Monday, May 9, 2011

FIFTY MAJOR CITIES OF THE BIBLE

From the ruins of the ancient seaside city of Acco to the small but archaeologically important town of Yokne˛am, Fifty Major Cities of the Bible provides readers with a comprehensive guide to the ancient cities that played a vital role in the world from which the Bible originated.

Included are not only well-known cities such as Jerusalem and Jericho, but also lesser-known towns like Aroer, Beth-Zur, and Gibeah, which have all provided their own valuable contributions to the way in which we now understand the biblical world. Includes:
-   the biblical context of each city or town
-   a summary of its known archaeological history
-   non-biblical references to the site
-   photographs and illustrations
-   a concise bibliography for further reading

Also provided is a handy reference map to the major archaeological sites in Israel, as well as chronological tables for easy reference.

Concise, informative and highly accessible, Fifty Major Cities of the Bible is a superb overview of the cities and towns that made up the biblical world, and an essential resource for students and enthusiasts.

Discussing 50 “cities” of the Bible in one small volume is a daunting task. Most of the difficult decisions centered around two questions: what cities/towns should be included, and what information should be provided for the sites that were selected? Some places were picked because they are well known and visited by most tourists. These include Jerusalem, Megiddo, Hazor, Caesarea Maritima, Capernaum, and Banias (Caesarea Philippi). The names of other cities/towns may be far less familiar to some readers: Yokneam, Azekah, Beth-Zur, Aroer, and others. Thus, what follows should be considered only the beginning of the study of these places, and certainly not the end. To help in a reader’s desire for further study, I have included a highly selected bibliography at the end of each chapter. In addition, the reader can find discussions of most of the sites described below in two major encyclopedias: the NEAEHL and the OEANE. Consequently, out of space consideration, in some instances, I have assumed the information in these resources without listing specifics in the bibliography.

For the sheer sake of convenience, the entries are arranged alphabetically regardless of chronological, geographical, and/or other considerations that might have suggested a different scheme.

To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6.9-10 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation

In his vision of the enthroned and exalted Lord, one of the best known passages of the Old Testament, Isaiah the prophet is told to tell his people 'to see and not perceive', and thus harden their hearts, 'lest they repent' (Isa. 6.9-10). Most who read this passage are perplexed. To be sure, we may have found the hardening of Pharaoh's heart a trifle unfair, but there is something about deliberately rendering the people of God obdurate that is particularly disturbing. Then we turn to the New Testament and discover, according to Mark's Gospel, that Jesus speaks parables for the same reason: lest 'outsiders' repent and be forgiven. It all seems so strange that it is no wonder that interpreters (ancient and modern) have from time to time suggested that Isaiah, Jesus, or both have been misquoted or misunderstood. The present work analyzes this problematic text and the theology out of which it arises and to which it contributes. However, the study is not limited to a particular point in time, but rather it is concerned with the variety of interpretations and applications to which this powerful text has given rise during the period of time that saw the growth and recognition of that compilation of writings we now call the Bible.

With the relatively recent recognition of midrashic interpretation in early Jewish and Christian times, there is increasing evidence, if the burgeoning bibliography in this field tells us anything, that scholars regard this new area of study (often called 'comparative midrash') as highly profitable for exegesis of biblical literature. Rather than being limited by the traditional view that 'midrash' is a rabbinic literary form (e.g., the midrashim, or 'commentaries' on portions of the Bible), it has become widely recognized that midrash is an exegetical method which was practiced in wider Jewish and primitive Christian circles. Underlying midrash was the conviction that authoritative traditions (i.e., 'scripture' at either the canonical or pre-canonical stages) have enduring meaning for the community of faith and that these traditions address themselves to, and elucidate, the community's historical experience. Committed to this hermeneutic, the community searches (darash) the scriptures with the conviction that an interpretation (midrash} will be found that will give meaning to its experience. Because historical situations change and because scripture was more or less stabilized as sacred text, the challenge of the midrashist was to unpack from scripture meaning that was relevant to the needs of the contemporary community. Consequently, the basic purpose of midrash, as well as most methods of exegesis, was to update authoritative traditions or, as G. Vermes has put it, 'to fuse Scripture with life'.

Another important and related factor is the new appreciation of haggadah, that is, that aspect of midrashic interpretation concerned with elucidating biblical contents not concerned with legal matters. Whereas halachic exegesis engaged in the effort to update the laws of Torah so that virtually every contingency in Jewish life might be met, haggadic exegesis was concerned to draw out theological significance from, and to explain difficulties in, the narrative portions of Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. Haggadic exegesis is that area of midrash in which the community is able to find itself in scripture and to learn more about itself from scripture. The community's experiences are found in scripture and, at the same time, scripture explains more fully to the community its experiences. It is this aspect of midrashic exegesis that appears so often in both Testaments and is of such great importance for biblical interpretation.

