Old Testament Interpretation II

O.T. Interp.: Robert Wilson

1/15/96: Lecture

The Study of Prophesy:

Samuel and Kings contains figures of prophesy.  Protestantism has made use of the prophetic literature to get Christianity back to the way it originally was.  It took the Psalms, for instance, as prophetic rather than devotional.  The Hebrews used the prophetic literature in their in-fighting about the authority of scripture: Torah or Prophets.
Critical study of the prophetic literature:  It began in the historical method.  Sources of the Pentitude.  The German romantic tradition, laid by Herder, claimed that creativity in literature had to do with a particular spirit, or geist, that informs the writer.  This related literature to prophets.  The prophets were poets, as well.  The prophets as inspired people who were creative.  So, treat the prophets as one would treat literature. 
Duhm, in 1875, began to look at the theology of the prophets: the ethical ideals of the prophets.  They introduced ethics into the Hebrew tradition.  Wellhausen agreed.  He stated that the priests put down the ethics of the prophets in regaining authority within the tradition.  The rabbinic movement came out of the priestly tradition.  Gunkel took the prophets to be stereotypical, having patterns based on the oral tradition. He, as well as Duhm and Herder, saw intellectual moral theology being their genre.
The next stage in the study of the prophets came with Robertson Smith.  He noted that there were figures in the Near East besides the Hebrews that resemble the Hebrew prophets.  They looked very much like the Hebrew prophets as both were rational.  But in 1914, Holscher pointed to unintellible prophetic oracles that are not intelligible, regarding the prophets as irrational.    Mowinckel tied prophecy to the cults, associated with Hebrew worship. He showed traces of prophetic activity in the Psalms, for instance.  He showed that the prophetic literature had a long oral tradition.  That is, the prophets themselves drew on this tradition.  von Rad also emphasizes the influence of the oral traditions. 
Nabi, the Hebrew name for prophet, is close to na-bi-u-tu in ancient Assyria.  In Muhhu there were figures who were unpredictable and thus feared.  In Mari, there were the assinnu who gave omens from oracles.  The apilu, too, worked on omens from oracles there.  So, prophesy was a regional thing, at least from the second millenium, B.C.E.
The history of prophesy in Isreal: Prophesy did not originate in Isreal.  Where did it come from?  Wilson:  difficult to answer.  It may not have been borrowed.  The Eloist source of the Pentitude considered Abraham as a prophet.  The Deuterotomist source considered Moses to be a prophet.  So, there was probably prophesy early in some of the Hebrew traditions.  Moreover, prophets such as Issiah might have been early. 
It follows that some Hebrew traditions gave greater authority on what the prophets say, than did other traditions.  Issue: is prophesy to be credited as a source of revelation. Plato, as well as rabbis, have a negative view towards prophetic revelation.  Prophets were seen differently in different Hebrew traditions: as an intermediary through whom to talk to God, as one who makes Scripture relevant in terms of the current-day, or as one who challenges the way Scripture or revelation is being used.  What is a prophet supposed to be able to do?
Most of the Hebrew prophets don't talk much about how it happens.  When they do, they talk of the spirit lifting someone up or seizing someone--thus, spirit possession was the major way that they said they got their message.  But soul-flight(common with Shamans), into the realm of the spirits, was viewed by a few prophets as explaining visions or dreams which gave rise to a message.  So, there is a hierarchy of preferred sources.
To say that someone was a prophet is not to say that this is all they did.  There is no indication that prophets were not priests.  Some in fact were.  The notion that they are mutually exclusive roles, as said to be by Protestants.
Prophesy demands interpretation from the moment that it is said.  So, don't assume that the messages of prophets were clear in their own time.  The prophetic word is capable of multiple interpretation, so it demands continual interpretation.

1/17/96: Lecture

Prophesy:

Once you believe that an individual is a genuine prophet, you take his message to be from God, the prophet as the mediate transmitting the message.  There is still the distance between God and Man.  So, there is always a question--even of prophets regarded as genuine--of whether the transmission is pure.  Also, the vagueness of many of the prophetic oracles encourages such questioning via the need for interpretation.  Do  such interpretations contain the pure message from God.  Also, an oracle can be of the immediate times and yet still having value for use in the future.  Therefore, it is advisable to continue re-interpreting the oracles.  A sense of endless depth of oracles.  Some were interpreted to apply to times distant from each other by the Hebrews.  The question for the modern interpretor: is prophesy exhausted just because it is thought to be fulfilled (i.e. in Jesus)?  Can it be reinterpreted still? 
The Torah has a sense of religious authority for the Hebrews that is sufficient; some would argue that the prophets are interpretations of the Torah which alone is God's direct message. The Rabbinic community held this view, so they discredited the prophets.  But, some of the prophets' messages contradicts that which is in the Torah.   Christianity is split: some recognize the the O.T. prophets but none after Jesus.  But would then the Trinity idea not be of revelation?  Other Christians view prophesy as continuing on temporally past Jesus.  The Spirit of God gives such prophets their gifts.  What if such a prophet says something new that does not fit with old revelation or contradicts it?  How to deal with this is part of the risk of prophesy.  How does one deal with the claims that prophets make?  One can decide that they are not genuine prophets, but if one takes them to be genuine, one must confront these questions.  There is also the problem of false prophets.  What if two prophets are saying contradictory things?  How does one deal with conflicting advice? 

The prophets of Deuteuratical History:

We attempt to track the prophets temporally.  But it is difficult to track the historical order of the written (Deut. history: Joshua-Kings) prophets because they were all in the writing of the Deut. writer.  Later prophetic writing and the later events can influence how the writer uses (and orders) the prophets of his past.  There were pre-Hebrew prophetic figures, so there was probably prophecy from the beginning of the Hebrews.  Also, the Deut. tradition takes the prophet figure as existing from the beginning of the Hebrew people.  Kings is the largest narrative of prophets, which show some history of some of the prophets.
What are the characteristics of Deut. prophets.  In Deuterotomy, there is a warning against following false prophets before any prophets are presented in that book.  That says something.  In Deut., Moses was a prophet figure, followed by other prophetic figures that are portrayed in the Mosiac mode.  For instance, Samuel.   A Mosiac prophet is portrayed as a superior prophet type. See Num. 12.  It seems to be an argument over prophetic authority or over priesthood or leadership generally.  Joseph married a Kushite woman.  The issue: has God spoken only through Moses (one prophet), or through others as well.  Aaron was laying claim to being a prophet.  God answers: Moses beholds the form of the Lord(but not His face) and speaks to Him face to face(speaking directly with God); other prophets  merely see God in vision(a daydream) and dreams.  The context: a conflict between prophets.  How resolve?  Deut.: look for the Mosiac prophet.  See Jeramiah.  He is said to the reader to be a Mosiac (genuine) prophet. 
Deut. 18:9-- the context: it begins with folks who are specialists with contacting the deity.  One should not use these folks.  There was a cult outside the city which sacrificed children that is associated with such specialists.  Some specialists used objects to contact spirits in the other world, others casted spells.  Asking questions of the spirits of the dead was done too.  All this is banned.  The issue: who does one go to for word from God.  Answer: a Mosiac prophet.  This is the link between the divine and human world.  A link of communication both ways.  So, there is an intercessory function.  So, don't go to the priest or the temple to make a request to God or find out what God wants of you.  Go to a prophet and ask a question or listen.  If the word of the prophet does not happen, then the prophet was not Mosiac.  A Mosiac prophet's word always comes true.  But at such a time, one does not know the future.  Recall in Samuel, what he said actually happened.
The prophesy fullfilment schema (von Rad): monarchic prophets.   Samuel 18: Nathan prophesies that David's son will build a house--and the son did, thus fulfilling the prophesy.  There was also a prophesy against the alternative altar (in the Northern kingdom) and that it will be destroyed.  The altar is to be defiled.  A sign is given.  A sign is an immediate action of God to authenticate the prophesy when its fulfillment is far off in time. There is a kind of divine aura that protects such prophets; the sign was that the Northern king's hand shrivelled when he tried to obduct the prophet.  The prophet then restored the hand because the king asked the prophet as he should.  The prophet had a constraint: not to accept part of the kingdom or go with the king.

1/19/96: Lecture

The prophets of Deuteuratical History:

In Kings before chapter 2, there is material on a northern prophet giving the Northern king a chance for a sustained dynasty and divine fidelity.  But that king blew it.  After that, most oracles were against the Northern dynasties.  See ch. 13 as well as 14 on the oracle against Jereboahm.  Ch. 14: Jereboahm seeks an oracle on his sick son.  His wife goes, disguised.  The prophets in Deut. history were seen as having powers, such as miracles.  Such supernatural power is shown by the prophet Achia.  He is blind but he recognized her before she came in to his house.  He already knew what she wanted to know.  He said something like what Samual had said to Saul.  A change of dynasty message.  The messinger formula: announces the prophet is of Hehweh.  Then an indictment and judgment. 'You have done evil in making images of God'--the indictment.  Then, the judgment: God will kill those of the house of Jereboam.  In ch. 15 v. 27: Basha, son of Achia, killed all of the house of Jerebaom.  
So, many of the monastic period prophets are shown as having supernatural powers--wonder working such as resurrection from the dead.  They are able to control divine power.  A succeeding prophet is shown by his ability to do supernatural acts, which can be apart from what the prophet is doing theologically.  Elisia, for instance, parted a river using a stick.  God gives such prophets instructions.  See the story of the lion killing a prophet. He was told not to travel on a certain road by God, but another prophet told him to do so.  He did and was killed by a supernatural lion.  God has a sort of tyranny over the prophet.   A prophet is not to innovate from God's word; word from even another prophet can not be trusted.   So, most prophets begin by refusing their call.  Consider the loss of personal freedom involved in the job.  There are perils in delivering a judgment oracle, for instance, that a prophet must face.
Wilson: the prophet stories in Kings were from oral traditions, used by the Deuterist writer.  Such prophets were in the North; the Southern kingdom was at that time a vassel of the Northern kingdom.  The Deut. writer wants to get rid of the Northern kingdom, so the prophet stories were offering negative judgments.  For instance Ahab married Jezabel who had him worship Baal.  The Deut. writer disapproved.  Baal was of the original religion of the land.  It infiltrated in the Northern kingdom before the Southern.  Of the Baal religion: Baal is the god of the thunderstorm and fresh water, providing for the fertility of the land.  The land depended upon rains at two times of the year.  The timing of the rains was an important issue.  So, it makes sense that a weather god was constructed.  Ail and Baal competed.  Which provides the rain?  The Cannites argued that it was Baal, through the thunderstorm.  Ail was the god of death.  If no rain, Ail had sent Baal to the underworld.  Thus, a dying and rising god motif.  Elisha said to Ahab: Hahweh gives the rain, without a pattern prearranged by something else.  God can't be made to give it.  Hehwah is not in the hands of a force of death. Elisha shows supernatural acts--of giving food and water, the very things which the god of Baal was said to give.  This showed not only that Elisha had the spirit of prophesy, but showed that Yahweh rather than Baal provides food.  Yahweh does so through a draught through Elisha.  In ch. 18: in the third year of the draught, Elisha tells Ahab (presented as dumb rather than evil, so it was not a conflict between king and prophet) to go to Yahweh and the draught will end.  Ahab didn't rely on Elisha.  A contest between the prophets of Baal and of Yahweh.  Who is able to intersede successfully?  Also, who is it who sends the rain--Baal or Yahweh?  Implied: is a ritual needed to bring back the rain?  Baal-yes; Yahweh, no.  The contest: calling on God to set a bull on fire.  The Baal prophets do morning rites of mourning (of the bull).  They danced and cut themselves.  It is not successful.  Elisha builds an altar to Yahweh.  He fills four jars of water.  Recall the test on rain.  He prays to Yahweh and the bull is afire, consuming the burnt offering (the bull) and more!  So, Elisha was the intercessor and Yahweh caused the rain.  Elisha predicts rain.  It rained.  Jezabel was upset.  Elisha ordered the deaths of 450 Baal prophets on his own (no mention of an order from God).  Ethical question: how far do you go when you are convinced of your theology.  This prophet committed a mass murder.  So, prophets do not do only good things.  Why was he not punished by Yahweh for being innovative?  Because Yahweh approved of the action?  Yahweh was, afterall, a warrier God.
Even though the Deut. writer disfavoured the Northern kingdom, the writer of Kings favoured the Northern kingdom, and so ends his book with a sanctification of the Northern altar and temple.

1/22/96: Lecture

The Deuteromic Prophets in Kings:

The ideology of prophesy here is important for understanding the later understanding of prophesy.  See Elisha as against the Northern Kingdom dynasty and the worshippers of Baal.  There is only one deity, and prophets can intercede and mediate, His acts and message, respectively.  Elisha was so convinced of the validity of his prophesy as an authentic intermediary that he committed mass murder against the Baal prophets.  He could justify it as there was a death penalty against worshipping false gods, as well as committing sins as a king.  Wilson: how far does one go for what one believes is true?  Consider the militant Muslems who blew up the World Trade Center.  They thought they were justifed by God.  The proposition of divine revelation in the present involves the risk of extremism in the name of virtue.  Is it not a vice?  But what if it is seen as on the right side?  In the case of Elisha, there is no reflection in the text of the rightness of his action.  Before his action, the Northern king had tolerated him.  The king is viewed as indecisive and weak (in not solving the problem of the draught), but not malevalent.  After Elisha's mass murder, he was not welcome in the royal court.  Jezabel in particular did not like Elisha.  Elisha saw Jezabel as a symbol of the invading worship of Baal into Judea.  Elisha had commited mass murder and destabilized the government, so he flees from Jezabel.  He went into the wilderness, retracing Israel's journey back to Sinah.  He is provided with water and food; recall Moses had provided food and water at Marha, striking a rock.  It took Elisha forty days, whereas it had taken the Israelies forty days. He hid in a cave where Moses had hid from God's appearance.  Elisha's encounter with God: unlike that of Moses, it was without conversation and was private.  God asks him what he was doing there.  A self-serving answer: I alone have supported Yahweh.  Wilson: but, others did too.  God calls Elisha to stand on the mountain, for the Lord was about to come by.  Even Moses was not allowed to see God (only His backside).  There was a great wind, but the Lord was not in the wind.  Then an earthquake, but God was not in it either.  Then, a fire, but God was not in it.  These were known as theophanies of God.  But not hear.  Then, Elisha heard the sound of silence.  This display was to teach the prophet something, for God asked the same question again: what are you doing here?  The answer is the same.  He seems not to have learned anything.  Then, a threefold command to do something else.  He is to rectify the political and religious situation.  Was God unhappy with him because he didn't change his answer?  God tells Elisha to annoint kings of the area lands outside Judea and Isreal.  Also, he is to annoint his successor prophet.  God says that the Northern dynasty will fall and that all those who had stayed with the Lord will attended to by the prophet. 
In this story, what the prophets do and say is now the direct revelation of God, rather than through a theophany as it had been with Moses.  It seems to reflect a dispute of where revelation is to be found.  Where is God to be found?  Later, it was debated: is it in the Torah or the prophetic word of the present.  The Christians took the latter view; Rabbinic Judaism took the former view.  The message of the writer of Elisha: the word of God comes in the present through the prophet.  The claim made here: the word of the prophet is the equal or superior to the Sinia legislation.  A claim for the preeminance of the authority of the prophet.
There was at that time a war with the Arimean king with the Northern kingdom.  Elisha tells the king of Judea that they will be victorious.  Here, we see a prophet supporting  a Northern king.  The prophet delivers favorable as well as unfavorable word to Judea.  The prophet does not have an ideological agenda, so his stance vis  a vis something or someone is not necessarily consistent.  Wilson: Preachers do not have such a stance.  So, a difference between modern preachers and the old prophets: the latter do not invoke their ideology in mediating God's word, whereas preachers do.
Ahab sinned in not destroying the enemy outright as God had decreed.  Saul had made the same mistake.  Ahab allowed the Aremian king to live.  Lions are an agent of God in the world.  An unnamed prophet told a person to hit him but he did not do it, so he was eaten by a lion.  The message is made effective in the sign itself.  Also, Elisha told Ahab that his dynasty would end.  Ahab wants Nehab's property, but the latter refuses.  Jezabel convinces Ahab to do something about this.  Jezabel sought to bring false-accusations against Nehab.  This is why Deut. insists on justice--because the process can be misused.  Jezabel took possession of Nehab's land. God told Elisha to meet Ahab and tell him that he would die due to his sins.  A prophesy that the dogs will eat Jezabel and Ahab's line of first sons will die, so the dynasty will end.  Ahab pleas to God, who lessons the punishment for a time.  But, Ahab sought to take land from the king of Iran.  Ahab wanted the word of the Lord on this, which was typical.  So, he gathers some Yahweh prophets. He asks whether he should go.  The prophets say yes.  He wants another opinion.  He sought out Miciah through an agent.  Miciah refuses to say what is in the party line.  He seems to cave, giving the wrong advice--supporting the kings of Judea and Isreal.  But, then he gives additional word:  that there would be a lying spirit in the prophets and in fact Ahab would fall.  Wilson: even false prophesy can be under God's control.  A false prophesy may not tell a prophet that he is invalid.  Ahab puts Miciah in prison.  Ahab dies in battle and Miciah's prophesy is fulfilled.

