metalepsis

Prophetic Voice

2011-06-04T09:36:00.003-04:00

The common biblical notion of a prophet is to speak truth to power, prophets are not above the ebb and flow of life, they are not any better or worse than others, yet they are often scrutinized, challenged, and many times beaten down, whilst their words are ignored. It is not a vocation they choose, for who would choose it, but none the less is it is a vocation that is so desperately needed. The ability to vision a new life, a better life, amid the mess that is our present life, sustains many, gives hope, imagination. When hope is on a tightrope, we need to hear the prophetic voice anew, may it inspire the imagination. Surely, at times, poetry is more important than food, soon the revolution will be televised, usque quo domine.

Piper and the Rhetorics of Pimpin

2010-01-25T14:40:00.003-05:00

I saw this on a twitter feed of one of my friends and found it very disturbing:

"The horrendous, gut-wrenching reality of Haiti's earthquake happens DAILY in abortions."

It purports to be a quote from John Piper, you know the guy who thinks girls shouldn't be on the wrestling team, and the one who thinks god chases gay sympathizers with tornadoes. So I shouldn't be surprised. But what really made me mad is that in an effort to (re)frame the debate about abortion into the graphic horror Piper believes it to be, he pimps out Haiti's earthquake, and the countless victims. Really? Isn't there a better way to make your point Mr. Piper?

God bless America...

2010-01-22T05:28:00.002-05:00

I believe God made the St. Lawrence River, and the Rio Grande River, and the China Sea and the English Channel, but I don’t believe God made America, or Canada, or Mexico, or England, or China. Man did that. . . . It is doubtful that there has ever been a nation established for bad reasons. Nations are always established to escape tyranny, to combat evil, to find freedom, to reach heaven. Man has always been able to desire to build a heaven. But it seems he has never been able to admit that he didn’t pull it off. So he keeps insisting that he did pull it off. And that is really what patriotism is all about. It is the insistence that what we have done is sacred. It is that transference of allegiance from what God did in creating the whole wide world to what we have done with (or to) a little sliver of it. Patriotism is immoral. Flying a national flag—any national flag—in a church house is a symbol of idolatry. Singing ‘God Bless America’ in a Christian service is blasphemy. Patriotism is immoral because it is a violation of the First Commandment.

Will D. Campbell, “I Love My Country: Christ Have Mercy,” Motive (December, 1969)

HT: Halden

Michael Goulder: A Biblical Scholar

2010-01-08T08:23:00.003-05:00

On the news of Michael Goulder's passing, I can't help but think of the time he came to Sheffield to speak to our Graduate Seminar, and being profoundly moved. Here was the epitome of a biblical scholar, someone who spent his life playing with the text, not in disservice to the text, but in order to understand it better, to think anew with the text, to never be satisfied with what some might call the "plain meaning" of a text. I remember his lecture starting with the acknowledgment that he could no longer read his own notes, thus signifying in my mind to expect a series of loosely connected meanderings, instead we got a lucid lecture that was easy to follow, yet rivaled the depth of any published monograph on the subject, I was amazed that he did this all from memory. There are few scholars that can stay relevant in a field like biblical studies throughout their lifetime. Michael Goulder was one, and the field was and is better for him.

Brit Hume really pissed me off!

2010-01-05T09:56:00.002-05:00

I'm not sure why I read Denny Burk's blog, it always irritates me and gets my blood pressure through the roof. Mind you this is due to Denny's perspective on the Christian faith, not Denny himself, I should note that Denny himself is a pretty cool chap. Anyhow his blog brought my attention to the comments of Brit Hume about how Christianity can help Tiger Woods. Now I am getting this info second hand, because Fox News isn't often played on our televisions...but according to the clip Brit states, "Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

Ok so, if Tiger finds forgiveness and redemption in the Christian God, that's great and more power to him, but how in the hell will that cause a "total recovery" and how exactly will Tiger now be a "great example to the world."

I wonder about the brokenness he caused his family, how he betrayed his wife, and made a complete mockery of her. Forgiveness and redemption may help Tiger with his sense of guilt and his own issues, but it does nothing to undo what was done, and this misogynistic perspective ticks me off. Now don't get me wrong I am a strong believer in truth and reconciliation as a means of moving forward, it names the past for what it is, and finds ways to make the present and future bearable and sometimes better, but to insinuate that with the Christian faith Tiger can make a "total recovery" (whatever that means) is ridiculous.

And please inform me how and why Tiger, if he follows Brit's advice, will be a great example to the world. What exactly is the message here, why would he be a great example, I am racking my brains and can't figure it out. Only in Pat Robertsons F***ed up world would Tiger be a great example.

Brit goes on to suggest that the controversy sorrounding his statement is due to the power of naming the name of Jesus, and this may be true in our politically correct culture where it is verboten to speak such things, but Brit's lack of depth and triteness are what got my blood boiling!

From Lenin's Tomb by way of Stalin's Moustache: A Christmas Wish

2009-12-22T07:47:00.003-05:00

From Lenin's Tomb by way of Stalin's

Moustache:

Rage against X-factor

The Facebook campaign to knock the annual X-Factor schlock from the top of the charts by promoting the Rage Against the Machine song 'Killing in the Name Of' is very close to success, but only by the narrowest margin according to reports. I think it was a success!