Since midrash is now being viewed more as method rather than genre (though the rabbinic midrashim certainly constitute a distinctive literary genre), new attention has been given to its appearance in the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament. But of particular importance is the emergence of comparative midrash for New Testament study. Rather than only asking questions pertaining to the verbal accuracy of Old Testament quotations in the New Testament (questions often concerned with harmonization), questions are raised pertaining to the resignification and applications of the text in question. Alterations in a given text do not always point to faulty memory or confusion between similar texts, though at times they may, but often they point to thoughtful and deliberate exegesis; and we should assume that this exegesis to a certain extent mirrors the experience of the community out of which it arose. The studies of Peder Borgen, Wayne Meeks, David Hay, Jane Schaberg, Klyne Snodgrass, and Mary Callaway are among the finest examples of this method of study.

New Testament comparative midrash means looking beyond the appearance of formal quotations and verbal allusions and looking for similar structure and theology, particularly for cases in which the New Testament writer has modeled larger portions of his writing after extended passages and particular themes found in the Old Testament. Ultimately, the goal of comparative midrash is to discover how the older traditions have been interpreted and applied in the newer contexts.

The present study is a study in comparative midrash. The focus will be upon a particular text (Isa. 6.9-10), and it will be studied in as many historical contexts, or stages, as possible. Not only is such a study useful, in that it makes a contribution to our understanding of the variety of theological perspectives in early Jewish and Christian history, but it contributes to our understanding of canonical hermeneutics as well. However, in mentioning 'canon' I hasten to add that this study does not intend to enter the dialogue currently being developed by J.A. Sanders and B.S. Childs, among others, although the study does reflect the methodology advocated by the former. It is out of a conviction that the canonical process itself is of much hermeneutical and historical value that this study is undertaken (though I am not sure that I can agree with Sanders that the very processs is itself 'canonical'). Although it is a highly specialized study, its results have implications for this wider theological concern. Finally, this work hopes to shed some light on the meaning of an important text within its various New Testament contexts, an aspect which alone should justify it.

The procedure of the book is simple enough. The terminus a quo is the eighth-century prophet Isaiah who uttered the original words of Isa. 6.9-10. The terminus ad quern is the respective usages of this prophetic text in rabbinic and patristic literature. Isa. 6.9-10 is a text that is particularly suitable for a comparative study, for it has given various believing communities theological explanations of major significance in times of disaster, turmoil, rejection, and self-doubt.

This book is interested in a particular text and the hermeneutic to which it gives expression. But it is not intended to be a study of the motif of obduracy,17 though Isa. 6.9-10 is certainly a major witness to that tradition. The prophetic motif of obduracy is but a manifestation of a more fundamental theological issue, that of affirming the sovereignty of God in the face of religious apostasy, political disaster, or rejection and ostracism. I am not primarily interested in either Isaiah the prophet or Isaiah the book. Rather, I am interested in the text of Isa. 6.9-10 because in a certain sense it epitomizes the struggle to monotheize, that is, to explain all of existence in terms of God and his sovereign will. I believe that Isa. 6.9-10 is perhaps one of the most important prophetic witnesses to the monotheistic hermeneutic, the hermeneutic that lies at the very bean of the canon.

What Does Eve Do to Help? and Other Readerly Questions to the Old Testament

Readerly questions are raised when readers are explicitly and programmatically brought into the process of interpreting texts. Traditionally, the reader and readerly interests and identities have been screened out when we have set about interpreting texts, and we have set our sights on attaining an interpretation that should be as 'objective' as possible. We have long recognized that all interpretations are interfered with to a greater or lesser degree by the person of the interpreter, but in the past we have endeavoured to minimize that interference. Things are rather different now. Not only is the quest for an objective interpretation seen as a chimaera, but the rewards of unabashed 'readerly' interpretations that foreground the process of reading and the context of the reader have now been shown to be well worth seeking. As the culture of those who read and interpret the Bible becomes more pluralist, it becomes less and less plausible to lay claim to determinate interpretations and more valuable to read the Bible afresh from the perspectives of different readers. And as we become increasingly alert to readers' contribution to the creation of meaning, it is more than ever essential to raise readerly questions.

What has happened in Biblical studies, as likewise in many branches of literary studies in the last three decades, can be represented, rather simply, as a shift in focus that has moved from author to text to reader. The traditional questions, which were still in Old Testament studies at least, the only scholarly questions that were being asked in the 1960s, were questions of philology and history, questions which put the author in the centre of the picture They asked, What did he (it was always he) mean, when did he live, what did he know, what sources did he use, what was his intention? The meaning of the text was always and exclusively what it meant, what it meant to the 'original author'. These were the questions I as a student was trained to ask, and these are the questions which the introductions and commentaries and theologies of that time all took for granted, Eissfeldt, Eichrodt, and von Rad.

Some, it is true, like Krister Stendahl in a famous article, distinguished between what the text meant and what it means, between exegesis and application.1 But what it means was always the poor relation, always subject to the scornful stern finger pointing to the door by the haughty lord of the manor, Sir What It Meant. There were many, and they seemed to be in the positions of power, who maintained that 'what it means' is not actually a scholarly question; it could be left to second-rate intellects to consider the application of pure, basic, fundamental research on 'what it meant'.

