar says I'm naming this place uh [22:13] this way because have I seen God and and [22:16] lived and you have something similar [22:18] going on in Exodus 3 in verse two it [22:21] says an angel of the Lord appeared to [22:24] Moses in the flame of fire in the midst [22:26] of the burning bush and then a few [22:27] verses later that angel says I am the [22:30] God of Israel [22:31] And you have uh Judges 6, Judges 13, [22:36] Judges 5 probably. Uh you have a handful [22:39] of places where the identity of God and [22:41] the angel is is kind of conflated. And [22:44] in my opinion and the opinion of of uh a [22:47] number of other scholars, this kind of [22:51] literary prophylaxis, [22:54] hey, it says God, but remember it could [22:57] be the angel probably became very very [23:01] um useful in the second temple period to [23:04] distance God from what was going on. And [23:06] so at any point in the text where it [23:08] talks about God doing these things, they [23:10] could say, "No, that was just the [23:11] angel." Because remember, the angel can [23:13] identify as God, [23:15] >> right? [23:15] >> And so I I think this is another witness [23:18] to the proclivity to reinterpret stories [23:22] about God themselves as stories about [23:24] angels. And and you even see this in the [23:26] Septuagen because you at some point we [23:30] have we addressed Exodus 4:24, the [23:33] bridegroom of blood passage. Do you [23:35] remember that one? [23:36] >> I don't remember that one. No. That's [23:38] where, [23:38] >> but I I could very easily have [23:41] forgotten. [23:42] >> Well, yeah, that's um we both could uh [23:45] that's where God tries to kill Moses. [23:49] >> God like shows up at the hotel uh and [23:53] Zapora, his his wife, [23:55] >> his wife, [23:55] >> circumcises him and [23:58] >> has an astonishing uh [24:00] >> or or circumcises, [24:02] >> circumcises their kid and then flips the [24:05] foreskin at him. [24:06] >> At his feet. Yeah. And um and says, [24:09] "You're a bridegroom of blood." Um well, [24:12] what's what's interesting is in the [24:13] Septuagent, it's not God, [24:15] >> it's angels of God. [24:17] >> So, in the in the translation, they've [24:18] gone ahead and they've already inserted [24:20] the angels and and you have similar [24:22] things going on in in a number of other [24:24] passages. [24:24] >> Yeah. I thought we had talked about the [24:26] the idea that that the Septuagent [24:28] authors were so uncomfortable with the [24:30] idea of it being God that they they just [24:32] kept making it angels. [24:34] >> Yeah. God God doesn't personally put out [24:36] a hit on anybody. God sends angels to [24:39] >> Yeah. Why? Yeah. [24:40] >> Carry out his dirty deeds [24:42] >> done dirt cheap. [24:44] >> Um did you ever see the movie Dirty [24:46] Deeds? [24:47] >> No. [24:47] >> Oh gosh. [24:48] >> Who was that? [24:48] >> Was it called Dirty Deeds? [24:50] >> Uh that was Norm McDonald. [24:53] >> I saw Mr. Deeds. [24:55] >> That was Adam Sandler. [24:57] >> Adam Sandler. That's right. [24:58] >> Yeah. No. No. Dirty Deeds was Norm [25:00] McDonald. It was um [25:04] It was funny in parts. [25:07] >> Kind of like Nor McDonald. It was funny [25:10] sometimes. [25:12] >> Was it? Wait, was it Dirty Deeds? I'm [25:14] seeing another movie come out. [25:15] >> We are way off track here. I'm [25:17] >> Yeah, Dirty Work. Excuse me. Dirty Work [25:20] was Norm McDonald. Okay. Okay. [25:21] >> Um, it's Nor McDonald. You know what [25:23] you're getting with Nor McDonald. But, [25:25] um, so I think that's what's going on [25:27] there at the very end. And and to kind [25:30] of tie all this off in a in a nice [25:32] little bow, we've got a very creative [25:37] second temple period literary [25:39] negotiation with the history of Israel [25:42] here. That's that's certainly not [25:43] something that someone speaking Aramaic [25:45] or Hebrew was going to um you know, just [25:49] rip off the cuff standing in front of [25:51] the Sanhedin. Uh this is obviously [25:53] something that took some care and some [25:56] time and uh and some thoughtfulness on [25:59] the part of the author going through and [26:00] being like, well, should I say 430? [26:02] Should I say 400 and uh squishing [26:06] together the the accounts of Abraham and [26:08] and Jacob buying the the plots of land [26:10] and huge tracks of land as as the great [26:13] poet once said. Um and and so it is it [26:17] is a creative and an ongoing kind of [26:20] negotiation with uh the author's own um [26:25] heritage. It's it's and it con conflicts [26:29] with that heritage as it has been [26:31] preserved down to us in the Hebrew [26:33] Bible. And in another segment, we're [26:35] going to talk a little bit more about [26:37] one of the ways that that it conflicts [26:39] and and represents uh later ideologies. [26:43] Uh but but I think taking this text [26:46] seriously and trying to allow it to [26:48] operate on its own terms means [26:51] recognizing that this is a literary [26:53] creation that this is something that is [26:54] the product of of thoughtful and again [26:57] creative engagement with the author's [27:00] heritage that is is definitely not uh [27:04] something that this Steven um who I I'm [27:07] will I don't know for sure if there was [27:10] really a martyrdom of a dude named [27:11] Steven. I'm willing to allow it. That [27:13] it's that it's certainly plausible. Um [27:16] but if that person did actually rattle [27:20] off the history of Israel uh just to to [27:23] try to buy some time and ended up uh [27:26] getting stoned for his troubles, uh it [27:28] wouldn't have matched what we have here [27:30] in Acts 7. But it is but it is a [27:33] fascinating story. [27:34] >> Well, I love it. uh just a a just a [27:38] broader more fun way to look at uh at [27:42] this than just everything is as as it [27:45] meets the eye or whatever. [27:47] >> Yeah. [27:47] >> Um well, if you would like to become a [27:50] part of keeping this show rocking, uh we [27:53] sure would love to have you as a uh as a [27:55] patron of the show. Head on over to [27:57] patreon.com/data [28:00] overdogma and uh you know just chuck a [28:03] little bit of coin our way. We always [28:05] appreciate it. You can get early adree [28:08] versions of the show. You can get the [28:11] afterparty which is [28:13] bonus content every week from from the [28:16] two of us. Uh and you can get the happy [28:19] feeling of knowing that you are [28:21] participating in getting the word about [28:24] the word out there. Uh, thanks to Roger [28:26] Gaudy for editing the show. Thanks so [28:28] much to all of you for tuning in and [28:30] we'll see you next time. Bye everybody.