1/24/96: Lecture

Amos:

He is one of the writing prophets; they wrote, rather than being a character in a narrative. Justice and rightousness to the earth.  So, he can be used in preaching the social gospel.  He can also be used as a role model for the prophet who tells the establishment that it is doing wrong. 
The prophets were making a claim with certainty: that they were preaching and doing God's word.  The prophets do not make merely suggestions.  Most ministers are not willing to say things so.  Think about what a prophetic ministry would be, but be careful of how much authority we take for ourselves.  We are all humans. 
In this course, we are looking at prophets chronologically.  But there is not a progresson of views of prophecy.  Rather, different groups held different views. 
The book of Amos:  Consider his setting as well as how he is unique as a prophet.  It is not important to place Amos in time.  This is not so of some other prophets.  Look to see if there are references to the time in the books.  The book opens with 1.3-2.16 which spins out oral oracles.  This could be indicative of the oral character of Amos' sources.  Or, it could have been done by a redactor to the writings of Amos.  Then, a collection of sayings (ch. 3-6.9), each of which begins with the word 'woe'.  Then, another collection 8.4-9.6 of says each of which begins with 'here this'.  Then, in 7.10-17, Amos confronts the priest.  Not much is told of Amos.  Contrast: Jeremiah. 
Three ways of looking at the prophet Amos(even though we don't know much about him!):  First, as a simple shepard who when up North and was dismayed.  A country-boy seeing abuses in the city.  Second, as a member of a Southern cultic official. Third, that the book reflects the Wisdom traditions.  It is questionable, however, whether there was a people who were referred to as 'the wisdom people'.  Wilson: these are not useful characterizations of Amos.  We need to look at the little that the book tells us about Amos.  The book claims that there are two forms of prophesy: division(visions) and direct.  Jeremiah and some others view visions as of questionable legitamacy.  Amos held a different view. 
Who was Amos?  'He was among the noged (shepards--big agribusiness--see Kings where the word is used; also, the word is used to mean 'supervisor of shepards')'.  So, he was not just a simple shepard.  7.10: the conversation of Amos and the priest at Bethal.  Recall that the Southern view had been that the altar there was blasphomy.  Amos agrees.  The priest disagreed and complained to King Jereboam.  Amos had told the priest that Israel must go into exile.  Amos was called a hozeh, or seer, by the priest, implying that he takes Amos to be a professional prophet who does so for money.  Amos replies: I am not a nabi(another word for prophet, but we don't know the nuances between these terms nabi and hozeh).  He is not a son of prophets (a prophet who owes allegence to a prophet).  The point is that Amos is not a professional prophet--as a career; rather, Amos said that God intervened in his life (in another career) and told him to prophesize.  Amos tells Jereboam that his wife will be a whore and that he will die in an unclean land.  Amos' long series of oracles at the beginning of the book are important to seeing what he was up to.  See 1.2: The lion as the symbol of Judea.  It indicates the Jerusalem-centeredness of Amos' message: God dwelling there as speaking to the apostite North which had broke from the control of the Davidic dynasty and from God.  A theme of a united monarchy here.  To whom is his message addressed?  His oracles: 'So says God...  then the crimes are told... then a judgment.  This is the classical Hebrew prophet pattern.  In the judgment, we can see who is addressed.  Against Gaza, Tyre, the Amenites, the Moabs, and Damascus.  Why does Amos address these other nations?  All of these cities had broken off from the Davidic empire.  They are being punished for their revolt, as well as for their transgressions against each other.  Yahweh's control should still be over them.  That Isreal had let them go will occasion God's punishment against it.  The oracle goes on at length on the particular crimes there.  The concentration of Amos is on the judgment against Israel for covenant-breaking.  Amos' judgment: 'its the end'.  Vague.  Amos may not have known the form of the judgment, but he knew that one would come.  He claims that their strongholds will be plundered. But by who?  Invaders? Yahweh? Amos tells then that Yahweh had caused the natural disasters (so, no accidents in this world. Wilson: problems with this view) to get their attention, yet they did not return to Yahweh.  Therefore: the judgment: the day of Yahweh--the day of God will appear, here as a threat.  This is vague.  Judges 5: God sends down hail to destroy a people in a holy war.  Or, it could be that one invokes God's presence.  When God appear, it is His day.  It could be that it came from a holy war background and involve the appearance of God.  In Amos's message, God has become, for the first time, the enemy of Israel, not its enemies only, declaring a holy war against it.  Also, Amos judged against Judea for being led astray.

1/29/96: Lecture

Language of the Prophetic Writers:

While these terms are common in this literature, each prophet(as well as his audience) has a particular idea of what is involved in them.  So, determine what a particular prophet has in mind in using a common prophetic term.  For instance, mishpat(justice) and sedagagah(righteousness) are 'blur' words; many senses are possible.  'Disambiguate' them.  Complicating this, some oracles play on the ambiguity of such words.  For instance, 'the day of Yahweh' could mean the LORD's holy war, or to the coming of the LORD's presence.  Both are implied in Amos' use of the term of these.  Amos plays on the ambiguity of it.  Further, does anyone really know what will happen when Yahweh comes?  Amos points this out.  See Amos, ch. 5 v. 16: wailing and mourning because 'I shall past through the midst of you'.  So, Amos thought the LORD's presence would not be good; it would be the coming judgment.  Others saw it as God coming to help them.  Ch. 5 v. 18: the Day is darkness, not light as some of you suppose.  Amos takes on that optimistic view, suggesting to them that the term is more ambiguous than they think. 
Moreover, Amos uses ambiguity to show people that they don't know as much about God as they think.  Amos initiates the theme that the judgment is against the election of Israel.  Issue: is the election permenant or temporary?  Deut.: it is contingent on obeying the law.  Election--promise of the land or of being God's choosen people?  Of the later: other nations have exodus; there is no special status to Israel, being uniquely under God's care.  Amos is not clear on what kingdom will be destroyed--what part of Israel, whether other nations must go too.  Amos sees the Northern kingdom in violation of covenant with the Davidic empire, so it must be destroyed.  Also, God wants to destroy the cult of Baal there too.  Ch. 20, v. 1: the cult of Baal is not acceptable.  One must have a sense of how God wants to be worshipped; don't just go worship, thinking it will be acceptable to God.  Also, prerequisites to worship such as justice and righteousness are important to Amos.  Mishpat (justice) comes from 'to judge a legal case, rendering a decision' and was taken as the decision itself (the judgment according to Yahweh's law).  So, mishpat: acting in accord with the LORD's law.  So, Amos is close to Deut., though broader.  Consider: legal obligations in the covenant relationship between Israel and Yahweh.  Each person has a particular mishpat, according to the prophets.  The obligation of the king has a unique set of obligations.  So too the priests.  So too Israel, as distinct from the rest of the nations.  So, an individualized sense of mishpat under the law.  As in any covenant, there are mutual obligations, spelled out in the law.  To Amos, God is just and thus has responsibilities toward Israel.  So, when Amos calls for justice, it is not clear what or from which party he is referring to.  Sedagah, or righteousness, comes from 'straightness', being according to its nature.  Do what one is supposed to do.  In terms of relationships, they should be in accord with what is required; this varies with the relationship.  When Israel conforms to its proper relationship to Yahweh, it will be righteous.  Also, God has a proper relationship to Israel.  When God conforms to it, He is righteousness.
So, justice and righteousness are ambiguous.  Know whose justice and righteousness is being referred to?  A call for God's justice, or for Isreal's justice?  Is the prophet calling God to judge or for Israel to be just?  This ambiguity is in the prophetic oracles.


Hosea:

The book is saturated with language of sex.  Interpreters have found the specificity problematic.  They have tried to find them meaning something other than their literal meaning.  The Hebrew is ambiguous in much of the book.  Wilson: to focus on the issues of excessive specificity or ambiguity is to miss the literary images in the books.  For instance, the prophets were not interested in being popular, so they were blunt.  See Ch. 7, v. 8, 11, 16;  8 .7, 12. 1, 11.4, 13.3:  blunt language against Israel.  Also, the problem of the amount of sexual language in Hoshea.  Why did God tell him to marry a prostitute and have children?  Also problematic is the source of this sexual imagery: the canaanite fertility cult.  Yahweh and Baal came to be confused for the people of the Northern Kingdom.  The prophets don't like this, but here Hoshea adopts the language and approach of Baal.  Interpretators have attempted to allegorize.  Wilson: but the text means what it says, according to most interpretors.   The use of marriage and love as images was not foreign to Israel (e.g. Deut.), but Hosea used them differently.  The risk: thinking that God relates to humans as we relate to each other.  So, problematic to use human relationships to describe Yahweh's relationship to Israel.  It is to 'dedivinize' God, making Him as us. 
What is Hosea up to?  The context and nature of the text:  outside of the narrative material in ch.s 1-3, a collection of oracles haphazard.  The oracle formula in Amos does not appear in Hosea.  Content: ch.s 1-3 deal with marriage in prose; ch.s 4-14 are a collection of oracles.  On the marriages: Hosea marries Gomer.  As so with the other prophets, the childrens' names suggest prophesy.  Motifs: the coming of the judgment and the negation of the election(Israel no longer be the chosen people of God)--like Deut., Israel has specific responsibilities in order to keep the covenant. Ch. 3: there has to be a time of punishment before the covenant can be renewed.  Hosea is told to marry a whore but not let her be a whore--Israel in punishment.  Is this a second woman? 
How interpret these stories?  Most take them allegorical.  But these incidents serve as prophetic acts rather than allegories.  Some interpretors have tried to set Gomer in a better light: what is a nice Jewish boy like Hosea doing with whores.  Rabbnic interp: whoredom meant worshipping Baal.  But why was Hosea to take her as a wife then?  Some think that she was a Temple prostitute, but is this any better and did the Temple have prostitutes?  Alternatively, ch.s 1-3 have been seen as a story.  Finally, an attempt to psychoanalyze the story: it did not happen but was of Hosea's problems with women.  Wilson: take the text as it stands--as prophetic actions as part of the prophet's message.

1/31/96: Lecture

Hosea:

Structure: 1-6;7-9;10-12;13-23;24-27;28-32;33;34-35;36-39;40-55;56-66.

Hosea's marriages are attention-getters; sign-acts.  They set the tone and introduce his main theme.  Prophets were seen as strange, not conforming to the society.  Amos was after the cult of Baal; similarly with Hosea, the central issue is the worship of Baal, seen as a departure from worshiping Yahweh.  Yahweh and Baal were not alternative words for the same reality, according to Hosea.  It was not unusual for deities in antiquity to have several names, depending on how it is being referred to.  For Hosea, Yahweh is Israel's historical deity, so he recites the historic salvation history (exodus).  Hosea takes this deuteromic basis in a different way: that Yahweh is responsible for the fertility of the land too; Yahweh can't be restricted to one event in history.  To Hosea, there are no other deities, so Yahweh is responsible for everything that happens, except that by human choice.  This is why Hosea uses fertility (Baal) language; this says that Yahweh is really the deity that is doing what Baal had been thought to be doing.
Ch. 13: worship of Baal in Israel had not been a recent development.  They made idols and sacrificed to them, in effect showing them reverence.  But they are made of human hands.  So, they were satisfied with what they had, and forgot that it was Yahweh that had given it to them.  This is specifically what Deut. warns against.  Sexual language is used for Israel's guilt.  Baal was a goddess fertility cult.  So, Hosea uses their language to talk about the relationship between Yahweh and Israel.  Adultary and the breaking of the marriage bond between Yahweh and IsraelIsrael had violated the covenant, and had therein committed adultary.  Israel did not know that it was Yahweh had given them harvests and rain (rather than coming from Baal.  So, they shall not stay in that land. 
The book is replete with sexual language.  Using the language of the fertility cult is being used to set the argument on the terms of those of that cult.  But what if people misunderstand and literalize it; then you have a sexual deity!  Notice three nuances that differentiate how Hosea used the language: Yahweh is not a principle of fertility or an order of seasons; rather, He is the deity of history.  So, don't count on a regular cycle, but know that Yahweh gives the rain.  So, Hosea sets the fertility language in the context of Yahweh as the God of Israel's history, unlike how fertility langauge would be used by the Baal worshippers.  Also, Yahweh can remove fertility, unlike Baal.  Thirdly, Hosea adopts fertility language not to speak of the relation between Yahweh and Baal (e.g. as a couple), but of that of Yahweh and Israel as being married.  Hosea assigned the role of spouse to Israel.  He was talking about a relationship between the human and divine world--projecting dynamics of human relationships (sexual) to this other context.  This had not been done in Israel before Hosea.  There is the risk of anthropomorphizing, in some way reducing God to human form.  But this misses the point.  Israel is not to worship  a god who is easily captured in any image, even  a human one.  So, Israel would have taken this language metaphorically, taking it by analogy.  How does one talk of a deity without image or form?  Use human qualities, but do so metaphorically.  So, Hosea uses the human fertility to show that the relation between God and Israel was like that of a bad marriage.  Christians took it a step further, that God then became human literally. 
Other images are used too.  For instance, the lawsuit.  See ch. 4.  God brings a charge against Israel: there is no loyalty (hesed: a covenant term having to do with faithfulness to a covenent relationship, between spouses as well as between Israel and Yahweh.  Fidelity to God), knowledge of God(da'at Elohim: an intimate relationship, so an experiential language.  Language of sexuality was often involved). God wants an intimate, experiential relationship with Israel, according to Hosea.  Also, Israel is violating the Ten Commandments.  Due to these violations, things and people are perishing.  Hosea does not have Israel give a defence in the case.   The priests and prophets are not doing there job, so the indictment is specifically directed toward them.  Because they were not doing their job, the people have been misled.  So, God removes these professionals from office. 
Like Amos, Hosea claims that a judgment will come.  Ch. 1: a vague reference to it.  No clarity on what the punishment will be.  Use exegesis to specify it.  Ch. 2.9: more specific: massive sterility.  Ch. 14: Hosea is in line with the Deut. tradition in exhorting people to repent so the judgment can be averted.  The soft underside of God is shown: God is going to tell the people how to repent.  God gives Israel a confession to use.  If used, God will turn from anger to heal them and take them back in love.  A genuine note of promise.  See also ch. 15: punishment as God's absence until they have confessed their guilt.  Then, God gives them a confession to use.  On the third day God will raise him up.  See also the narratives of the warped marriages.  Ch. 2.14--the notion of a different kind of relationship that God will initiate, whether Israel repents or not.  He will bring it into the wilderness.  It is like a courtship done again.  From there, God will give Israel food and drink.  We are going to make it work, if we start again.  No longer will you say Master to God, but husband.  A new covenant.  Implies all creation.  A harmony in nature.  God will take Israel for His wife forever, with righteousness, justice, love and mercy.  God give these to Israel that Israel did not give the first time.  The bride was supposed to give a dowry to the husband, but here it is the husband rather than the bride that gives the gift. Ch. 11: God is free to remove his own punishment, not being human, even though Israel continues in defection from God, it will be summoned upward, to rise to fidelity to God.