There were two things wrong with this author-centred approach. First, it could always be protested that the historical-critical method systematically regarded the biblical text as a window through which to scrutinize something other than the text, namely historical actuality. There was nothing wicked about this, unless perhaps it was being claimed that this was all there was to studying the Bible. But certainly it was sad, because the text was being crowded out, in favour of another subject of study, historical actuality. Secondly, a wave of uncertainty, from the late 1960s onward, was sweeping the scholarly world about all sorts of historical-critical conclusions (the sources of the Pentateuch, the Israelite amphictyony, the Solomonic Enlightenment, and so on), and one needed strong nerves to go on insisting there was no problem. The obvious move was to shift the focus from the author to the text. Now the subject of study tended to become, not what the author meant, but what the text means. After all, the text, like the poor, was always with us. We could get on with the text and its meaning, while leaving historical questions for antiquarians. This was a very 1970s thing to do in Biblical studies. It was immensely rewarding, and there still remain vast areas of the biblical text to be explored by this approach. It involves the study of themes, images, character, plot, style, metaphor, point of view, narrators, readers implied and real, and so on.

Among the principal concerns of a text-oriented approach were these: 1. It aimed to establish the meaning of a text by reading the text rather than by asking what the author intended. 2. It emphasized the work as a whole, which involved the elucidation of the whole in relation to its parts and of the parts in relation to the whole. 3. It resisted a romantic view of texts as essentially the 'expression' of an author, or as affording an insight into the psychology of a great thinker or artist. It recognizes that texts are entities existing in the world, and deserving of study in their own right, regardless of the circumstances of their composition.

There were faults in this approach too. Among them may be noted: 1. A certain lack of'engagement with real life'. If we concentrate upon the text, it is all too easy for the text to be severed from the past, to be idealized, to be regarded as a free floating object. And, what is more serious, under cover of this professed preoccupation with the text itself, the critic was still able to slip in any number of his or her own prejudices, especially concerning which texts were worth studying. In English literature, New Criticism, from which the text-oriented approach in Biblical studies drew much of its inspiration, often hid right-wing values, while in Biblical studies, canonical criticism, for example, which might be seen as a kind of New Criticism, brought with it implicit messages about the authority of the Church. 2. Even more serious, focus on the text left out the reader. In the making of meaning, readers have a vital part. For we cannot say, This text is meaningful, but it means nothing to me or you or anyone. No doubt, readers do not make up meanings, or, if we do, we say they are bad readers.

But, on the other hand, texts themselves do not have meanings which readers then proceed to discover. In some way or other, the creation of meaning arises at the intersection between text and reader.

So, in the 1980s, the focus in literary studies has come to be on the reader. All readers of texts, including Biblical texts, bring their own interests, prejudices and presuppositions with them. While they would be wrong to insist that the Bible should say what they want it to say, they would be equally wrong to think that it does not matter, in reading the Bible, what they themselves already believe. For the combination of the reader's own interests, values and commitments is what makes him or her a person with identity and integrity; in no activity of life, and certainly not in reading the Bible, can one hide or abandon one's values without doing violence to one's own integrity. If one is, for example, a feminist pacifist vegetarian— which are quite serious things to be, even if they happen to be modish (so is believing in God and being against slavery, but we don't snigger)—, it will be important to oneself to ask what the text has to say, or fails to say, about these issues; one will recognize that the text may have little concern with such matters, but if they are a serious concern to the reader they may be legitimately put on the agenda for interpretation, that is, the mutual activity that goes on between text and reader. And what usually happens, when we bring our questions to the text instead of insisting always that the text set the agenda, is that the text becomes illuminated in unpredictable ways.

II

What particular characteristics, then, of the manner of reading by this reader will be presented in this volume? I need to say that although I am interested in literary theory and the theory of reading, I do not usually proceed from a theoretical position when I set about the business of reading. To be sure, I learn from others what kind of things I might be looking for when I am reading, and with the help of other writers sharpen my perception of my own positions and commitments; but when I read I am on my own. Certainly, I play off other people's readings, and find other readings mostly helpful when I can distinguish mine from them; I especially like insensitive and wooden commentators, because they quite often stumble conspicuously over facets of a text that are really there but which they do not know how to deal with; more sophisticated commentators know how to slide over things they find difficult. All the same, I do not like to stay on my own for too long, but, like most of us, crave the approval of some reputable scholarly circle. So I like to check out from time to time what I have been doing against what more philosophically and systematically inclined theorists have been saying about the business of interpretation. And it is especially those who have paid attention to readers and reading whom I have found congenial; I must therefore, I tell myself, have been adopting a readerly orientation.

The first thing that a readerly orientation will concern itself with is the process of reading. Traditionally, reading has been a quite transparent activity, like breathing, which we either do not think about or, if we do, believe we understand it quite well. A readerly concern, by contrast, problematizes reading— which is to say, wonders what it is that is going on, and how whatever it is actually works.

So one of my interests in this volume is what happens to us as readers when we try to match in our reading the linear shape of a book. Books are usually designed by authors, publishers and social conventions to be read from beginning to end, and that is how most readers approach them, especially if they are narrative works and not, say, encyclopaedias. A readerly interest therefore takes seriously the fact that a typical reader will read any particular book in a linear fashion, and will not, for example, know on page 1 how the story will have developed by page 200. The reader may indeed return to the book, and read it again from cover to cover in the knowledge of how it will turn out in the end, or may, after a first reading, dip into the book at odd places, secure in a knowledge of the overall plot and structure of the book and confident of how the page before the eyes fits in to the total pattern. But it is a more common feature of our readerly experience to be first-time readers, who know nothing of what is in the book except what we have read so far. Even second-time reading itself can in fact often be quite like first-time reading, for we may have forgotten how the book is going to develop, or we may have failed to notice significant details on our first reading, or we may be deliberately suppressing our knowledge of what lies ahead of us for the pleasure of re-living our first experience of excitement, involvement or absorption in the book. So first-time reading is not a fixed moment in our experience of a book; it can be a kind of paradisal encounter that we attempt, or manage accidentally, to recreate.

