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.
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.
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 Jerusalem . Judea 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:
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 Judea . Israel '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:
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.
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.
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.
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 Zion . Wilson : 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 Jerusalem .
Jerusalem
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 Israel . Zion
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.
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.
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 Judah . Judah
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.