In Chapter 17, Coogan includes a section about women in the books of Kings. Most of the women mentioned are part of the royal families, and here we can see an interesting piece of evidence of the Judean perspective under which these books were written. While only one mother of a king of the northern kingdom, Israel, is named, the mother of almost every king of the southern kingdom, Judah, is mentioned. Considering how few names of women in any significant position of power have been recorded in the scriptures, just the fact that these women are named is important.
Coogan offers an explanation for the term “queen mother” in this section. The term that is usually translated this way in most Bibles, he says, literally means “powerful woman.” What sort of power did these women have? It is difficult to say with much certainty, but it is mentioned, with the typical DTRH concern for the centralization of worship, that King Asa removed his mother from the position of “queen mother” because she made an “abominable image” for Asherah. If this office was important enough for her to be removed for this offense, it seems that it must have entailed some degree of power, as the name suggests. No evidence seems to be given, however, as to any other functions of the office.
While reading this material, a question that came to mind was how the Deuteronomistic Historians’ treatment of queens differs from their treatment of kings. How does the Judean royal theology affect the women who are part of the royal family? In the books of Kings’ portrait of Jezebel, we certainly seem to see a woman who embodies pure evil. Yet she is also perhaps the most powerful woman in the Hebrew Bible. Was she depicted so unflatteringly only because of her deeds, or because those who recorded history felt threatened by her power?
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Judean Royal Theology
This is an attempt at a brief overview of the Judean royal theology/ideology, as presented in Brooke’s lecture, Coogan, and the Harper-Collins NRSV. P. Kyle McCarter, writing on First and Second Samuel in the NRSV, notes that 2 Sam 7: 1-17 is “the royal theology of the Davidic dynasty in oracular form. Because of the thematic centrality of Davidic kingship to ancient Israelite religion, the oracle uttered by Nathan is a watershed event in the biblical narrative as a whole” (p. 445). The passage begins with David’s wish to build a house for Yahweh, since it seems unfitting to him that “the ark of God stays in a tent” while he, David, lives in “a house of cedar.” The prophet Nathan then receives an oracle from Yahweh: instead of David building a temple for Yahweh, Yahweh will establish the house of David.
David’s dynasty will now be guaranteed “unconditionally and in perpetuity, even if David’s successor(s) act wrongly” (Coogan, p. 261), and a covenant relationship is signified by the use of the words “steadfast love.” The Davidic dynasty will begin with David’s son Solomon, who will, in fact, build a temple for the Lord. The NRSV adds that the language of “father” and “son” in 7:14 indicates the “special relationship between the dynastic deity and the king, who was regarded as the adoptive son of the national god” (p. 446); David is therefore considered Yahweh’s son. Although Saul was rejected by God, it is now promised that this will never happen to David or to his successors: “But I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, who I put away from before you” (7:15). The covenant with David is meant to be everlasting.
David’s dynasty will now be guaranteed “unconditionally and in perpetuity, even if David’s successor(s) act wrongly” (Coogan, p. 261), and a covenant relationship is signified by the use of the words “steadfast love.” The Davidic dynasty will begin with David’s son Solomon, who will, in fact, build a temple for the Lord. The NRSV adds that the language of “father” and “son” in 7:14 indicates the “special relationship between the dynastic deity and the king, who was regarded as the adoptive son of the national god” (p. 446); David is therefore considered Yahweh’s son. Although Saul was rejected by God, it is now promised that this will never happen to David or to his successors: “But I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, who I put away from before you” (7:15). The covenant with David is meant to be everlasting.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Deborah
In our reading of Joshua and Judges for this week, I found myself especially intrigued by the character of Deborah, who first appears in Judges 4: “At that time Deborah, a prophetess, wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel. She used to sit under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the Israelites came up to her for judgment.” I had certainly heard about Deborah before and even studied the book of Judges to some extent in an EfM (Education for Ministry) class, but one of the insights from Coogan’s textbooks helped me to find a new perspective on this text.