There is a little more to the philosophy of first-time reading than a mere description of what actually happens to readers, however. Readers who pretend to be first-time readers sometimes justify that pretence by appealing to a certain sense of fitness they feel about adapting themselves to the linear nature of the book, which necessarily proceeds by increments and not with hindsight. First-time reading, they suspect, is truly respectful of the sequentiality of the book; and at the same time they often feel that they will be more receptive to the promises the book holds out before them, if they will screen off much of the knowledge they already have, including knowledge of the book as a whole, and content themselves with what they have learnt from the book so far. If they feel that, they are responding to the book's invitation to enter its world.

Among the papers in this collection, 'What Happens in Genesis' takes this approach most programmatically, asking what we are led, on a first-time reading of the book, to expect will happen, and asking thereafter whether our expectations have been met or have been disappointed by the time we reach the end of the book. Perhaps the way the story develops will lead us to re-adjust or re-evaluate the expectations we originally formed, or perhaps it will confirm us in our original understanding; but either way, in this particular case at least, the outcome appears to justify the method, because it brings to the surface a range of issues that have not usually been addressed in the scholarly literature.

In The Ancestor in Danger' the accent is equally on 'the story so far', but the angle of approach is different. Rather than survey the whole of the literary work from beginning to end, I begin with three isolated segments of it, the tales of the ancestral couple in danger in foreign lands. Here my aim is to show that we can best understand these tales, not by considering them first in connection with one another (as their similarity has persuaded most scholars to do), but by locating each at its distinctive point in the developing plot of Genesis, and establishing the function of each by tracking the threads that link it to what has already been told in the narrative. And in 'What Does Eve Do to Help?' I fasten again upon the data of the preceding narrative as the essential and primary clue to the meaning of a disputed text.

A second concern of a readerly orientation is a reflex of the first, namely a heightened interest in the process of writing. For in order to appreciate well how readers read, it is important to understand how writers write, and what writerly guiles they can employ to make readers read in one way rather than another. This is not a particularly novel interest, of course, for Old Testament scholars of every stripe have long been interested in the mechanics of composition of the texts they study. Nevertheless, there is evidently a lot more attention being paid these days to the 'poetics' or art of writing, and very much more elaborated theoretical analyses of what actually goes on in the writing process. It is now part of the critical vocabulary of the Old Testament scholar, though it was not even as recently as two decades ago, to distinguish between author and narrator, narratee and implied reader, ideal reader and actual reader, and so on. And there is no question in my mind but that such conceptualizations as are represented by this terminology give us a much closer control over the processes of both writing and reading.

Such interests come to the fore especially in the essay on Nehemiah and the 'Perils of Autobiography. In it I try to discover what difference it makes to our reading of the 'Nehemiah Memoir' that is embedded in our Book of Nehemiah if we distinguish systematically between Nehemiah the author and Nehemiah the narrator. The results of such a readerly investigation turn out to be not only literary in character—which is no more than one would expect—but, perhaps surprisingly, to have useful historical implications. I argue that in the case of the Nehemiah Memoir the narrator claims the kind of knowledge that we usually grant to an omniscient narrator, but that, since the narrator of the autobiography is nothing but the flesh and blood author, he has no right to make such claims. The history of scholarship evidences an uncritical confusion between author and narrator, with consequent misjudgments about the probable course of historical actuality. Here is one case, then, where readerly concerns impinge constructively upon quite different scholarly interests.

The third concern of a readerly orientation is the social location of the reader. Up to this point I have been discussing the activity of reading as a essentially private and personal undertaking, and have been wondering about what goes on in the lone reader's head during the process, and how that reading activity is determined by the writerly activity that preceded it. But there is of course another dimension to the reading process, which consists of the constraints and opportunities afforded individual readers by the social context in which they find themselves. These social contexts may be very much broader than the activity of reading itself, of course. For example, a feminist location commits a person to a wide range of activities that have nothing to do with reading; and one could easily be a feminist and take little interest in reading. In this context, however, I am naturally concerned only with the implications of such social locations for the way readers read. And there are other locations which may have little existence outside the activity of reading, such as that of the collective of scholarly interpreters of the text, who may or may not have any institutional or personal connections with one another but may communicate solely through writing and on the subject of reading and how they read. So what I mean by 'social location' is very like what people mean by 'interpretative community', except that I am giving an explicit recognition to the fact that many such communities exist primarily for purposes other than interpreting, and it would be wrong to think of them as being defined by their interest in interpreting.

One such location or interpretative community in which I am interested, and within which the present papers were written, is the scholarly community of Old Testament specialists. These people differ from other readers of the Old Testament in that they do not on principle read just for themselves and their own understanding, enlightenment, or benefit, but are committed to dialogue with other readers of the same community with a view to persuading others, or being persuaded by them, to read in one way rather than another.

