O.T.
Interp.: Childs
9/2/94:
Lecture
About
this course: Reading the O. T. itself is important. It is 'magnificant
literature'. The O.T. seldom
moralizes. It forces the reader into an
active participation. The characters can
go through changes, in which the reader can participate. So, an 'inner' and 'outer' dimension which is
both historic and transcends the historic context of the text.
On
methodology: Don't become too technical in analyzing the text. Find a dialectic between the Bible & it
theology. Use the O.T. to look at
current issues/problems (e.g. Church/State relations; American culture). So, one can use the O.T. as a theological
tool in today's world. Don't let your
approach deprive you of the mystery in the text. The church's liturgy attests to the roots to
the O.T. The story of Isreal moves into
our story. The bible: a sign-post in
each generation's search for understanding (of its keeping of the faith). And yet the Bible speaks to different people
in different ways. The import of today
should be considered in looking at our interp.s of the Bible. So, the Bible can't be moored in the past,
studied apart from what has happened in our culture. For example, the historical crit. of the
Enlightenment. So, the O.T. can't be
read in isolation, but must be read in the context of today. No one method can 'crack the nut'. In short, there are limits to the science of
O.T. interpretation.
9/5/94:
Lecture
The
early Xian Church
The
reformation was a renewal of the Church, intertwined with the reformation. Humanists.
Direct address of the bible; past and present not dicotomized. A return to the historic and literary import
of the text. The Reformers assumed that
various approaches could be held together with orthodoxy. Exegesis became a form of 'rational
apologetics'.
The
modern period began in the 1800's.
Spinoza in the 1700's was a precurser.
He recognized that the biblical method has been filtered through our own
lense. Impact of Kant and Locke: emph.
on logic. Rationalism. Read the bible as
any other book. Then, romantic
categories. Schlermacher: 'A turn toward
the subject'--talk also of the one who is doing the interpreting. With the opening up of comparative methods,
we get closer to the text. Also, we get
a sense of the developments through history.
Also, there were losses: a
confusion on the proper context. A growing speculation of the historical
situation. A growing specialization. Over-analyzed. A crisis of faith in the 1800's.
1900's:
'post-critical'? The literary approach:
a recognition of reading the text as a story.
New philosophical approaches. A
shift from an emphasis on the history to the language (e.g. Wittgenstein). Role of social sciences was salient
here. In short, Childs believes that in
this context it is important to remember that God is the source.
Genesis
1-3, from two views: as a coherent analytical construct. Then, from a historical-literary standpoint.
Gen.
1: Creation. A high style. A liturgical tone of repetition. A pattern; And God said... --except for
creation of man.
What
is meant by 'the beginning'? Not the
beg. of God, but of his creating. A date
formula not used. Emph: the earth is not
eternal (Arist. thought it was). Hebrew:
bara, 'create'. For Jews, the qu. of how
God was created wouldn't make sense or be asked. Recogn that one can't penetrate into God's
being (i.e. before his created manifestation).
God is not a type of being or time.
Gen.
2: Creation was a chaos. But, creation
is not chaos (Childs). Left from a
Babylonian myth that creation of the earth involved it going through a waste
and void stage. But, the O.T. had a
Jewish trad. of myth before it.
Childs:
Earth is not eternal. Creation is in a
polarity with chaos (evil).
Gen.
1: Creation, Gen 2: Chaos. So, a threat to creation from the beginning.[1]
Gen 3: Why are there several acts of creation
on the same day? Everything focuses on
the creation of the Sabbath (which took up a whole day). Imp: the theological role of the
sabbath. Imp: the separation of God from
his creation. Jews: part of His creation is His rest.
Gen.
6: Image of God. Not much of a role in
the bible. Male and female used in
analogy: as manifestations of God reflects His image. God is the activity of communicating.
Childs:
In these chapters, there is a confession of what God is, who we are.
9/7/94:
Lecture
We
are doing a literary reading of these chapters; the next lecture will look at
disciplinary questions.
Gen
2-3: Unlike ch. 1, the perspective of humans rather than of God. Why? A literary device to switch from broad to
narrow. The tension of this switch was
so little felt for 1600 years. What is
meant by adam (man)? 1. mankind
consisting of male and female. The gnostics argued that adam contained both
male and female aspects. No conception of gender before adam was split. See
Trivel (in reading packet). But, Philis
Bird disagrees: the female is derived from the male. Adam continues in ch. 2 to be described as a
male form in distinction to the female form.
In ch. 2, the creation of the male is given priority. The creation of woman is not subordinate, but
forms the climax of ch. 2. Childs: ch.s
1-3 give two views of M and F that compliment each other. The tension reflects a dialectic bet. the two
sexes. It rules out two obvious
positions: woman is subordinate (ch. 1: M and F are equal), and woman and man
have the same function (ch. 2 says no.
different roles: the male leaves his parents for woman). Same dialectic in N.T.: Paul-- the sexes are
not inferior to each other but have different roles.
Adam
is from the soil. Not an immortal soul
clothed in flesh, but is a clod of dirt.
Man does not have a soul, but a human being is a soul. The garden: a place to work. Forbidden to eat
of a tree: man is an ethical being, unlike the other animals. Adam has to wait
for Eve. The naming is imp. in the O.T.
Adam is a co-creator, naming the animals (except Eve). Sex is a creation
because of God's intervention; it is not a condition of the Fall. So, a positive view of sex. This has been misunderstood (Childs). Nudity: deceptive; nakedness: to be exposed,
vulnerable, open, no shame. At the close
of the ch. 2, they were whole. Childs: Ch. 2 gives a
sense of human life at creation: to be free, dependent on God, life is in
partnership (community). Life is of harmony, peace and freedom.
On
the serpent: not dualism with God, but evil is an active force. Ch. 1's chaos plays an active role in
extending confusion. ???
A
link between evil in ch. 1 (void) and in ch. 3 (knowledge/awareness?). Ch. 3 ends with mankind outside of the
garden, away from God. Woman's
subordination was not how she was created, but due to guilt.
9/9/94:
Lecture
Gen.
3:1. The serpent is not the devil. Read
the O.T. as close to the narrative as poss. Deal with the literary shape of the
text first. Assp.: a unified piece of literature. The charm of the stories
cover heur. issues. Of the latter, is
there a single authorial intent? How did the context affect the text? The rise
of Hist. crit. method in the 1700s on this.
1.
Literary or source criticism: In mid 1700's, Jean Astfuc observed a shift from
Gen 1:2 to Gen 2 in the use of the name of God: Elohim to YHWH (Yahweh).
Astfuc: shift due to the change in author.
Others before him assumed that it was due to change in how referring to
god as judge and redeemer, respectively.
Elohim had been in two sources.
So, three sources involved: P, J.E, and then Deut. J. Wellhausen:
redated the sequence: J, E, D, P chonologically. The J document: the oldest source. 800 B.C.
From Adam to the conquest of Ehem. The E(Elohine) source also uses
Elohim starts at Gen 13. Revelation via
dreams. E: 750 B.C. in the northern
history. The priestly document uses
Elohim: from creation to death of Moses. Sacrifice, divine theocracy emph. Numbers from P. 450 B.C. A negative
judgement: breakdown of the primative mantality. Read: Skinner on Genesis.
Lit.
crit. questioned the unity of Gen. More complex. Is the unity of scripture best
viewed as 'single authorship intent', or is there another basis for unity? A new emphasis on the literal (historical)
sense. An emph. on the different orders
in Gen. 1 and Gen 2. Gen 1: Chaos-water,
light, earth, animals, Adam; Gen 2: Chaos-drought, Adam, garden, animals,
Eve. Change of intent or change of
author or both?
The
discovery of sources opened up a new qu.: what was the age of the sources? What were there historical contexts? E.g. Gen
1: Chaos-water. Where is flooding a
threat? Gen 2: where is draught a
threat?
Focus
of later 1800's: the history of the sources, rather than theol. intent. Instead of 'scripture interpreting itself',
look outside text to interpret it.
Biblical studies became technical.
Taken out of the hands of the lay-people and put into the hands of
scholars.
2.
The tradition-history, or oral, critical method: H. Gunkel (see: Creation and
Chaos): literary crit was too bookish.
He emphasized pre-written sources.
So, not one author but out of 'community property'. A correspondance between the oral text (form)
and institutions (function) in Isreal.
The recurring pattern produced by the institutions gave the oral trad
its form. (??? and vice versa?) Form and
function are related and central. A
Sociological method: Sitz im Leben.
External
(Assyria , Egypt Babylon as well as
Isreal. Wellhausen argued that Gen 1 was
Priestly. Gunkel: the literary misses
the sourse of the Priestly writings.
Gunkel: the trad. of the flood began in Babylon .
Childs: how do you know the direction of the development? Gunkel used a method on this: original if its
content is central to the story. In the
Babalonian account, the chaos gave rise to the creation. In Gen (1:2), a tension: creation out of
void. No such tension in the Bab.
account, so it came first. Key: integral or secondary.
Childs:
oral crit. demonstrated the value of the oral stage. It has complicated exegesis. Now, besides a literal level, others. How relate?
Natural science: age of earth not recociled with that in Gen. A hermenutical shift. Legacy of Enlightenment: positive and
negative effects. Theology can become
problematic. The critical method did not
produce profoundity. So, entering into a
post-critical period. Ignore the new
crit. methods and go back to scripture or adjust faith to account for the new
knowledge? Right and Left, respectively. Childs: is there an alternative?
9/12/94:
Lecture
Gen.
4: 1-6: Cain & Abel. Continues the
Adam/Eve narrative. Cain is a farmer; Abel is a shepard. Cain kills Abel, punished by God. Why is Abel's sacrifice accepted and Cain's
wasn't? No clear motivation. Childs: the story has a history. Some
vestages lost. Gunkel: a long oral tradition in which the story had an old
function. Cain & Abel represent two
different cultures in conflict: farmers & shepard. Cain is the father of the Kenite tribe living
in the wilderness. A tale held by the shepards to show why they lived away from
the farmers. An etiological story: a story which explains an origin. Qu.s of
existence and explaining one's condition.
Gunkel's view: no historical aspect (literal). Assp: an earlier story
which would de-mythologize the text as we now have it. Childs: Use the pre-hist.
story as it helps us to interpret the final form. Don't 'correct' or de-mythologize'. It can tell about conventions.
The
story is a narrative. Yet, C & A
retain general qualities of their vocational groups. However, the story seems
to have been shortened from the oral one.
The motivation is missing, with the emphasis on the outcome. God's judgement is mediated by mercy: Cain
driven out but marked to protect him.
Sin from the garden has spread.
Author's concern: the spread of sin. Etiology of the Kenites would not
be important to the biblical author. A
narrative sequence, so don't treat it as a report. The reality of which it gives witness is
theological.
Gen
6: 1-4: 'Marriage of Angels'. The Nephilines (giants) were the heroes of the
past. Sons of God means the chosen of
God. Childs: the story reflects an
old Canninite myth. Angels like mortal
women. Explains the gaints as mixtures
divine and human entities: sharing divinity.
But, in the O.T. text, the story shows not the glory of the past, but
the sin in the present. A negative illustration. The biblical reuse has 'broken
the myth'. God not like the mixture of the divine and human: He limits man's
lifespan. On the basis of this, an
extended judgement towards violence (the flood). Childs: the story changed by
the biblical writer to make a theological point: the spread of sin (leading to
God's judgement and the flood). Gen
1-11: theme--the spread of sin. Childs: use a former oral story only to help
explain the O.T. text.
Gen
6-9: Flood. Tensions in the story: one pair of animals but a later
sacrifice. Wiped out a species? A return of chaos. A new start.
Like the creation. Story of
Noah's druckenness: a particular Hebrew story.
The world is just as bad after the flood as before.
Gen
11: 1-9: Tower of
Babel
Gen
12:1-3 is part of this theme: God tells Abraham to go to Palestine .
For the first time, an obedient response. God will start over with a new nation; a
means of restoring the lost creation.
Childs: the rest of the O.T.: how God dealt with the rest of the world
through Isreal. In Gen, creation linked
with redemption.
Childs:
what genre in Ch.s 4-11. Not history or
myth. Childs: 'History-like' to tell a
new story of a theol. interp. of God's history with the world. Heurmanutics (theory of interp.): don't fit
these chapters into ordinary history with rational tech. Vulnerable to the Renessance. But, this is not just a projection of human
imagination. There is a transcendental referent: God's history. It renders
reality, telling of the alientation of the world from God and the redemption of
Isreal. This is a confession so can't be
demonstrated. See the existential
dimention of the human dimention: a story of the basis of our existence. The historical critical tools can help if
properly used in a 'post-critical' interpretation.
9/16/94:
Seminar
Guidelines
for Exigesis:
Read
the text. Read through the surrounding text to get the context. Then, look at various commentaries. In
writing, it need not follow the biblical passage line by line, but can be
structured more like a term paper. Once we have looked at the text, we want to
look at relationships within the text and between the text and that which is
outside the text. Look at the context: in the bible, in the history. For
example, where vocab occurs elsewhere in the bible.
On
today's readings: Rashi and Calvin emphasized theology. Diver and Sarma,
relatively modern, are more of the sciences. Rashi focuses on the Hebrew. For ex., 'one language' in hebrew means 'one
plan'. Rashi is confusing: he said that
the people were too prideful yet he says the people were praising God. It is in the Rabbic tradition to put in all
views without resolving it. Rabbic literature is like a transcript. He favors the first.
On
the text itself of the Tower
of Babel
A.
'all the earth was one language' v. 1
B.
'Let us... make a city and tower' vv3-4.[2]
C.
"And YHWH descended to see the city and the tower' vv5-6[3]
B'.
'Let us[4]..and
YHWH scattered them over the face of the world'v7-8
A'.
'YHWH confused the langauge...and scattered them.' v.9
Notice
the pattern. Compare the two A's, as
well as the two B's.