Daily Zizek: on the sacredness of questioning

2009-12-02T07:50:00.003-05:00

“What is perceived here as the problem is precisely the Christian universalism: what this all-inclusive attitude (recall St. Paul’s famous “There are no men or women, no Jews and Greeks”) involves is a thorough exclusion of those who do not accept inclusion into the Christian community. In other “particularistic” religions (and even in Islam, in spite of its global expansionism), there is a place for others, they are tolerated, even if they are condescendingly looked upon. The Christian motto “All men are brothers,” however, means ALSO that “Those who are not my brothers ARE NOT MEN.” Christians usually praise themselves for overcoming the Jewish exclusivist notion of the Chosen People and encompassing all of humanity – the catch here is that, in their very insistence that they are the Chosen People with the privileged direct link to God, Jews accept the humanity of the other people who celebrate their false gods, while Christian universalism tendenti[ous]ly excludes non-believers from the very universality of humankind.”

(Slavoj Žižek, On Belief. Routledge, 2001: 143-144)

HT: Deane Galbraith

BW3 and the deconstruction of Sheffield

2009-11-06T15:19:00.003-05:00

James Crossley brought to my attention the Christianity Today article about the whole Sheffield fiasco, highlighting some rather strange remarks by Ben Witherington. The article is really poorly written, with a number of gross inaccuracies, so let us hope that BW3's remarks were also taken completely out of context.

Just to offer some examples: the article insinuates that "evangelically minded" faculty were purposely replaced with non "evangelically minded" scholars. I have no idea what this might look like in real life. My understanding of how the policies work, and I this is sheer conjecture, but when a NT scholar leaves who specializes in Paul, a faculty member with roughly the same specialization is sought. Andrew Lincoln left the department some time ago, and was replaced with another Pauline scholar, and Loveday who left rather recently (2008) and she was not replaced at all. Here is the CT quote:

"Evangelically minded faculty, including Andrew Lincoln and Loveday Alexander, were not replaced with scholars who held similar views."

Now to the BW3 quote:

"Other faculty were "bent on the deconstruction of the Bible, and indeed of their students' faith," according to Ben Witherington, a New Testament scholar at Asbury Theological Seminary."

This is a very strange statement that I can't even begin to understand, but let me take a shot at it...so first "evangelically minded" faculty were replaced with "bad" non evangelically minded scholars, then "other" faculty, even worse than the "bad" non evangelical scholars were present who dabbled in the dark arts of deconstruction. Hmm, I am surprised a tornado didn't hit the 11th floor of the Arts tower. The BW3 quote starts with the word bent, which is presumably a pejorative in this context (especially for evangelicals, hence not straight) and then dives into the postmodern word of "deconstruction". Deconstruction is a nice, and less violent, way of saying destroy, so these "other" faculty wanted to destroy the very thing they were employed to study and ultimately their students faith. So the Bibs department is really just another Hogwarts, with faculty dressed in black (I have noticed that James favours the darker hues when it comes to wardrobe) bent on destroying the thing that ought never be named...FAITH.

Oh, I guess I can kind of piece this whole thing together after all.

Or perhaps BW3 was just talking about Stephen Moore's earlier project and the CT writer just assumed that it was a pejorative? I guess then the same thing could be said of Jamey Smith's work on Derrida down at Calvin College in Grand Rapids.

Very strange article indeed.

Remembering the 5th of November

2009-11-05T07:57:00.002-05:00

HT: dunedinschool

Is N.T. Wright smacking down Jim West or what?

2009-11-02T08:00:00.002-05:00

In a quote from N.T. Wright's short rebuttal to the CT piece that claims he is at fault for the protestant exodus to Rome, Wright has this to say:

"It reminds me of the fine old German NT scholar Heinrich Schlier, who found that the only way to be a Protestant was to be a Bultmannian, so, because he couldn’t take Bultmann, became a Roman Catholic; that was the only other option in his culture. Good luck to him; happily, most of us have plenty of other options."

Now who among us loves Bultmann? Perhaps this is why Jim West has yet to ask N.T. Wright into his heart.

Univ. of Sheffield Keeps Biblical Studies Dept.

2009-10-14T12:13:00.001-04:00

From an article found here.

October 14, 2009 8:35AM

Univ. of Sheffield Keeps Biblical Studies Dept.

Students had protested an early proposal to shut the department down.

Sarah Pulliam Bailey

Following student protests, the University of Sheffield in England decided to not close the department of biblical studies.

A review by the pro-vice-chancellor had recommended shutting down the department down after current and 2009-2010 students completed their degrees, citing the loss of staff and declining student demand.

At 8 a.m. today, 1,064 members had joined the Facebook group "Don't shut down Biblical Studies at Sheffield" and a website was created to send the vice chancellor petition letters, several of which were posted on the website. Ben Hurrell, who created the Facebook group, told CT that citing the lack of student interest and staff was "unjust."