When they are reading novels or poetry they probably do not have any such commitment, and then they behave like most readers of most writing. Perhaps sometimes they may be reading the Old Testament without regard for the community of Old Testament specialists; they may be reading for their own personal edification or with some intention directed toward some religious community, and perhaps they will not always know exactly when they are reading as scholars and when they are not; for they will, in many cases, unavoidably remain scholars even when they are not reading as scholars. Nevertheless, I would maintain that there is such a thing as scholarly reading, and that those who engage in it thereby constitute an interpretative community.

Focusing upon the scholarly community of interpreters is a particular interest in the chapter on the Nehemiah Memoir. There I try to show how what counts as an acceptable reading of the Nehemiah material is very largely conditioned by the habits and preferences of previous commentators and biblical scholars. That is not very surprising, and it is a common feature of scholarly writing that it observes lines of relationship and dependence between literary works, both those of modern interpreters as well as the primary texts themselves. What is perhaps a little different about my treatment of the Nehemiah text is that I approach the habits of the interpretative community with a question about the responsibility of the author for the readings sanctioned by the community of his interpreters.

That question is, What has the author Nehemiah done in his writing to ensure that modern readers, even critical scholarly readers, will accept, in large measure, his presentation of events and his inevitably one-sided perspective on their significance? So the issue becomes one of the complicity o the readers with the author, an often unspoken agreement, for example, to give him the benefit of the doubt. Being able to name these readers as a distinct 'community' relativizes the value of their interpretations, and gives permission to fresh interpretations to breathe, while being alerted to the tricks of the authorial trade enables us to create some readerly defences against writerly wiles.

The scholarly community is of course not one undifferentiated whole. Within it are many interest groups. One of those, deconstructionism, provides a context for the chapter on Job, where the question is put whether the book of Job does not open itself to a deconstruction. In two major areas I believe I have shown that it does, undermining in some manner views that it also affirms. Where I hope in this essay to have served the interest of the wider scholarly community, and not just of deconstructionists, is in having asked the question, What happens after a text has been deconstructed?, and to have answered that in a way that respects the actual experience of readers.

An interpretative community of a different kind whose interests are evident in these essays is Christianity. While it is possible on certain issues in Old Testament studies, such as philology or historical reconstruction, to avoid any impact of the reader's religious commitment or lack of it upon what we write, in strictly interpretational matters, especially large scale ones, it seems to be impossible. In The Old Testament Histories' I discuss the most striking of the constraints the reader's religious affiliation imposes upon interpretation, namely, the determination of the very identity and contents of the subject matter of our study. Is it the 'Old Testament' that we are concerned with, or the 'Tanakh'? If it is the 'Old Testament', is it the Catholic or the Protestant Old Testament? If it is the Hebrew Bible, why is it not the Greek Bible? If it is the 'Bible', which community's Bible is it? There is no neutral or religiously uncommitted term for the primary texts of our discipline; every time I open my mouth about the subject of my professional competence I proclaim willy-nilly my religious identity. Even if I profess no religious commitment whatsoever I am compelled to adopt someone else's even in order to name my subject.

What is to be done about this state of affairs? We could deplore it, and determine to paper over the cracks between the religious communities by settling on a name that disguised the realities. But our interpretational praxis itself, such as whether we include the New Testament in our frame of reference when we are reading the 'Old', or the degree to which we cite parallels from the 'Apocryphal' books, will immediately give the game away. It is very much more in keeping with what we are recognizing these days about the social locations of interpreters that we should acknowledge the religious contexts in which we find ourselves by choice or accident, and not apologize for them but capitalize on them. How far I set out deliberately to serve the interests of the interpretative community in which I am located is up to me, and I may decide differently at different times; and in any case what is actually in the interests of my Christian interpretative community is itself a highly problematic matter, and hardly to be settled on the criterion of what is familiar or comfortable to that community. But I certainly resist the idea that one's context is essentially some kind of constraint that inevitably limits one's interpretative vision and the interpretative possibilities open to oneself as a reader. There are indeed constraints, but a imagination that is sympathetic to the particularities of other people's contexts can to a large extent compensate for them. Much rather I would regard the context of an interpretative community as offering a series of interpretative opportunities. Just as the reading of the Old Testament in the early Christian church gave rise to the varied and creative Christological interpretations of it by the Church Fathers, so also the reading of the Old Testament in feminist and Marxist interpretative communities, to name no others, creates fresh opportunities for meaning in our own time.

In accord with this readerly recognition of the constraints and challenges of a religiously determined location, I have addressed myself in the chapter on 'The Old Testament Histories' to the question of what it can mean for Christians to have within their scriptures two so fundamentally different memories of the past as are enshrined within the Primary and the Secondary Histories. I do not have much of an answer to the question, but I think that the posing of it could in itself be creative for a Christian notion of what a 'scripture' can be, as well as for the less religiously-oriented question of how we readers, as individuals or as members of a community, can evaluate our own personal past. In the chapter on 'What Does Eve Do to Help?' I have likewise raised the question of how a feminist reading of the early chapters of Genesis can be accommodated within a Christian view of the Bible; again the issue of the nature of the Bible in the Christian church, and especially the matter of 'authority', comes to the fore. These Christian opportunities are not the primary purpose of these essays; but they may serve as examples of how a legitimate focus on the reader (this reader, in this case) may affect the interpretative process.