9/19/94:
Lecture
About
this course: Lectures, readings, and seminars have a subtle relationship to
each other. Readings are background material, not touched
on in lecture.
Gen.
22: See: Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling; Spiegel, The Last Trial.
Abraham
offers Issac his son on the altar to God. God knows Abraham fears Him. Childs:
knowledge of the hist. culture is essential here. Human sacrifice was common in that mileau by
Isreal (see Kings) and her neighbors.
The story rep.s what happened in Abraham's mind. He saw others
sacrifcing their kids. He broke with tradition in liberation. He discovered
that the trial of faith involves seeking God in new areas, break-through from
tradition. Conscience set free. Childs: this interpretation of liberation
theology misses the point of the passage.
How did Abraham know that it was God that was speaking to him? This question is not asked in the bible.
Also, need to ask how parallels should be used.
They can confuse as well as illuminate.
The ancient mileau seems to play no background in this passage.
Childs:
the story is a test of man. Abraham had
been foolish, giving off Sarah as his sister (twice). Nevertheless, God rescued him. So, Issac was born from Sarah. Abraham's
dealings with God, rather than the context, is emphasized in the text
itself. We know no details of the mileau
in the text. Abraham responds to God,
with 'here am I', or himmeni (an openness to another's presence). See Auerback in the packet. He contrasts this instance(internalized) to a
moment in Homer's Oddessy in which it is externallized(the context is
described).
Childs:
the issue of the chapter: God requires Abraham to slay his own son. This is not
on the practice of human sacrifice in the mileau, but on God's promise (that
Issac would survive). Kierkegaard: don't
universalize biblical stories. Verbs,
rather than adjectives, are used in the story.
Context is not emphasized; much is internalized. Details occur around the altar. When Issac asked about something to
sacrifice, the first climax is reached.
The reader knows more than Abraham does at that point. Abraham satisfies his son's question. Then, a high suspence in the actions on the
altar: will the angel make it in time?
Abraham says again, hinneni, to the calling angel.
Verse
12: the point of the story--fear of God.
Not the emotion, but involves obedience.
The call of faith: act in
obedience to God even when it involves contradicting God's own practice. An extreme example of faith. A call to faith is a summons to obey, even
beyond reason, but unto the arms of God and His unlimited possibilities. By faith Abraham obeyed. He considered that God would raise (Issac)
from the dead--because of God's promise regarding Issac--that the fruits of
Abraham's loins would become Isreal.
Gen
23: Sarah died. Hittite property for a burial place was asked for by Abraham.
Childs: here, knowledge of the near East can be helpful. Why is this story retained? A priestly
source. The story is of a legal contraction, couched in the language of the
Orient. Abraham begins by citing his
legal status: a stranger/sojourner (foreigner)--ger metoshav. He has no right to own property. The Hittites
are polite: Buying/selling language
intentionally not used. Abraham paid a high price. He was ripped off. What is the purpose of
this story? Why mention this rip off
business deal? Ancient Near East culture
shows a clue. The larger narrative tells
us too. Promise of the land had been
given by God to Abraham. Sarah died
without the land. Sarah was not to be buried in foreign soil. The writer is making a symbolic point.
Childs: the Xian promise, like those given to Abraham, seem threatened as we
see our people sick and decaying. Where
is the promise of eternal life. Like
Abraham, Xians are given a sign of the fulfulment of the promise. Abraham is spared Issac and is given a plot
of land; Xians in faith experience the new creation in sacraments. Both: a concrete foretaste. Xians, like Abraham, are not strangers in a
foreign land. A Christological parallel
is not always available to any given O.T. passage.
On
Gen 22, Childs is against the following interpretation: God tested Abraham in
the sense of polishing him (Abraham was too attached to his son Issac).
9/21/94:
Lecture
Bible:multi-layered.
Parts not indigenous. Diocronic and
Syncronic.
Geneological
formulae have different functions. So, not two creation stories. Two types of geneologies: Vertical-traces one
line from Adam through Noah...; Horizonal-of brothers and sisters. The function of the Vert. is to trace a
geneology and give a framework within which to have the cycles of Abraham,
Jocab, and Joseph. The function of the
Horizonal is to show the relation of the line of the promise (that of the
vertical) to the rest of the world.
Concern for the special line vis a vis the world. This is from the priestly writer's
redaction. Prior sequence not touched.
The
Jacob cycle: In its structure, there are two normative pillars (ch.s 28 &
32): leaving and returning. Some stories
within seem to have a life of their own, without relation to the larger
story. Jacob's ladder is more like a
ramp. Promise of God to Jacob: whereever
he goes, God will be with him. (ch. 28).
In ch. 32, Jacob is blessed as "Isreal'. A dense story. Gunkel: an example of a classic mytholigical
story from Cannites. For instance, Jacob wrestles with a demon. Church Fathers:
Jacob is wrestles with an angel. Modern
view: he is wrestling with his own conscience.
Childs: the writer is able to build suspence and hold back emotion. On Jacob's deception in front of Issac:
suspense on whether Issac will be fooled.
Jacob lies about who he is. Issac later found out about the deception
after the blessing had been given. Many
emotions set out in a realistic form.
Behind the story is the mystery of election. God's elect despite all the deception. A mystery.
Jacob is a hustler, yet he is set by God as the elect. Who is the good guy? Finally, he encounters God and his name is
changed. The bible doesn't moralize. But, there is commentary: a correspondance
between the act and the consequence. For example, Jacob is treated likewise by
his sons (deception).
The
Joseph cycle: (see T. Mann's novel). A
well-organized literary unit. Not a sage
(compelation of stories), but more like a novel. A literary composition, rather than a
compelation. One authorial intent. It has probably had a different pre-history
than the other stories in Gen. It starts on ch. 37. Joseph was Jacob's favorite (born from
Rachel). Joseph portrayed as lazy and a nark.
Tension with his brothers. He had
a big ego (e.g. his dream: things were bowing to him). Brothers took his robe
and sold him into slavery, telling Jacob that Joseph had been killed. Story of Patifa's wife (ch. 39) is the first
climax of the story. Joseph was lucky to
be in his house. Joseph is tempted and
wrongly imprisoned. Not a flat moralist
approach to sexuality, but emph. responsibility (to God and others). Paul's sex ethics come from O.T. theology
(your body is a temple
of God Egypt . The brothers don't recogn. Joseph, but not
vis versa. Joseph lays a trap. Plants his cup with Benjamin. Will the brothers again abandon the helpless
son as they had done to Joseph? Joseph
emerges as a real mench. His brothers
have changed as well. A concern with
antropology as well as theology. For
instance, Joseph cried and shook. God
doesn't wrestle with Joseph but is at work in the human heart. So, God's way
of acting is different. The
context of this story was the Wisdom literature. Joseph appears as a sage.
9/23/94:
Seminar
Source
crit.: interchangable with literary criticism. The emphasis is on the layers in
the text. Redaction criticism emphasizes the relation between the sources, any
overriding theme, and the text as a whole.
Literary
criticism: style, terminatology, inconsistancies, and theology. Literary criticism does not consider the
traditions behind the sources.
Style. This is vague. What is our
knowledge of ancient literary habits/styles? Mode of production?
Source
criticism emphasizes inconsistencies, pulling the text apart. It does not say why there are
inconsistencies. It assumes that disparate theol. views do not come from one
author/source. Yet, this may not matter
if the point is to pull out the theol. perspectives in the O.T.
Gen:
6. Different rationales for the flood: man is inherently sinful(concern for
mankind-adam) vs. the corruption of the earth (concern for what the effect is
on the earth--adama). These are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
The
Priestly Source: calandar, cosmic perspective, and worship are emphasized.
On
the Hebrew name of God: unpronouncible. They say Adonai (My Lords) which is
written Yahweh. Elohim is a name for
God.
9/26/94:
Lecture
Book
of Exodus:
Age
of the Patriarchs and of the Exodus:
Early Bronze: 3300-2000
Middle Bronze: 2000-1500
Late Bronze: 1500-1200
Hyksos: 1720-1550.
Akmose
19th Egyptian Dynasty:
Sethos I:
1309-1290
Rameses II:
1290-1224
Marniphah:
1224-1211
No
clear consensus on this dating, however.
Many agree that the Partiarchs were in the Middle Bronze period and the
Exodus was in the Late Bronze period(see Bright). Yet, in the Book of Exodus, more concern in
the text for dating. No direct evidence
from Egypt .
Some think Joseph gained power under the Hykos.
The 19th dynasty is important: period of expansion of Egypt . Rameses II is said by modern scholars to be
the reign under which Moses worked to free the Hebrew slaves. According to
Pritchard (Ancient Near Eastern Tests), this was so.
The
first Pogram (ch. 1):
A bridge between the history of the
patriarchs (sons of Jacob) and 'the people of Isreal' in these terms: from a
warm relation to Joseph to a cold one to the people of Isreal. Pharoh bases his action by fear. He uses threat and genecide. Hebrews are
considered separate. Yet, they still
multiply, so open genecide is the final solution. This literary account does not match up with
historical account. So, ask: what was
the writer's function? Ch. 1 was an
introduction to the birth of Moses.
The
Birth of Moses (ch. 2: 1-10)
(see Sargon Parallel in J.
Pritchard; ANET)
Historical
records in Egypt
on the practice of sending away unwanted children. Foreign to Isreal. Where did
his sister come from? Moses was the first born.
A beautiful 'rages to riches' story. Compare to the Babalonian story of
Sargon: sent out on the river as an infant and then became a king. Some think
this parallel means that this birth account of Moses was legendary. Childs: Can postpone this historical
question. Form criticism: both stories
had a particular form and function: to legitimate a king's claim to divine
kingship. To assure a rationale for such
rule. Yet, this function is not in
Exodus; Moses never was a king. Rather,
he was truly a slave. He refused
kingship in Egypt
for a different calling. So, although
the form of the story may be like those used to legit. divine kingship, the
function is different.
The
tone in this section is unique. The name
of God is not mentioned. No
theophany. God at work in a hidden
way.
Moses
as Deliverer(ch. 2: 11-22):
Two
stories. First, Moses slays an Egyption and then is afraid when the two
fighting Hebrews know this. Theme: Moses
has sympathy for the Hebrews. Not clear
from the account that Moses knew he was a hebrew. Second theme: note of secrecy. The offending party (the Hebrew) rejects
Mose's stance to protect the Hebrews.
Also, the act is no longer secret.
Childs: the betrayer must have been the one who Moses saved. Secrecy nec. because Moses did not have
authority. The failure of Moses to
deliver is brought about by one whom he sought to deliver.
Second,
Moses had fled. He stood up for the
herdsmen. Moses at the well. He
'delivered' them from the ruthlessness of the shepards.
Childs:
the earlier aid was rejected; the latter was accepted. Yet, continuity:
both--Moses is concerned for the weak and is forced to live apart from his own
people. A theological view of this.
The
Ethical Issue:
Was
Moses right to slay the Egyption? Some
give the slaying a positive regard: the egyption was about to murder the
hebrew, so Moses was justifying in saving a life. Church Fathers, too, say it was right because
it was under divine sanction. But,
others say Moses was too 'hot headed'.
Others argue that killing is never justified. Childs: the bible doesn't give an answer to
this question. But, it gives an indirect
answer to the question: is it right to use violence for a just cause? The bible doesn't moralize. No act carries only one meaning. Moses had one motive the hebrew had another
and so rejected Moses as a deliverer.
Can an act of genuine justice be done in secrecy? He flees, so no deliverance. He attempted a reconciliation between the
fighting Hebrews. Moses' act of killing
makes him unable to act as reconciler.
Differs from Abraham.
So,
no clear answer on using violence for justice.
Yet, it does uncover the ambiguities involved, the reader is forced to
confront the factors that constitute the moral decision. Typical of the Bible. This does not mean that the bible never has
answers.
The
N.T.'s use of Exodus 2 (Acts 7:23ff; Heb. 11:24ff):
In
the Acts account, emph. on repeated disobediance of the people of Isreal. A pattern culminating in its rejection of
Jesus.
In
Hebrews, a different interp. Emph. on
Moses' active stances, choosing to share the suffering of the slaves rather
than being a material king of Egypt . Christological.
Childs:
the N.T. shows two different interps, going beyond the O.T. In Hebrews, Moses acted as a model for Xian
faith. Yet, in O.T., no where are Moses'
motives shown. Also, no commitment to an
overriding divine plan or faith therein.
From the N.T., faith is clear.
From the O.T., it is living a faithful life in a mixed world. Subject of faith: it has two sides: a
decision of trust, yet also a confusing response to obedience. Not necessarily the latter just in the N.T.
and the latter in the O.T. Childs: the
dynamic here of faith is not solved in the bible. It is important to read the Bible in terms of
our own faith.
9/28/94:
Lecture
Book
of Exodus:
Ex.
3-4: Mose's Call and Commission.
Source
criticism does not get at the density of the story. Use form criticism to
discern patterns. What is intentional?
From this, what is the intent of the story? Does not begin with a divine
theophany-appearance of God. The concern
is a new purpose--a different genre. The
call of Moses is important. Form
criticism of a stereotype pattern used to show a different intent. Divine theophany de-emphasized, the calling
and objections to it are emph. Moses gives almost rude questions which are not
logical objections. God is wrestling
with Moses's will, rather than his mind. To do the will of god is not a natural
thing.
The
second objection: revelation of the divine name. YHWH, or adonai=Lord) was
never pronounced. Putting vowels in between them (from the noun ehyeh/Yahweh,
for Lord), giving Jehovah. What is the significance of the name 'I am who I
am"? Childs: for information as
well as intention. The essence and
relation is in the giving of the name. A
play on words between Jehovah and 'to be'.
Meaning: God will reveal Himself in his future acts. The God announced
to Moses is the same as who revealed Himself to the fathers. Now, a medium for worship and service. The
Greek trans. it as "I am being'. A static quality that is distant from the
biblical account. By knowing the name, you know the qualities of the being.