"The number of entries last year were capped at eight, but this year's graduates and level three students represent all-time high figures," Hurrell said in an e-mail. "While five senior lecturers have left over the last 2 years, the university has not allowed the department permanent staff to replace them for a variety of reasons."

The university senate was supposed to vote on the department's future on October 7, but after students heard through the students' union and protested, the decision was postponed.

"The vice chancellor has said that he feels the faculty handled consultation with staff and students so badly that it cannot justify a closure," Holly Taylor, education officer for the students' union, said in an e-mail this morning.

Taylor said that the the faculty will draw up plans for the department, including new staff appointments.

Collin Hansen contributed to this report. Another report will be forthcoming.

(Graphic) Save BIBS

2009-10-12T14:47:00.003-04:00

How to help: HERE.

Why Save Sheffield Biblical Studies?

2009-10-12T13:00:00.003-04:00

Why save the Biblical Studies Department?

The partial answer is found in an article written by David Clines here.

Top 200 Global Uni's

2009-10-08T14:57:00.001-04:00

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/Rankings2009-Top200.html

Where does your school rank?

Idolatry, the F word, and an Album

2009-09-28T08:34:00.004-04:00

So trolling through my RSS feeds (and yes, i still use RSS feeds!) I happened upon some really good blog posts.

The first is Roland Boer's spot on examination of the critique of idolatry in 2nd Isaiah. I have struggled with this bit of Isaiah, because it is both subversive in it's portrayed context and because if the critique of idolatry was meant to be taken seriously, it is laughable, as Roland points out. the former claim, that it is subversive in its portrayed context, is key for me because the text declares that YHWH is indeed incomparable deity despite the fact that everything in the present would read otherwise, Israel is still in exile, YHWH was defeated by the Babylonian deities, and so on and so forth. The text screams out for another way to define victory, another way to interpret the present, another way to see the world (see David Clines' wonderful essay I, He, We and They: A Literary Approach to Isaiah 53). To me this becomes even more interesting when we compare it to the text of Romans 2. For here Paul's critique of the Judean/or the Jew is equally as laughable, so my proposition is that Paul, like Isaiah before him, is up to something similar.

The next is a fun little post by Jonathan about language, freedom, and capitalism. I have been rereading my Jameson and Gramsci lately trying to be more consistent in my methodology, and since I am always intrigued by the way people appropriate words, I found this post rather enjoyable.

The next is not a blog post, but I wanted to draw your attention to a magical album by Christopher O'Riley. Christopher is a classical pianist that has his own NPR show, which I highlight, to show that he is a bona fide credentialed pianist. Now I am not well versed in classical music, I like it, I listen to it, but can barely tell the difference between Bruckner and Chopin (I know it's sad). Christopher though meets me where I am at, and that is the world of Indie Rock heroes like Elliott Smith and Post Rock legends like Radiohead. Yes that is right he transcribes these rock heroes into magical piano compositions that are so much more than those lame classical tribute albums that are mere musac-al attempts to capitalize upon the popular. There are times when the compositions near the avant garde but this is brilliance in and of itself, the sonic cacophony that is Radiohead, played by one instrument, and done well, is worthy of a listen. So go buy the new album its only 8.99 on amazon (MP3), and then the catalog!

A Post befitting of N.T. Wrong

2009-09-18T09:18:00.002-04:00

From the Londonist

Was Charles Dickens the smuttiest writer of all time? On the face of it, the much-loved author would seem to be the ultimate purveyor of family-friendly literature. But if you read his novels with a 21st Century eye for the perverse then you begin to see all kinds of filth. Or maybe words have shifted meaning somewhat in the past 150 years. Who cares? It's Friday and we feel like unleashing some nonsense.

"'What, old Nobs!' ejaculated the son. And they shook hands heartily." - Pickwick Papers, Chapter 27.

"The jackal then invigorated himself with a bum for his throttle." - A Tale of Two Cities, Chapter 5.

"Tom had sat upon the bed, swinging one leg and sucking his walking-stick with sufficient unconcern." - Hard Times, Chapter 6.

"Mr. Jasper broke silence by declaring that he placed his whole reliance, humanly speaking, on Mr. Sapsea's penetration." - The Mystery of Edwin Drood, Chapter 15.

"Mr Brass's ejaculations died away in the distance (for he continued to pour them out, all the way down stairs)." - The Old Curiosity Shop, Chapter 48.

"When the throbbing I had seen before, came into it as I looked at her, she absolutely lifted up her hand, and struck it." - David Copperfield, Chapter 32.

Thinking about getting Inked?

2009-09-18T07:41:00.005-04:00

HT: LISNews

When dogmatics get in the way of scholarship

2009-09-04T10:42:00.005-04:00

A panel of "NT Scholars" at Southern Baptist Seminary have gotten together to warn students, pastor's, and congregations alike of the evil ogre that is Tom Wright.

Michael Gorman, has a nice summary, which I could not agree with more!

He sums up the panel as saying, "Wright has some good things to say, but he has strayed from the true faith, he has forgotten the gospel, he is dangerous to students, pastors, and congregations."