Coogan writes that part of what is so compelling about this text is that Deborah is presented in such a straightforward, matter-of-fact way, with no special attention given to her gender. In the text above, it is merely noted that she is “a prophetess” and that the Israelites “came up to her for judgment,” much the same sort of introduction that is given to many of the other judges. This note of Coogan’s seems to accurately capture what is so surprising about this text. It seems to give rise to much curiosity about who this Deborah might have been: a real prophet or leader of some sort, or one of the legendary folk heroes that is also presented in Judges, like Samson? She even receives one of the most positive presentations among the judges, winning a major military victory and singing, with Barak, the “Song of Deborah,” which Coogan notes is probably one of the oldest texts in the Hebrew Bible, probably written not long after the victory it commemorates. Of course, both Deborah and Jael are celebrated in this text not only for wisdom, but for committing acts of great violence; they are not idealized feminist role models, but they are certainly compelling characters.
Coogan writes that part of what is so compelling about this text is that Deborah is presented in such a straightforward, matter-of-fact way, with no special attention given to her gender. In the text above, it is merely noted that she is “a prophetess” and that the Israelites “came up to her for judgment,” much the same sort of introduction that is given to many of the other judges. This note of Coogan’s seems to accurately capture what is so surprising about this text. It seems to give rise to much curiosity about who this Deborah might have been: a real prophet or leader of some sort, or one of the legendary folk heroes that is also presented in Judges, like Samson? She even receives one of the most positive presentations among the judges, winning a major military victory and singing, with Barak, the “Song of Deborah,” which Coogan notes is probably one of the oldest texts in the Hebrew Bible, probably written not long after the victory it commemorates. Of course, both Deborah and Jael are celebrated in this text not only for wisdom, but for committing acts of great violence; they are not idealized feminist role models, but they are certainly compelling characters.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah
I am writing this to try to make sure I understand some of the differences between Second and Third Isaiah, as presented by Coogan and our HarperCollins NRSV notes.
First of all, we separate Second Isaiah from First Isaiah because it addresses the problem of the Babylonians, rather than the Assyrians as in First Isaiah. Second Isaiah also does not name its author or specify any details about his life, whereas in First Isaiah the prophet is a named character in the narrative. The character of Cyrus the Persian is another differentiating factor. Cyrus is not mentioned at all in First Isaiah, but is given great importance in Second Isaiah. Despite his obvious pagan status, he is exalted as the "shepherd" and the "anointed one," and Yahweh has chosen him to rise up against the Babylonians. He has also been chosen to rebuild the Temple, which is another point of departure from First Isaiah, wherein the Temple, as well as Jerusalem as a whole, had not yet been destroyed. Second Isaiah is concerned with the possibility of restoration rather than the threat of destruction.
In Third Isaiah, the context clearly shifts once again. Second Isaiah is mainly concerned with the return from exile, but in Third Isaiah, the Temple seems actually to have been rebuilt, or at least the people are in the process of rebuilding. Also, while Second Isaiah is addressed to the people in exile in Babylon, Third Isaiah is addressed to the people of Judah. Therefore, Third Isaiah, although there are difficulties with its dating, seems to have its source in the early postexilic period, likely in the fifth or sixth century BCE.
First of all, we separate Second Isaiah from First Isaiah because it addresses the problem of the Babylonians, rather than the Assyrians as in First Isaiah. Second Isaiah also does not name its author or specify any details about his life, whereas in First Isaiah the prophet is a named character in the narrative. The character of Cyrus the Persian is another differentiating factor. Cyrus is not mentioned at all in First Isaiah, but is given great importance in Second Isaiah. Despite his obvious pagan status, he is exalted as the "shepherd" and the "anointed one," and Yahweh has chosen him to rise up against the Babylonians. He has also been chosen to rebuild the Temple, which is another point of departure from First Isaiah, wherein the Temple, as well as Jerusalem as a whole, had not yet been destroyed. Second Isaiah is concerned with the possibility of restoration rather than the threat of destruction.