This is an assumption in the bible.
Ex.
7-11: Plagues of Egypt .
Two
patterns. One involve Arron and magicians. Priestly source. The other does not. Yahweh source. A
pre-history involved. Tensions in the final form. Nile
turned to blood twice, cattle killed twice. This is o.k. Why the sequence of the plagues? No building in intensity. An atrifical
atmosphere. A didactic style. Buber suggested this style and saw that Moses was
being portrayed as a prophetic figure. Shows a perential conflict between the
earthly ruler and God. A history of
resistance to God.
What
does 'hardening' mean? Fatalism here. Yet, an attempt to persuade. The ability
of human beings to resist the divine plan, yet God is fully in charge. God is
the source of the resistance. Yet, evil is not attributed to God. No sol. to
this question in the bible.
Ex.
12-13: Passover.
Interwoven with the narrative (J source) is a description of
the ritual (P source). The original event is described along with the later
ritual celebration of that event. Fused
together. A redemptive movement that
transcends that moment in which it occurred. It was to be a living material.
9/30/94:
Seminar
Form
Criticism:
Structure,
Genre, Setting, and intention(function).
Structure:
from it, can find the genre. Structure
contains the content(headings as imp. content).
If the str. is not clear, it may mean that several stories, or more than
one genre. Complex if more than one
structure awa more than one genre.
Genre:
Tucker identifies it with 'saga'. Would
the ancient Isrealites have had the same genre types as we do. Gunkel used a
classification based on Germanic folklore, rather than Israei folklore. Most oral forms are poetic.
Form
criticism applied to Gen. 32-22-32:
What
did crossing a stream mean in ancient Israelie folklore? How was wrestling viewed in Isreali
culture? Wrestled to
daybreak--supernatural strength?
Dislodging a joint with a touch--magical? What connotations did magic have in the
ancient Isreali culture? An action from God? What did a blessing mean? In what way did Jacob prevail? In getting the blessing.
According
to Tucker, this theology (God not nec'ly in control) is not Yahwest or Priestly
theology. Is this story evident of a
counter-tradition. Tucker concludes that
it was from a non-Isrealite tradition.
Link
this story to other relevant passage: A fair fight by Jacob, rather than the
trickery he had used with his father and father-in-law. So, the story can't be understood in
isolation: this is redaction crit.
Wm.
Hallow, The Book of the Bible. --see
on stories from the ancient Near East that are like those in the O.T.
10/3/94:
Lecture
Book
of Exodus:
Ex.
13-15: Crossing of the Sea:
Climaxes
the long struggle with Pharoh. A lengthy
prose account. Then, in 15, a poetic style emphasizing the supernatural. Two
sources: Priestly and Yawhist. The splitting of the waters--as in the
creation. A paradigmatic redemptive
event (see U. Cassuto, A Commentary on
Exodus). A conservative view. Childs: has he resolved the problems? Also,
see Driver's Introduction to...
According to Diver, two sources (Priestly and Yahwist). See handout.
Childs: a basic error in drawing theological conclusions on the basis of a
comparison of the texts of the two sources.
Important: how the texts were combined and what does this mean? Look at
the combined account. Emphasis: the contrast between Pharoh's plan and Yahweh's
plan. The story is on the ensuing
struggle. The Jews recognize only Pharoh's
plan, and so attack their own leader, Moses.
Both the Egyptions and Jews reckon only Pharoh's plan. So, parallels between the Egyption and Jewish
people's statements. But, it is a battle
(in Yahwah's plan) rather than an escape (in Pharoh's plan). Childs: the key is the contrast between the
plans. The author puts pharoh's plan
within Yahwah's plan. Yahwah's direct
intervention in the killing of the Egyptions.
What Moses had promised is now attested to. The Egyptions confess that it is a battle. The Egyptions finally, via God's direct
intervention, realize and acknowledge, God's plan over their own. The Jews then trust Moses.
In
reading the combined account, there is a meaningful composition. In this is the major religious message. This is lost in reading separated source
texts (one stresses the natural events; the other, the supernatural). For the Jewish community, the distinction is
not bet. natural and supernatural, but bet. the ordinary and the
wonderful. So, separation of the sources
misses how the text as a whole was viewed by the community. This is the
weakness of the source method. It is
important to see how the story was used by the community. This understanding comes from looking at the
whole text.
The
source critical method was 'bookish'. It
fails to recognize how the traditions/sources come together. The editiors had some purpose in how they
were to be put together. The formation
of canon (the combined corpus) involves the exercise of how the tradition is
received--a lengthy communal response.
On
what really happened at the sea, one can distinguish bet. hist. that can be
tested and that which can't. Rationalists
admit only one level of reality.
Conversely, the supernatualists would say that the supernatural world is
reflected in the historical world. These
extremes should be avoided. Childs:
multiple levels of reality. Truth, as
understood in the bible, is that which maintains the existance of a community
with God. So, God's rescue at the sea is
of truth. Don't objectize or subjectize
the events. A history that can't be
tested. The relation of faith and
history: how the divin revelation enters into human history. A subtle link at times. Going from reason to
revelation is difficult. A problem: some
events are public and yet can't be tested.
Using reason or empiricism to justify the bible is to take the bible in
the wrong sense (a sense different from what was intended). The bible is like a symphany. A multi-layered text. Don't use just one criterion. The trap of rationalism: your faith is
dependent upon an identification with history.
Need to grapple with God's mysteries.
Don't try to reverse the Enlightenment as Fundamentalists do; rather, go
through it. Childs: God entered into
time and space. This is different than
history. Don't forget about the time and
space, looking only for eternal truths.
10/5/94:
Lecture
The
Field of O.T. Law:
Law
is different (e.g., its form, social function, legal purpose) from narrative.
It has theological significance For
example, from the point of view of social ethics, good intensions are not
enough. Laws are needed. Black church: there can be no love without
justice. But laws can also oppress. Law regulates institutions, groups, and
individuals. Issues of freedom and
order; human law to divine law. Is
Gospel opposed to law, for law, or in dialectic with it?
The
scope of O.T. Law. Amazing how little
mention of law before well into Exodus.
In Ex. 19, the giving of the law.
It is preceding by the theophanie at Sinai. Concerning the law, the Decalogue (Ex. 20),
the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 21-3), Priestly Laws (Lev. 1-16, sacrifice law;
17-26, holiness), Rituals for the Mauch (NM.1-10), and Deuteronic law (Gt.
12-26). See Wellhousen: combining the
age of the narrative with that of the law is useful in understanding the O.T.
Law
in the O.T. is not timeless. It is not
ontological str. of reality, but is a witness of Isreal's covenant in relation
to God's relation to Isreal.
What
is Law in O.T.? It is Torah. It can be instruction, guidance,
testimony. A wisdom identified with law. Not a heavy burden, but a light (see Psalm
19). The testimonies of God in the
Law. Reward in keeping the law. So, a positive view of the law. A more limited view of law in the greek
trans. and by Paul.
The
law expresses the living will of God; not a lifeless rule. So, there is flexibility in the O.T.
understanding of law. The rules not sep.
from their source (God). The law was not
result of a bargin or contract, but was a commitment by God to Isreal; a
covenant. It is not conditional in the
sense that if Isreal not follow the law, God will abandon Isreal. A covenant is an understanding of a
relationship of mutual trust. A berit,
or covenant. Hesid: that the covenant is loving kindness. So, kindness and trust awa mutual support.
Because
an oath is involved, covenant has a negative side; it carries a curse. If broken,
curses involved. The burden of O.T.
prophets was to remind Isreal of the curses.
They even try to invoke these curses on the people. So, a covenant, if obeyed, incurs blessing;
if not, curse.
God's
will to the people: the core of the Torah.
Such law contains much in common with Near Eastern Law. There are parallels.[5] For instance, in 1901, the Code of Hammurabi
was found(compare Fuloini ch.s 6-13 with Ex. 22.1, Ch. 117-119 to Ex.
21.2ff). Yet, there are differences. At times, one is more strict than the
other. Also, the relation between life
and property viewed differently. Crimes
agn. a life punished strictor by Isreal; crimes agn. property, more strictly by
Babylonians. He was a Babalonian king
ca. 715 B.C. A monument of him receiving
the laws (300) from God. Not clear if that code was window-dressing.
Altman:
a Form critical distinction between
1)
third-person law (causistic)-see Ex. 21. See the 'if clause': an exact
description of the case. Originated when the elders decided cases at the gate
of the town. Not uniquely
Isrealite.
2) Apadictic law: a model form of third person
law (Ex. 31). Categorical prohibitions,
rather than arising from 'case law'.
Such law is anchored in Isreal's religious life. An affirmation of law as part of a
covenant. At sinea, God placed Isreal
under this type of law. Then, a mixture
with the causistic type of law as Isreal came in contact with the Cannites. Imp> how the two were joined. Not causistic in secular and the other in the
sacral. Rather, apadictic law at the
center of their law, filling in the perif. with causistic law. The tension
between them with the struggle with culture is in the narrative stories of the
bible. See 1 Kings 21. Also, in Deut. and in the Prophets, the
influence of apadictic law onto the causitic law.
The
theolophany at Sinai (Ex. 19-24), then
the delivery of the law, the people's terror. Moses steps forward as
mediator. This story seems to justify
Mose's unique mediator role vis a vis God.
Ch. 19 is very theol. dense. It
is a multilayered text, tenatiously held together. It is a liturgical text. New dimensions of intertextuality. So, tensions: Moses up and down mountain
without any reason. Via sources or
redaction doesn't illuminate it. Childs:
the writer uses the freedom to break the literary form for a theol. pur. It is nonmonetic. He runs over the historical consistency for
theol. purpose. If try to get a
historical consistency, you lose the theol. tensions within the text. A tension bet. fear and attraction (see Otto)
in the people. Also, god reveals himself
yet in concealment. Tensions in the
relation of the presence of God to mankind.
The cultic ceremony: the covenant is not limited to Sinai. The tabernacle.
The
theophany at Sinai vis a vis the N.T.
Xians shouldn't assume that a mean God in O.T. has been replaced with a
loving God in the N.T. Xians don't
approach God via Moses at Sinai, but through J.C. Yet, the God of the Church is still a
consuming fire. The difference is that
Xians profess a divine mediator intercessing between us and that God. So, not a different God, or a harsh vs.
loving God.
10/7/94:
Seminar
Redaction
criticism: look at the bible or a large block as a whole. What are the literary themes? Source
criticism finds disjuctures, whereas redaction criticism tries to tie it
together. The domain of the bible is
also the domain of literary scholars. The latter do not have a methodology as
formal as that in the case of the former.
The lit. scholars emph. the artistic element. This can de-emphasize the historical aspect
of the bible. Some literary scholars use
a linguistic approach.
10/10/94:
Lecture
The
Decalogue (Ex. 20; Duet. 5):
Translations
differ by denomination. The Geek
Orthodox, Reformed, and Anglican translations begin with: no other god but
me. Childs prefers this. Exodus vs. Deut: differ on the Sabbath. In the Exodus, emphasis is on the connection
with creation; in Deut., the emphasis is on the connection with
redemption. The Decalogue is set at the
beginning on the commandments. It is
thus important in the Hebrew tradition.
It was called the ten commandments.
Form critical view: it is apodictic law: a series of imperatives. The tradition was constantly used.
There
has been a search for the core of the commandments. Parallels to an earlier form. Childs: it is more sign. to see two opposite
tendencies: expansion(a motivation clause, for ex., to broaden the law, making
it more inclusive) and contraction(e.g. don't steal--limits activity). A theological concern. On the Sabbath: in regard to Exodus., Deut.
adds: your servants should rest as well as you.
An example of expansion. Another
expansion: tied honoring parents to a long life. Ex. 20, v.s 3-5: the reference in v. 3 is not
to the qu. of the existance of other gods, but to the worship of other
gods. v. 4: to forbid worship of images
as imp. as worshipping other gods. The
priority of the first commandment.
On
the contraction theme: by elimitating the specificity of the object, the law was
broadened in its effect. For example,
sex.
How
were the commandments used? Not sure.
Various uses. In worship, for
ex. Can see them in prophetic and wisdom
lits. No sanctions given for violating
the laws, so it is a paradigmatic statement.
Note the negative aspect of the commandments: they are
prohibitions. The commandments
functioned to chart an outer boundary around the community within the
covenant. Identity of the community.
Only later did the commandments have an effect within the community, stated
positively (honor parents and keep the sabbath). They became interiorized to shape life within
the community.
The
commandments began with a prologue. Sets
the pattern of indictives followed by imperatives. Not the rules by which Isreal became the
people of the covenant, but by which they were identified and lived out their
lives. At the beg., absolute obedience
to God of Isreal. A built-in intolerance
on the worship of other gods. Not until
Issiah was it said that there are no other gods. Theor. existence. In the Decalogue, the issue is one of a
practical monotheism.
On
the second commandment: graven images.
The issue is how the deity chose to reveal himself. The commandment rejects the thesis that the
image is the proper manifastation of God.
Not clear why until Deut., where the spoken word is the proper
revelation of God. The theol. issue: the
relation of human initiative to the deity; human ability and divine grace.
The
third commandment: 'in vain' is crucial
here. To be empty or groundless. The command forbids taking the name of God
for something that has no substance.
The
fouth commandment: remember the sabbath. imp: 'to make it holy'. In terms of work that is permitted before the
day of rest, the sabbath is given a warrant in the activity of God. A negative content. Also, a positive content in making something
sanctified. See: A. Hechel, The Sabbath. Time is the vehicle in which God's activity
is exppressed.
The
fifth: honor parents. A bridge connecting obligations to God with those to
other humans. A pos. formulation. Was probably neg. originally. The family is given a divine saction. Probably originally meant to keep kids from
kicking out their parents when they could no longer work.
The
sixth: 'shalt not kill'. There was never
a prohibition agn. the death penalty in Isreal.