When I think of Southern Baptists, this is who I think of..., I know it is not fair but... but where did all the old school Southern Baptists go after the Mohler and Patterson purges? Jim West has a lot of work to do in reforming this denomination.

I am well aware of Jim's distaste for Wright, but his distaste is for very different reasons! Namely Wright's project is rather anti-Bultmannian (is Bultmannian even a word?)

Sex and Prayer

2009-09-04T08:24:00.000-04:00

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1210811/Mac-sex-prayers.html

New Blog Calvinolatry

2009-08-07T07:29:00.003-04:00

James Harding's has posted to his new blog Calvinolatry. James is a great chap and we always seem to be running around in the same groups every SBL, but beyond this he is extremely engaging! Let us hope he continues to explore the worship of self-referential, non-falsifiable ideologies, in what are sure to be intriguing posts to come.

Welcome James!

Prof. Gates and The Man

2009-07-27T12:21:00.004-04:00

I find it interesting the hoopla that is surrounding the arrest of Professor Gates in his own home. For the record, I am by and large, a very law abiding citizen, and believe in being deferential to everyone I come in contact with. I am also a product of a very American white middle class sensibility, and even though feel that I have an educated knowledge of the “other,” my academic knowledge can never be translated into the heart pumping, sweat inducing fear, that is often the constant companion to those who find themselves on the other side of the tracks throughout American history.

That being said, do I think this arrest was about race? Yes and no. Firstly my initial inclination is toward yes, namely because if the Cambridge police came to check out a reported “break in” and found Timothy F. Geithner in the same position, the situation would probably have never escalated. Yet, I say no, because I don’t believe that once the Cambridge police found out that Professor Gates was the owner of the home, he would have been arrested, if, and this is the key, if he would have showed the proper deference. This, to me, is disconcerting to me on a number of levels.

Let me diverge from this particular situation, and reflect upon something that I have been ruminating on about for awhile, and have only recently been brought into focus with the recent arrest of Professor Gates. I was lounging around one Saturday flipping through the stations on my television when I happened upon a spring break version of cops. This episode took place on a lake in Arizona and consisted of a plethora of drunk, scantily clad spring breakers, blowing off some steam whilst boating. The show was entertaining in that it showed how uneducated the American college spring breaker really is, and how it must suck to be a cop who is charged with maintaining safety and order in such a chaotic situation. But over and over again, the editing of the show, focused on the lack of deference that was given to the cops on patrol, with those who showed deference were treated nicely, and those who did not show deference being verbally roughed up a bit, to the camera’s delight. There were funny moments, don’t get me wrong, one of the funniest was when a teen, tried to disallow the police from boarding his vessel, as if he was asserting some sort of seafaring law he had read in Sea Wolf and thought that it actually had legal bearing. This unlucky chap was hauled off and arrested for something…, the only discernible crime to the viewer was his utter lack of deference. This whole episode was made even more interesting because the Officers could have arrested everyone on the lake for either public intoxication, or underage drinking, but those that ended up making the final edit were those who by and large refused the officer deference. Now, let me be real clear here, I am in no way trying to equate the Gates incident with the drunken spring breakers in Arizona, in Arizona the kids were breaking numerous laws, Professor Gates broke none. The thread that ties these two stories together is thin at best, but I think it highlights an interesting subject.

Now in getting back to the Professor Gates story, I want to be clear that I think civility is key to a well functioning society, but I believe that Socratic questioning is even more important. So when discussing the Gates story, I wish at least part of the public debate would be upon deference, the lack of deference that Professor Gate’s showed the Cambridge police officer, and that Police officers response. If civil servants work for the people in a democracy, should they be able to arrest someone because of a lack of deference? Do the police receive their authority based on public trust or on public fear?

Just thinking out loud…

Go Here for more:

Jimmy Carter Leaves Southern Baptist Behind

2009-07-19T10:21:00.003-04:00

Looks like Jimmy Carter is leaving the Sothern Baptist Church over there treatment of women...

At their most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.

Full Story Here:

Five most important primary sources for my understanding of the Bible.

2009-07-06T14:29:00.002-04:00

In no particular order, and in no way to diminish others who have made equally convincing lists, here are the texts (primary sources) that have most influenced my reading of the bible.

1. Enuma Elish: This is great text that details, among other things, the exploits of Tiamut and Marduk. This is one of the ANET that ought to inform any reading of the Hebrew Bible, my work on the divine warfare led me to this text and it completely made me think my rather naive view of the creation myth and the exodus "event".

2. Ugaritic Ba'al Cycle: Like Enuma Elish this text is very important for understanding the gods of the ANE, here the exploits of Yamm and El are detailed, and like Enuma Elish this cycle is key in understanding divine warfare and the exodus event.

3. Galen of Pergamum: On the Passions and Errors of the Soul: This is a key text on the role of the passions written shortly after the time of Paul. This text helped solidify the importance of self mastery and its role in the cultural zeitgeist during and after the time of Paul, not to mention the fact that It is a very entertaining read.