In Third Isaiah, the context clearly shifts once again. Second Isaiah is mainly concerned with the return from exile, but in Third Isaiah, the Temple seems actually to have been rebuilt, or at least the people are in the process of rebuilding. Also, while Second Isaiah is addressed to the people in exile in Babylon, Third Isaiah is addressed to the people of Judah. Therefore, Third Isaiah, although there are difficulties with its dating, seems to have its source in the early postexilic period, likely in the fifth or sixth century BCE.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Rocktober
As a temporary Denverite and solid-ish fan of my black-and-purple B team, let me say: GO ROCKIES. As I've mentioned here before, my feelings for them are very different than my feelings for the Cubs, almost entirely maternal (stay warm out there, little guys!) but still rather passionate.
Also, somewhat unsurprisingly: I hate the Dodgers.
Also, somewhat unsurprisingly: I hate the Dodgers.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
One work that wakes
THOU art indeed just, Lord, if I contend
With thee; but, sir, so what I plead is just.
Why do sinners’ ways prosper? and why must
Disappointment all I endeavour end?
Wert thou my enemy, O thou my friend,
How wouldst thou worse, I wonder, than thou dost
Defeat, thwart me? Oh, the sots and thralls of lust
Do in spare hours more thrive than I that spend,
Sir, life upon thy cause. See, banks and brakes
Now leavèd how thick! lacèd they are again
With fretty chervil, look, and fresh wind shakes
Them; birds build—but not I build; no, but strain,
Time’s eunuch, and not breed one work that wakes.
Mine, O thou lord of life, send my roots rain.
-Gerard Manley Hopkins
Hopefully, the text of this poem will evoke its source, part of our reading from this week: "You will be in the right, O Lord, when I lay charges against you; but let me put my case to you. Why does the way of the guilty prosper? Why do all who are treacherous thrive?", etc (Jer 12: 1). I have read and loved this poem for many years without giving much, if any, thought to its beginnings in this text from Jeremiah. Much of our work in this course, however, has brought it to mind as one example of the Christian tendency to reinterprate pieces of the Hebrew scriptures as our own story without due consideration of their original context.
Jeremiah and Lamentations, it seems, are two of the books most particularly subject to this tendency. My first association with Lamentations, for example, is the long passages from it that are sung in our Tenebrae service every Holy Week. Contemporary Christians often seem to feel that we can simply substitute our own names, or that of our church, for "Israel" and have the meaning remain the same.
I do not want to disparage this process, as I think it can actually be a powerful devotional tool in the right settings, but a stronger understanding of the original context of these scriptures does seem to be needed. This is why reading the scriptures alongside Coogan's writing is especially effective; he and the NRSV Study Bible translators continuously bring the reader back to the actual text and context of the Hebrew Bible, rather than letting us simply fill in our own interpretations. Coogan notes, for example, that the introductory chapters of Jeremiah are "a carefully constructed composite of themes and genres found repeatedly in biblical literature," not a simple devotional text, and certainly not a deliberate message to the modern Christian churches! This perspective is very much needed.
With thee; but, sir, so what I plead is just.
Why do sinners’ ways prosper? and why must
Disappointment all I endeavour end?
Wert thou my enemy, O thou my friend,
How wouldst thou worse, I wonder, than thou dost
Defeat, thwart me? Oh, the sots and thralls of lust
Do in spare hours more thrive than I that spend,
Sir, life upon thy cause. See, banks and brakes
Now leavèd how thick! lacèd they are again
With fretty chervil, look, and fresh wind shakes
Them; birds build—but not I build; no, but strain,
Time’s eunuch, and not breed one work that wakes.
Mine, O thou lord of life, send my roots rain.