2/5/96: Lecture

Isaiah:

It has been used in Christain liturgy.  In early Christianity and before, it was read as an entire book.  There have been doubts about the unity of the book and its authorship.  For instance, after ch. 40 there is a change in style.  Eichhorn argued that ch.s 1-39 reflects Isaiah's activity; ch. 40 following is a later composition.  Duhn: 40-55--dated to the exile in Palestine, looking to the Jews in Babylon.  Ch.s 56-66 were dated even later, at the time of the reconstruction or later.  Some commentaries take there to be a break between 55 to 56.  A recent computer analysis supports Duhm.
The structure of the first book according to date and genre: 1-6, 7-9, 10-12, 13-23, 24-27, 28-32, 33, 34-35, 36-39.  View this in its proper chronological sequence.  Oracles collected during different time periods.  Few actual dates in the book.  Different genres in the first book, the book could be organized that way too.   Ch. 1-6 was at about 742-736, BCE.  Judgment oracles against Judea, with a promise in ch. 6.  Ch.s 7-9 was at the time of 735 and deals with an attempt by Israel to go with the Assyrians to sack the Davidic Judea line.  No indication of further prophetic activity until the fall of Assyria.  Was the LORD deliberately being silent.  Ch.s 13-23 are the oracles against foreign nations, organized as a genre rather than chronologically.  Generally difficult to find out when they were written.  Ch.s 24-27 is a collection of obscure apocolyptic literature--odd that it is in the middle of a book; other prophetic books have apocolyptic material at their ends.  It is later material; not sure if pre- or post-exhilic.  Ch.s 28-32 are of complex oracles.  Long oracles, difficult to follow them.  The common thread: they deal with the Assyrian crisis of 701.  It was a pivotal event.  Ch. 10 also has some oracles from this period.  Most scholars think the rest of the book did not come from Isaiah.  Ch. 33: a liturgical conclusion of the predictive oracles. Ch.s 34-35 are similar to the oracles in the second book in Ch.s 40-55.  Ch.s 36-39 are a historical account of the 701 invasion of Assyria into Israel.  It is like the material in II Kings(esp. ch.s 18-20--were they the source?).  Or, it could have originated in Isaiah.  See also the material in Chronicles.
The first book seems to be in rough chronological order, with some portions based on genre not chronology.  Recent scholarship has been reluctant to see Isaiah as chronological with various additions.  See for instance, ch.s 7-9 where Isaiah seem to have been redacted--seeing two invasions as the meaning of an oracle.  The prophetic literature is not exhausted by one interpretation not because the earlier oracles did not come true, but because an accurate prediction fulfilled may be extended to then future events.  So, additions are not just at the end of Isaiah, but are throughout.  Someone tried to set the book up so it would be read as a unit.
Isaiah was in JerusalemJudea was his audience.  Forty-five years of prophetic activity.  A long time, unlike that of Amos.  Isaiah saw visions.  Hosea did not see visions.  So, a different kind of prophesy.  Considering the redactors, the books of Isaiah were worked on for a very long time.
Three main periods of the oracles.  The call narrative in ch. 6 can be used to introduce the theology of the prophetic process.  Not much was said in Amos about his call.  Nothing is said in Hosea about his call.  Why is the call narrative in ch. 6?  Is it out of place.  I provides an intro to the oracles of the Syriaic war.  The call narrative follows the pattern of Moses.  Form critical pieces: a divine confrontation.  Seeing the LORD.  Then, an introductory word, an invitation, an objection(common in prophetic lit.), and finally a reassurance.  See also Ez. 1-3 as well as the Moses call.  Divine confrontation: Yawheh is enthroned in a heavenly court (see I Kings 32).  The prophet is seeing the holy of holies--in later traditions, only the priest could go into that area.  The prophet is looking of this scene, and it is transformed for him.  The cherabiums(solid animals) are turned into non-corporeal beings(which were afraid to see God) and he saw the LORD seated on the throne.  Then he says that he actually saw only God's robe.  A backing off.  Trice repetition of language is a way of indicating something very important.  So the beings say, 'holy, holy, holy'.  God had not yet been heard by the prophet.  Divine smoke---fire images.  The prophet is terrified.  He is seeing the divine of the divine aura.  He sees his own sinfulness and humanness, and that of other humans.  The coal from the altar, touching the prophet's mouth, cleanses him of his sin.  God was asking for a volunteer.  The prophet volunteered.  The commissioning follows.

2/7/96: Lecture

Isaiah:
Ch. 6:
The call narrative provides a summary of the themes in the first Isaiah.  One theme: the power and holiness(distance between things; separation) of God.  Isaiah sees God as a divine king, who is so separate from him that he can see only the robe.  This view of God is characteristic of the Jerusalem theology of the enthronement of God in the temple.  The power and majesty of God are salient.  The Deut. theology of God: human images of God--the analogizing of the relation between God and Israel.  Hosea and Jeramia use them.  Isaiah: God is so separate that he is terrified in God's presence.  Shaking and burning are salient expressions of the divine presence.  The holiness of God is a favoured title of God used by Isaiah.  It is an image of awesome power that will come in judgment.  This de-emphasizes the immenance of God.  Christian theology holds the immanence and transcedence together; in the Hebrew and Christian religions, the tension is not resolved.  The reason for Isaiah's emphasis on power is due to Israel's sense that it is so deeply evil such that a powerful God is needed to redeem.  So, Isaiah is aware of the sinfulness of human beings and the utter separation from God's holiness.  Thus, God is very powerful to restore the relation.
The notion of an inevitable judgment is another theme in this chapter.  The message seems oriented to preventing repentence.  The people are being put in a situation that they can't do anything about the judgment.  This is part of the judgment.  The land will be burned.  So, the theme of salvation comes as a surprise.  In the first Isaiah, it creeps in, as promise oracles. It is more promenant in the second Isaiah.  Promise is described as mysterious.  The holy seed holds out in a mysterious way the gift of forgiveness.  A purifying remnant left after the judgment: salvation is not an escape from the judgment but that which follows the judgment, as a remnant.  See 2 Samual 7.  Fidelity of God to always be the God of Israel.  Isaiah: this does not proclude a judgment; a few people will survive and be purified by salvation.  This is different than in Samual, where it seems that nothing can happen to Jerusalem.  How does this work itself out in the oracles?
In ch. 1.2, God brings an accusation against those who are supposed to be in covenant with Him.  Image of the children having gone astray.  The next oracle: a sinful nation which has been immoral and has rebelled from God.  An evocative aspect, rather than specific accusations.  The obscurity of the accusations are typical of Isaiah.  Don't analyze the oracles of Isaiah; rather, they were meant to evoke a feeling. There is some promise language in this oracle.  The next oracle is against the leaders.  Prophets, priests, and the royal court are supposed to know better and are obliged to communicate this to the people.  Sacrifices won't do it.  The presence of the inequity from God invalidates the cultic worship.  Wash yourselves, cease to do evil, have compassion.  So, hint that it is possible to do something to get out of the judgment. 
In ch. 2, accusations of idol worship.  And then, the judgment. Hide in the rock in the Day of the Lord.  God now is the enemy of Israel.  As Hosea had described it.  But, 4.2 points to the promise of salvation--but is of the survivors only.   There does not seem to be a way given to be part of the remnant.  No work ethic.  This is why Isaiah's view of a burning purifying judgment, with a small remnant remaining, is so terrifying.  See also ch.5--the love oracle: the image of Israel as a vineyard.  God will burn it and it will be scorched by the sun.  This is directed against the Northern kingdom rather than Judea
Prophets are not like preachers who stay on one theme.  Isaiah is not like that: the message does change.  His messages become more positive in ch.s 7 and 8 in the time of the Assyria-Phemeric war.   Israel was then more powerful than JudeaIsrael's king want to take over Judea, so he forms an alliance with Assyria.  A direct threat to the Davidic ruler covenant: that it will continue.  An unsuccessful attack.  The Davidic king is told by Isaiah not to do anything but have faith in God--and only a remnant will be left.  Firm advocacy of the Jerusalem theology.  The king wants to fortify his city, and so waffles.  Isaiah asks him if he wants a sign.  But the king wants some wiggle-room.  The young woman is pregnant and her son will be Emmanuel(God is faithful, or God is with you).  This child will eat herbs and honey.  Before the child knows how to refute the bad and choose the good, the land will be wanton.  When he knows how to refute the good, good times will come back.  This oracle is then applied to the later Syrian war. This is exegesis within the text.

2/19/96: Lecture

Isaiah:
Ch. 7
Like all Hebrew prophesy, it is capable of ongoing interpretations.  The oracle has an endless depth to it; so it is not that it is fulfilled once.  Isaiah has a jerusalem theology: that God has promised to reside permenantly in Jerusalem.  So, the city was considered to be involitable.  Near East religions: commonly thought that the the deity of a city protects it.  So, what is the explanation for Jerusalem's sack by the Babylonians (Ezekiel handles this).  Isaiah's Jeruselem faith:  that the king of Jerusalem ought not try to defend the city but have faith in Yahweh; that God will be faithful to his promise.  A conflict with political reality.  The question is whether Yahweh is faithful to his promise. Isaiah's notion of a remnant is how God is faithful to his promise.  Isaiah gives the king an oracle: if you do not stand firm in faith, you shall not stand at all.  The sign is the emmanual sign: a young women will bear a son.  Emmanual (God being with us) can be positive or negative.  Whose justice is being done?  The people's?  God's?  In this situation, it seems positive. Ch. 7.14: a young woman is with child.  v. 17: the later tradition realizing that the prophesy was fulfilled: Ephriam fell.  This was the beginning of the judgment against Judea in 701.  But it was not completely destroyed, so Isaiah's insistence that a remnant will be left seems to have come thue.  Notice the stress between the promise and the judgment.  Notice that the oracle flips up to 701 and back to the time of Isaiah (esp. beginning in 7.18).  Isaiah uses ambiguous language; he wants to invoke something in the reader.  v. 20 has an exile element, and so implies the Babyonian take-over of Jerusalem.  v. 21 seems positive: of the remnant.  'On that day...' is used here to begin a new oracle (each having its own image and connotation).  Alternating between different times, as well as between positive and negative.
Ch. 8
v. 4 moves to the 701 attack.  v. 6: Jerusalem did not trust in Yahweh's promise of protection, and so he will flood the city.  Yahweh is with Israel not in promise here, but in judgment. The people were not aware of this at the time.  vv. 9-10: shows their view.  they reject Isaiah's positive framing.  Later in ch. 8, a judgment: gloom and anguish.  But ch. 9 is of a promise: not all will be subject to this: The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light.  The remnant will return from exhile.  A promise.  The birth of the child of the young woman is now taken as a sign of God's fidelity.  Is this a reinterpretation of the Emmanuel promise.  Now, he is described in royal terms, of restoration of the dynasty of David.  The exile leads to restoration.  Because this did not happen, the later tradition took this to be an eschatological restoration (in second Isaiah).  This is not to say that only oracles that have not been fulfilled are reinterpreted; oracles thought to be fulfilled were nonetheless reinterpreted.  Wilson: how long does one stay with an oracle? 
The oracles in this portion of Isaiah are multilayered.  The attack and later fall of Jerusalem were involved and were historical events that shaped the tradition because it seems to be readily interpreted in the Jerusalem theology.  The withdrawl of the Assyrians in 701 was seen as divine intervention.  In 701, the king went along with Isaiah and the city is miraculously saved, albeit there was a lot of destruction.  The remnant was saved.  This becomes the paradigm of the Jerusalem theology.  This story was still cited during the Babylonian capture.   Isaiah and Ezekel: a debate of very different theological interpretations (pro and agn the Jerusalem theology). 
The oracles of 2 Isaiah have the ambiguiousness of the earlier oracles of 1 Isaiah.  The notion of the remnant just barely surviving is in both.  See ch. 18: ambiguity here too of who the ememy is. Same themes of ignoring the Jerusalem theology.  v. 3 oracle: to whom is this addressed? The city or the invaders?  ch. 22: a celebration, but it is not clear why. People are celebrating a judgment oracle.  Are they celebrating in 701 or in going into exhile later?  Ch. 30: the people are making treaties with Egypt is taken as not having faith in Yahweh's protection of Jerusalem.  Judgment: you shall all flee.  A remnant surviving in the 701 material.  This motif continues in the exhile material.

2/21/96: Lecture

Isaiah:

Three things dominate the editing.  It may be that editing is a complex process over a long time.  It could be that the Isaiah disciples may have reinterpreted past oracles because they have a new interpretation given a then-current event.  This did not occur as big chunks being added to the book; rather, there seems to be editing within first Isaiah.  The editorial activity continues through the later period when the second Isaiah was added which included incremental editing of the first Isaiah.  So, look not just at what God had to say to Isaiah in 701 or when Babylonians took Jerusalem or what it has to say.  The editors did not edit in such a way as to close it to future interpretation; it is left continually open.  No all of the prophetic books were left open to reinterpretation.  To what extent does one close the door to the interpretive process?  To what extent is revelation set?  In Isaiah, the door seems to be deliberately left open. 
Isaiah alternates oracles of promise and judgement.  But there is a sense of succession: one can not get to the promise fulfilled without going through judgment.  A remnant is to survive.  The exile people saw themselves in judgment looking toward salvation.  So, Isaiah is a book of hope.

Jeremiah:
The tone of the book is different.  Whereas Isaiah used power images of God, such as royalty.  God moves nations around, punishing not through natural disasters but by calling other nations to attack Isreal.  Socio-political events seen as under the control of God.  The enemy (Assyria) was punished because it pridefully did not admit to being used as a pawn of God in his designs.  Not so in Jeremiah: his God is a personal God.  He talks intimately to God.  An image of dialogue: between God and the prophet and between God and Israel, with the prophet as the mediator.  Hoshea uses personal images of God as well.  It is a view that allows genuine conversation to occur.  Jeremiah talks to God.  Key to understanding this book: figure out who is talking.  Be wary of translations in using punctuation to suggest who is speaking.  The editorial process is different than in Isaiah.  Here, the editing represents the layering of three layering of material.  This was thought to be so in Isaiah. 
Duhm argued that the book is not a literary unit.  He argued that there were four sources.  Source criticism.  Two major kinds of genre in the book: prose and poetry.  At least two types of prose: First, narrative (of the life of Jeremiah set bet. 597-586--the period between the two deportations--there was a preliminary Babylonian invation in 597 with a partial deportation and a definitive invasion in 586 when the temple is destroyed and mass deportation.  What is left of Israel is then in Babylon).  So, what Jeremiah means depended on whether one was between the deportations or after the second.  Second, exhortatory (this is not of a modern sermon, but of didactic prose such as in Deut. ch.s 5-12: 'if you do this, God will do that').  Duhm also saw a fourth category: the promise material.  Mowinckel sees four kinds of material (dependent on Duhm): poetic material(1.1-25.14) that he takes as what Jeremiah really said.  Wilson: this assumes that revelation only comes through the prophets themselves rather than in reinterpretations as well.  Second, biographical narrative (26-36; 37-45) which he associates with the scribe, Baruch, who dictated Jeremiah to read to the king. Mowinckel emphasizes Jeremiah's life as being one of suffering.  This material was written for a Jewish community being prosecuted to dramatize Jeremiah's suffering, rather than being written by Heremiah himself.  This may be so of the Passion in the N.T., especially in Mk.  Third, didactic material (25.15-58) spread out through the poetic and narrative material.  Three successive redactional layers.  The promise material (30-1) was claimed to come later. Also, oracles against foreign nations (46-51).  The Greek version omits much of the material in the Hebrew version.  Ch. 52: the story of the fall of Jerusalem (see 2 Kings 21) as a parallel. Since Mowinckel, scholars has sought to see how 1-25 would have been written by Jeremiah himself.  Wilson: an insolvable problem.  There has also been attention to the didactic prose which is similar to the Deut. history and Deut., but when one tries how it is like Deut, it seems to come up dry.  Third, some of the oracle material idioms seem to be like the poetic idioms.  Did the disciples use the poetic material?  Nicholson: the disciples tried to make real the oracles in the Babylonian settting.  There has also been similarity between the biographical and didactic material.  So, was it not particularly Deuteromic or just the way people wrote then.
We will read it from the beginning.  What did the editors thought they were doing as they shifted to poetry to narrative.  Unlike in Amos, the transitions are clear.  Why did not the editors continue with the poetry?  To give it in a different genre.

2/23/96: Lecture

Isaiah:

A didactic of poetry and prose.  What are the messages of them and how do they relate?  The book begins with a call story.  Hilkiah was the high priest in whose cave this book was found.  Was this the famous Hilkiah who led the (king) Josianic reform movement(Deut. position)?  Not clear. Jeremiah was in at Anathoth in Benjamin of Judea.  Jeremiah was a priest in the northern tradition, so he was 'out of office' in the South.  So, one could be a prophet having been a priest.  Jeremiah's period included the partial and later deportation.  This is the transition period that is important for the history of Israel and its religion.  Both Jeremiah and Ezikiel were prophets of this period.
On Jeremiah's calling.  It is like that of Moses.  Jeremiah is being portrayed as one of a chain of Mosiac prophets indicated in Deut. 18.  Folks back then would not have made this connection but we can.  In contrast to Isiah and Ezekeal, there is no vision in the calling; rather, there is an immediacy of the divine word to Jeremiah.   The message: an oracle privately given to Jeremiah.  1:3---prophesy not simply made of Israel.  He was chosen to be a prophet even before he was conceived in the womb.  This prevents Jeremiah from having any control over whether to accept or reject the call.  There is a constraint on the prophet: a sort of tyranny of God over the prophet.  A theme in Jeremiah.  It is also portrayed as an intimate relationship.  Like Moses, Jeremiah said that he did not know how to speak.  God simply says: don't say that.  There are times when God does not want dialogue.  But there is an implicit promise of God's presence being with the prophet.  Deut. 18: 'I will put my word in his mouth and he will say it'.  This is repeated here.  No doubt would have existed from this that God speaks primarily through his prophets.  That there will be opposition is clear when God tells Jeremiah not to have fear of them.  Jeremiah wonders what this promise will bear out.  The biographical material expands on this.   In contrast to Isaiah where a bird took a hot coal to the prophet's lips, God himself touches Jeremiah's mouth.  A much more intimate, human-like, relationship.  God is using Jeremiah to destroy as well as build up.  Comfort for Jeremaih later that he is not just going to be a 'gloom and doom' doomsayer.
The two signs that follow are ambiguious.  This is characteristic of the Hebrew prophetic oracles.  God shows Jeremiah something.  Jeremiah sees an almond tree.  A pun: God is watching.  An assurance that God will be waiting for the right time to fulfill the oracles by watching the prophetic word.  Second sign: an enemy from the North.  Could be anyone, because all such invasions came from the North there, due to the geography.  What is to happen after that is not clear.  These signs are a summary of Jeremiah's oracles.  The prose makes more specific these oracles.  A major judgment against Judea (forshadowing the Babylonian invasions beginning in 598.  This judgment announcement is followed by the violation: worshipping another deity and works of their own hands.  God tells Jeremiah not to break down in preaching this.  It is the prophet lone against the entire population.  Wilson: this is not always the case.  Also, the biographical narratives show that he had allies in the court.  The point at this point is theological, showing the stark difference between God's will and the conduct of Judea
Jeremiah uses colorful language, allusions to history, unclarity of the speaker and intended listeners.  There is also ambiguity in what the people are to do to repent.  The oracle opens with God implying that God and Israel had once had a good relationship in its early history.  Unlike the wilderness tradition, the wilderness is portrayed as a closeness of God.  Therein lies the end of that oracle.
The next oracle seems to be aimed at the Northern kingdom.  But it had been destroyed in 722 by the Assyrians.  The history: the Assyrians left Israelites in the North.  Also, Jeremiah was at one time in the North knocking down altars to Baal.  But consider that Jerusalem is in the northern part of Judea, so the oracle could have been aimed at it.  The wilderness was a desolate place and yet the people abandoned God after it.  The accusation: Israel had turned away from Yahweh.  Graphic animal imagery language within his sexual language used for the worship of the other Gods.  And yet the people does not know that it has sinned.  A series of oracles in Ch. 2 on this theme.  The prose beginning in 3:6 adds specificity to the series of heterogeneous oracles.  The prose  begins with comments on the history of the Northern kingdom--she did not return, and Judea did not learn from it.  Jeremiah takes 'divorce from God' to be the reason for the historical deportation of Ephraim.  Judea turned away from Yahweh.  Faithless Israel has shown itself less guilty than Judea.  The theme of insincere remorse of Judea in 3:5 is then now the backdrop of the insincereity of Judea's repentence.  Israel did not acknowledge its guilt.  You must repent before you return(the promise).  If the old Northern Kingdom will repent, God will bring them back.  A promise.