4. Qumran Hymns: Early in my biblical studies education I determined to sit down and read through the dead sea scrolls, it was tedious at times, but the Hymns totally made up for the effort. To this day I often rather mischeviously read, or quote, a hymn in the presence of devote Christians and they always assume that I am reciting one of the Hebrew Psalms...

5. Pseudepigrapha: There are a lot of choice texts in the pseudepigrapha, so if I had to pick just one set of texts I would have to chose the Tales of the Patriarchs (I know I just grouped a bunch of texts together, but it's my list so they are to be considered one text from this point forward :) ). These are key texts in the Sin - Exile - Restoration motif that was present during the Second Temple period.

What to do on the 4th?

2009-07-04T19:18:00.004-04:00

What better way to spend the 4th:

Read some Cornel West: Here

or listen: here (search for Cornel West)

here is a quote:

The question is, as the American democratic experiment has grown old, the challenge is for that experiment to really grow up. James Baldwin used to say that innocence itself is the crime prior to the committing of the concrete crime. And optimism. George Santayana put it so well in his essay on William James. He said, “Americans believe they’re always already on the right track,” so even if they fear they may have done something wrong, like the prison in Iraq, it’s just an abnormal, aberrational thing that couldn’t have anything to do with who we fundamentally are. He says, “Well, you’ve got to check yourself.” That wonderful moment in Melville’s Pierre where he says, “Look at that Christian gentleman dressed so sharp and beautifully, and yet just a few weeks ago he kicked his slave in the head, and three years ago he shot down an Indian.” So you get an Indian annihilator and a slaveholder dressed so smoothly, speaks with such eloquence, hiding and concealing his dark side. You see that in the vanilla suburbs, hiding and concealing the decrepit school systems in chocolate cities, hiding and concealing the inadequate childcare, unavailable health care, shortage of jobs of any quality, and yet still the sugar-coating. That sugar-coating is associated with the optimism.

Mike Bird's Aussie Christmas Tree

2009-06-24T15:00:00.001-04:00

from the londonist.

Hanging out with Dick

2009-06-23T07:41:00.003-04:00

At least I have good company down here in the bowels!

The Top Five: Early Books That Helped Shape My Thinking

2009-06-21T14:07:00.002-04:00

Like the title of this post suggest these are the top five books that shaped my early biblical studies education. I will post these in chronological order and not necessarily in order of importance.

First up is Dunn's Jesus, Paul and Law, this is a book I read during seminary, mostly during our mandatory chapel sessions. I came into seminary with a strong background in Jewish History and I never really bought the simplistic interpretation of the Jews as the foil to Christianity which I was feed during my seminary days. Dunn's book was thus a breath of fresh air, as it gave a well thought out solution to an interpretative problem that I was working through at the time. Even though Dunn’s New Perspective was old when I found out about it, it still changed my fundamental approach to my understanding of the NT.

Dunn’s work naturally led me to Tom Wright and his NTPG. I read this book once in seminary, and twice whilst getting my doctorate, and certain sections even more than that. Wright’s work was responsible for shaking the epistemological ground I was so comfortable with, and was responsible for my red pill blue pill experience. It is strange to write this but Wright was the impetus for my love for poststructualism. I still find Wright a very good read, and even better speaker, even if I have strayed from his critical realist project.

After reading Wright I worked through Fishbane’s work on Inner-Biblical interpretation, this book was key to me in correcting a rather naïve view of the Hebrew Scriptures. I loved Fishbane’s interpretive logic, and immersed myself in his subsequent writings.

While Wright led me to explore literary criticism, Hays’ Echoes focused that exploration into the realm of intertextuality. Hays’ imaginative (re)construction of Paul’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures led me to explore the likes of Kristeva, Barthes, Genette, Eco, and Riffaterre.

Through the process of researching possible ideas for a thesis one is usually graced with discovering works that are simply majestical, these works captivate your imagination and even though they have little to do with your topic you end up being totally consumed by them. Polzin’s, Moses and the Deuteronomist, for me was just such a work. Polzin’s ability to work through a narrative is nothing short of brilliant, if I could copy just one scholar, it would be Polzin.

The Edict of Claudius: Part II

2009-06-19T14:03:00.002-04:00

As argued in my last post, the historical questions surrounding the Edict of Claudius ought to give us serious pause when using it as an interpretive key to unlock Paul's letter to the Romans. From what I can make out, it seems that most of those who use the Edict of Claudius, as a key, do so only after reading the letter and coming to a position of Jew/Gentile conflict from their reading. The Edict, then corroborates that reading, so it is used to further substantiate their view. Of course many combine this with the reference in Acts, and are even further convinced that Claudius expelled the Jews and probably Jewish Christians from Rome. The point though, is that they don't need the Edict in order to hold this thesis, namely because this particular reading of Romans is sustainable without any Edict. The conflict, that may or may not be depicted in the letter, could just as easily represent the status that one group has achieved over another in the realm of followers, ideas, or theology; rather than due to a prolonged geographical absence and then return.

So what, if anything, lies behind this Edict? I will offer a preliminary sketch of what I believe the Edict tells us, and then in a future post will attempt to further develop what some of the implications are for Paul's letter to the Romans.

The Edict of Claudius: What does it tell us about Romans?

