Hi, folks. I was posting a bunch of stuff for class, and then I wasn't posting anything at all, but I sure want to talk about all the craziness that will surely be starting up tonight. A few things:
1.) Our household was filled with joy when the Yankees lost. The cats fled from my screeching. Whatever happens in this series will pretty much be icing on the cake for me.
2.) I've favored this years Giants since the beginning of the season. They are, as Michael Lewis says about the A's in Moneyball, the Island of Misfit Toys. Give me a team made of other peoples' castoffs and just plain weirdos (insert your own link to one of many articles about Brian Wilson's beard here), and I'll be thrilled. It's just so...biblical.
3.) On the other hand, I think the Rangers will simply outperform them, and they don't have a bad story themselves.
4.) The point is, we get to see Tim Lincecum and Cliff Lee tonight. That is completely ridiculous. I can hardly wait.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Dating the Exodus
This week I am taking a look at Coogan’s overview of attempts to put an accurate date on the Exodus. In terms of the text of the Bible itself, 1 Kings states that the Exodus took place 480 years before Solomon built the Temple. Most scholars put that date at around 965 BCE, so the Exodus would fall during the mid-fifteenth century. This is not as straightforward as it sounds, however, since Coogan explains that the figure of 480 is suspect: “It is the product of twelve, the number of the tribes, times forty, the typical length of a generation.” The authors of the book of Kings, he says, presumably want to connect the building of the Temple to Moses.
There are also problems with dating the Exodus in the mid-fifteenth or sixteenth century, as that leaves a long period of time written about only in the book of Judges, which does not mention any Egyptian presence. There is also no mention of Israel in the Amarna letters, which we have discussed in class before.
An alternative followed by many scholars is to date the Exodus later, in the thirteenth century BCE, partly because of the hymn from a victory stele quoted in our text, which shows that Israel had established some significant presence in Canaan by the end of the thirteenth century. The Exodus, it would then seem, must not have occurred before this time. According to this chronology, Rameses II may have been the pharaoh during the Exodus. As Coogan adds that this view is held by “most, but by no means all” biblical scholars, I would be curious to also know what some of the alternative views are.
There are also problems with dating the Exodus in the mid-fifteenth or sixteenth century, as that leaves a long period of time written about only in the book of Judges, which does not mention any Egyptian presence. There is also no mention of Israel in the Amarna letters, which we have discussed in class before.
An alternative followed by many scholars is to date the Exodus later, in the thirteenth century BCE, partly because of the hymn from a victory stele quoted in our text, which shows that Israel had established some significant presence in Canaan by the end of the thirteenth century. The Exodus, it would then seem, must not have occurred before this time. According to this chronology, Rameses II may have been the pharaoh during the Exodus. As Coogan adds that this view is held by “most, but by no means all” biblical scholars, I would be curious to also know what some of the alternative views are.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The Patriarchs
This week I would like to outline some characteristics of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as drawn from both the biblical texts and our readings. Abraham is the model patriarch, the most idealized of the three. His faithfulness to God is his most vaunted quality, and it is constant and unchanging. Coogan writes that this faithfulness often manifests itself in what appears to a contemporary reader as unappealing passivity; the two most notable examples are the near sacrifice of Isaac, stopping only when God commands him directly, and the passing off of Sarah as his sister instead of his wife in order to preserve his own safety. Coogan adds that these incidents would not have seemed appalling to a reader in the ancient Near East, but would have been seen as further positive depictions of Abraham’s faithfulness.
Abraham’s son Isaac is the least fleshed out as a character. Less space is devoted to him than to either of the others, and the stories involving him are usually focused on another character, such as his father, wife, or sons, who is often more vividly described. His wife Rebekah is actually a much stronger character, especially in the stories of Jacob and Esau, where she seems to be the motivating factor behind many of her son Jacob’s actions.