2/23/96: Lecture

Jeremiah:

The prose seems to have a coercive force and provides specificity to the more ambiguous poetry.  Jeremiah addressed some (early) oracles to the North; later oracles to the South as the end of the city comes near.  The theme of judgment increases as the book goes on.  Even so, the possibility of repentence in the call to return suggests the possibility of averting judgment.  Get rid of the idols, carry through your oaths.  A call to the South(ch. 4).  Graphic military images in the judgment description, then animal imagery.  The coming of the Assyrian army is put in naturalistic terms (coming like clouds).  Some passages refer either to the anguish of God or of Jeremiah.  One senses the pain God feels in doing judgment to the people.  4:19--seems like Jeremiah is in anguish.  'my tents' is this of Jerusalem or of God's tents that were in the wilderness?  ch.s 21-22 has been interpreted as being a switch from Jeremiah to God.  Compare with Ch. 9 which is a divine oracle (of God's emotion). 
So, impending doom as well as promise of a remnant is a theme through the oracles.  See 4:23--back to genesis going forward to destruction in history.  The prophet stareing into an impending disaster which threatens the realization of God's promise toward Zion.  In ch.s 5 and 6, speakers switch back and forth.  Ch. 5: God challenges Jeremiah to find at least one man who is just and truthful. v. 3-: Jeremiah challenges God: why not look at the best rather than the worst of the people.  Then, animal imagery.  v. 15: hints of the coming of the Babylonians.  Ch. 6: intensifies this judgment.  A sense of drama between the enemy and the Hebrews.  v. 16: the prophets were ignored.  Going back to accusation.  Then, more judgment.  Ambiguity, shifting voices.
Then, in ch. 7, prose. All becomes clear.  The judgment is not against the North but is against Jerusalem.  A call to repent.  If so, God says he will return to the temple.  But the Jerusalem theology had been thought to be God's promise that his presence would always be in the temple, and so no danger of invasion.  But here, God says he is not present unless the people repent.  So, the city can be open to invasion.  7.5: what must be done for God to return.  Deuteromic theology: if you obey, God will stay; if you don't, God and the people will leave.  The wickedness of the priesthood caused God to withdraw from the temple--in Samuel.  Here, it is the wickedness of the people.  Jeremiah and his family were in the old priesthood.  v. 15: the Northern kindom of an example.  v. 16: God will not hear the prophet's pleas for the people.  But the Mosiac prophet is the means by which people communicate with God.  The possibility of transmitting repentence is now shut off.  The judgment becomes inevitable.  This revises the possibility of averting the judgment by repentence that goes through the poetic above.  So, Jeremiah tells the people to give Jerusalem to the Babylonians (not resist) so they will have their lives as a prize.  The judgment is not just to that generation. 
So, the call to repentance is disappearing (ch.s 7-25: the judgment is inevitable).  A sense of historical sequence: the disaster was seen as more likely when the prose was added.  7.27: Jeremiah's calls for repentence will be ignored by the people.  There is an accumulation of sin through the history (not just in that generation), so that generation can't do enough to avert the judgment, even if they listened and repented.  Jeremiah was the last of his type of prophet.
Everyone is sinful and will be punished, so those left in Jerusalem while others were in exile are to be punished too.   A persistent refusal to turn from sin has led up through history to a judgment.  It is the accumulation of sin as well as the trend itself which is the cause of the judgment.
Poetic material after ch. 7 is a reinterpretation of the prose. Ch. 14: It is not drought but the invasion that will be the judgment.  The draught brings the lament that leads to a call to God by the people to remove the draught(v. 7).  Then, the refusal of God to listen.  v. 10: the prose explanation of why.  v. 13: Jeremiah intervenes.  God replies (see Deut. 18): the prophets then current of the Jerusalem theology are false prophets.  Is this true of Jeremiah too?  Wilson: not clear, but it seems to set the stage for the coming fight between Jeremiah's disciples and the Jerusalem theology prophets.  v. 19: the people again repent and ask for mercy.  Ch. 15: a prose oracle to Jeremiah: God's reply.  Even if Moses had asked, he would refuse this.  The judgment has become inevitable.

2/28/96: Lecture

Jeremiah:

Up to ch. 25, he is vague on what will happen after the judgment.  Is the covenant one that can be broken?  How severe will the judgment be?  Will Isreal still be Yahweh's chosen people?  These are questions we are left with at ch. 25.  The is a sense that the judgment has become a given because the Hebrews had had chances to listen and turn around.  Jeremiah suggest that there is a limit to God's forgiveness; that only through the judgment is is possible to start over.  Jeremiah's generation has been offered one last chance: to repent sincerely and turn toward Yahweh.  But it refused this last chance, as their preceding generations had done.  So the judgment is unavoidable.  How have the people refused the opportunity?  Opposition to the prophet's message.  Emphasis is on the suffering of the prophet.  Isaiah: the suffering servant. The Psalms of lament.  Jeremiah's laments in his poetry.  What was the oppostion to Jeremiah?  His kin.  The religious establishment, especially the other prophets.  The question of false prophesy is dealt with. 
The confessional material:
Did people have interest in prophets?  Did Yahweh use his prophets and then discard some of them?  Or does Yahweh always support the genuine prophets, even in the end?  Ch. 12: a classic lamentic poetry.  A complaint about a problem and then a call for vengence against those who oppose the prophet.  It is not clear in the poetic passages what God's response will be.  This is spelled out in the prose. The suffering of the righteous--he considered himself to be righteous and that God will hear him.  v. 5: God does not give solice to Jeremiah.  It is not clear what the reaction of God will be.  Ch. 15: Jeremiah reminds Yahweh that he as paid a price for doing God's will.  He has been delivering judgment oracles and nothing was happening.  Jeremiah was upset at the unfulfillment of his judgment oracles.  He is upset at God.  God's response: v. 19: if Jeremiah turns around to God, God will back him against his enemies.  A surprise to Jeremiah.  Ch. 20: Jeremiah uses the language of seduction and rape to describe his relationship to Yahweh.  'You have overpowered me'.  And yet he can't resign; a sense in the prophet that he is driven to speak God's word.  A tyranny of Yahweh of God over the prophet.  It is an unpleasant situation.  People don't volunteer for the job.  There is no answer from God. 
On the opposition of the religious, see ch. 23.  It begins with a lament against the establishment prophets who are saying the traditional Jerusalem theology.  An oracle against them; they have become hypocrites, so from the prophets has spead wickedness.  A deuteromic indictment: they are making their words up: that one need only trust in God and the city will not fall.  They do not have a genuine word from Yahweh.  They had not stood in God's council.  How are the people to know who to listen to?  Follow the Mosiac prophet (Jeremiah), but the people then don't know that he is the Mosiac prophet. To Jeremiah, a Mosiac prophet gets his words directly from the word of the LORD; the false prophet get his words through visions. 
These themes become that of the biographical prose.  It dramatizes the opposition to the prophet and God's standing behind his genuine prophet.  The judgment becomes inevitable.  Although certain people listen, many don't.  The word of the genuine prophet will thus finally come true and the prophet will be vindicated as a genuine prophet.  For instance, immediately after the oracles against the false prophets, ch. 26 sets out to show how people (in the court of the temple) react to Jeremiah's warning to repent. Deuteromic tradition: every generation has an opportunity to say yes or no to God.  The reactions: the priests and prophets told Jeremiah that he would die.  The officials from Judea told the priests and prophets that Jeremiah did not deserve death because he is speaking the word of God.  Then, the elders arose and reminded the people that the actions of the king in 701 are a positive example of the city being saved by trusting in God and listening to the prophet Micah.  Also, a prophet killed for saying words like Jeremiah resulted in the end of the king's dynasty in 537(?).  Jeremiah tells the royal court not to resist the Babalonians because the judgment is now inevitable.  The prophet heniah broke Jeremiah's yoke and refused him.  Jeremiah told him that the prophets prophesying doom had been right more than the prophets who had prophesized salvation.  The king does not heed Jeremiah.
Ch.s 30-33: the city has been under seige.  The invasion is impending.  Jeremiah is told by his family that he can buy family land to keep it in the family.  This is to fulfill the prediction earlier that land would be bought and sold in the judgment.  Then, Jeremiah prophesizes a promise to the remnant: exile will end and the children will return--if there is genuine rependence.  Lament and repentance that which was rejected in ch.s 14 and 15 are now effective and God brings Ephriam back.  The oracle is extended to Judah.  A new covenant will be made with both nations: I will put the law within them and write it in their hearts.  It is not brakeable because it is internalized as it had been for the prophets.  A hope that the community that survived the judgment will try to claim this.

3/1/96: Lecture

Ezekiel:

It is a difficult book to understand.  For instance, the temple vision contradicted the Torah.  In the 1700's,  Dunn worked to uncover the meaning of the words. There was not a consensus on this book.  The assumption has been that the original words of the prophet are in the book plus expansions.  Simerly points out the biblical connections between the book and the rest of the Tanakh.  He looks at how pieces in the book are related to eachother. In contrast, Greenberg argues that the book should be treated as a single narrative unit written by Ezekiel.  The earliest oracle in the book was in 593 (between the invasion and the fall of the city) and the latest one in 573 after the fall. Jeremiah was active in that period.  A narrow time period, so it was probably written by the prophet himself.  Greenberg's wholistic method shows a theological coherence in the book.  
The literary pecularities of the book:  consider the background of the text, the structure of the book, and implications from the book.  On the historical background, the oracles of Ezekiel are dated with specificity.  605: the battle of Carthanage. Temporary defeat of the Babalonians.  By 602, the Babylonians regained strenght and punished the kings who had revolted.  The ruling group in Jerusalem was exiled to Babylon.  Ezekiel was among those in this first exile.  The Babylonians kept the Davidic line on the throne but picked one that would act as a puppet.  But it was a province of the Babylon empire; what does this say of the Jerusalem theology: that the Davidic line would be sovereign forever.  Also, could one count on Yahweh's promise that Yahweh would always be present?  Were the Hebrews still Yahweh's chosen people?  To what extent is Yahweh universal.  The Hebrews dispursed into not only Babylon, but Egypt and other areas as well.  Could they worship in these 'impure' places.  Also, were the Hebrews in Babylon the chosen ones (Ezekiel's position) or was it those who remained in Jerusalem (Jeremiah)?  Who was the true Israel?  Moreover, what does it say when God's prophesy does not turn out to be so (the exile)?  A crisis in the prophetic office.  But the priestly office and its ritual were no longer seen to be efficatious as well.  Ezekiel is a member of the ruling priesthood (in the Jerusalem temple).  He was then exiled.  How did he deal with the fact that he was doing rituals in Babylon while others were doing likewise in Jerusalem.  He was also a prophet, so he had questions about his office as well here too.  What is the status of the promises as the exile went on?  So, the exile and fall was a crucial period in Israel's history and theology.  This background is assumed by Ezekiel.  Religious and political turmoil. 
A strange literary structure that responds to the chaos of the times.  The first section of the  book in from ch. 1-33.  Ch. 33 is decisive.   Ch.s 1-32 contain oracles of judgment.  It begins with the prophet's call (1-3) which is different.  It is relatively lengthy.  It is dated to the years of the exile (593).  He is among the exiles.  It portrays the divine presence landing by the river.  Visionary terms.  Ch. 3 has a legalistic form.  In this call narrative, he is appointed a watchman to watch for the enemy (Yahweh) who is coming against the city.  Yahweh quite physically fights the city according to the prophet.  This call is repeated in ch. 33.  So, the first part of the book is bracketed by a watchman call.  Ezekiel was struck dumb until 586(when the city fell).    The oracles of judgment were given when he was dying.  Ch. 4: he is minituring the seige with the bricks.  He is then told to should sit on one side and then another for so many days.  Strange relative to Isaiah showing up in the temple wearing a human yoke.  6-11: visions in which the prophet goes back to Jerusalem.  12-24: judgment oracles against the people.  They have much detail. 25-32: judgment oracles about foreigners. Ch. 33 is the narrative of the fall of Jerusalem with an oracle.  Then, ch.s 34-37 contain promise oracles.  There is no promise except on the other side of judgment.  Ch.s 38-39 contain apocolyptic literature.  It seems intentionally placed there in the narrative. Ch.s 40-48 contain plans for the rebuilding of the Temple and plans for restored worship.
Consider that the material had been elaborated by many editors.  Not piecemeal editing, but probably one editor who shaped the book perhaps by providing details.  The prophesy was written from the beginning.  Amos and Hosea were oral originally then written down.  There was still an oral tradition of prophesy even in the time of Ezekiel.  Short judgment oracles emphasized in it.  Ezekiel uses this form as a base, and uses the written form to add detail.  So, the book was meant to be read and studied rather than just listened to.  The details are significant.  This book is the first in the Tanach to be done in this way.  Perhaps because the Hebrews were dispursed.  Thirdly, recall that he carries the Jerusalem theology with him, so he tries to defend it in the event of the exile.  Fourth, he seems to have been influenced by deuteromic theology.  Jeremiah or his followers may have been in contact with Ezekiel and his followers.  Yet, it is a unique portrayal (personalized solution).  Fifth, reflection of earlier literary images: prophesy in search of form.  The images of the earlier material is heightened and transformed.  Sixth, whoever put the material together was stuggling with the nature of prophetic activity in that setting and had concerned with the priests of the Temple who were exile.  So, he is speaking to a relatively sophisticated readership.

3/4/96: Lecture

Ezekiel:

The same points recur, but not by using the same language.  Some basic points.  The absolute authority of the prophet as God's messinger.  This was not 'intercession' of the deuteromic tradition; rather, the prophet delivers God's word without interpreting it. If there is interpretation, it occurs only after the fact.  The call material is expanded in 1-3 because of the concern with the call.  Ch. 1 starts with a vision and that gets closer, becoming increasingly vague as it does.  He states that the king in exile is the true Hebrew king, rather than the puppet in Jerusalem.   The first vision: four creatures with two-pairs of wings. They had human hands on which they stood.  Torches moving about the creatures.  The creatures are moving around too.  These composite animals are the cheribum from the Temple.  Guardian figures of the Ark of the Covenent.  The other priests exiled with Ezekiel would know this.  The prophet is trying to evoke the feeling that one has when one is waking from a dream and is not sure whether what one perceives is 'real'; a fading in and out.  There was a wheel within a wheel at right angles.  It is being energized by the spirits.  Portable shrines.  A way of talking about mobility.  The prophet is grasping for concrete images to describe the original images(incorporeal).  As the figures come closer to the prophet, he sees how large they are.  Repetition being used to give the reader a sense of the prophet's experience: that the prophet was overwhelmed and terrified as he saw it approaching.  The sound was like the rushing of the cosmic sea; like the sound of an army.  Then, he heard a voice from the dome above the animals.  There was a throne above the animals and a human form above it, and above it something that looked like fire.  Splender all around.  This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of God.  This is as close as anyone in Hebrew Scripture comes to seeing the divine presence.  The prophet was so overwhelmed that he fell on his face. 
Recall the use of distance (Isaiah using conversation, Hosea touching His robe) to show the transcendence of God.  Not so for Ezekiel: transcendence without distance.  Rabbis have preferred the former.  Why was the vision at a river in exile?  The prophet sees the remnant as those in exile.  God addresses Ezekiel as 'Mortal': distance is implied.  The prophet is portrayed as a puppet that has to be pushed by God; Ezekiel has no self-will but is used by the Spirit.  Ezekiel does nothing to interfere with the divine word; everything he says and does is of the divine word.  This goest to his notion of the absolute authority of the prophets.  God's communication to him: he is to preach to a rebellious group.  No call for repentence.  The impression: the judgment against Jerusalem is determined by this time.  Whereas Jeremiah is told not to intercede but he does anyway (he can't shake his identification with the people), Ezekiel does not intercede because he follows God's word and because he is isolated from the people.  Whereas Jeremiah found eating God's words to be not of good taste, Ezekiel finds them as of honey.  The divine word is literally put into the prophet, so there is no interpretation.  The prophet eats the written book.  Presumably the book of Ezekiel. So there is authenticity to this book.  The prophet was taken to the people of exile, stunned for seven days after this vision.
Then, a second vision.  The prophet is to warn the people of the coming disaster.  The wicked will not turn and shall die, so the prophet is not to warn them.  The prophet is to warn the righteous. Even if they had done righteousness in the past, if they refuse his warning, they will die.  The option of those who turn around is not there.   Let those who can hear, hear.  God tells the prophet that he is not the mediator but is only to be a messenger of God.  Same with Jeremiah. This messenger function will not be allowed until the fall of the city when the prophets can seek intercession on behalf of the people.  In the meantime, the prophet speaks only God's message of judgment. 
593-597: the period between the first deportation and the fall of Jerusalem. Which was the judgment of God?  If the former, those in exile are the remnant, so promise oracles are expected(as Jeremiah has said).  Ezekiel says that the deportation was just the first installment.  These are not accidents of history but God's direct activity.  The certainty of judgment is clear in ch. 4.  The prophet is not to be the mediator interceding for the people to avoid the coming judgment.  The people are not to get to the prophet.  It underlies the certainty of the judgment against the city.  Ch. 5 too.  Cut off your hair.  It is either the fire or the sword.  There will be a remnant.  Unlike Jeremiah's (the survivers), it is a small group within the exilic.  Who are they?  Ezekiel and his supporters?  See ch. 18.  Ch. 7: 'Now the end is upon you.  I will have no pity...and then you will know that I am Yahweh'.  God had been known in his acts of salvation; now he is to be known in his acts of judgment.  Powerful language.  'Your doom has come to you...My anger is upon you...I will punish you'.  The personal vindetta of Yahweh.  No let-up to this judgment oracle until the prophet runs out of breath.  The destruction is the will of Yahweh.