Yet another interpretative community whose interests are represented to some extent in this volume is that of feminism. The first of the essays addresses feminist readers of the Old Testament in an attempt to ground feminist interpretation more securely. It argues that the programme of 'redeeming the text' for feminism by exposing its latent egalitarian tendencies is not really successful in the case of Genesis 1-3 (though it may well be elsewhere), and that a mature feminist criticism will find these chapters to be irredeemably androcentric. In the essay on 'The Ancestor in Danger' there is likewise a feminist orientation to a set of tales which have perhaps been too readily viewed from a male perspective. Here again, the identification of an interpretative community with its own recognizable interests proves to offer a fruitful line of approach to the text.

Many other interpretative communities, at different moments in history from our own, have of course been interested in our texts. So it is a matter of interest to readerly critics to discover and understand how such communities, including those now defunct, have read. Accordingly, in the essay on 'The Old Testament Histories' there are some reflections on how the historiographical books of the Old Testament have been read in the past by the Jewish and Christian religious communities, and in the chapter on 'What Does Eve Do to Help?' I have found myself more in accord with the interpretation of Genesis by some of the fathers of the Christian church than with those of some feminist critics of our own day, with whom I am on most other matters much more in sympathy.

Such an interest in other interpretative communities beside the ones to which one belongs oneself is usually subsumed under the heading of 'reception history' or 'the history of interpretation'. I for my part, however, would prefer to label this subject 'comparative interpretation'. For although interpreters and their communities can indeed be distinguished from one another in a historical dimension and have always been affected by their historical circumstances, the interesting questions that can be asked of their interpretations from a readerly point of view are not historical questions at all, like causes, effects and influences, but strictly interpretational ones. Arranging the material of an intellectual discourse on simple historical lines is often the laziest way of organizing it; and identifying who influenced whom to say what when is not a very deep form of enquiry. The harder and more valuable question, at least from the reader's point of view, is whether there is any mileage left in the interpretations of others, and whether our own reading can be facilitated or improved by recourse to those of others, even others from alien historical circumstances. I foresee the emergence of a new lease of life for so-called 'pre-critical' interpretations when they are removed from the dominating historical paradigm, with its implicit allegiance to the myth of progress that puts us at the apex and our predecessors at the foot of the pyramid of learning.

Those readers of these essays who have some acquaintance with modern literary theory will have little difficulty in typifying this book as an example of 'reader-response criticism'. I have avoided referring to this critical approach up to this point because I wanted to say in my own words what it is I think I have been doing in these essays without necessarily subscribing to anyone else's theoretical programme. But I may as well confess now that, in their various ways, the present collection of essays belongs to that rather amorphous body of writing that goes under the name of reader-response criticism.

Among the practitioners of reader-response I find Stanley Fish one of the most congenial. He defined his programme as 'the rigorous and disinterested asking of the question, what does this word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, chapter, novel, play, poem, do?', and the execution involves an analysis of the developing response of the reader in relation to the words as they succeed one another in time'. Literature is a kinetic art, he says, even though the physical reality of books sitting on shelves may suggest otherwise; our experience of reading books is in fact one of movement, from beginning to end. Fish is also the originator of the notion of the 'interpretive community'.

And these two ideas are obviously very important to my own approach. For the sake of the reader who wishes to pursue further the critical theory, I may say that among surveys of the progress and characteristics of reader-response criticism, I know of nothing more perceptive and lucid than that of Jane P. Tompkins in the introduction to her anthology. As for the other works that I have used for orientation, stimulus, and reflection, I limit myself here to listing them in a note.

The Book Of Enoch: Authentic Or Heresy

In studying Christianity many questions have been posed as to what text was truly intended to be included in the Bible. What was chosen to be included in the Bible by the Nicene Council is said to be divinely inspired. The Nicene Council was a group of people overseen by Constantine that elected what text was to be chosen to be in the Bible. Throughout times however there has been conflict over what has and has not been included in the Bible. Protestant and Catholic Bibles are not identical and yet they are all Christians. The Dead Sea Scrolls have brought up much discussion and controversy related to the Bible as well as other books that are called the “Apocrypha” and the “Lost Books” of the Bible. One of the lost books is the book of Enoch or Henoch. In the resurfacing of this text many biblical scholars are left with a challenge to the question of the text of the Bible and whether or not these “Lost Books” are acceptable or merely heresy.

Enoch was from the lineage of Adam and Eve and is the seventh descendant or generation. He is also the father of Methusela. He was said to have “walked with God and he was not, for God had took him.”(Genesis 5:24) In his walking with God special revelations were made apparent to him. Encoh’s walking with God was considered a time when he was given revelations of prophecies to come on God’s people. His mysterious departure from earth, it is understood Enoch was assumed into heaven, is what lead to much of the apocolyptic literature that was written and attributed in his name. The Book of Enoch however, has many authors.

The Book of Enoch (or 1 Enoch or Ethiopic Enoch) consists of seven sections.