Jacob, by contemporary standards, is probably the most vividly drawn of the three, which is to say that he is the most obviously flawed. He is depicted as quite crafty, especially in the swindling of his brother Esau, and yet is still given the vision of “Jacob’s ladder.” One question we might discuss this week, if anyone is interested, is: what are some of the explanations for the very different depictions of the characters of the patriarchs?
Abraham’s son Isaac is the least fleshed out as a character. Less space is devoted to him than to either of the others, and the stories involving him are usually focused on another character, such as his father, wife, or sons, who is often more vividly described. His wife Rebekah is actually a much stronger character, especially in the stories of Jacob and Esau, where she seems to be the motivating factor behind many of her son Jacob’s actions.
Jacob, by contemporary standards, is probably the most vividly drawn of the three, which is to say that he is the most obviously flawed. He is depicted as quite crafty, especially in the swindling of his brother Esau, and yet is still given the vision of “Jacob’s ladder.” One question we might discuss this week, if anyone is interested, is: what are some of the explanations for the very different depictions of the characters of the patriarchs?
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Documentary Hypothesis
This is just a brief overview of my understanding of the Documentary Hypothesis from Coogan, the NRSV notes, and our lectures, more for my own future reference than anything else. I know that many of Wellhausen’s conclusions are not considered iron-clad anymore, especially since we now have a better understanding of his anti-Semitism, but the essential theory, which says that a number of strands (documents) were woven together to create the Pentateuch and can be differentiated, is still very influential.
The J source is identified because of its use of the name Yahweh for God. God is described very anthropomorphically: making clothes for Adam and Eve, shutting the door to Noah’s ark, etc. The primary theme of the J source is God’s covenant with Abraham, which promises him “land, descendants, and blessing.” The divine mountain is called Sinai. J is dated from the tenth or possibly ninth century and is based in the southern kingdom of Judah. It is also the most complete of the four sources.
The E source is the most fragmentary and may not have existed independently of J. It uses the title “elohim” for God. God usually presents himself in dreams and other indirect appearances. The divine mountain is called Horeb. E is concerned with the northern kingdom of Israel and its dominant tribe, Ephraim. It is dated from the ninth or eighth century.
The D source is found in the book of Deuteronomy and seems to be dated from the seventh century, although it draws on sources and traditions that are older. The divine mountain is also called Horeb, as in E, and like E, D probably originated in the northern kingdom.
The P (Priestly) source focuses on matters of ritual; the first creation account in Genesis comes from P, for example. God is sometimes referred to as “el shadday” and is the most remote from humanity, not even appearing in dreams as in E. P often speaks about God appearing “in his glory,” and presents a series of covenants rather than the one covenant with Abraham presented in J. P is generally dated to the sixth century and was the final editor of the other sources, editing both the first and last chapters of the Pentateuch.
The J source is identified because of its use of the name Yahweh for God. God is described very anthropomorphically: making clothes for Adam and Eve, shutting the door to Noah’s ark, etc. The primary theme of the J source is God’s covenant with Abraham, which promises him “land, descendants, and blessing.” The divine mountain is called Sinai. J is dated from the tenth or possibly ninth century and is based in the southern kingdom of Judah. It is also the most complete of the four sources.
The E source is the most fragmentary and may not have existed independently of J. It uses the title “elohim” for God. God usually presents himself in dreams and other indirect appearances. The divine mountain is called Horeb. E is concerned with the northern kingdom of Israel and its dominant tribe, Ephraim. It is dated from the ninth or eighth century.
The D source is found in the book of Deuteronomy and seems to be dated from the seventh century, although it draws on sources and traditions that are older. The divine mountain is also called Horeb, as in E, and like E, D probably originated in the northern kingdom.
The P (Priestly) source focuses on matters of ritual; the first creation account in Genesis comes from P, for example. God is sometimes referred to as “el shadday” and is the most remote from humanity, not even appearing in dreams as in E. P often speaks about God appearing “in his glory,” and presents a series of covenants rather than the one covenant with Abraham presented in J. P is generally dated to the sixth century and was the final editor of the other sources, editing both the first and last chapters of the Pentateuch.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Queens in Kings
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?
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)