3/6/96: Lecture

Ezekiel:

The real sinners are still left in Jerusalem, and they will be destroyed.  Those in exile are the remnant.  God is said to be the cause behind the fall of the city.  God is directly involved in the destruction of the city.  Ch. 7, for instance.  The temple vision in ch. 8 shows this too.  In the vision, the LORD lifted him up to Jerusalem.  God's spirit came upon him.  He saw a vision of God's presence and was taken to Jerusalem. God shows him the abominations going on there.  Description of what the prophet sees: as though we are seeing what God wants us to see through the prophet without interpretation.  We see that there are things going on that caused God to leave the Temple in disgust.  Idols in the temple.  Images.  The elders were involved in this.  This is deliberately driving God out of the sanctuary.  God was being worshipped as the sun (solar worship).  This is a divine judgment; the prophet is showing us the divine view of it.  The divine army and God's record keeper in linen (used later as a figure in apocolyptic books) are called by God.  God tells the record-keeper to mark the faces of those who are still faithful and to kill the others, starting with those in the Temple (including the elders).  Those with the mark will be the second exile, part of the remnant.  By the end of ch. 9, the first stage of the judgment is done(the marking and killing).  Then, God's glory is seen above the cherubins.  God tells the record-keeper to scatter the fire among the city.  The cherubin hands him the coals.  This is the direct divine destruction of the city, starting with the destruction of the temple by God.  Image of ch. 1: a bright light above the creatures (cherubins): the departing of God's glory from the Temple.  God goes with the exiled and is there sanctuary in exile.  God has been pushed out of the Temple.  God lit the match as divine glory went out the door.
Theology: The Jerusalem theology has claimed that God's presence is always to be in the Temple, or else the end of God's special relationship with the Hebrews.  But Ezekiel modifies this theology by way of explaining the exile: God went out into exile with the remnant because of the sin in the city and God will return to the city and the Temple when the judgment is over.
The oracles following describe the judgment.  They begin with an indictment against the people and then the judgment.  The basic two-part form, expanded in length.  Ch. 16, for instance.  It is meant to be offensive to the people.  It begins with a graphic depiction of Jerusalem as a young woman whose parents were foreigners. This is historically accurate.  The pagan origins of Jerusalem was the beginning of the problem with the city.  It was rejected and unclean at birth.  God saw she was ready for love as she had grown and he had sex with her (making covenant with her).  From pagan origins, the city became God's special city.  The prophet is recounting the history of the city.  He then uses prostitution imagery as Jeremiah did for the worship of other deities.  Then, in v. 23, the prostitution imagery is used to stand for the practice of making treaties with other nations.  Ch. 17 is an allegory of an eagle which is about such alliances.  The eagle seems to be Assyria
The history of Israel's sin has been a long one.  It was not just one generation whose sin has to be exabated.  Ch. 23, for instance.  The elders come to the prophet to consult with him, but he does not let them but gives them judgment against them.  The rebellion began in Egypt.  But Yahweh explained his divine forbearance because God was worried about the sanctity of his own name.  So, God led them out of Egypt.  But Israel rebelled in the wilderness.  But God forbeared again to maintain his name.  This is why God was not open for intercession on the judgment of the destruction of the city.  Namely, by the time the Hebrews had come into Palestine, they deserved judgment; it was thus only a matter of time. 
On generation does not inherent sin from that of a prior generation; the wicked die for their own sin and the righteous live for their own righteousness.  It is a matter of individual responsibility.  So, the prophet is worried about those who were righteous but have fallen away.  You can't talk about the nation being saved or judged; rather, speak of judgment and salvation in terms of individuals.  See ch. 18.
Those in Jerusalem criticized the exiles as having gone away from God.  Ezekiel disagrees.  God had been a sanctuary to the exiles.  Thus, the prophet saw the glory of God in Babylon
Salvation for Jeremiah and Ezekiel is only after the judgment.  Ch. 23, the destruction of the city.  Then, promise oracles (though different that Jeremiah's promise oracles).

3/8/96: Lecture

Ezekiel:

In Ezekiel, one moves away from the notion that a group as a whole can be saved by a leader; rather than corporate responsibility, individual responsibility is stressed, beginning in ch. 18.  Individual salvation. 
The true Israel is in exile in Babylon.  The return from exile fulfilling the promise oracle is thus seen as coming from Babylon.  Those returning from Egypt are ignored.  The Jews left back in Palestine worshipping Yahweh are ignored.  That they are ignored shows an exclusivity.  The true elect Isreal is only those in Babylon in the first deportation.  Those who come later after the fall of the city (those marked by God's record-keeper) are not included.
The date of the fall of the city is dated precisely.  A messenger came to the prophet with the message.  God then removed the dumbness from the prophet's mouth.  The prohibition against intercession and thus repentence has been removed.  God is going to take personal charge of the exiled Jews; the human leaders are condemned by God.  The leaders had been eating much but have not fed the sheep or brought them back.  The exile itself is blamed on the leadership of Israel.  No longer shall the shepards feed themselves.  God will be the shepard who will rescue his sheep.  A promise oracle (ch. 34).  Yahweh will lead them back to their land.  God will strengthen the weak, and destroy the fat and strong(the shepards), as well as bring back the lost sheep. Some sheep don't deserve to come back, so not all will be brought back.  These are those of the second deportation.  At the beginning of the oracle, God himself will be the shepard. By the end of the oracle, the Davidic monarchy is to be re-established.  Recall that Isaiah said it would be God himself who is to rule, rather than a restoration of a monarchy.
God promises to restore the land--a garden-line quality.
Ch. 37: the valley of the dried bones.  A connection between this event to when God declared earlier that he was the enemy of Israel. The bones are there because God had slaughtered most of Israel.  There is also a metaphorical meaning of the bones at the end of the chapter: that the bones represent the exiles waiting for God.  But the bones show that a restoration can't be done by doing righteous, such as repentence.  This contradicts Daniel.  Ezekiel: the bones can't come back to life by the repenting of the returned exiled.  The reversal of the judgment(God acting directly against Israel) oracle: God layers the bones back to life--God's direct activity, rather than by anything the people have done.  God, personally, is restoring the fallen of Israel.  This is God's activity--not that of the people or the prophet.  The oracle then interprets itself: a more inclusive interpretation--the dead of the exiled will come back to life.  This came to become the resurrection of the dead idea among Jews and Christians.  Wilson: is this metaphor to be taken literally or metaphorically?  God promises to restore the whole of Israel (uniting North and South, ruled over by a single monarch of the Davidic line).
For Ezekiel, the people of the exile are no better after the exile than they were when they went out.  Repentence in exile is not possible because the exiled were just as bad as the other Jews.  They were still defiling God's name.  It is solely out of God, rather than their efforts, that they are brought back.  No connection between God's bringing them back and anything the exiles have done.  Likewise with the restoration of the bones.  God acts so to sanctify His name such that other nations will know that He is God.  He will cleanse the people by sprinkling water on them.  He will save them from their uncleansiness and return them to the land as a pardise.  The people will repent after restoration.  Jeremiah: repentence is a precondition to restoration.  Issue: can one do anything to be restored?
Ezekiel is very much taken with the notion of purity.  So, he talks of the land and its sin in terms of ritual purity--especially in terms of bodily fluids.
Ezekiel gives a practical plan for rebuilding the city and its temple.  For right worship to occur, the use of sacred space is salient.  The shaping of space dictates what can be done.  It determines how the space will be used ritually.  This second temple is different from the first.  Differences on how God is to be worshipped.  Ezekiel distinct from the Torah's worship way.   It may be that Ezekiel's plan (including new ritual laws) was not built.  If so, then the temple vision is taken eschatologically.  This is to say that there needs to be a new temple; that the second temple misses the mark.  The Quarum people, for instance, had their own interpretation of the temple (without priests).
God restores the Holy of Holies.  God returning.  The visions of ch.s 1, 8, and 9.  The divine voice declares His return.  So, the Jerusalem theology is still good.  God does in fact dwell eternally in the city.   The return of God's presence makes the whole city holy.  This had not been so before God left the city.  The book ends with the return of God to the city.  The restoration of the people.

3/25/96: Lecture


God's promise of giving the land to the Hebrews was contingent upon their obedience to God.  The Deut. theology.  Isaiah.  It was easy for him to explain the fall of Jerusalem: the Hebrews disobeyed Yahweh by worshipping Baal.
God's promise was unconditional.  The Jerusalem theology. Ezekiel  So, he was hard-pressed to explain the fall of Jerusalem.  Options: 1. The Babalonian deities were simply more powerful than Yahweh.  It would follow that the Hebrews in exile in Babylon would assimilate themselves--working for that government, for instance.  Some such folk, being of the Hebrew elite, did so.  Some opened businesses and did quite well.  Banking.  They took Babylonian or ambiguous names.  This assumes that Yahweh was not able to build a world empire.  2. God deliberately brought this about.  Ezekiel.  Yahweh was behind it all.  Yahweh left the temple and reentered it after the punishment--showing that the promise is indeed eternal.  In fact, the promise is expanded to the whole city--that Yalweh is present.
The lesson of the exile: you can't ignore what is happening on the world-stage and depend solely on Yahweh.  This presented a problem: a land-based religion then outside the land.  Are they true Israelite communities?  Where and how is the real Israel.  The consensus in the texts: the exiles in Babylon were the true Israel.  Ezekiel: this does not include the second deportation.  So, the remnant within the exilic Hebrews. 
The duration of the exile.  Differences of opinion on this.  Deut. position: the exile is punishment for past sins.  How long is enough punishment without bringing on a sense of hopelessness.  Isaiah gives the impression that there will be no further relationship between Yahweh and Israel until the end of the book when he buys land.  In contrast, Ezekiel and Jeremiah both gave promise oracles, even though admitting that it would be a long exile.  The question for their followers: when will the promises be fulfilled.   People began to wonder, after several exilic generations.  Ezekiel: the punishment due to the sins of accumulated past and deported generations.  So the generations after the deported asked why they had to be punished.  How much punishment does a crime deserve?
Another problem: where was Yahweh's word to be found outside the land?  The religion had been enclosed-to the land and the temple in particular.  What does one do ritually without a temple?  Could the sacrifical system which was designed to purify the temple and along with it the sins of the people be done when there was no temple. 
And what of prophesy then.  Jeremiah and Ezekiel had been right.  But others were wrong.  Many of whom were theologically informed (holding the Jerusalem theology) were wrong.  What credibility does prophesy have when most prophets are wrong. 
This was the formative period of the Hebrew scripture as we know it.  The situation of the pre-exile and the exile shaped it.  The experience of the exile becomes the formative event in the formulation of the scripture and the ensuing religion which was so influenced by that scripture.
How the second part of Isaiah contributed to this dynamic: 
The first part of the book had to do with historical events.  Then, beginning with ch. 40, persian words and references.  Eichhorn studied this. In 1783, he claimed that the second part of the book was written by a prophet during the exile after Isaiah.  Duhm claimed that the second part of the book has two parts: ch.s 40-45--the work of the second Isaiah (may have been done by one left in Jerusalem).  But most scholars view it as comming from Babylon.  Duhm claims that the later chapters (56-66) were written after the Temple was rebuilt and things were not getting better.  Muilenburg: second Isaiah begins at ch. 34.  Ch. 33 would be a celebration of the 701 event.  Ch.s 34 and 35 look forward to a return from the exile. Then, talk of a return.  Most scholars claim that editing the first Isaiah was involved in the formulation of the second Isaiah. It was not just adding large blocks to the end of the first Isaiah.  Recall that the events of the earlier war are reinterpreted in the 701 episode--thus a reworking within the first Isaiah.   It is God's insistence that he will act as he has in the past that becomes a theme in the second Isaiah.
Literary divisions that distinguish the two Isaiahs.  Also, divisions within the second Isaiah.  Muilenburg assumes twenty-one divisions; others see as many as seventy! 
The literary pecularities of the second Isaiah.  'Thus says the Lord' is expanded (42.2, 45.11)--the messenger formula.  Most of the material in the second Isaiah consists of unconditional promises.  There is no sense of the prophetic process in second Isaiah.  Very little first-person speech.  When God talks, not the prophet.  Also, people are addressed in general terms. The material is polished.  A great writer.  There is no indication of a mysterious person who wrote it.  Either it was written by Isaiah or it was not circulated by the author's name.  Wilson: second Isaiah: a written interpretation of the oracles in the first Isaiah.

3/27/96: Lecture

Second Isaiah:
The exiled Jews had different ways of interpreting what had happened.  Second Isaiah was probably a written series of additions to the first Isaiah.  It was not oral oracles given by a prophet because no traces exist of an author.  Being written, it was designed to be studied.  It can be re-read.  A certain kind of liturature genre is used for this and another for oral communication.  Written work: logical arguments. 
Also, consider that the exile dispursed the Hebrews.  Communication was more difficult. Before the exile, the Temple court was the symbolic center, or focal point, from which folks could go for information.  How did they get around this in the exile.  Letters.  An age of the written text, which dominates second Isaiah. 
Who was it who was behind second Isaiah?  They had a close connection to the first Isaiah.  It is an elaboration, or continuation, of the first Isaiah.  Favored phrases (references to the plan of God--a pre-determined plan for history, so the exile is not an accident) in the first Isaiah are also salient in the second Isaiah.  There is also the continued theme that Yahweh's relationship with Israel has continuity through the exile.  The notion of maintaining the holiness of Yahweh is also salient. 
It seems to be a group of Isaiah disciples.  They see themselves as having a role in God's plan of salvation for Israel.  A human participant--a role for human agents.  See ch. 40, the beginning of second Isaiah.  Some indication of a return from exile.  Imperatives using plurals.  Who are the people addressed?  The second Isaiah community; not some deities.  They are to speak to Jerusalem, announcing that her punishment has been completed.  Implied: the exile was really to punish Jerusalem rather than those who were exiled.  How did Jerusalem suffer double?  Not clear.  The cosmos is depicted as being changed for the return of the exiles who were to comfort and speak to those in Jerusalem.  A promise of the return of God's presence in the Temple.  All people (cosmic scale--because the exile is a cosmic --world stage--event) will see the return of the people from exile which will lead to the redemption of the world.  The prophet calls the second Isaiah group into action.  The word (of the first Isaiah) is promised to be fulfilled.  So, second Isaiah has promise oracles which fulfill the judgment oracles in first Isaiah. 
Zion is personified as a servant.  It is to say to all cities of Judea that their God has returned and is in Zion
So, an exiled community, extending to Zion, and further to Judea.  Key: the involvement of human agents in the redemption of the Hebrews--the servant language. 
Ch. 41: Identify with what God has done in the past to realize what God has in mind at the time of the second Isaiah disciples--they are not sinners called to repent, but are trying to live by righteousness (doing what the covenant demands).  In contrast, Ezikiel claims that all the exiles were still no good, so the return is due to God's grace.  The second Isaiah disciples were a minority in the exile, and they were persecuted by them.  Jews persecuting Jews.  Yahweh is portrayed as powerful--a cosmic deity.  So, the persecuted sould not be afraid of the persecuters but should trust in Yahweh's protection and care. 
The second Isaiah group will be the ones who re-populate ZionWilson: an exclusivism.  The group will survive the persecution.  This leads to ch. 42: Jerusalem is seen again as the holy city.  In the past, it was the holy-of-holies in the Temple that was holy.  Ezekiel: the Temple is holy.  Second Isaiah: an exclusivist, elitist view of Jerusalem.  It is holy, so only pure people can live there.  The second-Isaiah group is to re-purify themselves and return in triumpth--an new exodus back into the land. 
The good news of the second Isaiah is that the exiles will return and God will be present again there.  The purification language is priestly.  That is mostly who the exiles are.  The exiled were the elite.  They had an urgent, exclusive role to play in redeeming Zion.