To kill: rasah--to murder, yet not premeditated. Unlawful violence is being prohibited because
it destroys the fabric of community.
Implies other killing used to protect the community.
The
seventh: agn adultry. A double standard
on marriage. The man is guilty in
breaking another's marriage whereas the woman is guilty of breaking her own. 'Such things are not done in Isreal. Covers a variety of sexual misconduct,
including incest and homosexuality.
The
eighth and tenth: eighth: stealing from people; tenth: property. Stealing has been shorting and broadened to
included all acts of theft. Then,
internalized to warrant agn even the intension.
The
ninth: don't lie. Guarding the life and
reputation of others.
Don't
bend justice.
So,
a set of imparatives within which the people of the covenant were to live and
be identified. Justice is a motif. They were generalized and internalized to
impact their daily lives. The simplicity
of the Dec. They addressed the
will. Ethics is not
philosophically-oriented, but are geared to practical conduct. Love of God and of neighbor were not fused,
but were in dialectic. A balance bet.
constraint and freedom. Boundaries to
the community of the covenant, but inside there is freedom. So, law is not a burden, but gives freedom.
Jesus
and the commandments:
Jesus
did not judge as a legalist, but had compassion. So, he was not a conservative. Yet, he did
not relax the commandments or change them to changes in culture. He internalized the commandments by bringing
in intent. Jesus radicalized them, to
strip bear any human device to avoid them (e.g. rationalism). So, the full import of the divine will for a
people of holiness and chastity.
10/12/94:
Lecture
The
Book of the Covenant:
Method:
comparative near eastern traditions.
Ex.
21: Laws of retaliation. It appears in
babalonian law: a principle: like retribution to injury should be exacted. The
principle was not a vestage of a primative age, but shows a development in a
concern for social justice.
Ex.
21: Goring of the Ox: degrees of responsibility when injury to another. Responsibility of ownership.
Ex.
22: Theft: relation bet. law and violence.
Thief killed during night in one's home is fine, but not so if done
during the day.
Ex.
23: Justice for poor: Agn. partiality to poor as well as the rich. God protects the oppressed, but it is pure
romanticism to say that God is on the side of the poor.
Ex.
25-31; 35-40: The Tabernacle. Lot of material.
Voluminous. Assumption by
scholars: it must be important. It was a
portable temple: a tent and a building.
Had cords and yet a wooden structure.
It had two parts: in the front, an altar for burnt offerings, behind
which the leven (bowl of water for washing).
In the back half, the 'holy of holies'. In the back half was the
tabernacle, within which was the ark at the back; in front, an incense holder
in the middle, with a table to the front-left and a lamp at the
front-right. Childs: shows degrees of
holiness. Could have been a projection
back to the bedwin history (too heavy to move as they were journeying through
the wilderness). So, it could have been
a temple, placed later in time.
It
marks an important change in how God relates to his people. Before, God just visited; in the tabernacle,
God resides. The issue is then god's
constant presence and the priesthood (an organized religious institutions with
mechanism for atonement). The image of
Sinai placed on the tabernacle. From spontanious
visits to institution. The Decalogue has
been put in the ark. A structure for
atonement. These are permanent things. A tension bet. the spon. acts of the spirit
and the institutionalization of the priests in the O.T.
Ex.
32: The golden calf story: a commentary on the material before and after
it. Moses was on the mount. getting
instructions on that which the people were wanting (to worship a god). Aaron built the golden calf and offered a
peace offering to it. Problems in the
text (e.g. God told Moses of the people's sin, yet Moses 'discovered' it
afterward; the people were forgiven, but then they were not), so look at the
style. Moses was the mediator between
polarities. The logical narrative is
distorted to hear the full intensity of them.
Also, the story was told in two different ways. One stresses apostocy(the people need an
image to worship, and are unfaithful in doing so); in the other, a case of
misguided compromise(Aaron had good intent--he noted that it was to be a Yahwah
festival; that the calf was just a rep. of Him. So, Aaron didn't see it as
apostacy). It is an active text. The
unbelieving in Isreal transcends that time for Isreal. God says 'your people have corrupted
themselves', blaming Moses. God says He
will destroy them, opening the door for Moses to interceed. Moses appeals to
Abraham; God changes His mind. In this
context, no problem with anthropormorphism (mystification was seen as the
danger). So, God changing his mind was
not a problem. Moses sees the calf, is
enraged, and does violence. Moses
demands an explanation from Aaron. Aaron
condemns the people, avoiding responsibility.
Moses defends the people and is strong enough to stand up to God. Childs: Aaron is typical of a movement of the
church to be responsive to the will of modernity.
10/17/94:
Lecture
Leviticus:
Jewish
tradition held it in esteem. It was referred to as 'The Book'. Alternatively, the Xian view had little
interest in it, seeing it as superstious and works righteousness. Agreement that it was from the Priestly
source. Social sciences as well as form crit. have been used to study it. Deep
roots in the text. The cultic has deep
roots in Isreal's history.
Literary
context: continuation of the laws given to Moses at Sinai. The structure: ch.s 1-7: sacrifice, 8-10:
concecration of Aaron and sons; 11-16: Purity laws; 17-26: Holiness code; 27:
Laws concerning vows.
Content:
Ch.s
1-7: procedures for different offerings.
Ch.s 1-5 parallel 6-7, yet the former oriented to the layperson whereas 6-7
have a priestly audience. Perplexing: no
apparent guidelines on how the laws function, the meaning of them, or
prescriptions concerning them(when, how, for what purpose). An incomplete profile, as if the tradition
were presupposed. So not seems incomplete. Form crit. shows the text reflects vestages
of ancient cultic ritual practices. How
does one understand these ceremonies?
Chs.
11-16: Purity Laws. To make a
distinction bet. clean and unclean. To
separate them; the holy from the profane.
Ch.
16: Day of Atonement: not obvious rationale given for it. See: J. Milgram, Biblical Dietary Laws as
Ethical System, Interpretation, 17,
1963: 288ff. See also Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger. Xian approach: Origen and Philo, for ex., to
allegorize them. Childs: No. Lev. was
read as a religious text. Another
interp: Midras: Assps: an appeal to oral(Midras) awa written tradition. Also,
that the bible was a closed canon that had a coherence. Midras was a religious
community.
Childs:
neither the Xian or Midras interpretations. work. Other alternative: hist. crit.: historical
anal. of settings. But, this made the
text into a fossil of ancient cultures.
The work is at a distance.
Limitations on this fragmentary, distant, arrogant methodology. Recent developments from Anthrop. and
Sociology. See Mary Douglas, Levi
Stauss, and Durkheim. Douglas
sees a polarity bet clean and unclean in terms of a construct of how the earth
was ordered. A cosmological order
expressed by the logic of purity laws.
Resides below the structure of the text, a structure of meaning
functioning on a primedial, unintentional, level. A wholistic interpretation, without a
rationalistic or ethical moralism orientation.
But, religiousness of the text rendered mute. It was religious literature. Childs: How was the text understood and how
was it to function? Don't see it as a
fossilized fragment from another culture.
Liberation theol. don't let it be viewed as a fossil. Walter Wink, at Union ,
wrote that historical criticism is bankrupt and dead. Liberal theology: evaluate the biblical text vis a vis modern
condition. Stress the oppression motif
in both. A usable past. But, it leaves
out much of it (e.g. portions that seem discriminatory).
Childs:
How did the shapers want it heard? How was it to function for later generations
for whom it was an incomplete frag? Is
there any way to recover what it meant in its complete form? A Cananical Reading: Sinai is the locus for all later law, yet the
law is more than a historical statement.
Circular reasoning: if authoritative, a law is from Moses at Sinai, and
if from Moses at Sinai, it is authoritative.
In Leviticus, a movement in the law (different ages of the law) has been
subordinated to the law at Sinai. The
one moment (at Sinai) is normative.
Original ages blurred together.
The material has been org.'d into topical units by repetition of key
phrases. Literary units. E.g., Lev. 1-3, 'a pleasing odor to the lord,
4-5: the priests shall make atonemnt; 6-7: the priests shall make a law; and so on.
Repitition clustered topically.
Theol. sign.: from the effect of this structure on the syncronic level. This lit. form involves the reader, to create
a unifed impression of the single divine imperative. So, str. such that one step removed from this
hist. activity of Isreal's ancient past, as
a type of litany calling for a response from a wholistic reading of the
text. When read liturgically, a
wholistic meaning can result. Lev. was
structured to be used liturgically. So,
not fossilized.
Ch.
26 offers a series of blessings and curses as a conclusion. The form and style of it is unique to
Lev. It makes a direct appeal to the
reader for obedience. A cultic flavour,
yet it stands in tension with the rest of the book: the nature of sin in ch. 26
calls into question the validity of the cult itself. A judgement of such intensity that can
destroy the community itself. A new dimension of sin: 'I will destroy your high
places...and scatter you'. Language of judgement uses the termin. of the
prophets, transcends on clean and unclean lang, to emph the mercy of God. Also, a tension in that the lang. of
judgement has picked up. Theol. sign:
the cult and institutional mechanisms for forgiveness are shown to be
inadequate to the nature of sin, which calls the live of the nation into
question. So, divine mercy nec. for the
nation.
Read
Leviticus as seeking to deal with how the present book has been viewed
religiously by every generation.
10/19/94:
Lecture
Book
of Numbers:
There
has been disagreement on the structure of the book. Sources do not offer the key to the
book. A discrete literary unit. The two census lists may be the key to the
book's structure. The first census is at
Sinai, the second at the end of the wilderness wandering. Why are they important? Three problems with the numbers cited. About two million people in total were
recorded in Isreal. How could they have
survived in the wilderness? A 1:27 ratio
of first-borns to total. Also, very
large numbers in battle cited. Albright:
the figures were of the Davidic age. Still, large for that age. Could also have been due to textual
redaction. Yet, the text is
consistent. The term 'eleph' originally
meant 'tent group' rather than 'one thousand'.
So, it may have been mistranslated by scribes. A symbolic view based on the Babalonian
astronological list based on a numerical system based on 60. Childs: none of these is a satisfactory
solution. There has been a new function
of the lists in the redaction. Theol.
and literary functions. The lists divide
two different generations. The second
one stands on the edge of the promised land.
The theme: the death of the old and the birth of the new. The book ends with the following unresolved:
would the new generation respond to promise or would they perish in the
wilderness?
On
the laws: very old. Ch.s 15-19: various
laws. An ordeal included about a woman
considered guilty of adultery. An
'ordeal' given: a judgement given by submitting one to a dangerous test to
prompt a supernatural intervention.
Reflects an ancient trad. with a quasi-mythological flavour. The ordeal type of judical conduct is
pre-Isreal. Isreal emph. rational
trial. The ordeal type reflects a lack
of concern with the rights of the individual.
Theological view: no indicated that the law was used again. A fossil.
Yet, the lang. of the law
continues: Isreal's infidelity to God.
God forces Isreal to drink poisen for its infidelity. A law which was not removed, but not given an
authority to function. The ordeal type
replaced.
The
Balaam Cycle, Chs 22-24: King of the Moabs hired a professional seer in
order to curse Isreal. The seer utters a
blessing instead. A glowing
eschatolotical future cited by the oricle for Isreal. A tension in the text. Complexity at an oral stage. Issue: God's ultimate control on human
history; the tension bet. human decisions and God's plan. The tension is intensional, so don't
harmonize it. The meaning lies in the
polarity. For instance, the donkey
episode in Ch. 22. The stupid beast can see and the king and his professional
seer are blind. Key: the verb 'to
see'. The mechanical elements in human
affairs become comic. Divine power can't
be manipulated by human seers or human ritual.
A prophetic element in the final oricle: on Isreal's eschat. hope. A star out of Isreal. The future role of Isreal addressed.
In
sum, a perception of the book's structure is helpful. The focus isn't on a grad. spiritual
improvement of the people, but on a distinction bet. the old and new
generation. The same promise and
threats. The destiny of the new: would they lay hold of the promise. The old generation rebelled; would the new
one?
10/24/94:
Lecture
Book
of Deuteronomy (devarim: ''words")
It
brings to an end the first division of the Hebrew Bible. Moses speaks to the new generation just
before entrance to the land. Ch.s 1-4:
reviews history; 5-11: recitation of statutes and ordinances; 12-26:laws for
life in the promised land; 27-31: covenantal ceremony: blessing and curses; 32-34:
Moses' final word and death.
There
is something different in this book. For
the Christian Church, the prism of pentitude law. For von Rad, the theological paradigm for the
O.T. Reinterpretation of the law: here
is its sign. It is considered the triumph
of the historical critical method. It
broke the back of the traditional reading of the bible. For example, did Moses
write his own death in ch. 34? If this
was added, how much else was added to the Pentatude? Why is the style of the book so unique? Fixed form, cleches, and idioms. Why variation of style if Moses wrote the
Pentatude? Laws in Deut. not just of an
agricult. society. For instance, laws of
money awa tithes. More complicated. Regulate the behavior of kings. Reflects the
abuses of King Solaman. Also, laws to discern true prophets.
In
1905, a radical new solution. By Wilhelm
de Wette. Deut was written six-hundred
years after Moses (in the seventh century, B.C.) by reforming Jews. See 2 Kings 22. A book discovered accidentally in a temple
then that paralleled Deut. A program of
reform by the purists. The 'pieous fraud
theory'. This has been dismissed. Much within Deut. is very old, reflecting
genuine Isreal traditions. Not created
at one moment. The consensus today:
Deut. was written after the fall of the northern kingdom. Much of its legal tradition is later than
Moses. So, a later historical context of
the writing, even though it includes ancient traditions. A radical sep. of the narrative depiction
with its literary context from its true historical context. The effect: to abandon the literary context
as false so to reconstruct the true history of the book (the milieu) by
historical methods. Is there a way out
of this impasse? The herm. problem of
the O.T.: the bible has been misunderstood by what really happened. Assp. that
the meaning of the text is won by correlating it with some extra-biblical;
rather, seek to understand why the editors rendered their witness each time in
a particular manner. How did they use
history vis a vis their particular view?