The first section introduces the theme of the book, which is God’s coming judgment of the world.

The second section deals with matters of fallen angels and their punishment from God and also tells of Enoch’s journeys to places of final punishment and reward.

The third section prophesies the coming of a Messiah who will pronounce judgment on all human and angels. This section also describes the heavenly kingdom of God. The fourth section includes revelations about the end times and all that will occur with heavenly bodies during this time. The sixth section consoles the righteous, telling them to remain faithful, and condemns the unjust and predicts their end. It is in this section that all human history is divided into ten unequal weeks. A special person or event represents each week. For instance, the fourth week symbolizes the coming of Moses and in the seventh week there is a universal degeneration. In the tenth week the old heaven is replace with a new, eternal one. The final section of the book speaks of a flood, recurrence of wickedness after the flood, and punishments and rewards that are to come when the Messiah comes to reign.

This Book of Enoch obviously had some future themes of what was to happen in Christian history. In fact Early Christians held the book in high esteem with the Epistles of Jude quoting Enoch affording it some merit. Jude directly quotes Enoch:

Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also saying,” Behold the Lord comes with ten thousand of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and all of all the harsh things, which ungodly sinners have spoken
against Him.” (Jude14-15)

However, due to the controversial nature and deeds of the fallen angels included in Enoch, it lost favor with powerful theologians. It angered some of the later Church fathers and was then condemned as heresy. Both Christian and Jewish Religious leaders felt the text of these writings to be controversial and mythical rather than true and supported this by the fact it was written by numerous authors. The Book of Enoch was denounced, banned and clergymen pronounced a curse on anyone who read and believed it. It was lost and conveniently forgotten until two centuries ago.

In 1773 rumors of a surviving copy of the book of Enoch caught the attention of James Bruce. Bruce was a Scottish explorer who upon learning of the possible book went to Ethiopia and found three Ethiopic copies of the Book of Enoch. Bruce brought them back to Europe and Britian. In 1821 Dr. Richard Laurence, a Hebrew professor from Oxford University, completed the first English translation of the text.

Most scholars agree that there is strong evidence that the Book of Enoch originates back to the second century B.C. and was held in good favor for at least five hundred years. The earliest text found is in Greek which is thought to be a copy of the original text which is written in Aramaic. There has been much controversy over whether the text was written before or after Christ’s time. It was once believed to be post-Christian due to similar terminology in the Book of Enoch and Christian teachings.

However, copies of the book have recently been discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls which prove that the Book of Enoch was in existence before the time of Jesus Christ. Fragments of ten Enoch manuscripts were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The date of the original writings that provided the second century B.C. copies is shrouded and thus we have no known time of exactly when it was written. All we do know is that it is old.

Despite its unknown origin, Christians did accept the Book of Enoch as authentic scripture at one time. Ironically it was the part of the fallen angels and the prophesied judgment that was most accepted that also led them to the book’s claims of heresy and later banning. The Book of Enoch tells of the fallen angels and their coming to earth and lusting after women. The angels “violate their own nature and their office,” and produce offspring with the women of the earth. These offspring are said to be Giants. The great flood that is to come in days of Noah is to rid the world of all its evil . “The earth was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth” (Genesis 6:12). The later Church Fathers were angered by this explanation of good and evil, angels and demons and proclaimed the writings heretical and so the writings vanished.

In examining the Book of Enoch many key concepts used by Jesus Christ directly coincide with the ideas that are stated in Enoch. Over a hundred phrases in the New Testaments find precedents in the Book of Encoh. Early Church Fathers also supported the Enochian writings. Justin Martyr ascribed all evil to demons whom he alleged the offspring of the fallen angels and directly references the writings of Enoch. Other church fathers that upheld Enoch are, Tatian(110-172); Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (115-185); Clement of Alexandria (150-220); Tertullian (160-230); Origen (186-255); Lactantius (260-330); Ambrose of Milan and many others.

J.T. Milik was inspired to compile a history of the Enochian writings after the Dead Sea Scrolls were proven to contain Enochian texts. Milik has helped the study of the Enochian writings reach a milestone in the twentieth century. One at a time arguments against the validity of the Enochian texts are quieted, eventually perhaps the text will not be considered so questionable as it once was.

In studying the texts that are considered the Lost Books of the Bible, it is important to remember that whether you believe what appears in today’s Bible is God’s will, it has also become his will that we learn more of these excluded books. This is not an effort to condemn the Biblical text or make Holy any excluded texts. Most of the texts actually support one another. We are humans with gifts of intellect to read through the information and form our own opinions and conclusions about the matter. Who really knows the truth? For as physicist Murray Gell-Mann says we are “a small speck of creation believing it is capable of comprehending the whole.” (Fisher,p.28)



Bibliography

Fisher, Mary Pat, Living Religions, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1999.

Milik, J.T. , The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4,  Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1976.

Potter, Douglas J., The Book of Henoch (Ethiopic) ,The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I.
online edition, 1999, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01602a.htm

Unger, Merrill F., Unger’s Bible Handbook, Chicago: Moody Press, 1967.