3/29/96: Lecture

Second Isaiah:
Concerns of the exile and the restoration; of the true Israel and its identity; of the continuity eetween the past and present; of the Jerusalem promise.  Is this exile  a definitive divorce etween Yahwey and Israel.   This group has priestly interests, that Jerusalem be maintained as a sacred site.  So, focus on the fate of the city. Hints that this group saw itself as having a major role in the restoration.  It is not a passive group waiting for something to happen to them.  They saw the rise of Cyrus to power as deliberately chosen by Yahweh to deliver Israel; God acts throught specific idividuals.  In each part of the restoration there is a human agent involved.  First, the proclamation of Second Isaiah is the mesenger to the other cities of Judea via JerusalemJerusalem becomes a center of the message of restoration for the entire world. 
The exile was seen by Israel as a major break in its history. But Ezekiel shows God going into exile with the exiles.  It is the people left in Jerusalem who were deserted after the first deportation.  To them, their city fell. God came back to the Temple after the exile.  Second Isaiah assures Israel that God will be with them throughout.  A continuous history.  There is nothing accidental about the exile.  Analogies between past and present to show that the exile and restoration is like the exodus and the new creation in to the promised land.  Typological language of old and new.  See: 40.21: what was happening should have been seen from what God had already done with Israel. 41.1-5: the conquest of Cyrus of the Persion empire is understood as God's plan for Israel.  Planned from the beginning.  God is a constant participant with Israel.  All of the nations will see it when the restoration from exile is accomplished. 42.8-9: The First Isaiah has come to pass.  The crisis of 701--his oracles of promise came true then.  Reminder of what God's intensions are toward Zion, planned from the beginning.  43.16: Exodus--crossing thru the sea of reeds is akin to crossing the river Jordon in the restoration.  This is the new exodus.  Now, the entire cosmos will be changed--a new kind of creation--in which the restoration will occur.  Images of the garden of eden. 44.6-8: Continuity of God; no break. 48.1-11: words of judgment and promise given in the past (e.g. First Isaiah--judgment and promise oracles concerning 701) have come to pass. The prophets are sent to convince the people of what is going to happen.  Recall that the exile is just punishment for the accumulated sins of Israel
To bring about the restoration and the elevation of Zion as embassador to the rest of Israel and the world, not that unlike Jeremiah's call being intimate, with Isaiah and Ezekiel their calling is from a cosmic deity.  So, second Isaiah gives the first portrayal of God as a cosmic deity, which was then taken up by later Judaism and Christianity.  A development of a monotheistic tendency, coming out of Deuteronomy: there is no other God but Yahweh.  Deut: Yahweh alone is Israel's deity; there are other deities elsewhere. But by Second Isaiah, no other gods exist.  Nothing happens without Yahweh's action.  This theme is in the hymns to Yahweh as the creator.  God is not portrayed as a king in heaven with a divine council; rather, God needs no council.  The other deities are but idols thought to be deities.  Yahweh sits above the earth.  41.5: God's sphere of activity is the entire cosmos. 42.14: Yahweh's vast activity and power in the new creation of the restoration.  Similarly, cosmological myths involving battles involving monsters of natural forces, were common throughout Babylon were rejected by Israel.  Gen.: an effortless creation.  God controls the natural forces.  Wilson: if God is said to be involved in all of Israel's life (i.e. cosmic deity), then God must be responsible for everything that occurs--so God not only brought them out of Egypt but was behind the destruction of Temple an the ruin of Jerusalem.  A determinism. 45: Cyrus is called to restore Israel.  Kingship is not used in reference to the Davidic dynasty, but only to Yahweh and Cyrus, the Assyrian.  Cyrus's coming to Babylon is described in the same terms as the restoration.  It doen't matter if Cyrus realizes this.  45.5:'I am the God and there is no other besides me.  I do good and I create evil.  I create light and darkness.'  This is the most strict mention of Israel's monotheism.  The notion that there is a part of creation not under God's control or that there were other deities who caused evil.  Wilson: the theodocy here is problematic.
God as Israel's redeemer(gaal n., goel vb.).  This vocabulary comes out of the law codes.  Used in Leviticus on the matter of slavery; if one is to be sold into slavery, a family-member is obligated to keep this from happening.  Also, the family has the obligation to redeem property to keep it from leaving the family. Also, an obligation in regard to homocide.  It carries the sense of family or blood-bound relation between the redeemer and the redeemed.  In Second Isaiah, Yahweh is portrayed not only as the sole divine power in the cosmos (God's transcendence), but also as Israel's redeemer (immanance imagry that is in Deut. and Jeremiah).  While God is the cosmic creator, God is part of the family and thus has an obligation to redeem Israel.  41.14: 'Your redeemer is the holy one of Israel'  This shows the immanance and transcendence of Yahweh.  God is obliged to redeem out of a family obligation rather than because the people have been good.  This assures that God will act on Israel's behalf.  An assurance to the people. 43.14; 44.6; 44.44.  Not only does God have the power to bring about the restoration, but God has the obligation as well. Whether the people had turned around is not what motivates God to redeem them; it is pure grace.  Is rependence a prerequisite for redemption?  Second Isaiah and Ezekiel: no; Jeremiah: yes.  Yahweh is portrayed intimately as part of a family. 
These themes (of human agency and the obligation of a family member to redeem) come together in the servant language.

4/1/96: Lecture

Second Isaiah:
The Christian community picked up on the servant language in Acts and the Pauline letters.  Acts 8:26-40: Phillip was commanded to catch up with an Etheopian reading Is. 52.13-53.12, the third of the servant passages.  Phillip takes it in a messianic vein, applying it to Jesus.  Messianic servant as a person was also believed in pre-Christian times by Enoch.
Two interpretations in the Hebrew tradition: the servant as a group (dominant in early tradition--the righteous group) and as an individual(in later tradition--the righteous one). More often, the servant is seen as Israel--as the redemptive agent of the entire world.  But, the Targum identifies the servant as the messiah--as an individual.  Throughout Judaism, there have been candidates hailed. Also, individuals in the scripture, such as Jeremiah, Job, Isaiah, Moses, Ezekiel.  A righteous sufferer who suffers on behalf of the people and who may have come to an untimely end.  Many Christian scriptures have claimed that exegesis of the servant language rightly understood do not force one into a Christocentric interpretation.
In Christianity, it was thought that Jesus was the servant.  Most such interpretations show him as the messiah.  But, Servenus claimed that others were too.  Jewish interpretors, meanwhile,  shifted to the group as servant interpretation.  But, there has also been consideration that the servant verses in Is. were not propheses; Vanwelsen: Israel as faithful is the servant. Duhm claimed that 42.1-4, 49.1-6, 50.4-9, and 52.13-53.53.12 (the servant psalms) were from a separate source than the second Isaiah.  But there is servant language elsewhere in Second Isaiah.  Why isolate these psalms? 
The Second Isaiah does not identify an individual as the servant; not even that the servant is an individual.  But 52.13-53.13 refers to an individual.  But, several specific group interpretation.  Israel 41.8: You, Israel, my servant.  42.18; 44.1-8; 45.4.  Also, there are ambiguities in the descriptions of the servant.  For instance, 42.18: blind and dumb.  But, later: the servant is rejected by Israel
Second Isaiah was written to a chosen group within Israel.  This group is to serve as the redemptive agents for the rest of IsraelZion is then seen as the redemptive agent.  So, the notion of agents is build in to the way in which the book sees the role of humans in redemption.  Humans as groups (Israel is explicitly called to be servant) as well individuals.  A small community of the elite, the city itself, and Israel as a whole (to the world) is portrayed in Second Isaiah as a servant of redemptive.
But 52.13-53.12 seems to see an individual servant.  Context: the city of Zion is to prepare to be a servant giving God's good news to the rest of the world; that Jerusalem will become holy in the restoration.  The city had been in captive and is to be freed by the first deportees into Babylan when they return.  A messanger to announced that God has returned: reference to that group.  The other side of ch. 40.  The servant psalm 52.13-53.12 follows this context, seeing the servant in individual terms: 'just as many were astonished by your appearance(the group's own experience), so too when the servant who suffered is exhalted.  The mood: Deuteromist: suffering as the punishment for sin.  Job, on the other hand, takes the line that suffering does not necessarily come from sin.   That Israel had suffered double that of warranted suggests an injustice by God if suffering is due to sin.  The man of suffering was to be despised, thought to be no good.  'Surely he has borne our offences'.  Innocent suffering has a redemptive quality.  Unmerited suffering was for that group of the Second Isaiah.  Some individual had shown them that suffering is not necessarily a punishment for sin.  The elite group of Second Isaiah saw its suffering as redemptive.  So too, Jerusalem has suffered doubly in order to redeem Israel.  So to with Israel with the world.  The notion that guiltless suffering is redemptive.  Who is the servant?  This principle applies to any one or group that suffers unjustly.  It could be Jesus, Gandhi, and Job.  God, too, suffers without sin, and redeem mankind.

4/3/96: Lecture

Apocalyptic:

The second-temple period was important to the religion that came out of the exile.  This new religion is different from the pre-exilic religion. 
Background: the exile was not all that bad; the deported were the elite.  They adapted and flourished, helped by the falling-apart of the Babylonian economy and government from before the exile period.  The exile raised a question: does a political order corresponding to the religion matter?  Even in the restoration, the Davidic line was not restored.  The deuteronomist theology is accepted as explaining the exile: exile as punishment for sins.  The deuteronomist writers dominate the Torah and the prophetic literature(nothing therein that contradicts the deut. position).  Other questions: can one (and if so, how) worship outside the sanctuary in Jerusalem.  Whether there can be a Jewish community outside the land.  This problem was more salient in the restoration; the exiles had adopted their religion (no sacrifices--as they were not to purify the people but the temple itself) to being outside the land.  Singing songs and praying.  Is this alright, or does one have to go to Jerusalem to worship?  Restoration questions: some scripture advocates just an altar, rather than a temple.  Purists advocated this.  Orthodox advocated a new temple.  What is appropriate worship and its use of space?   Space usage allows for certain practices and not others.  So, exilic and post-exilic periods are characterized by disputes over practice.  The theological arguments had been settled.  See Ezrah 3.3: they set up an altar on the foundation of the temple.  3.8: in the second year of the restoration, the Levites are organized so to build the temple.  Davidic warrant (no record of David building the temple) used to support their claim that they were indeed restoring (not creating something new).  Old people who had seen the first temple cried.  Younger folks sang.  The issue was that once the foundation is layed, the layout of the interior space (related theological issues being determined) is known.  Building work was suspended by the Persions due to the infighting. 
The disputes reached a point where no resolution was foreseen.  Malacee had an orthodox deut. position: only Levites could be priests.  In the second period, the Levites were second-order priests, below the Zadicites.  The latter considered the entire priesthood is descended from Levites.  An intra-priestly dispute.  These priesthood fights dominate the later prophetic texts.  Malacee is a book against the priest then running the temple.  Specifically, the new priests were more concerned with distinguishing the clean from the unclean, rather than teaching the Torah and giving sacrifices as mandated in the Torah.  The Levites are the messenger of the Day of the Lord.  So, Levi will come back, ushering in the return of the LORD into the temple and separate the true Levites from pretenders.  The Levites were winning the theological war but losing the practice war.  Christians take this passage in another way.  So too, the Jewish community has made this into the coming of the Messiah to save the Jews. 
Note the move to apocalypic: a breaking-in of the supernatural to settle a dispute.   Apocalyptic is a word that refers to several things, but is really an adjective used to modify the word 'religion': a particular view of God and the world and the relation thereof.  Apocalyptic literature is the written views of apocalyptic groups.  Rare to have individuals interested in apocalyptic religion--it is a shared thing.  An apocalypse is a literature that involves a vision or dream of the future, with an interpreter interpreting it.  John Collins writes on the kinds of this particular literary genre.  Eschatology is thoughts about last things.  An eschatology is not necessarily apocalyptic.
Beginning with the work in comparative religion in the late 1800's, it was thought that the prophets were primarily ethical, so apocalyptic literature was seen as a borrowing from a foreign land.  Zoroastrianism was thought to be so for the Hebrews.  A developed angelology, for instance.  Cosmic imagery, as well as a dualism between good and evil.  A reinterpretation of earlier prophesy.  Von Rad claims that apocalyptic literature such as in Daniel is similar to the Wisdom literature, rather than coming from outside.  Hanson and Collins, too, see it as ingenuous.  Hanson sees it coming out of the prophetic works.  An internal development of prophesy.

4/8/96: Lecture

Apocalyptic:

The Christian church was embarrassed when the apocolypse did not occur within the apostles' lifetime.  Such discourse was then seen as a second-coming.  Also, it has been found that apocolyptic literature was throughout the Near East religions of antiquity.  Many non-canonical apocalyptic Hebrew literatures during the period of the second temple.
Features of apocolyptic religion>  see Daniel.  Anthropologists have studied this phenomenon.  Groups having an apocolyptic view of the world have certain characteristics.  In fact, groups rather than individuals seem to have developed apocolyptic scenerios.  Such groups tend to made up of folks who feel relatively deprived of something that is reasonable to expect.  For instance, being away from a power-center.  A sense, from comparing, that something is missing.  It can occur in periods of rapid change.  Changes and differences in socio-economic level, for instance.  A rise in expectations, from looking at television.  Also, a mixing of cultures could give rise to this condition.  Deprivation is not necessarily of the oppressed; comparison can be made to what was had in the past.  It is not only a comparison with what is next door.  Either way, a sense of quality-of-life in decline.  People of all socio-economic categories can feel deprivation.  There also has to be a sense of the reality of the expectations.  What is the norm?  What ought people be entitled to? 
So, folks attracted to apocolyptic world-views tend to feel deprived (a subjective view of where one is relative to...).  There is also a means for solving the problem.  An apocolyptic program that will lead to the solution of the particular group's problem.  Such a program may look forward, but can look backward(restorationist).  Third, such groups provide  a practical means by which members may do to bring on the program.  Many such groups are activist.  The hysitic Hebrew movement holds that the messiah can be forced to come by being good.  It can be passive as well, waiting for the program to be realized by supernatural means--that the problem is so serious that only God can solve it.  A massive intervention by God changing the way the world works. 
Why did apocolyptic literature come to Israel.  Such literature seems to be diffuse over many cultures, so it need not be supposed that it is borrowed.  The literature that apocolyptic groups have produced do not have a peculiar language.  So, language can't be used to find the origin of apocalyptic.  Daniel, for instance, uses wisdom language at the beginning part of his book.  It is informed by a particular time and place, rather than any apocolyptic writing-style. 
Daniel: a slow progression of the group toward an apocalyptic outlook.  For instance, stories of the elite exiles in Babylon in the first few chapters (1-6).  Not apocalyptic.  A situation of assimilation.  The issue: how much assimilation can occur before one's religion and identity is lost.  Pairs of such tales: Dan. 3 and 6, for instance.  Note that the stories have the same structure and are thus repeated with different contents.  The writing is a bureaucratic style. Dan. 3: the king Nebuchadnezzar made an image of a god.  Conflict with Hebrew officials.  The Jews refuse, and the king is upset because his orders have been disobeyed.  As a confession of faith and of where the line is drawn, the Hebrews state that they will not worship a foreign god.  The king throws them into a furnice and they are miraculously saved.  The king praises Yahweh and promotes the Hebrews in his government.  Ch. 6: The king demands that the Hebrews worship his god.  Daniel refuses and is tossed into a lion's den but miraculously survives. The king praises Yahweh and gives Daniel a third of his kingdom.  These are martyr stories but end with a miraculous salvation.  Message: if you persist in even a minimalist way in a situation of assimilation, you will be rewarded.   
Ch.s 4 and 7.  Dreams.  So, von Rad claims that these writings come out of the Wisdom literature (bureaucrat literature). Ch. 4: Daniel is the wisest of the dream interpreters. He interprets the king's dreams.  The kingdom will be destroyed by divine intervention (not just in a den of lions or furnace)--but of kingdoms--of where the power is coming from.  The semi-oppressed group having all the power in the new world order.  Ch. 7: Daniel is not a dream interpreter.  Apocolypse comes into the stories here.  The reinterpretations of the dream seems to come out of the prophetic literature, however.  Neither Daniel nor the reader understands the dreams.  Even the angelic interpretors leave some things out.  Subsequent generations are necessary to interpret it. 
In Daniel, a slow progression of a people waiting for God to come in and completely transform the world.  Apocolypse here is not a transfer to heaven but is in this world, unlike the apocolyptic intertestamental literature.