The issue: the nature of theol. referent. Child: a different type needed. Isreal used hist. material not as objective
sources but as a story that established their hist. existance as a covenant
people to serve as a living vehicle by which their God could be addressed in
the present. The claim of canon: you
stand not objectively but with the tradition.
A certain type of reading was given preference. Canon gives a point of standing. Scientific historical reconstruction is
useful if used right. Not by retrenching
trying to Christianize the O.T. This has
succumbed to the rationalism of the Enlightenment. The task of biblical is not to see a
coherence bet a text and a common historical referent (historicity) apart from
faith. Key: how one uses it via a vis
faith? The language of the bible
varies. Use tools that are available. For instance, look at the seventh century
context vis a vis Deut. Allows the
reader to see the uniqueness of the book.
This close reading shows how the text has left its impact on later
generations. So, words from Moses as
have been appropriated by later generations.
The meaning of the text for faith impacted by how shaped, proclaimed,
worshipped. See the text as the activity
of god as he as acted in history. A
vehicle by which successive generations approach these events. The original events were appropriated according to faith.
The
literary setting of Deut.: Moses addressing a new generation. The theological question: how does the law
relate to subsequent generations? How does faith pass on? Ch. 1: the purpose and meaning of
the ancient law to a new generation.
Problem: if unchanged, the trad. risks obsolescence. If changed, danger that the continuity with
the redemptive past could be lost. In
Deut., the covenant is not buried in the past: it is not something that
happened to 'them', but to the successive generations as well. An existential address to the new
generation. True theol. succession is
not measured historically or biologically.
The
theology of Deut.: the style is that of preaching and persuasion.
This is markedly different from other books of the Peutitude. A sign of the theological penetration in the
themes. At the heart of Deut. is the
law. The law as the will of the living
god. Not to obey laws but to love God.
This is the point of the book. Do
the will of God so to love Him. Not an
ideal set up, but a reality to be lived.
Law that will determine whether they will live or die.
Isreal
is elected to holiness. Isreal is God's
special possession. The election is an
act of divine grace; undeserved. Because of God's love. The mystery of God's love. The theol. of the land: not a mythical union
bet the people and it, but is a sacred trust as long as Isreal is
faithful. This is not due to Isreal's
righteousness, but on its fidelity to God. Land is important to Isreal
theologically. The meaning of worship: dominated by the view that the god of
Isreal is different from all other deities.
So, no idolitry. One Lord,
without image. No alien cultic practices.
Joy in worship. A this-worldly understanding.
In
sum, Deut. has a special role as the last book of the Peutitude. Deut. provides the interpretative key by
which the laws of Moses are actualized for future generations. It is not tied to history, but contains the
continuity. The promises of God are
still in the future for every generation.
The law has to be in the heart, preached and existential. Deut. gives the basic theological norm of how
law is to be understood. It rules out
liberatizing the law. The law has to be
actualized. Not the letter but the
spirit.
10/26/94:
Lecture
The
hebrew canon is divided into the Torah, the prophets,and the writings. In the Greek bible: Law, Histories, wisdom,
and prophets. Different orders.
Joshua
and the Settlement:
Wellhousin
argued that Joshua had the same source as the books of the Pentitude. He called it the Hexitude, ending with
Joshua. von Rad agreed. Childs: problem
with this--doesn't deal with the sharp division in the canon bet. the pent. and
the historical books. M. Noth stressed
the discontinuity. Deut. formed the
beginning of a new historical work through Kings. A history written to explain why Israel was
destroyed and lost the land. Also, the
same redactional shaping in them.
Childs: problem--describing features of the text in its pre-literary
form. Consensus on the Peutitude ending
with Deut.. A theological reason: the
Law (Torah) was considered constitutive and did not include the possession of
the land. They are the people of the
Torah. So, a sharp distinction between
Deut. and Joshua. Isreal as the people
of God does not include possession of the land.
Three
parts of Joshua: 1-12, 13-22, 23-24. A
promise is given: no one will resist their entry. Repeated in ch. 23 as executed. Ch. 11 summarizes the conquest. Joshua
destroyed the cities. The history of the
conquest is theological. Joshua is
intentionally patterned after Moses. The
chronological record was not of interest by the redactor; rather, his was a
theological concern: the concern is with the law. The history is heavily thematized. It is as if the writer was aligning events
that had the same quality. The history
is skewed. As in Judges, it is clear
that the conquest took longer than in Joshua.
Also, the conquest was more complex and not as unified as shown in
Joshua. Historical evidence goes along
with this. The heart of the campaign is
passed over in Joshua. So, it is historically skewed, yet not myth or saga. It
is history as viewed from a particular
theological point-of-view. A
variety of material make up its content.
So, not empirical history, but not symbolic either; it involves
historical events, but is skewed to a theological view. Not a tight-knit fit., but it has several
stories each with its own theological point.
'On
to this day' used in ch. 6 and 7. For
instance, the stones from the Jordan . The formula marks a distance from the event
itself and the composer. An etiological
type of story. A story that arose to
explain a cultural feature; the story is secondary to the custom. Why is it that there are cultic practices of
circumcision? So, a break in the
tradition: start with it and use it as a story to explain a custom. A break from historical events. But, don't discount the historical
aspect. The use of the etiol. formula
can be different from that of the fable(in which the story is secondary). Key: how the etoil. form. functioned in the
Greek history. The etiology did not
create the story, but confirmed a custom.
This is the type used in Joshua.
The history has to be dealt with seriously, according to Childs. So, archeological evidence is relevent. Childs: science is not an objective
thing. Bright, for example, interp.s the
archeol. evidence to harmonize it with the biblical. A German scholar does the opposite. For instance, the fallen wall of Jerico:
archeological evidence that it was fallen much earlier than Joshua. No evidence of any falling at Joshua's
time. Bright says the evidence has
washed away; others say that the wall really didn't fall. Problem: of interp. of evidence or lack
thereof. So, not objective. Same problem with how long it took the land
to be settled. Why did Isreal settle in
the high hill country rather than in the fertile plain? Archeological evidence can't explain
this.
A
sociological interpretation by George Mendenhall: the conquest was an internal
upheaval that fitted the ruling class agn. the disadvantaged class. A social revolution which took a long time. Not an external invasion, but a social
upheaval. Bright agrees. Norman Gottwald has a more radical view. De-emphs the conflict in the conquest.
The
story of ch. 2: The Spies & Jerico.
Its chronology doesn' t fit with that in ch. 1. Shows that the stories had been transmitted
as a whole. Historical etiology was not
a major factor in it. What is the writer
saying? Key: conversations between the
King and Rehab, Rehab and the spies, and
?. The spies were noticed even in a
whorehouse. Although literary devises
are used, some details of history present.
She risked her life for them because of her faith in Yahweh. A foreigner confesses the God of Isreal. The point: no one agn. the realization of
God's promise to Isreal. Note that it is
a lit. devise but also involves history.
10/28/94:
Seminar
Exegesis:
Compare
translations (English). Look at the
shape of the passage vis a vis before and after it. This is not a research paper full of
citations. Don't do a word-study or
literary structure study in sections.
Rather, write an essay. Don't retell the original story. Yet, when doing backgound work, set out the
story in its structure.
Preaching
the O.T.:
Achtemeier
and Toombs are the most substantive of our readings. Whereas Achtemeier is relatively
Christ-centric, Toombs stresses the human condition. Achtemeier argues agn. a facimile use of O.T.
figures. Don't grab a character and
forget the story. Achtemeier's theology
impacts here methodology. Achtemeier offers a typology: the analogy and the
re-presentation. Both Toombs and
Achtemeier emph. relevance to our time. But what if 'relevance to one's times'
was not the intent in the O.T.?
Groundwork
of an exegesis can be used for a sermon.
Explain the passage in terms of its place and meaning in the O.T. Be
cautious about adding a Xian interp.
Tell the O.T. story (few Xians have read it): it's theology, the story,
the history. Realize that there are discontinuities
as well as continuities with Xianity.
10/31/94: Lecture
Book of Judges
Literary
Problems:
The
Hebrew is of a different kind. See ch.
5. The psalm recounts the battle days.
Ethical problems not dealt with, such as the violation of hospitality. A later framework: the stories are given it
which offers a theological interpretation.
A
theological framework of history is also in ch. 2 (2.6-3.6): a Deut. cyclical
framework. A theological interpretation
of how this period is to be understood. Not moralized; rather, show the society
in disobedience and disorder. No
king. Before the rise of Isreal's
kingdom.
Historical
Problems:
M.
Noth: 12 Tribe League. Egyption records
show that the Canaanites held position of their plain cities such as Jerusalem ; Israel
had the less fertile hill country. The
geography of palestine
encouraged isolation and fragmentation.
Also, threatening tribes around Israel . Other factors held in check Isreal's
fragmentation. The O.T. doesn't give an
answer. For the last fifty years, the 12
tribe league: a loosely org.'d religious/political configuration (an
Amphictyony) for about 200 years. Bright
discusses the consensus on this. Doubts
on it: was there only one sanctuary? What were the offices that functioned in
the confederation? Yet, no other
hypothesis has come up. Nesi, or a
leader, is refered to. Vague. Also,
reference to shofet (judge) used for charismatic leader who rescued a tribe
from an oppressor. More of a military
leader than a legal office. In ch.s 10
and 12, a list a civil offices (minor judges as distinct from the above major
judges) which dispenses justice. So, a
picture of a decentralized network of offices.
The
Theological Problem:
A
massive problem for Israel 's
faith. Israel entered into a land
saturated with Canaanite fertility cults.
Israel
took over the old fertility worship places and entered into the ancient
agricultural festivals. The Canaanite
pantheon was assimilated into the faith.
Yehwah and Baal seem a lot alike.
Yehwah was described early-on as
a fertility god (with horns, as a rider on clouds). Also in the Israelite names. Faith is being conditioned here by the
historical events. Before, historical
events were portrayed as conditioned by faith.
What does this change mean theologically?
The
Israelites did not replace Yehweh, but showed that the Canaanite panteon was of
Yehweh. The problem: where to draw the
line. There was a conservative element
which was against this. But if orthodoxy
is absolutized, there is a problem with relevance. Isreal floundered in finding an answer. The theol. answer came only later by the
prophets in the kingdom.
Individual
Narratives:
Ehur
(ch. 3.15ff.) A left-handed man. A hero's story. Of political assasination. Ehur is like a
modern hit-man. He tricks Eglon, king of
the Moabs .
Ehur is praised for his cleaverness.
Theol: to be an enemy of Isreal is to be one against God.
The
way individual stories are fashioned together
is important in Judges.
Samson
Cycle (ch.s 13ff). Stories about him
joined in a narrative cycle. There were
oral and literary stages. This was not
from a later redactor. Some stories in
it function by themselves (see ch.16).
Samson sleeps with a whore. The
people surround his house to kill him.
He gets out. Childs: no moral
here. The stories joined in a
unity. Birth of him, his marriage, his
betrayal and his vengence, the act by Delihla and his final vengence in
death. A causal chain in the chain of
events involving uncontrolled fury.
Some condensing of the stories.
Why was Samson's wife given to another?
The skill of the writer of the cycle is in the use of themes to show a
single plot. For example, Samson's
desire to live with the Philistines and his vengence against them. The tension here finally explodes. Another theme: his strength in battle and his
weakness with women. psych., phys, and
theol levels. A third theme: he is
dedicated to Yehweh --he gave a vow as a Nazerite, yet he breaks the vows.
Most
important: the transition made from Samson as a clown to a tragic
character. A shift to religious
literature. The birth story, for
example, shows Israel
hoping for a redeemer. The writer
highlights the contrast between this hope and what Samson actually does. His acts of heroism is really Samson's
settling his personal accounts rather than for Isreal. Samson as a tragic hero. Samson and Dihila and Samson and vengence. The hair show the transition bet. strength
and weakness. The theme of temptation
comes out: Dihilha presses him on where his strength lies and he tells her the
secret. She told the Philistines. They seized him and take out his eyes. Samson prays for the first time. He asks for strength and takes them with him
in death.
11/2/94: Lecture
Samuel
and Saul: Rise of Monarchy (1 Sam 7-15):
Historical
sources are dealt with here. Very
different historical views are used. The
rise of the monarchy was at c.a. 1000 b.c.
In Egypt ,
the twentieth dynasty under Ramses III (1175).
In Babylon ,
Kassite rule. From 1100-900, Asseria
under Armiaic nomads. So, both Egypt and Babylon
were dormant and eroded. Israel saw the hand of God at work in Israel 's rise
of its monarchy in this context.
The
central problem in these chapters: two distinct understandings of how the
Israeli kingdom arose. How to explain
the differences. Account A:
ch.9:1-10-1:16; 11:1-15. Saul doesn't
know the name of Samual. Saul annoits
Samual. Saul becomes a charismatic
leader (as in Judges). Samuel annoits
Saul king. Acct. B: 9:2-17, 8,
10:17-25a, 12: Samuel subdued the
Philistines. The people were discontented.
Israel 's
disobedience was the source of the trouble. Saul is chosen against the advice
of Samuel. Samuel agn the notion of
kingship as being alien to Israel .
Martin
Noth argues that 'A' is historical; 'B' is not.
Childs: no. Others suggest a
sociological view: pro- and anti- monarchy parties in Isreal that were
reflected in the different accounts.
Childs:
the emphasis in 'A' is the pressure from the Philistines. In Judges, this occured such that the tribe
of Dan was forced to migrate. The
Philistines attacked, but not clear why.
Israel
devistated in the second attack and the arc was lost. The redactor de-emph's this. Disaster from the Philistines. Israel is shamed. They weep.
In this account, Saul is a nobody.