-Gerard Manley Hopkins
Hopefully, the text of this poem will evoke its source, part of our reading from this week: "You will be in the right, O Lord, when I lay charges against you; but let me put my case to you. Why does the way of the guilty prosper? Why do all who are treacherous thrive?", etc (Jer 12: 1). I have read and loved this poem for many years without giving much, if any, thought to its beginnings in this text from Jeremiah. Much of our work in this course, however, has brought it to mind as one example of the Christian tendency to reinterprate pieces of the Hebrew scriptures as our own story without due consideration of their original context.
Jeremiah and Lamentations, it seems, are two of the books most particularly subject to this tendency. My first association with Lamentations, for example, is the long passages from it that are sung in our Tenebrae service every Holy Week. Contemporary Christians often seem to feel that we can simply substitute our own names, or that of our church, for "Israel" and have the meaning remain the same.
I do not want to disparage this process, as I think it can actually be a powerful devotional tool in the right settings, but a stronger understanding of the original context of these scriptures does seem to be needed. This is why reading the scriptures alongside Coogan's writing is especially effective; he and the NRSV Study Bible translators continuously bring the reader back to the actual text and context of the Hebrew Bible, rather than letting us simply fill in our own interpretations. Coogan notes, for example, that the introductory chapters of Jeremiah are "a carefully constructed composite of themes and genres found repeatedly in biblical literature," not a simple devotional text, and certainly not a deliberate message to the modern Christian churches! This perspective is very much needed.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Hosea
The most well-known element of the book of Hosea is certainly Hosea’s marriage to the prostitute Gomer and the subsequent birth of their three symbolically-named children:
I have always heard this passage interpreted strictly as an allegory: Hosea is Israel, the unfaithful one, but God is prepared to show his love anyway by taking her back, changing the names of her children to more appealing ones. I was surprised, then, that Coogan’s interpretation of the passage was actually somewhat more literal, in that it indicates that Hosea actually married an adulterous woman named Gomer who bore him three children.
Whatever the case may be, this marriage and the naming of the couple’s children seem to be classic examples of the “sign-act” genre, which I have also heard described as a type of performance art or street theater. The prophets would commit strange, wild acts to draw attention to bring home their words in a highly visible and startling way, forcing people to confront their message. This bears some similarities to the work of many artists and activists today.
When the Lord first spoke through Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea, “Go, take for yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom, for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the Lord.” 3So he went and took Gomer daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son. 4And the Lord said to him, “Name him Jezreel; for in a little while I will punish the house of Jehu for the blood of Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel. 5On that day I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel.” 6She conceived again and bore a daughter. Then the Lord said to him, “Name her Lo-ruhamah, for I will no longer have pity on the house of Israel or forgive them. 7But I will have pity on the house of Judah, and I will save them by the Lord their God; I will not save them by bow, or by sword, or by war, or by horses, or by horsemen.” When she had weaned Lo-ruhamah, she conceived and bore a son. 9Then the Lord said, “Name him Lo-ammi, for you are not my people and I am not your God.” 10
I have always heard this passage interpreted strictly as an allegory: Hosea is Israel, the unfaithful one, but God is prepared to show his love anyway by taking her back, changing the names of her children to more appealing ones. I was surprised, then, that Coogan’s interpretation of the passage was actually somewhat more literal, in that it indicates that Hosea actually married an adulterous woman named Gomer who bore him three children.
Whatever the case may be, this marriage and the naming of the couple’s children seem to be classic examples of the “sign-act” genre, which I have also heard described as a type of performance art or street theater. The prophets would commit strange, wild acts to draw attention to bring home their words in a highly visible and startling way, forcing people to confront their message. This bears some similarities to the work of many artists and activists today.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
A couple of thoughts on Daniel
(Note to readers: we've been instructed to do some blogging for one of my classes this semester, and I figured, hey, I already have a nerdy baseball blog set up, might as well do it there. You are welcome to ignore these posts unless you too are interested in the literature of ancient Israel.)