4/10/96: Lecture

Psalms:

They function in Christian and Jewish worship as they did in antiquity.  An enormous sense of continuity.  This is not so with the Torah or Prophetic literature.   Problems in interpreted the psalms arise from the fact that they were originally not just a worship resource but as a literary work said to be of divine revelation.  The canonical context of them gives them a second quality that does not necessarily dove-tail with its liturgical use. 
How do we approach the book as part of Scripture?  What, theologically, have people done with it?  Finally, how has it been used in liturgy?  In general, there has been a tendency to de-historicize material in interpreting literature, so to interpret it in a timeless way; that divine revelation transcends time and thus this can be done.  It was only with the emergence of biblical criticism that the historical context was looked at.  But, the first effort regarding the psalms was to put them into their historical contexts, as created within the texts themselves).  Then, a movement to de-historicize the psalms.
See Ps.s 3 and 5, for instance, attributions of authorship, directions for the music, and commentary on the historical context given in the Hebrew, shown in Hebrew as the first verses but as footnotes in English.  So, the verse numbers in the Hebrew do not correspond to those in English.  What was it in the psalm that made it attributed to particular historical events? 
With the rise of critical biblical scholarship, questions arised on the superscriptions.  They were thought to be relatively late, and thus not credible clues as to the formulation of the psalms.  Dating problems: criteria--language, development thereof.  Late language had an influence of Aramiac.  Also, other historical allusions.  Or, the theology behind them.  References of the messiah was thought to be late.  Duhm dated many psalms as late, just before the time of Jesus.  The psalter taken to be the hymn-book of the second temple.  On the basis of language.  Gunkel and, later, his student,  Mowinckel, however, used form-criticical method (Wilson: this method works well on the Psalter). Gunkel had five psalm types: the hymn, the community laments, the individual laments, thanksgiving, and royal.  Gunkel anchored the psalms in the cult.  Chronicles shows psalms being sung in cultic festivals.  Gunkel thought they were probably formulated and collated relatively early.  There seems to have been a tradition of enlarging the psalter.  For instance, large numbers of psalms attributed to David at Qumran are extra.  Mowinckel suggested that there was a special class of psalms. enthronement psalms, in which the the king at Jerusalem had yearly ritualized enthronement festival(47, 95-99).  But such rituals have since been doubted.  Perhaps they came out of another Near Eastern religion.
The psalms are of Hebrew poetry.  How does Hebrew poetry work?  It is not always clear.  Mt., for instance, quotes Zakaria(9.9): your king shall ride in on a donkey on a colt.  Mt. wanted to show that Jesus was fulfilling prophesy, so he took this literally. But how could Jesus have been on two animals?  A misuse of Hebrew poetry.   On parallels, see Deut. 33.10: the second line repeats the first.  The rabbis say otherwise: the first indicates the written law and the second indicates the oral law.  So, there can be more than one interpretation out of parallelism.  The notion of Hebrew poetry as parallel had dropped out until Lowth who saw parallelism of clauses (the 'B' line is associated with the 'A' line).  Synonomous parallels: the B line says the same thing as line A.  For instance, Zack 9.9: the colt may have been the same thing as a donkey, so one animal being referrred to. Also, Ps. 1.5: the wicked are parallelled to the sinners, and the jugement and the righteous.  Second, contrasting, or antithetical, parallels: the righteous are this way, the wicked are another.  Used in wisdom psalms.  See Ps. 1.  Third, synthetic parallelism.  Ps. 1.4: it looks like a continuous sentence, with B expanding on A. 
Lines in Hebrew poetry are short.  Wilson: the poetry was originally oral, so lines were only so long as one's breath.  Meter, rhyme, and syllables have been analyzed in England, to see if Hebrew poetry is like Greek or Roman poetry of antiquity.  Albright, Cross, and Freedman, for instance, did this sort of work.  Wilson: Hebrew poetry is not like Greek or Roman poetry.  In the 1920's, a language used in the second millemium before Jesus, close to Hebrew was discovered.  It concerned writings on Baal.  Uberitic poetry was like Hebrew poetry.  The Urberitic poetry had synanomous parallelism.  A building quality, each line adding to the thought.  This discovery led scholars to think that Hebrew poetry was originally of synthetic parallelism.  But, Dahood gave such a psalter rearranged as such--sequence of psalms on the basis of this historical linguistic assumption.  But this did not look much like David's psalms.  Kugel: 'B' is an emphatic, or emphasizing, line.  A and B may have different relationships to each other, but B intensifies what is in A.  B can be logically or temporally subsequent to A, thus emphasizing A.  Berlin pointed out that the parallelism functions on differnent levels: not only clauses, but words and grammar level.  Also, parallels in sound. 

4/12/96: Lecture

Psalms:

We don't know about ancient Hebrew music or liturgy.  As to the ambiguity of some of the language of the Psalms, it can be recited in liturgy without any consideration of the meaning, hermeneutics, and theological implications.  The Psalms come down to us as part of the Tanakh: words that were created by humans to God are now interpreted as being divinely given, directed to humans. 
Hermeneutics of the Psalms as they are viewed as part of the canon:  The notion that the Psalms are more than liturgical seems to be noted in antiquity and before.  No attempt in Christian times, for instance, to give the Psalms a unique status.  The idea of seeing Psalms as scripture seems to have been so at Quamran. 
The superscriptions which attribute a psalm to specific persons: most are attributed to David.  Some to Soloman.  Some to Moses.  David was seen as someone who had instituted the centralizes the worship of Hahweh in Jerusalem (he wanted to build  a temple).  So, he may have written psalms for temple worship.  The tendency to attribute psalms to David continued into the second temple period.  There was also the view that David had divine inspiration in writing psalms.  Inspired like that of a prophet.  For instance, David is said to have written a big collection of psalms under prophetic inspiration at the end of scroll A at Quamran. 
1 Chron. 25: prophesy by certain groups is said to be done as such. 
In this view, the words of the Psalms are the result of direct divine inspiration.  So, the N.T. goes to psalms as well as the prophets to prove fulfilment of prophesies.  The psalms were viewed as prophetic.  See the Passion narrative in Mk. vis a vis Ps. 22.  Ps. 22 is divine prediction.  Also, Ps. 110 is cited as why the messiah is not of Davidic descent even though Jesus is not Davidic. The psalm reveals that the messiah is above David. 
The theological implication of this shift from human to divinely inspired: God gave direct direction of the liturgy.  Psalms, being part of liturgy, were thus seen as directly directed by divine prophetic inspiration.  Liturgy was not viewed as a human attempt, but as God's own effort to help us reach God.  Is the seeking of God's will the precurser to designing liturgy.  So, liturgy would not be interpreted as misguided or exploratory.  
But we don't know the liturgy of which the psalms were a part.  We see it as part of a canonical book.  Childs views the psalms are part of the Scripture as a whole.  Wilson: but why was Ps. 1 put at the beginning when they were not numbered.  What criteria were involved in this?  By removing individual psalms from their cultic place detracts from our ability to interpret them theologically.  See, for instance, the Wisdom psalms.  They do not appear to have been of liturgy.  They give general advice on how to live, rather than being bound to liturgy.  Should one read all the psalms this way.  Recall that the superscriptions of the psalms that have them (e.g. ps 3) are not of a person but an event.  Setting appropriate for the psalm could go beyond the ritual.  An interiorization of the palter out of the liturgy into ordinary life.  When the temple was destroyed, Judaism was able to survive.  Christianity likewise. 
The psalms of lament:  About a third of the psalter.  The complaint of the individual (50) and of the community(20).  See ps. 6: vv. 1-4: address to God.  Very general.  Any occation.  Then, asking for something and arguments given on why God should grant the request.  Arguing with God is divinely sanctioned.  Here, the worshipper suggests that God's name depends upon people to invoke it.   v. 7: back to complaint.  Typical of the individual lament, the psalm is ended with a prayer (shift from complaint to a profession of trust) and trust that God has heard it.  v. 7-8: a shift from negative to positive.  Implied: there has been an exchange between the worshipper and God.  This was like that between the priest and worshipper.  When this liturgical setting is removed, it now seems that there is no motivation for the assurance.  The move from complaint to assurance becomes a statement of faith.  From liturgical pattern, within the context of Scripture it is now a statement of faith.
Ps.s of thanksgiving.  Ps. 9: Declaration of gratitude.  We don't know why.  v. 7: the thanksgiving is connected to something about the nature of God.  Affirmations of God's nature seen as reasons for the gratitude having been given.  The cultic background: an individual's own fortune has caused him to go an make his own thanksgiving, or it could have been akin to thanksgiving day.  In scripture, however, the shift is to God's character.  The psalm becomes an abstract theological statement of God's nature.
The royal psalms seem to have been done with the rituals used to maintain the monarchy. Ps. 2: opposition to the Davidic king is the same as to God.  God reaffirms the appropriate ruler as the sitting Davidic king.  The king is not like ordinary people but is divinely chosen and so has divine privaledges.  The king is called his son by God.  Is this not divine kingship?  God tells the king that he is God's son.  This psalm came out of support for the royal cult.  What happens to the psalm after the Davidic monarchy?  It became a prophesy of the returning Davidic monarch coming as the messiah.  Instead of undergirding the present political state, it became an eschatological prophesy of a cosmic messiah.  Ps. 110, too.  A whole eschatology out of these psalms.

4/15/96: Lecture

Proverbs:

In general, 'wisdom literature' is not a biblical category.  Hebrews designate it as 'the rest' or 'the writings'.  Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes, as well as Song of Soloman(perhaps).  Catholics include Benshura. The history of the interpretation of this material: it was viewed as divinely inspired, especially Proverbs.  Guides as way to live.  But with the rise of historical criticism, Proverbs was ignored.  German Protestants did not have much scholarly interest in the writings.  Also, as early critical scholars put together a picture via historical and theological work, they saw the writings as not very theological.  Recall: Wellhousin claimed an evolution of Hebrew theology, reaching its peak in the prophets and winding down as the priestly writings that cut off the prophets.  Where are the writings in this?  Ignored.  Meinhold, in 1908, claimed that there is an entity called 'wisdom literature' of five books.  After WWI, study of the writings was revived.  Extra-biblical material was discovered.  Specifically, an Egyption text.  Paralells.  Borrowing suggested.  Egyption influence led to an indigenous Hebrew collection.  There was also a Babylonian collection.  So, comparative work has shown connections.  Gunkel, in 1909, suggested that cross-cultural influence was at work.  Humbert claimed that it was not a native phenomenon to Israel.  Then, form-critical work on the origin of this literature.
Meanwhile, the Barthian revolution.  Form and tradition criticism, such as Von Rad, was in.  Neo-Orthodoxy.  Wisdom literature was ignored because it did not go along with God's activity in history (neo-orthodoxy's view of the O.T.).  Difficult to integrate the writings into an overarching theological structure.  In Von Rad, an awkward acknowledgement of the writings--a humanistic response to revelation.  The writings were seen as devoid of theological content. 
The writings are humanistic.  It glorifies the role that humans play.  The rabbis were not sure whether Quohelet and Song of Soloman were divinely inspired.  The books of Moses and the prophets regarded as true were seen as divinely inspired.  The Psalms' inspiration is explained as prophesy.  Can't do this with the writings.  Prophetic inspiration was not cited in them.  Quohelet, Benseria, and Job did not claim divine inspiration.  How are the biblical wisdom books different than those of the Egyptions, so how can one say that they are different.  Benseria looks like Proverbs, so why did Protestants accept the latter but not the former.  Benseria is more orthodox than Quohelet, but the latter was accepted as canon by the Hebrews and Christian.
Today, the opposite of neglect is happening; suddenly, wisdom seems to be showing up everywhere in the Hebrew scripture.  Crenshaw is the only one who makes sense out of wisdom literature. 
No clear definition of what 'wisdom' means.  Von Rad: 'practical knowledge of the laws of life and the world based on practical experience'.  Crenshaw: this is too vague; there are four types: juridical--of interpersonal relationships; nature--the ways of reality that are observable--knowledge built into reality (like natural law); practical--material that trains one to enter society in a particular way (e.g. the bureaucrat)--see Proverbs; theological--wisdom that relates God to this outlook. Theodocy is a sub-question in the theological wisdom literature--see Job.  Wilson: these categories are not destinct. 
Distinguish wisdom as a perspective on the world or life and as a genre--a particular way of looking at reality(wisdom speech forms and the wisdom books themselves).
Wisdom as a way of thinking or perceiving the world: it is humanistic.  Unlike the rest of the literature of the scripture, God is not the chief actor.  Here, God becomes another part of the world that people look at.  This is not so in a secular sense; rather, that God can appear and be discovered in the natural world without revelation.  Knowledge need not come from revelation.  Revelation is not necessary.  Reality is assumed to be orderly.  A person can discover the order on one's own.  Quohelat: 'God has made everything beautiful in its time'.  So, perceive and perserve the order of the world.  Unlike the other writings, the wisdom liturature is concerned with how to go with the flow.  An Eastern view?  Set oneself in harmony with the world.  The order is in danger of chaos.  How? Through the actions of people.  The Yahwist also has a sense of evil in the cosmos that origins in the actions of individuals.  Unlike the Yahwist who claims that this is built-in in the order, whereas wisdom literature claims that it is not and people can fix it.  The latter is like liberal Christianity--we can fix the world through our own efforts.  The Barthian view: it is God that can do this, not man.
In the wisdom literature, the threat of chaos comes from ignorance.  So the emphasis is on knowledge on how to act so as to maintain order and not bring on chaos.  This is not to imply that through knowledge, the mystery of God is considered to be seen.  Even in wisdom literature, there are there some built-in limits.  Prov. 30:  'I do not have knowledge of the holy ones'.  Quohelet, too, recognizes that there are things he doesn't know.  Also, it is admitted that God could uncreate the world; the created order is not set up like a clock.  So, God could put the order back into chaos.  Even though God remains partly hidden, God is involved in the process of wisdom. Prov. 3:  wisdom is somehow in God.  So in discovering order in the natural world, one is committing theology.  Ch. 8: wisdom is in some way separate from the world, pre-existing the created order.  Wisdom as a semi-divine separate entity.
The genres of the writings.  Literary forms unique to them.  The proverb.  'Proverb' means 'comparison'.  Prov. 10 shows comparison.  Righteous vs. wicked.  Sometimes the comparison is in the form of a statement--of something which everyone would recognize as a truth about the world.  Remember that what is assumed by the writers of Proverbs differs on what is the obvious nature of the world from that assumed by other writings.  The admonishion, too, is a genre.  Also, riddles--a question that conceals an answer.  The fable or allegory(Quohelet 12).  Each point of an allegory corresponds to something outside of it.  Ezekiel is an allegory.  Wisdom lit. also contains hymns, prayers, and dialogue(e.g. Job).   Confession (beginning of Quohelet)--an autobiographical account.  Lists.  Finally, didactic narrative(instructive)--Prov. 7, for instance--a story told to teach. 
The material of the writings came from the royal court, the tribal schools, the typical family. 

4/17/96: Lecture

Job:

See Hope's Commentary. 
The language is bad.  Only about 60 percent can be translate it.  The picture of Job in the poetic section is different than in the prose prologue.  He went from the ideal of patience to otherwise in the dialogue with his friends--he was not patient, cursing the creation and indirectly, God, because of his suffering.  Claims that God is unjust and mean in punishing him because he was innocent.  His friends try to convince him of his error: since he is suffering, he must have sinned.  Job gets angrier.  Three cycles in the dialogue. Then, a wisdom hymn--it doesn't seem to fit.  Then Job claims his innocence. An oath with a punishment for him if he is wrong. Elihu (later seen as an addition) tells Job that he has too much pride.  God overwhelms Job and speaks to him.  Job repents.  But why?  Convinced by his friends or the appearance of God? 
Theodicy: can God be regarded as good if innocent folks are allowed to suffer.  If God is the power or cause  behind everything,  he would be just.  Or, if God is just, he is not all-powerful.  This would lead one to a dualism.  This is to subvert the monotheism of the scripture. Wilson: the book provides no good solution or several partial ones.  For instance, one can claim that satin is responsible for Job's suffer.  But in the dialogues themselves, Job claims that God is the cause and is thus unjust.  God's appearance from the whirlwind tells Job to keep quiet and that mere humans are in no position to know of God's justice.  This is common interpretation, but it ignores the dialogues.  The diallogues and framing story seem to give different explanations.
Wilson's interpretation:  The book deals not with the issue of God's justice, but with the nature of the cosmos--that it has an order and structure to it that is discernable by humans, and that such order is threatened by man's actions (Wisdom lit. view).  This take deals with at least how the book comes out after the redactions.  The opening scene tells the reader something that Job won't know until the end of the book: that there is absolutely no connection between his suffering and his righteousness.  Job suffers due to the agreement between God and satin.  The dialogue: both Job and his friends assume that they are interrelated.  Both assume they know the way the world works.  Deut., afterall, states the interconnection.  Thus Job's anger.  On the agreement: ch. 1.9: why Job curses God.  God and satin had agreed that God would not intervene.  Ch.s 4-5: Job must not be as righteous as he claims.  Ch.s 6-7: Job replies:  too much punishment given his sin.  God is being a bully, to Job.  To Job, God is on trial whereas to God, Job is on trial regarding his loyalty. Ch. 8-9: God doesn't show up for a trial, so Job can say he is not guilty and thus does not deserve the suffering (implying that God is unjust).  Besides, how can you have a fair trial with God?  Job asks for a referee.  9.32: there is no umpire between us.  Ch. 11: Job will not be convinced, becoming increasingly nasty about God.  The dialogue cycle is broken in ch. 28 with the wisdom hymn: the wonderous deeds of human beings does not give us knowledge of the order of the cosmos.  The fear of the Lord is wisdom.  Only God can see and know the world.  So, realize that there are limits on how much we can know.  The beginning of wisdom is the understanding that we can't know everything out there, even if we are righteous.  There are limits beyond which man cannot go.  Job, however, takes a series of oaths of innocence.  At that time, oaths (and the calling of a curse on oneself if one is lying or wrong) were seen as automatic--direct intervention of God is not necessary.  Job is smart; he has found a way to prove his point in a way not dependent on God.  If Job survives, he was right.  Elihu takes another try at Job.  He asks Job is he knows that which one with perfect knowledge knows?  Job retreats from these questions, but in still being alive, Job has finally proved his innocence.  Job's act has forced God's hand.  God appears to Job.  But God does not answer Job's question on the relation between Job's suffering and righteousness.  They are not related.  No connection between work, righteousness, and reward.  God points to the real issue: Only God knows how the world operates.  Only God knows it and preserves it, keeping it from chaos.   Having a share in God's understanding, we should fear God.  Other animals need not fear God because they have no share of God's knowledge.  The realization that we can't know the depth of divine wisdom brings us to fear that which does or is such. 
The friends are condemned because they claimed to have the wisdom of God.  This is the one sin.