Erich Gruen in his masterful work on the Jews in the Diaspora (note: everyone serious about the study of Second Temple Judaism and its relationship to the NT ought to read this work) seems to offer a sober and reasoned response to the debate surrounding the Edict of Claudius. Gruen, a historian, notes that if you look at the actions taken against the Jews in antiquity the Jews were never the sole targets but always involved other groups. This is an important suggestion especially when we take into account the context of Claudius rule, namely that of Claudius' public concern over Roman religion and ritual. Claudius was mindful of the rumors surrounding his rise to power, and on many occasions during his rule took opportunities to distance himself publicly from the manner in which Caligula ruled, i.e. Caligula, if you remember, was known for openly mocking the average Roman’s relationship with the gods. Because many questioned Claudius right to the “throne”, he was careful to make sure that the ideology of the Roman Imperial Order prevailed, and as we all know, in antiquity; religion, ritual, and politics were all intermingled.

So due to the context of Claudius’ rule, coupled with the fact that actions against the Jews were usually grouped together with other outsiders; we may reasonably conclude that the Edict was more about imperial propaganda rather than the idea that a large number of Jews were actually forcibly removed from Rome. It is suggested then that Claudius took the disturbance fostered by Chrestus as an opportunity for political publicity against the “other”, rather than a showing of power to quell a real threat. Since it was key for Claudius to depict himself as a guardian of ancient Roman religion and ritual, and to show his continuity with the ancient traditions and power structures that were essential to the ideology of Roman rule, this Edict probably coincides nicely with his resurrection of ancient national rituals and actions against alien cults, then it does with forced exile.

Ignore Everyone

2009-06-18T13:37:00.000-04:00

Buy the book here:

On Claudius and the Expulsion of the Jews: Part 1 The Problem

2009-05-31T09:51:00.005-04:00

Over on Chris (tea for the) Tilling(man)’s wonderful blog Chrisendom a discussion was started concerning the keys to interpreting Romans. Chris offered two, one of them being the Edict of Claudius. The reason this seems to be key is due to the supposed tensions between the Jews and the Christians throughout the letter, of which the Edict is the historical antecedent. Many think the Edict is crystal clear and quote Acts 18.2 as further evidence of the supposed tension between the two groups. But I wonder what the Edict really tells us? I hope to offer up my own interpretive possibility in an upcoming post, but first I think it is necessary to lay out some of the problems in interpreting the Edict.

'Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultantes Roma expulit'

Problems of Reference:

1. Suetonius offers no chronology for this event, it could have happened any time during Claudius’ reign. So it could refer to the 41 event and Dio Cassius is correcting Suetonius (Although these two texts probably should not be amalgamated, too much conjecture), it could refer to an event that Orosius states happened in 49, or it could be a totally different event.

2. Orosius gives us the date of 49 ce, for this edict. And Acts 18.2 and the chronology of Paul’s life would seem to fit this date.

3. Chrestus and Christus were pronounced the same, and Sinaiticus spells Christian as “Chrestianos”, so Chrestus could be confused with Christ; although this would imply that Suetonius did not understand the differences between Christ and his followers, or thought that Christ was still alive.

4. Furthermore Suetonius links the conflict with Chrestus, not with his teachings, but with his presence (as noted above Jesus Christ was dead by then).

5. The opponents of Christianity occasionally referred to Christians as Chrestianos in an effort to imply that the followers got their name from a common slave, but this is later.

6. And Suetonius elsewhere uses the correct designation for Christianity, Christiani, in Nero 16.2.

7. Suetonius could have just copied his source without evaluation, but to postulate that Suetonius, or an official edict, mistook Christ for the followers of Christ is still highly speculative.

8. Chrestus was a common name and widely attested and common in Rome, although never for a Jew.

So Chrestus could have just as easily been an individual who stirred up nationalistic, messianic, or simply civil discord and incurred upon himself the wrath of the emperor. So historically it is just as likely that this incident had nothing to do with Jewish Christian relations, but was simply in response to civil discord. But what would this Edict have looked like on the ground in Rome around 49 ce.

Problems of Scope:

1. Estimates put the Jewish population to be approximately 15,000 – 50,000 at the time, so it is highly unlikely that all 15,000 – 50,000 were forcibly moved. Even if the edict was passed, and was for all Jews, it is doubtful it was ever enforced.

2. Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultantes Roma expulit, can be translated as “since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.” Or “He expelled from Rome those Jews who were constantly making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.” Thus the expulsion could refer to only those key members responsible for making the disturbances.

3. Acts 18.2 and Luke’s use of “all” is more likely an instance of his typical hyperbole.

4. A small scale expulsion would explain why other historians of the time neglected to mention it.

The Edict of Claudius and its aftermath are simply not necessary for reconstructing an interpretation for Romans; there are more unknowns in this historical reconstruction to be of any use in sufficiently explaining the tensions and conflicts that were dividing the community that Paul addressed in Romans. If one wants to hold that a key to interpreting Romans is the tension between the Jews and Gentiles, the arena of differing ideas, beliefs, and interpretations of traditions is probably a much better place to stake your claim, then a nebulous cryptic saying in Suetonius.