He is told of the news. The
spirit of God fell on him, and he became a charismatic leader. Saul and his men attack the Amorites. Important: after that conquest, Saul wanted
to establish the kingdom. The old tribal
league would no longer do. In ch. 11,
Saul ends up as a perm. ruler as a nation.
A political act, rather than a sacral act.
The
'B' account: Negative approach to the rise of the kingdom established by
Saul. The people were restless for a
king. They didn't like Samuel's corrupt
brothers. They wanted a king. Samuel is displeased. He warns the people of the evils of a
king. Israel has desired an earthly king
when actually Yahweh is their real king.
Yet, God gives Isreal another chance even though it chose an earthly
king. Yet, with threat that destruction
unless the nation and its king follow God.
A
complex theological problem. Israel 's
tradition vis a vis kingship was unique.
Israeli kingship was not a primordial institution. It was not as a divine son of God. Kingship was an alien institution. God was the king, who called forth temporal
earthly kings in times of crisis.
Gideon, for example, said that God rules over Israel . So the desire for an earthly king is to be
disobedient to God. This is the view of
the 'B' account. Yet the old charismatic
leaders were not sufficient. How does
ancient religious trad. relate to current problems?
The
redactors do not surpress 'A' or 'B'. An
interpretive framework by the relation between them. The effect of the editorial process. The 'B'source is given priority. It brackets the 'A' source. The prophetic note against Israel trying
to be like other nations. Yet, the
positive note of 'A' is not lost. God is
also involved in a political change.
Samuel annoits Saul.
The
basic theological issue has not been determined by the change in the political
structure. The historical change is
relativised: the real problem remains: to serve God. A theological solution to a historical
problem. This is left unresolved. How to serve God. A theological tension.
Ch.s
13 and 15: this tension. Samuel and
Saul. Samuel as judge symbolizes the
sacral past trad. Saul symbolizes the
profane political new order. What is the
relation bet. them? Childs: in both,
Isreal's obedience to Yehweh is the theol. issue. Saul disobeys Yahweh and is removed as
king. The reason for this is not clear,
and the severity of the punishment seems out of proportion to what he did
(offered burnt offerings). As a king, he
had the right to do that. Samuel does
not appear in the best light. Writer:
sympathetic to Saul. But, in ch. 15
gives an account of the rejection of Saul.
Seems like it was his first act as king.
In this account, Samuel is pictured well as fully involved, interceding
for Saul to God. Then he comes down on
Saul.
A
major issue: the holy war. Everything
captured belongs to God. Saul neglected
this. To Saul, not a holy war; he was a
perm. king with paid soldiers who deserved the spoils. A basic conflict bet the old and new
order. The new order had not completely
emerged. The unresolved question: God's
answer.
Cananical
integrity is not the same as literary unity.
Seek not the latter when the biblical text does not give one. Such would destroy the genuine theol. witness
of the text. Take seriously the literal
sense of the text as theologically interpreted.
11/4/94:
Seminar
Exegesis:
Joshua 10: 6-14
Different
versions have different lines in the poem on the sun and moon stopping. Form crit.
Define what the form is. The
translators can't decide. Two formats:
prose and poetry. von Rad: poetry is an
older element and is transmitted more accurately. Was the poetry inserted later? Why?
v.
12: RSV: 'Sun, stand still...Moon, stand still'. A simple structure: subject, imperative. At certain places: at Gideon and Ajalon,
respectively. Look at a map. East and West.
Identify the significance of the place names.
What
is the form? An incantation: a magical
spell. See v. 14: 'When Yehweh obeyed
the voice of a man'. It has a different
kind of movement to it: human movement below, but Yahweh is constant
overhead.
What
was the original use of a form is not necessarily the way in which it is used
in the text.
Identify
where the action is taking place. The
political situation can be seen from the text.
11/7/94: Lecture
David's
Rise to Power: 1 Sam 16 - 2 Sam 7
Saul
and David stories: David's rise is set against Saul's decline. This orientation is supported by the way in
which the story of the two men is intertwined. In 1Sam. 16, Samuel annoints
David secretly for fear of Saul. David slays Goliath, but after rejecting
Saul's advice. ch. 18: David friends Jonithan and alienates Saul even more. Saul may feel that David is intruding on his
family.
An
intertwining of two people's stories (David and Saul). This is not self-evident
in the O.T. tradition. It seems to reflect an ancient historical memory. This intertwining appears to be a basic theme
of this cycle. Basic Theme: David's purpose is to aid Saul, but each time David
was the means of Saul's undoing.
ch.s
16-7: initial friction in material--oral tradition.
ch.
16: David is a man of war, trained soldier, worker for Saul.
ch.
17: David is a ruddy-cheeked shepard boy, unknown to Saul.
Chronology
is off. So, the richness of the
traditions has been preserved, rather than a harmonization of chronology.
Goliath
story: Good for practicing exegetical work. What do you see in the story? Why
is it so structured? How are its various parts related? What is the significance that this story is
told in the genre of a contest? How does this define the scope, tension and
moving of the story? How does the author
work with the motif of the underdog? How does he build up suspense? Why were the combatants described so.
Blasphemy on the part of the giant is used throughout. What is the effect of
first alowing speech to be given to the whole army. Nature of dialog: Goliath
curses David 'by all the gods'--David responds that there is only one God.
Change of pace in the narrative--what is the effect in the way the climax is
built up? Both men run towards each other. David is running with a stone still
in his pocket. Why? Carelessness? Faith? A theme: the difference bet. Saul and
David. Saul is fearful whereas David is confident, rejects Saul's armour. The David and Goliath story is good for
preaching. Consider the structure and
how the parts are related. Underdog
motif; buildup of surprise--details of Goliath's size; five times repetition of
Goliath's blasphemy. Contrast to David--there by accident, delivery boy; Speech
to whole army; dialogue between David and Goliath: all the gods vs. one
God. Climax of action: they run towards
eachother summerized in two different scenes!
Immediate
growth of hostility between David and Saul. Woman worship David instead of
Saul. Jealousy in Saul--David is said to be more successful. Friendship between
David and Jonethan-heir apparent.
Jonathan is a truly noble character. No limit of ulterior motive for
David. Finally, Saul saw Jonathon as disloyal, no longer a son. In the Hebrew
institution of the 'larger family', the Hebrew family was seen as an extension
of the individual into the group. David, as an outsider, became a threat to
this by laying claim on part of the clan--drawing Jon outside Saul's sphere of
power.
Saul's
anger turns into insanity--a fixation. David was a symbol which Saul projected
into an ultimate evil (like Moby Dick to Captain Ahab). Saul's internal
pressure ultimately brings him down. What seemed to be passing moods ultimately
became controlling passions. Saul is not a sinister person; rather, he his
slowly becoming deranged. The Bible
treats neurosis as the spirit of God departing from one and an evil spirit
descending. Saul descends into the abyss
of self-destruction, dragging all of Isreal with him. A brilliant depiction of Saul's
deterioration. Internal and external
pressure; mania and Philistines. Moods:
David comes as a musician to calm him. Saul never described as sinister;
rather, he becomes deranged; spirit of God departs and an evil spirit comes
over him and he raves (of prophetic ecstasy earlier). Extremes--attaches, then gives David his
daughter. Soul became obsessed with
catching David, abandoning his job of defense against the Philistines. There are, however, moments of feeling there
is still hope for Saul--glimpses of the old Saul, such as in 1 Sam. 24 in the
cave episode where David spares Saul and Saul recognizes David and weeps in
repentance.
Death
of Saul: 1 Sam. 31. Fate was sealed by
his visit to the witch of Endor. Tale is of fulfillment of divine judgement,
but the writer tells it in such a way that we know Saul.
Saul
is frightened by the Philistine army in ch. 28 because he has been adondoned by
God and Samuel. Travels to Endor (he has exiled all witches from Isreal); at
Jabesh Gilead, a magic trick of raising Samuel's ghost; Samuel is 'Cantentious
as ever'; condemns Saul who falls in a coma.
Saul's end comes quickly. Battle
at Mt.Gilboa--bad choice for Saul--defeat and death. But even then Saul is not forgotten by the
people of Jabesh Gilead who rescue his body and bury him at great risk. See: Adam C. Welch, Kings and Prophets. Good on Saul and David. Final glimpse of the relation between Saul
and David in David's eulogy for Jonathan: 'How have the mighty fallen...'. Sorrow and futility of war.
David's
rise is portrayed as part of Yehweh's divine purpose. Yet at the same time, David has a great combo
of talent, shrewdness, and political know-how. Details of political manuevering
are in the text: contrast David's golden touch to Saul's 'loser' label. David
has great attractiveness. See 1 Sam. 25:
David walks tightrope of disaster with the enemy. But, he plays both sides masterfully. He
raids non-Isrealite and sends spoils to Judean cities to keep relationship with
supporters there; but keeps the Philostines convinced that he has turned
against Isreal. But finally Adish wants
David to fight against Isreal & Saul.
But David is lucky: other Phils object to this plan; they don't trust
him, so he is off the hook. The defeat of Saul by the Phils was a surprise to
David. Yet David was the ever shrewd
calculator; he knew the art of waiting. He waited in Hebron where he had won favour by Robin Hood
activities. No implication given for David's actions; just a list, but they
look planned. His marriage to a Kenite was a political move. David's army of
riffraff stayed with him in Hebron
until Judeans came to anoint him. David
is not a charismatic leader but a permanent political leader (welek). Phils
didn't see the threat.
The
Northern tribes (Israel )
after Saul's death: Abner took control, set up puppet government with Ishbaal
as puppet king for two years. Then, Ishbaal
quarreled with Abner who started secret negotiations with David. David had a
cautious response: he required the return of Michal (Saul's daughter)--another
political move in having married her--it gave him legitimacy to the throne in
succession from Saul. 2 Sam. 3 shows the ruthless side of David. But then, Abner was murdered by Joab under
the pretext of blood vengence. But he
really killed Abner because he saw Abner as a threat. 2 Sam. 4: Eshbaal was
murdered: hitmen showed up at David's camp expecting a reward from David.
David
turned both of these incidents to his favour.
He was the only heir now as Saul's son-in-law. 2 Sam. 5: northern tribes invited David to be
the king of Israel
too. So all tribes were united--loyal to
one ruler.
2
Sam 17: Phils go after David, but they didn't realize that he had a trained
army and a united kingdom . This time, it was David who chose the site
for battle--Rephaim. This surprised the
Phils who were defeated. They gave up
and went home, no longer a threat to a united nation. David's cleverness: he didn't destroy the
Phils, but employed them as mercenaries.
David
chose Jerusalem
as the capital: political genius as this was the in the middle of the country,
not claimed by either side, yet still Canaanite. When the capture of the city took place,
David didn't exterminate the native population.
He brought the ark up to Jeruselem to make it both the political and
religious center--a neutral site.
2
Sam 6 story is significant: Anger of the Lord against Uzzah because he touched
the ark. The ark could not be manipulated for political gain, until David
received favour of God through Nathan (ch. 7).
What
about the theological problem? David's
kingdom became symbolic of the rule of God--a major vehicle for Israel 's messianic
hope. Hope is not for a return to the old amphictyomy, but to the kingdom of David Man. 2Sam. 7: the legitimation of David's rule.
David wants to build God a house, but Nathan says God will build him a house--a
dynasty. David is elected by God. We never know why God chose David; tis a
mystery of God's love. But David's
election doesn't exempt him from punishment for disobedience. However, his
election is never in doubt.
11/9/94: Lecture
David's
Loss of Power: 2 Sam. 9-20, 1 Kings 1
1.
The Search for David's successor. See L. Rost The Succession Narrative.
Michal, Absalom, Amnon, Adonujah,
Bathsheba, Nathan
2.
David & Bathsheba 2 Sam 11-12 Unah
3.
The Unfolding of the curse. 2 Sam. 13ff.
Ahitophel, Hushai, Htai, Joab; see
Adam C. Welch Kings & Prophets
of
Israel
There
is a wide diversity of material in Samuel. A complex set of various stories.
Why these stories? Rost suggests that
all are built around the theme of succession to David. 2 Sam. 6: Ark brought up. Original
function different. If Michal had had a son, the son would have been David's
heir. Michal sees David dancing, despises him, an argument, and no more
children. This is significant for
David's succession. God promised David a house,
but how can he have a house without an heir? 2 Sam 7: Nathan promises David a dynasty, but
who will be his heir?
2
Sam. 8-11: Wars of conquest. In ch. 11, the army includes Unah at the front.
Bathsheba's first child by David is taken by God. Solomon was the second child.
2
Sam. 13: David's other sons. Rape of
Tamas by Amnon. He would have been the
next in line. Absalam has an excuse to
kill Amnon and is eventually killed himself.
1
Kings 1: Senile David: Adonijah rebels and is supported by the army, priests,
and Joab. but Bathsheba complains to
David and is backed up by Nathan; Zaddi anoints Solomon as the correct king.
Childs:
This theory (all of the stories concern the succession to David) has weight and
was once popular. But this theme is not
necessarily the major one now. It
is certainly not the only one. The major
theme of 2 Sam. 21-24 is ignored by Rost as an intrusion into the succession
narrative. But these chapters give
hermeneutical guide to all of these stories!
The editor steps back and evaluates David. Ch. 21: David wasn't the cause of
Saul's downfall. Ch.
23: David is connected with the Messianic expectancy. The story of David in
Sam. is isolated from the Messianic reading of David in Chronicles without 2
Sam. 21-24. Direct result of Bathsheba affair.
Unlike
Roth, child sees other themes. The whole subsequent history after David's
affair with Bathsehba is on God's punishment for the murder of the Hittite.
Trouble immediately begins for David.
Sin against God results in a series of disasters.
2
Sam: Death of Uriah marks the zenith for David; God turns his face away at that
point (2 Sam. 12). Until then, pure success. Sin against God brings a series of
disasters--revolts, chaos, famine, pestilence, census, a changed mood of the
kingdom; his popularity rating plummetted. 2 Sam. 11: seduction of Bathsheba.