One of the problems that readers of the book of Daniel may face is a sense of overfamiliarity. Coogan correctly notes how many everyday figures of speech come from this book: “the writing on the wall,” “feet of clay,” and so on. Then there are the familiar scenes, often (perhaps somewhat mysteriously, considering their intense violence) taught to children in Sunday school: Daniel in the lions’ den, rescued by his God, or the three young men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, walking in the fiery furnace with a mysterious fourth figure “with the appearance of a god,” later identified in the text as an angel.
The antidote to this familiarity, it seems, may lie in taking a closer look at the text itself. Certainly the familiar events and phrases are present, but the book of Daniel is full of so many odd scenes and wild visions that it could never be called commonplace. Most people, remembering some of these visions, think of Daniel as a prophet, and the book is indeed placed among the other prophets in Christian Bibles. Coogan informs us, however, that in the Jewish tradition it is placed with the Writings, which may lead us to notice that the book does not consist entirely of prophecies. In fact, one of its most notable features is that it consists of two genres: legendary heroic tales in chapters 1 through 6, followed by apocalyptic literature in chapters 7 through 12, where the prophecies are located. In addition, chapters 1 through 6 are stories told about Daniel, while the second half of the book purports to be written by Daniel himself. Because of these and other inconsistencies, the book is difficult to classify, and despite any sense of familiarity we may feel upon first glance, its strange and arresting images continue to intrigue and confound readers today.
One of the problems that readers of the book of Daniel may face is a sense of overfamiliarity. Coogan correctly notes how many everyday figures of speech come from this book: “the writing on the wall,” “feet of clay,” and so on. Then there are the familiar scenes, often (perhaps somewhat mysteriously, considering their intense violence) taught to children in Sunday school: Daniel in the lions’ den, rescued by his God, or the three young men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, walking in the fiery furnace with a mysterious fourth figure “with the appearance of a god,” later identified in the text as an angel.
The antidote to this familiarity, it seems, may lie in taking a closer look at the text itself. Certainly the familiar events and phrases are present, but the book of Daniel is full of so many odd scenes and wild visions that it could never be called commonplace. Most people, remembering some of these visions, think of Daniel as a prophet, and the book is indeed placed among the other prophets in Christian Bibles. Coogan informs us, however, that in the Jewish tradition it is placed with the Writings, which may lead us to notice that the book does not consist entirely of prophecies. In fact, one of its most notable features is that it consists of two genres: legendary heroic tales in chapters 1 through 6, followed by apocalyptic literature in chapters 7 through 12, where the prophecies are located. In addition, chapters 1 through 6 are stories told about Daniel, while the second half of the book purports to be written by Daniel himself. Because of these and other inconsistencies, the book is difficult to classify, and despite any sense of familiarity we may feel upon first glance, its strange and arresting images continue to intrigue and confound readers today.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Two items
At this moment, I am trying to memorize the difference between: 1.) the "ordinary magisterium," 2.) the "extraordinary magisterium," and 3.) the "ordinary universal magisterium." My reading has a diagram to help me with this. Never go to Jesus School.
Also, my mother told me the following story last week: "We [she and her sister and brother-in-law] used to go watch the river rats near the fire boats on the Calumet River. I mean, they were big. It was like an amusement park. Yes, the rats were running." I felt that several of you would appreciate this. My mom has a lot of childhood stories about rats.
Also, my mother told me the following story last week: "We [she and her sister and brother-in-law] used to go watch the river rats near the fire boats on the Calumet River. I mean, they were big. It was like an amusement park. Yes, the rats were running." I felt that several of you would appreciate this. My mom has a lot of childhood stories about rats.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Be still, my heart
Via Bleed Cubbie Blue, this item about Mike Fontenot's "star turn" on the sitcom My Boys is certainly the best thing I've heard all week:
Fontenot, a natural ham, was perfect for the part. He said he has seven lines overall and already has learned them..."I've been standing in front of the mirror rehearsing," [he said].I don't know about all of you, but I'm prepared to be amazed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)