Librarygrape on your own personal Jesus

2009-05-25T08:31:00.001-04:00

Here:

The Old

2009-05-25T07:03:00.004-04:00

http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/6904_7479.pdf

Here is an interesting review by Steve Moyise on one of those awful “views” books. One gets the feeling that Moyise doesn’t really have the time to be bothered with the review, and who could blame him, even the cover of the book is clichéd.

Now I am deeply interested in the subject of the NT use of the OT, or at least the NT use of other texts, and what happens to texts when they are re-used in new contexts, but less concerned with how this book is framed.

But all that aside, Moyise does a wonderful job taking to task Kaiser’s rather antiquated views. If you are in the market for a book that grapples with this topic I suggest skipping this book and heading straight to more interesting treatments of the subject.

Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, Evoking Scripture: Seeing the Old Testament in the New, or Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament.

America and Civil Religion

2009-05-18T09:15:00.002-04:00

These cover sheets greeted Bush each day with triumphal color photos of the war headlined by biblical quotations.

This is frightening!

So you are thinking about a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies: Backdrop Part 1

2009-05-01T10:40:00.003-04:00

If you are one of those few people on this planet thinking about venturing into Ph.D. work, more than likely some sort of strange circumstances were aligned just right in order for you to even consider such an unwise career choice. Perhaps it was an insatiable desire to wear tweed jackets, or the dream of a study filled with leather chairs and being surrounded by a few thousand of your closest friends (books). Or maybe you have a penchant for facial hair or you heard about the soirees at SBL and AAR and wanted to live it up every November? Whatever your personal reasons may have been I am sure that at least part of your desire to do Ph.D. work was that you were not done learning. So at the beginning of all Ph.D. candidates is a story of how one became interested in knowledge in the first place. Sometimes this story starts in secondary school, for others at university, and still others don't know where they are going until they get into their masters program.

My own story starts with American fundamentalism. Yea that pesky little group of Christians who are the self arbiters of who is "in" and who is "out" of the "orthodox" conservative Christian world. The particular group of fundy's I was involved with were bible thumping Spurgeon loving Dispensational Calvinists. It was under their tutelage that I began to read Calvin's Institutes, Spurgeon's sermons, and Johnathon Edwards essays. It was also under their tutelage that I began to read the bible in order to apply it to my own life. And lest it sound all positive I also learned from the fundys who the "enemies" of the gospel were (read everybody who is/was not a Dispensationalist and a Calvinist). This particular part of my story took place during my secondary school years, and it was through this ad hoc theological education that I began to seek out understanding. Now I admit it was a rather peculiar and distorted sort of knowledge, but whatever it was, it was part of my story. Thankfully an equal part of my story was also my love for popular music, culture, and a good group of friends that helped temper my own indoctrination into this fundy world. So while I was convinced on one level of the doctrinal peculiarities of these fundamentalists, I wasn't sucked down the separatist rabbit hole mainly because of my own love for popular culture, good beer, and the fellowship of good friends.

Daniel Kirk is Resurrecting Paul

2009-04-16T12:08:00.003-04:00

Daniel Kirk, full time professor part time pancakier, is starting a new book project and he wants your help. Daniel's project seeks to grapple with why so many people love Jesus but have a hard time with Paul? He posses the following questions:

"Is there an exegetically sound approach to Paul that paints a different picture of the apostle than the one some Christians find distasteful, offensive, etc.? I think that there's a solid "Yes" to that question, but I need to make sure that the particular answers I give are directed at real-life concerns."

Well I am note sure how "real life" my concerns are, but my personal top 2 'problems' I have with Paul are as follows:

1. Paul and Power: This is a complex set of ideas that has to do with popular representations of how Paul treats the government of his day, how he thinks of women and homosexuals, and our modern tendencies to use Paul to say what 'we' want, albeit under the guise of being exegetically sound. I imagine these issues all surround the 'politics of power' and the authority we place on texts and are questions that ought to be addressed in any enterprise trying to rescue Paul for the non-specialist.

2. Paul's Inconsistencies: What I mean by this can probably best be expressed by a series of questions: Are Paul's letters timeless theological tracts, occasional, or some sort of mixture? Did/could Paul develop as a thinker? If so how do we determine his final conclusions on a topic? Why in so many of todays debates can we read Paul against Paul ? I imagine that most of the issues people react against are due to problems we have in the harmonizing of Paul's letters into a Pauline theology which often tells us more about the contemporary author, than it does about Paul.

Just for fun, I think Daniel ought to construct a book about Jesus (perhaps the 2nd volume) that unmasks why people love Jesus so much. Most of the reasons for a popular love of Jesus over Paul is that people probably don't get how subversive Jesus really is/was.

Sounds like a fun project, good luck Daniel!

The Competing Paths to Faithfulness?

2009-04-13T14:11:00.005-04:00

Pietas in its ancient Greco-Roman context has the connotations of "duty" or "devotion," and it simultaneously suggests both ones duty to the gods and ones duty to the larger family unit. In the Greek language the term is the all too familiar "pistis" of faith/faithfulness fame. Anyone familiar with Paul's appropriation of "pistis" and its cognates is aware that this term is at the center of a longstanding debate. Thankfully we are naturally going to side step that debate and focus on what is happening in Romans 4.