Spring
of the year: battle season. But David doesn't go to battle as previously. He is
no longer a tough fighting man; he has gone soft, lounging around the palace.
Morally soft too. David knew she was married before he seduced her. The focus
of the writer is not on the details of the act of adultry, but on David's
effort to cover-up the consequences. Details of David's attempts to get Uriah
to sleep with Bathsheba, but Uriah is too faithful and upright. David is reduced to murder via battle. People
must have known: Isrealite forces were commanded to leave Uriah alone on the
front line. Contrast between the integrity
of Uriah and the craven conspiracy of David. Uriah himself carries the letter
commanding his murder. David can trust Uriah not to open the letter. David's reaction to the death of Uriah is
cynical. The biblical writer closes the chapter with the comment that David's
deed angered the Lord. God sends Nathan to David to tell him a tale of two
shepards, one rich and one poor. The rich man took the poor man's lamb. David
said that the rich man deserves to die becuase he did the thing and had no
pity. Nathan said that David was the rich man. Nathan said that the sword would
never depart from David's house because of what David did (adultary and having
Uriah killed). Nathan's story of the eve lamb is a guaranteed tear-jerker,
especially for David, the former shepard. David's haven vs. Uriah's only
wife--his pride and joy.
God's curse of David. This is the theme thenceforth. How it unfolds
is the major concern. Sad story of a family unravelling: rape of Tamar, murder
of Amnon, exile and forgiveness of Abselom.
David has lost all his toughness and judgement.
2
Sam. 14:25 Newintro--Absalom as prince.
Reminiscent of original picture of David. Writer dwells on Absalom's virtues of
strength. In contrast, David is pathetic, old, and soft. David is generally
unable to cope with life--dysfunctional family has taken its toll.
When
did the idea to revolt enter Absalom's mind?
He was not the heir-apparent until Amnon's death. The coup itself was
easy-- David was isolated in the palace with his private army. Absalom politicked at the city gate, waited
and prepared for four years until everything was ready. He had won over Ahithophel and the army. This
was a complete surprise for David, whose reaction is of disbelieving and
humiliated. He could not believe that
his son was doing this to him. He is
urged to flee in distress, and he stumbles out of the palace as a weak man.
There
is here a great contrast between his youth, confidence, and strength of before
and his current age, apathy, and weakness. But then the writer begins to shift
focus because David begins to revive. He flees to the forest of East Jordan
From
this point, things get better for David.
Back against the wall, the old David reappears (he is at his best in a
fight). Against the city gate, David assembles his family, and Watches people
flee from the city. A Philistine garrison prepares to accompany him. David
tells them to go work for the new king because he canot any longer pay
them. But the commander swears loyalty
to David. It reminds him that he is
still king. See Welch's commentary. This
is a precarious situation for David. A dangerous journey lay ahead. So he
gambles again, sending Hushai back to the city to mislead Absalom. Hushai
pretends to be enthusiastic for Absalom.
Hushai answers Absalom: 'No my Lord, whom God and this people have
chosen for King, him I will serve forever.' The double-meaning of Hushai's
declaration is lost on Absalom. David is cursed by Shimei. Absalom takes
David's concubines and publicly takes possession--a fulfullment of God's
curse. Ahitophel urges immediate action
to pursue David. Hushai turns Absalom's mind by appealing to his desire for
glory in leading the army. Ahitophel knows what this means and hangs himself.
Absalom's army is no match for the professional Philostine mercenaries and
Joab's guerillas. Forest setting for battle
favoured David. Absalom flees, anticipating defeat. Absome flees on a donkey.
He is caught in a tree by his hair, and was executed. The writer at this point
highlights the constrast to the former seiges of glory of David; a crowd of
supporters in David's past conquests vs. along in the forest; chariot vs.
donkey. Here is the downfall. Joab wastes no time in killing Absalom
despite David's order against it.
Scene
shifts to David waiting for news. When he hears of the death of his son
Absalom, he slips into senility and weeping, mourning Absalom rather than
celebrating victory.
Important:
understanding of the cycle for telling a whole story. It is the highpoint in sophistication of
storytelling. No happy endings. Profound
understanding of God in history and with people. God hardly appears in the
story. 2 Sam 11: God turns the tide: David angered God. 2 Sam 17: The Lord saw
to it that counsel of Hushai prevailed. God
works through human activities, behind the scenes. Behind everything is the working of God.
Built into the structure of reality is a
pattern of act and consequence. David destroys his family, his own family
is destroyed. Direct intervention of God
is not necessary.
In
preaching, tell the story in its fullness.
The story itself will impact. Don't look for one lesson. Tell the story
in all its ambivalence. Very elequent
testimony to God's judgment and mercy.
11/14/94: Lecture
Ruth:
It's
place in the O.T. is a hermanutical. problem.
Don't allergorize or Xianize the
O.T. as a way out of this problem. Jews
and Xians read the O.T. in different orders.
For the Jews, Ruth is joined with the Song of Songs, Eccles., and Ester
in the 'Five Scrolls'. Here, Ruth is
seen as a balance to Ester. Ruth stands
for jewness (foreigners are included).
The Xians place Ruth after Judges (placed in the historical
context). Here, Ruth is seen as a figure
of loyalty, perseverence, love, and hope.
Childs: Xians don't have to choose between these two but can have both.
A
Canonical Interp. of Ruth:
The
geneological ending-by a second editor- shows that the story relates to that of
the nation: Ruth's son is David's grandfather.
It also extends the canon of the original story to include the
mysterious ways of God.
Unlike
Ester, Ruth dared to lay by the land owner.
The
Rise of Messianism:
'Messiah'
is a 'post-O.T.' term. In the O.T.,
there were the 'anointed ones' such as the prophets, priests, and kings. They were not divine. For example, the king was subject to God's
imperative. Nathan's promise: the divine
providence of kingship: likened to divine rule.
Upon this laid the legitimacy of David's dynasty. In the prophetic tradition, there was a
'prophet vs. king' distinction. The
prospect of a bad king gave rise to the messianic hope. The promise of David was transferred to a
true son. So, the messianic hope came
out of a wedge between the actual king and God's promise of a righteous
ruler. As Isral lost territory, there
was increased attention placed on a messianic ruler.
The
prophets portray the coming of the messiah in different terms. This movement
can be seen in the Psalms and in liturgy: There were Royal hymns (e.g. 2, 45,
72, 110) in which the reigning king in mythopoetic language borders on
deification. But Saul and David were
seen as mere mortals. Something had
happened in Israel :
the prophetic influence increased such that David's reign was increasingly seen
as the reign of God. The Kingdom of David became symbolic of the eschatological kingdom of God
Messiahship
in the N.T.:
See
Nels Dahl. Paul is in line with the O.T.
in his messianic hope. Yet Paul was discontinuous with the O.T. in not
identifying Jesus with the O.T. Messiahship concept. Rather, whom Jesus was
became for Paul the concept of the messiah in the N.T. So, the nature of 'Messiah' differs between
the O.T. and N.T. In reading back in the N.T., one finds a unified view of
Messiahship extending back into the O.T., but it isn't there.
Book
of Kings:
3
sections: 1-11: Soloman; 12-2 Kings 17: History of Kingship; 2 Kings 18-25
History of the Kings of Judah.
Purpose:
a unified history of one people (despite the North-South division). A unified people of God. Explains why the
nation was destroyed: acts of the kings and theological reasons.
The
Style of Kings: each king dealt with in the same way. Begin with vital stats (use of
chronicles). Details are given, yet
there are generalities too. Whereas the former
bind a king to a particular place and time, the latter gives theological
measures of a king: how the king effects the primacy of Israel as God's
elect. In the theological interp. of
Kings, the emphasis is to explain what went wrong with Israel . Israel lost its land. History is in close relation to the
prophets. This is in line with the
promise/fulfillment pattern: the prophetic word creating history.
One
cultic criterian of each king: how he contributes to the promise of Israel . In the criteria of eschatological law, kings
are measured 'either-or'. The law of
Moses increased its power. Yet why a
pious king was killed in Kings is left unanswered.
Soloman's
Reign:
961-921
B.C.
Soloman
exploited David's peace. He practiced a
religous sycrontism later renounced by prophets. For example, the temple was designed and
built by the Phinesians. The tabernacle
was in darkness from Egyptian practice.
11/16/94: Lecture
Soloman
to Exile:
The
economic effects of Soloman's policy: burden on the rural population,
resentment in the Northern tribes against David's innovations in the South, a
reaction against the ascetic life, and a protest by the prophets against
growing royal abuses.
The
prophetic movement: Imp: how they formulated the problem and the solution. They did not go back in history, but had a
new view.
The
divided kingdom: Judah and Israel . According to the prophets, in the latter days
the nation would be re-united. In the
meantime, the split weakened the nation politically both domestically and vis a
vis external threats. Disasterous. Much energy was wasted in civil war. The faith had emphasized the rule of one God
over one nation. But, in a division, two sanctuaries. Result: a pagonization of
the faith. Bethal symbolized this
(analogous to the golden calf). The
confusion in Israel :
isolated from David's line; the confusion in Judah : isolated and impoverished. North
vs. South: a conflict over the nature of kingship. In the North, the
people's right to choose their king was valued.
In the South, Rehoboam assumed he as Soloman's son would be king. An
appeal to divine right. This notion of
divine right was from the Canninite notion of kingship. Rehoboam was arrogant to the North, so they
revolted.
1
Kings 12: a theological judgement. A turn of affairs by God. Human freedom yet
a mystery.
Childs:
No overriding ethical principle in the
O.T. Yet, there seems to be a general
teaching against cruelty and the abuse of power. So, religion is not viewed
in the O.T. as merely between an individual and his soul. Issue: Power and Morality: public and
private. Public and private morality go
together. History is incorporated in
O.T. faith. Israel
never had the luxury of reflecting on the nature of God. God was known via His
actions in this world.
The
major theological issue in the division between North and South: why did not
the division ruin the faith? The North
tried to go back to the tribal league and charismatic leaders, but political
disorder ensued anyway. For example, 900-850, the North was constantly at war
with the Araneans. Israel lost
some territory. Also, threat from Assyria
began. At Karkar, this threat was
temporarily repulsed. In 745, the death
of Jeroboan II, king of the North. With
Tiglathpilezar III, the political end of the North was in sight. Syrian tribes
joined with the North and tried to force the South to join. Then, war.
721: End of the Northern kingdom . Yet at that time there were signs of weakness
within Assyria .
2
Kings 18: a disease whips out Assyrians. Jerusalem
spared.
The
South: under Josioh (c. 618). Temple
reform and expanded territory. 612: Assyria
fell. Egypt
came north to aid the Assyrians against the Babylonian kingdom. The Babylonians, under Nebuchadnezer, took
over the southern kingdom in 587. This was the beginning of the Babylonian
Captivity.
Theology
of this history: A struggle to
understand history (God's ways vis a vis history). Faith in the power of God
over history was not broken. For Issiah, God has his own plan. A strangeness to
it. Prophesy and fulfillment theme:
history is working toward a goal.
11/18/94: Lecture
How
does our new literary knowledge of the development and growth relate to the
final and completed form of the O.T.? How is the final telling of the story
impacted by the new social sciences? For
a long time, the difficulty of the heurmaneutical problem was not seen. It was
assumed that the more knowledge one had, the clearer everything became. What
happens when the new knowledge confronts the biblical text? What happens when the biblical writer knows
less than the historical character?
Is
it sometimes possible that, in the retelling of the stories, that elements
which do not appear in the story are supplied?
What happens in the presentation you can fill in every lucunot with new
biblical material?
Childs
knows of no one who says that we should forget about the scientific method. The
historical critical method is such a part of our culture that it can't be
ignored. One can't jump out of one's
culture's skin. It is equally naive to
welcome all new knowledge without criticism.
It is not necessarily the case that the more you know, the better off
you are. The issue here is one of
discernment.
1
Kings 13: this chapter has been called one of the strangest in the O.T. A
prophet from Judah is sent
to direct a word of judgemnt against the altar in Bethel .
Also gives a sign of judgment that immediately fulfills itself. When the
prophet from Judah departs
home, he is pursued and overtaken by a false prophet from Bethel , who understands the implications of
this oracle of judgment. The false prophet lies to him, persuading him to
return. During the meal, the word of God come through the false prophet of Bethel directed to the true prophet of Judah . Because
the true prophet from Judah
has returned, he will die and not be buried with his fathers. The prophet's
original word of judgment would stand.
Interpretation:
This story offers a classic example of the inability of highly learned scholars
to unlock this text. Karl Barth was the
first to see it right. According to him, the chapter functions as a
superscription for the remaining history. It is not about the life of two
prophets, but in the word of the prophet, he challenges the legitimacy of the
entire cult of the new kingdom. Barth also saw correctly that there are a whole
lot of questions which play no role whatever in interpreting the text. Emphasis of the text falls completely on the
objective nature of the Word of God. This runs roughshod on people's
sensibilities. Questions to God are totally irrelevant to the text. When roles are reversed, the Word of God is
now proclaimed truthfully through the mouth of the false prophet. It is
proclaimed as judgment of the true prophet. So, this chapter testifies that the
Will of God for judgment is not abrogated by the will of its communicator.
Human filter is not important, but the divine message is crucial. Goes against
the 'automous human self'. It's necessary to turn the text round and round to
escape the trap of our culture.
1
Kings 18: the contest of Baal. Elijah with the prophets of Baal. When Ahab saw
Elijah, he refers to him as the troubler of Isreal. Historical info. needed to interpret this
chapter. Characters are not ujust
constructs, but genuine historical persons. Alliance
between Israel
and Tire via Ahab's marriage to Jezebel. Jezebel was allowed to continue with
her worship of Baal. Even more inclusive
reimaging of God was given to Baal and Jezebel--also establishes a
temple to Shaara. Jezebel is a fanatical adherent of Canaanite religion. She is
determined to make the Phoenican God into the God of Israel. Whereas the threat before was the slow
infiltration of people, now Jezebel tries to nail Yahweh with Canaanite gods.