4/22/96: Lecture

Qohelet and Song of Songs:

They have unclear text and are secular, so they have been difficult to interpret as divinely inspired.   Qohelet tells the reader how he discovered knowledge of the world.  The book of Bensera, too, does not claim to be divinely inspired.  Song of Songs is a book of erotic poetry.  Difficult to see how divinely revealed. 
Qohelet: Traditionally viewed to have been written by Soloman.  Proverbs too, earlier in his life.  'Qohelet' is a feminine word meaning 'to gather'.  1 Kings 8.1: Soloman gathered the elders of Israel.  Qohelet was a gatherer, or preacher/teacher, who gathered students.  Or, a collector of proverbs.  The view of Soloman as the writer is problematic.  Why is it not written that it was Soloman rather than a king from David? 
The word 'hebel', translated as 'vanity' actually has to do with warm, moist air that is exhaled--it is worthless.  No gain.  Something useless.  'worthlessness' is a closer translation.  Yitron means gain, or profit.  What one wants out of life.  Meholal means foolishness or madness, which is worse than hebel.  Camal can mean work, but it can also mean the fruits of labour.  Nothing intrinsically good about work itself. 
The question put in Qohelet: of what value is there for a man in the midst of futility or worthlessness?  There is nothing new under the sun.  There's nothing to start with, so why do we think we can get somewhere in wisdom.  Though he wants to know about yitron and meholal, wisdom and folly respectively.  He tries out pleaure--is it yitron?  He tries it out.  He is not enjoying the work but what he got out of it.  Still, there was no gain.  He then tries the intellectual life.  He comes up with a series of relative goods.  Wisdom is a relative good.  And yet the same fate befalls them all.  There is no enduring remembrance of the wise and fools.  Wisdom is of relative good, but everyone eventually dies and is forgotten.  Why work so hard for wisdom?  Also, who knows how will inherit his wisdom before it is forgotten?  Could be a fool who did not work for it!  This is a great evil.  So, there is nothing better for mortals than to eat and drink, enjoying these and the other fruits of our work.  God decides who has what.  This bothers Qohelet.  God is seen by him as capricious. God is power, but there is no rationale of it.  Not predictable.  The mainline tradition had worked hard to show a consistency on the part of God.  Ch. 3 shows the futility of this chase to know the rationale.  God has made everything suitable for its time.  God has made everything suitable for its time, but has put darkness in the minds of man.  The gift of God: that we should take pleasure out of our work.  God is not consistently on the side of justice.  God is testing us just to show us that we are nothing more than animals.  Man, like the other animals, both are out of dust and return to dust.  God will not finally judge the wicked from the righteous.  Qohelet has seen the righteous suffer.  We can't trust on God's justice in the world.  Then Qohelet flirts with suicide.  Better is the one that has not been.  But ch. 9.4: he who is joined to the living has hope.  Life is a relative good.
The 'theology' of Qohelet: Ch. 5: fear God but be careful.  He does not believe that God is the moral being that tradition has claimed.  God is dangerous.  God has no pleasure in fools, so fulfill your vows if you must vow.  So, 'fear God' does not mean to be in awe of God, but means to fear God.  Differs from the rest of the tradition. 
Ch. 7-on: he gives a list of relative goods.  In the end, do as little to come in conflict with the world.  A rationale for ethical behavior: do what you have to do so to avoid trouble.  Wilson: a self-serving ethic.  Ch. 10: he returns where he began: everything is worthless.
An epilogue to the book gives some maxims that Qohelet would have repudiated.  The function of this is to irratate the reader into thinking, by showing what happens if one follows Qohelet to his end. 
Qohelet represents a way many people see the world. This is its function in the canon.

Song of Songs:
Great differences in the interpretations of it.  It has tended to be treated as allegory.  A problem of unity of the songs.  A common theme: love.  The allegorical interpretation is early.  Allegory for the salvation history of Israel.  Also, allegorical interpretation of God's love for Israel (later: the church).   Is the lack of coherence in Songs due to it being a dream?  Wilson: probably not.   But love is not talked about in the abstract.  There is the wedding feast for instance.  Probably from the fertility cults.  The Middle Ages gave it a mystical reading: a reuniting of God's male and female parts.  Catholic view: a marriage between Christ and the Church.  The lady is the virgin Mary. 
It probably originated not in a way allegorically.  Without being allegorized, it would not have remained in the canon.  But the human element can't be ignored.  The human character of it.  It talks of the sanctity of love as a total human experience--an open celebration of sensuality.  Read the Pope translation.  It stresses the equality in the two lovers.   The message of the Song: in this world, the only protection we have against the chaos is human love.  Ultimately, we have only each other.  Love is as strong as death and passion, as fierce as hell. 

4/24/96: Lecture

Old Testament Theology:

What is it?  The theology that is lodged in the scripture itself.  The discipline is one of systematizing it.  See von Rad.  It has also been seen as a theology based on the scripture.  Don't confuse these two.  Historically, the discipline has been done by Christians.  It was used as a sort of proof-text of Reformation orthodoxy in opposition to Catholic orthodoxy.  The Reformers tried to jump over church tradition to get the religion back to the scripture.  In German pietism in the 1600's, biblical theology of the O.T. was used against the 'mainline' reformers' orthodoxy.  The emphasis was on the theology that grew out of the O.T. and was opposed to a non-biblical theology.  In the Enlightenment, however biblical theology of the O.T. became salient.  Questions of the supernatural fed this.  Historical criticism was behind it.  For Zemler, biblical theology was not under the control of a church.  Gabler, in 1789, defined biblical theology possesses a historical character, showing what the inspired writers of the scriptures thought of divine matter.  Divine inspiration is only considered to be in these writers, rather than in the theologians who do theology about the scripture.   This is close to doing a study of the history of religion.  See von Rad.  Is it a history of Isael's traditions rather than containing theology? 
After WWI, however, in Europe there was a lost in faith on the historical effort.  A realization that one could not get at objective history.  An end to the idea of history as progress.  The older theological view of bringing the Kingdom in by social work fell off.  This gave rise to Barthian orthodoxy.  WWII reinforced this change.  Tillick did not write much on the O.T.  So, an effort to integrate Barthian orthodoxy with a historical study of Hebrew scripture.  Barth did a theology based on a reading on Hebrew scripture.  A theology out of scripture rather than on it.  Childs, in Theology in Crisis, pronounced this biblical theology movement dead in the early 1960's.  George Wright had been part of that movement: the notion of a God who acts in history, so one is pressed toward a look at the history from the theology.  James Smart had theorized the movement.  Paul Minear wrote on the distinction beween this history through the eyes of faith and that known through historicity.  Anderson, influenced by Understanding the Old Testament.  Muilenburg wrote a classic, The Way of Israel.   Some of this perspective is still around in the current debate. 
For instance, the concern to find the theology in the Hebrew Bible.  Barth rediscovered Paul (liberal theology had emphasized Jesus' teaching) and saw it as primarily theological in character.  He attempted to get to the theological level of the Hebrew scripture.  Assumed: something has to be done to the text to get at its theology.  There was an affirmation in the Barthian movement that there is something theological in the text.  It was also insisted that the Bible must be seen its unity.  This view was taken by Childs and Sanders: that there is a single bible, theologically.  This was a shift in the theological movement.  Old and New Testament theology studies had been separate.  But, what kind of unity is there in the Hebrew bible itself where there is so much diversity?  On what level does one find it. 
The third affirmation of the Barthian movement was that it was historical mediated (events), rather than abstract, revelation.  This has been the scandal of Judaism and Christianity.  The affirmations of the faith involve an affirmation of certain historical events with a theological meaning.  Wright went to anthropology.  Wright: a visible and invisible history--to unbelievers and believers.
Fourth, there was thought to be particular mentality of the Bible.  This was to ward off the hellonistic (outside) influence on the text.  The influence of the hellonistic world on the O.T. is not well known.  A continuity between the two testaments could be seen as Jewish books.  But the religion itself developed, as well as an increasing influence of Hellonism.  A recognition of the distinctiveness of the Bible not shared by the surrounding cultures. 
So, there were a number of failures of the Barthian biblical theological movement.  There was a problem in getting at the Word behind the text or of the original.  The authority problem was not taken seriously because of the unwillingness to exclude, due to their social liberalism.  Seeing the text as an authoritative document was difficult for them.  There was an effort to get a canon within the canon.  But, much diversity in the corpus.  George Wright: the actions over the speech of God.  A prioritizing of certain parts of the corpus.  Anderson emphasized Exodus. Also, questions of how the laws fit with the narrative of the Torah.  Also, a dissatifaction with trying to describe the Red Sea crossing as at low tide with the theological claim that God was interveneing. 
Childs and Sanders represent the mainline school off from this movement.  Childs uses canon in two ways: theological and literary.  The distinction here is not clear.  Canon marks the boundary, but it doesn't always turn out that way.  Canonical shape can refer to the theological shape or the literary shape(how the pieces fit together).  So, when he uses 'canon', it looks like literary critique without regard to authorial intent(i.e. too much of modern literary critique) as well as to the theology--sometimes being dogmatic.  A danger of these.  Sanders sees various modes in the text. He imposes too much of the modern agenda on the prophets. 
Avoid two mistakes: being too theological and not being theological enough.  If too theological, the human aspect of the text--how it was formed and used, for instance, can be forgotten.  Isaiah was a human being who wrote a book.  The O.T. does not come to us directly from God.  There is a human character of its production which drives interpretation.  We must struggle with the concreteness of it.  On the other hand, in not being theological enough, there is more there than is readily seen.  Revelation can't be confined to a particular form (e.g. the final, canonical, form); rather, it exists at all stages of the text.  The canonical shape and the theology are not the same.  Revelation is a continuous process within a community of faith.  The way that the text is read has bearing on how it has been seen as revelation.  So, it has to be done anew each time.  It is too easy to miss the sense of divine mystery behind revelation when one focuses on the canonical shape.

1/24/96: Lecture

Introduction:
Look at the interlinear which contains the hebrew and english.
Read: Tucker, Form Criticism, read the part on the prophets.  Three forms.  An account: stories about the prophets.  Prayers: talking to or about (praise) God.  Messenger speeches: the prophet is mediating God's word.  What is an oracle?  It is short.  It is ambigious as well; it is not self-evident, so it demands interpretation.  Different types of oracles: vision reports, prophet calls, sign-acts(God makes the prophet do something), woe(announcing woes).  Consider the basic ways prophets talk.
To ask about the prophets: who is being talked about? Who are they talking to? Woe to them, to you or to me?  Where is the beginning and end of an oracle?  For the early written prophets, the oracles are short.  Look for repetive forms: 'Thus says the Lord, or Woe... ...thus says the Lord.  Interprete the oracle in its integrity and in its context.  Then, ask why it is placed where it is. 
The prophets are responding to something or someone.  The trick is to know what or whom they are responding to.  Need to read the history.  See Bright, pp. 273-288.  On the history: 920 BC: split into two kingdoms.  Israel fell at 722.  800-700 was a time of political, economic and social upheaval.  Amos, Hosia, Issiah.  In 735, the Syro-Ephraimitic War.  Syria and Israel, but not Judah join against Assyria.  But first they go after JudahJudah sent money to Assyria (Tiglath-Pileser III) for him to attack the Syria and Israel.  He fails then. But later, Sareon takes Israel.  In 701, Sennacherib charged Judea in 701, but then he left, for unexplained reasons
.
Amos 6:1-7

Where does the oracle begin?  At the beginning, at "Alas, or woe'.  The woe form usually has an indictment.  v. 2: second person, then third person perspective; why this change?  On the cities he wants them to see, they are all cities that have been destroyed.  Are these territories any greater than Israel?  No, so it is implied that Israel could fall. But, Amos is prophesying between 760-750 before which those cities had fallen.  Later revision?  Maybe this is an insertion--thus the change from second to third person.  If not a later revision, then ask what the cities were like in Amos' time.  They were bigger, more powerful cities.  Significance: they could destroy you; God could destroy you.  Which is it?  Most commentaries assume that it is a later edition. 
He says woe to Zion, but Zion is Jerusalem in the South (Judea).  1:2 God is seen as coming from Zion.  Positive view of Judea.  It could be a later edition, when Judea was having its own problems.  Or, consider that Amos included Judea in his indictments. 
Is he talking about the same people in vv4-7 as in vv1-3?  Probably.  Main message: don't be comfortable; contrary to the view in throughout the O.T., it is not enough just to trust God.  God has declared a holy war against Israel with Amos, so trust in God would be foolish by them then.  But in referring to being comfortable, Amos could be referring to: don't be comfortable at the expense of others whom you are taking from too much.  

2/2/96: Lecture

Prophesy:
It is a statement in a certain form; Herbrew form: peotry.  An oracle has a five-part structure:  First, , a messenger formula: Thus says the LORD. 2. An indictment: what is wrong--a listing of sins. 3. Therefore, or Because.  A turning phrase from of the past to what is going to happen. 4. Judgement. 5. Conclusion: Thus says the LORD.  This is a form that is uncommon in its totality in the text.  Most oracles have only some of these parts explicit.   Also, sometimes the order is turned around.  For instance, judgment first.  Sometimes there is a judgment without an indictment. Sometimes there is an indictment without a judgement.  But, knowing that an oracle is basically about sin and judgment can help in reading actual oracles.  Oracles are also known by their image.  Often the indictment and judgment are connected in some way by an image. So, exegesis of oracles: look at how the oracle coheres in its form and content.  Therefore, we can tell where the conclusion is, looking at form and image-content.
Hosea 11:

v. 1refers to Exodus.  Hosea wants to show that God is the God not only of fertility but of history as well.  Image: parent and child.  Later, Hosea uses the husband wife image.  v. 2: calling and going away.  This fits with the image of parent-child dynamics.  v.3: They don't know that it was the LORD that has been working in their history.  Image: a child not realizing that the parent had taken care of him. v. 4: I fed them: a new image: the people are like oxen.  v. 4 develops v. 3, but a break in image perhaps, unless a Hebrew work means child instead of yoke.  v. 5: refers back to Egypt, thus back to v. 1.  Is this a closed section.  v. 6: image is of violence.  A change of image.  v. 7: image: the child does not return, if one continues with the child sense of the Hebrew word ' l.  Where is the judgment?  They do it themselves in going away.  In Hebrew, 'jealosy' has a good connotation to a point: it shows a desire to take care of someone else.  God wants to take care of them, but they won't return.  v. 8:  Image: repentence; God's heart is turned.  This is a shift from v.7 which is dismal.  Shub: to turn; to do again.  So there is a break from v. 7 to v. 8.  Suddenly, a shift from anger to compassion.  It is almost like a prophet had said that Israel would be destroyed but it was not, and Hosea is saying that this difference was not due to the prophet being wrong but was due to God changing His mind.  The criterion of accurate prediction for the legitimacy of a prophet is thus suspect as it may have been used (and abused).  But, vv. 10 and 11: the people will come back to return to God. A return from exile.  So, we have judgment and then a turn to compassion and then a return.  But, Israel did not historically return; they stayed in Assyria.  So, the oracle didn't happen.  But one can reinterpret an oracle to apply to another place (Judea did return). So, some versons have Ch. 12:1-2 includedin this oracle because in it Judea is included explicitly.  A redactor trying to show that the prediction had come true.