VanderKam, James C., The Enoch Literature, 1997, online:
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk~www_sd/enoch.html


Philip R. Davies, David J.A. Clines - Among the Prophets: Language, Image and Structure in the Prophetic Writings | Free eBooks Download - EBOOKEE!

Philip R. Davies, David J.A. Clines - Among the Prophets: Language, Image and Structure in the Prophetic Writings | Free eBooks Download - EBOOKEE!: "Philip R. Davies, David J.A. Clines - Among the Prophets: Language, Image and Structure in the Prophetic Writings"

Thursday, May 5, 2011

God Is the Gospel: Meditations on God's Love as the Gift of Himself

By John Piper

God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Corinthians 4:6

This book is a cry from the heart of John Piper. He is pleading that God himself, as revealed in Christ’s death and resurrection, is the ultimate and greatest gift of the gospel.

None of Christ’s gospel deeds and none of our gospel blessings are good news except as means of seeing and savoring the glory of Christ. Forgiveness is good news because it opens the way to the enjoyment of God himself. Justification is good news because it wins access to the presence and pleasures of God himself. Eternal life is good news because it becomes the everlasting enjoyment of Christ.

All God’s gifts are loving only to the degree that they lead us to God himself. That is what God’s love is: his commitment to do everything necessary (most painfully the death of his only Son) to enthrall us with what is most deeply and durably satisfying—namely, himself.

Saturated with Scripture, centered on the cross, and seriously joyful, this book leads us to satisfaction for the deep hungers of the soul. It touches us at the root of life where practical transformation gets its daily power. It awakens our longing for Christ and opens our eyes to his beauty.

Piper writes for the soul-thirsty who have turned away empty and in desperation from the mirage of methodology. He invites us to slow down and drink from a deeper spring. "This is eternal life," Jesus said, "that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." This is what makes the gospel—and this book—good news.

John Piper's God Is the Gospel is a candle in the doctrinal darkness that we seem to be in far too often. Piper's call in this small but thoughtful book is to reestablish God as the center of his good news-God gave us himself because he is the best thing we could be given. Right from the very beginning, the Reformation theology Piper is so famous for is right on the surface and clearly guiding his work. I do not consider myself particularly reformed, but I appreciated deeply the God-centered focus of the book and Piper's willingness to be theologically straightforward.

On the opening page, Piper's focus is clear, "The acid test of biblical God-centeredness-and faithfulness to the gospel-is this: Do you feel more loved because God makes much of you, or because, as the cost of his Son, he enables you to enjoy making much of him forever?" (11). This sentiment sets the tone for the rest of the book. Piper does not deny that we take great joy in our salvation and that God does make much of us, but the purpose and progression of sanctification should lead us to the reality that the greatest joy we can have is making much of him. Not long after this thesis statement, Piper explains what he means with the phrase "God Is the Gospel," "When I say, God Is the Gospel I mean that the highest, best, final, decisive good of the gospel, without which no other gifts would be good, is the glory of God in the face of Christ revealed for our everlasting enjoyment." (13)

Through much of the rest of the book, Piper focuses on this theme of the glory of God revealed in Christ. Though the biblical notion of the "glory of God" can be wide-ranging and difficult to pin-down in an easy to grasp fashion at times, Piper does a wonderful job of explicating the notion and encouraging the reader to take pleasure in God and his glory.

Though it is not an academic work, it is well cited and researched. His ability to be conversant with the Puritans was clear, and I appreciate the way he quoted and handled Edwards. It is good for us pastors and contemporary Christians to be reminded that we have a rich and "relevant" theological history that goes back beyond a couple of decades. The theologian Thomas Oden has written that he has become hesitant to, "trust anyone under `three hundred'," and that he believes "[w]e should be passionately dedicated to unoriginality." I believe Piper would add a hearty "amen!"

If there are any drawbacks to God Is the Gospel, they would be in its chapter and section format. Though I believe that chapters broken into smaller sections can aid a reader, especially a busy reader, there were too many sections within chapters that were too small. At times, there were as many as four sections on a set of opposing pages, and from time to time their proliferation became a hindrance to the flow of the argument.

But ultimately, that is a small matter. I would heartily recommend God Is the Gospel as a wonderful and rich reminder of the core of our lives and the life of the Church: the glory of Christ in his gospel.


It's All About God!

When I sat down to read God Is The Gospel, I have to admit that I was feeling a bit world-weary. I was even dreading to read this book. I didn't want to read anything. I just wanted to wallow in my self-pity. It is sad, but true.

But, I sat down to force myself to read this book. After two pages, I wasn't forcing myself anymore. I felt myself being sucked into a profound theological philosophy. I was reading words that didn't just tell me what I should be doing as a Christian--these words told me why I am a Christian and how wonderful the gift of God is to me. The words I was reading were seeping into my heart and reminding me that I am to savor the glory of Christ.

We are privileged to worship and enjoy God. While we do not deserve the attention and love God gives us, He has done everything to get our attention. He wants to bring us to Him so that we can enjoy Him. He wants us to know Him! He wants us to realize that the gospel is about Him! God is the gospel!

John Piper really hits home with this book and reminds us that it is really all about God. If you are looking for something more filling, something to quench your thirst for truth, then this book is for you. You will walk away with a greater understanding of the gifts God has given us--especially the gift of Himself.

Download this book (PDF).