The basic issue at stake is stated in verse 21: people of Israel have
been limping between two opinions. Elijah will force them to decide in a sharp
either/or decision. Note at this point, although the biblical account is
formulated in biblical terms. It also registers completely the nature of
religious synchronism. Wanted to fuse all of the elements. Elijah opposes
synchronism. A contest is set up between
Elijah and the prophets of Baal. Is Baal the same Canaanite God who appears in
other parts of the O.T.? Close
distinctions between the variety of Baals aren't really talked about in the
O.T. Now, it is possible to reconstruct
a better picture of Canaanite religion: the whole pantheon. It is highly likely that Baal is the
Baal-menicot-god of Tire. This mythological cycle recounts the story of a
mythical struggle between life/death, night/day, chaos/creation. When Baal
dies, land dies; when Baal revives, then the land is fine.
Parallels
give us a key to the meaning of the Elijah story. Yahweh now claims control
over fire, light, and water/draught instead of Baal. What appears as a
historical account, is really a mythical pattern worked into a slightly
different construct. Childs disagrees with the use of parallels. They threaten
the integrity of the whole story. Such interpreters don't read the text closely
enough. Childs is not certain that the
profile of Baal has been sharpened. Could it be that the very impression of the
O.T. is intentional? The biblical writer is making his theological
interpretation of what these gods are really worth: nothing. So he blurs them
all together.
Elijah
sets the rule for the contest. Offering of a bull is the symbol of Canaanite
fertility. It has no actual function in the story itself. In verse 22, Elijah
contrasts his being the only prophet of Yahweh with Baal's 450 prophets. Baal
prophets have every advantage. Motif is picked up whien Elijah offers them the
first chance. Notice how quickly the action moves. They take their bull,
prepare it, and call on the name of Baal. Just as important to know what is
omitted as what is put in. By noon, when
the prophets of Baal have grown frantic, Elijah mocks them. In spite of their
cutting themselves, there was no answer. Note again the way in which Elijah's
mockery operates. Cry aloud to your God--maybe your god is on the toilet. Is this sarcasm completely from the
perspective of the Jews? Is it really a
context between two gods or does Elijah really believe that Baal is not a god
at all? Elijah thinks that the contest
is a sheer illusion; that Baal does not exist.
The
tempo shifts when Elijah took 12 stones to whom the Word of the Lord came. He
made a trench around the altar. Pace
slows and the mood quiets. If this altar is ignited, this really will be a
sign. Fire did occur and burned up all around it. People said: 'Yahweh is our
God." Elijah commands that the
prophets be seized and killed. If Yahweh is really now God of Israel, then they
should be eliminated.
In
the present form of the text, it has an integrity of its own. It has its own nuances. You have in this final form a peculiar
vehicle of the biblical witness which functions on its own terms. At points, extra-biblical parallels can be
seen.
How
does the reading of this story affect the larger narrative? How is one story joined in a larger
corpus? How does it effect the reading
around it? A sudden and dramatic shift
in the movement and tone. This
victorious prophet shatters the prophets of Baal who fell in terror of Jezebel.
How
can the sudden shift in character of Elijah be explained? Not form-critically: two distinct independent
stories which are artificially joined.
You could have a different tradition history. One cannot use these earlier levels of
tradition to destroy the integrity of the final story. Therefore, any serious interpretation must
deal with the two. Not psychologically:
everyone has a high and a let-down.
How
does the text function now? What is its purpose? Elijah went to a cave.
Childs:
the scene in ch. 19 assumes a certain knowledge on the part of the reader. A
certain reader confidence is needed. Mt.
Sinai Ch. 18: national apostacy; ch. 19: no extra-biblical
parallels. His struggle of faith is unique to the bible. Reflect the outer and
inner side of the biblical faith. Construe what the bible means by faith.
Three
rules to consider: does your
interpretation maintain the integrity of the biblical narrative or does it
destroy the unity? Keep in mind a
holistic reading of the text--the whole history of God and his people. Second, search for its witness. Despite the
time conditionality of the text, you have to read through the text in search of
what is carignatic. If the text points to nothing, you have rendered the biblical
text mute. Third, come to the biblical
text in the sense of anticipation. Seek
to discover how stories addressed to other people, far in the past, can also
direct a word to us in our condition today.
11/28/94: Lecture
The
Psalter:
Traditionally
associated with David. Laws--assoc'd with
Moses; Wisdom--assoc'd with Soloman.
The
Psalter is Israel 's
voice. An intensity of prayer.
Formal
characteristics:
1.
Situated just before the prophets.
2.
150 Psalms
-Greek (Orthodox and Roman Cath.)
and Hebrew (protestants) translate
them differently.
-73 Psalms attributed to David;
Psalm 90 attributed to David.
3.
The musical aspect is lost. We have
notes at the beginning of the psalter, however.
4.
Hebrew parallelism: See: Anglican Bishop Robert Loroth (1753) on synonomous
parallelism. Childs: a grab-bag.; see
also James Kugel, Idea of Biblical Poetry.
Childs: A continuum between prose and poetry, so types are not appropriate.
Childs:
a metrical system. Imp. where the accent
falls. For example, 3 beats, then two.
The durge of the funeral.
Different meters can match a change in thought.
The
Psalms were written by David yet are suited for every generation. Childs: how?
The titles were added later--because they do not match the content. The titles were used to place the psalms in
the liturgy.
Wellhesen:
look at history. But, the genre is
different than those related to history.
A modern approach to impose a history of piety.
Gunkel:
Form and function of the psalms from institutional activities. The Zit em Leiben (socioligical context) He came up with types:
The
Hymn type ( Ps 8, 19, 29, 100):
An
introduction as an imperative. A
transition: an idiom of relative clauses--attributes of God. A body, followed by a conclusion with a
thanksgiving.
The
Complaint type (3, 5, 6,22, 26, 51, 74): Laments
God
addressed immediately. Then, complaints and praise followed by a return to
complaint. Cause of suffering: sin,
sickness, or enemies. Yet, a belief that
God is the cause. A dialectic: asking
for God's right hand while his left one caused the evil.
The
Thanksgiving type (30, 32, 34, 40, 118) Todah
Setting:
a ceremony of giving a thanksgiving offering.
The
Royal Psalms (2, 18, 45, 72, 100):
The
old Messianic Psalms. Connected with the reigning king's coronation. The king
brings peace and plenty--really praising God.
Wisdom
type (1, 32, 34, 73):
This
is a catch-all category. Problematic.
Often
from proverbs.
Hard
to find a setting. It was not liturgical.
Childs: Wisdom was not a genre; rather, it was another view or way or
rendering the tradition.
The
theology of prayer: the Xian Ch. learned to pray from the Psalter. Early Xians were Jews; Jesus said to pray the
psalms.
The
Psalms give the Xn Ch. its devotional character. Objective praise to God (theocentric). Yet,
also subjective--directed to a personal living god. Not scholastic theology; it is devotional. The Psalter is prayer to understand God
existentially--to tap the source of our existence.
11/30/94: Lecture
The
Canonical Shape of the Psalter:
Attempts
to move beyond Gunkel's types:
Attempts
to polish his types have not been very successful.
Problems
with Gunkel: his pure types are not found in the Psalter in their pure form;
the psalms are actually combos of his types.
Is he imposing an abstract logic on the psalms that really isn't there? He also does not say much about the settings
of the psalms or of the imagry of the language.
Also, his Wisdom type seems to be a catch-all. His types lie at the pre-history time rather
than reflecting how the synogogue or churches heard them. Gunkel, according to Childs, does not hear
the O.T.'s voice as a corpus treasured and shaped by succeeeding faith
communities. This raises the question of
how it functioned in these communities and the effect these communities have
had in shaping the psalms and what they have meant. A gap between his reconstruction and the text
in its final form as we have it. He
ignores the different direction given the psalms by the faith communities
(Gunkel ignores the titles and the translation into Greek).
The
historical-critical method: Problems of, according to Childs-- It has failed to consider the effect of the
texts passed on for religious purposes.
The effects of generations of use for religious purposes are not
considered.
Features
of the Canonical Shaping:
1.
An Introduction. Psalm 1: a Law psalm
which promises blessing.
The
written word can to be seen as mediating bet. us and God. In general, the Psalter became the media to
respond to God. Prayers to God became
the divine word itself. A herm. shift:
prayers of Israel to God
have been redirected into becoming God's word to Israel . Israel 's voice becomes an echo of
God's. The original setting becomes subordinated to a theological setting.
2.
Anthological Style:
A
compilation: a psalm used in another. Israel assumed
a new role in communicating the Psalms.
a new way for Israel
to know/receive God's will. The psalms
have been loosened from their original cultic setting. Words made sacral was new for Israel . These words were capable of being used in new
contexts, could be reworked, had an atonomy apart from their original setting
due to a common meaning of them: Praise to God.
3.
New Function of Royal Psalms:
They
arose in a setting shared by other Near East cultures: honor a king akin to
deification. They have performed a
different role since that time, however, for Israel . The Royal Psalms (e.g. ps
2) are not bunched together. For
example, Ps 2 is coupled to Ps 1: blessing encapulates them as a unit.
Emphasis
on the kingship of God via David. This
motif is major in the Psalter: that the
reign of God can be seen as like that of David's. Even though Israel no longer had a monarchy.
Hope of the prophets for a messiah used by redactor so the royal psalms were
then viewed not for a human king but as an eschatological hope.
4. A
New Eschatological Interpretation:
Gunkel
assumed that the cult and prophasy were mutually exclusive. Yet, many Psalms have an eschatological
role. A harmony between the psalmist and
the prophet. A potential of the psalms to transcend their original setting.
5.
The Corporate Reference:
The
individual complaint genre was originally of the individual. A new corporate dimension developed with its
use by Israel . 'I' was then heard not only as referring to
an individual, but to a group as well. For example, Ps 30: 'I' has a corporate
reference in that Israel
dedicates the temple. So. the psalms are
flexible enough to move between the poles without a tension between reference
to the individual and collective. This
tension is only in the scholars' minds.
6.
The Superscriptions:
Thirteen
examples. They were incidents of David.
E.g. Ps 3, 51, 56. Gunkel ignored this.
His view: The Psalms didn't originate about the life of one person (David). Childs: the incidents didn't show kingly
office, but showed David as a human with human emotions. Focus shifts to the emotional life of the
Psalmist. Theme: Having faith relates to the subjective life. David, as a representative figure, is used to
personalize God's word. Implications: No
one doctrinare position in the editing. The sematic use of the psalms shows a
freedom for a corporate interpretation. The liturgical setting helped with
this.
12/2/94: Lecture
On
interpreting the Psalter:
An
objective liturgical aspect as well as a subjective emotional aspect.
See:
R. Bainton, The immoralities of the Patriarchs, Harvard Theological Review, 1930.
Early
Xns allegorized the stories in the O.T.
Problem: seeing the O.T. as a moral text is problematic. The psalms: a theocentic, rather than moral,
view. Faithfulness of God is the theme in the O.T., not the morality of the
patriarchs. The Psalter sees n the
Patriarchs stories of God's mercy, given the immoralities of the
patriarchs. God calls for justice and an
ethical response. His justice is to save
the oppressed. Therefore, God is
described in ethical terms in the psalms (see Ps 34). The
theocentric stance brought out ethical obedience such as honesty, charity, and
peace. The morality of the
patriarchs is not appealed to. Augustine
saw in the psalms prevalient grace. We are not in partnership with God.
The
subjective aspect of the Psalter: has God abandoned us? The psalmist's longing for God's
presence. Ultimately, the psalms are a
testimony of praise to God. Usually to
objective and subjective aspects joined. For example, Life and death are joined
in the psalms. Gunkel: complaint psalms are of death whereas thanksgiving
psalms are of deliverance from death.
Fear of entering into Sheol, the pit of death. Literal or symbolic?
View
of life in the psalms: a variety of
meanings. More than biol.
existence. Life means to have time (a
long life valued) and spontaneous movement (to have space; made roomy). Death is isolation. No life in isolation away
from other humans. Adam needed a
partner.
So, life and death in O.T. are viewed
uniquely. To have life is to have
blessing(shalom), light, and water.
Death is the end of time, to be cramped (in a pit or imprisoned); it is
to be isolated; removed from the community; for all of one's friends to have
shunned one. Death is also weakness,
insecurity, and darkness. The force of
death acts on Yahweh's command, yet has a quasi-independent force. Life is felt as death to those outside the
arena of life (the community). Death is not just a power but is a place. Childs: yet the mythic placement of death in
Sheol is static. This figure shows an
oval area of firmement split in two. In
the middle of the lower half is sheol.
There are two pillers on the sides supporting the upper firmament. Sheol
is the land of the dead, oblivian, the field of thirst, and a prison. The
biblical category of death is strange.
Sheol is not a mythic place, yet it is a spacial expression of
non-being.
Complaint
Ps: realistic of experience; not just symbolic.
Death is experienced in its totality.
These psalms have a sense of the movement toward death. Childs: a
special biblical idium: sheol is not just symbolic or mytholigical but includes
realistic experience. Jesus's passion
in Matthew: his isolation from his friends, his thirst. Death as a power and place. Jesus died as all faithful Jews died. In this, the O.T. and N.T. are joined
ontologically. In the resurrection, God
heard him. Power of death shattered. So,
the Jewish distinction between life and death is drawn uniquely. Jesus gives new life of love, fellowship,
freedom, and forgiveness. The Gospels: a
word of life to a world of death.
[1]Ying and Yang as natural
tendencies/forces? Childs assumes that
choas is 'evil' and is opposed to creation. SW
[2]the
action and tension beg.
[3]The
god notices.
[4]This
is language that the people used in 'B'. Calvin, however, assumes that the
plural means that they were polythesist.
[5]See Greenburg's article.