Paul's letter to the Romans has many perplexing and vexing little issues that are often glossed over in many of the popular attempts to deal with the work, and naturally so, because who in their right mind would want to read a digest of all the interpretive problems in Romans. Coherency is the name of the game in any successful reading of the letter, but working all these pieces into a readable whole is often more difficult than it would seem to appear.

One of these perplexing issues is why Paul highlights Abraham in Romans 4. Now many people at this point will say to them selves, well that is easy Paul wanted to prove that even the Hebrews of old were saved by faith/faithfulness and not by works (read circumcision). Elliott lays out a different position based on the Greco-Roman context.

Briefly the key to Elliott's interpretive move is to look at the role of ancestors in the Greco-Roman world, and specifically how Augustus was associated with piety and the vocation of civilizing the nations. Ancient figures were often seen as representative figures, thus Augustus represents a history that is closely intertwined with the residents of Rome and their ability to be ushered into the civilized world. Not to get into to much detail, but the crux of the problem is that the nations in Rome began to think of genealogy in a deterministic way, the Judeans deserve there present lot (jobless and homeless due to the recent mass deportations) because their God had lost. Imperial ideology, which always interprets the present, saw the Judeans as a people born to servitude. Paul's story about the Messiah and the program set forth in Abraham did not connect with the people on the ground because to them the Roman story seemed all too true. Thus for Elliott the issue was one of harmonization, could these two stories be effectively reconciled? This is what some in Paul's day were attempting to do, thus the term "Works of the Law," were those Judeans who sought to harmonize the two stories and gain acceptance by utilizing the Roman Law in an effort to further their movement/interests (this is an extremely generalizing account of Elliott at this point). Paul is thus contrasting two avenues, you could either, by following the works of Augustus, look for salvation through benefactions of the Caesar, or you could practice the kind of piety that Abraham is the representative of - a salvation through faithfulness that involves waiting patiently, expectantly, on the God who can reverse the present circumstances.

And you wonder why these idiots are going bankrupt?

2009-04-07T13:24:00.000-04:00

Homer Twitters!

2009-04-06T08:13:00.001-04:00

As seen on: http://www.boingboing.net/2009/04/05/homers-odyssey-on-tw.html

http://www.holytaco.com/if-homers-odyssey-was-written-twitter

Bookshelfs for Nerds

2009-04-06T08:10:00.001-04:00

For more visit:

http://digg.com/d1nyge

Propaganda Model?

2009-04-06T07:44:00.003-04:00

See:

http://digg.com/d1nweO

Here are two interviews on the Bill Moyers Journal you don't want to miss, first is William K. Blake who offers a scintillating analysis of the financial meltdown and how the media has failed us in reporting the news again.

Next up is Amy Goodman from Democracy Now, a news report that you really ought to watch, and Glenn Greewald from Salon. Both are serious reporters that are outside the mainstream media, and thus actually report interesting news.

Both segments speak to how the Propaganda Model is still a viable rubric for understanding how the United States media works, or doesn’t work.

Congrats go out to Brandon Wason!

2009-04-02T08:38:00.001-04:00

Dramatic Readings from Fundy Forums!

2009-03-31T09:38:00.002-04:00

Brilliant!

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/03/30/dramatic-readings-of.html

My copy came in the mail...

2009-03-30T10:48:00.002-04:00

After reading the preface and the acknowledgment section of the book I am eager to tuck into it and see what the fuss is all about. I will say that the distribution of this book is dismal, and really needs to be addressed by Equinox. The tangible book itself is ok, if not a bit flimsy, it looks like a print on demand, which makes the distribution problem even more puzzling. I bought mine through Caimanoutlet, a vendor on the Amazon.com site known for selling things that they don’t currently have in stock, it took a little over a week so I am sure they got it from the UK, but it arrived nicely packaged and in good shape and for the same end price as amazon.com’s price. But alas, the content is why you buy books, right, so I am sure it will be worth the wait!

The only puzzlement, so far, is the subtitle, “Scholarly projects for a New American Century.” I am not sure what to make of this…?

Now the most important question: do I put down John Irving to start James’ book or do I wait…?

So you are thinking about a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies?

2009-03-25T10:26:00.003-04:00

I thought it would be interesting to rehash my academic journey in this blog. Interesting, I hope, to bibliobloggers and biblioblog readers who might be considering Ph.D. work, perhaps you can learn from some of my many mistakes, and it might be interesting to those who would like to get a glimpse of how different learning environments operate and the effect they had on my own education. But more importantly, and much more to the point, it will be a good process of self reflection, of where I have been to where I am now.

So to put out a real rough outline, I'll start with when I first noticed that I really enjoyed learning, and what motivated me then, to my experiences at University, to my decision to go to seminary, to my choice of Grad Schools, and what was going on each step of the way. It should be a fun romp down memory lane. I hope you enjoy!

On Cyrus, Isaiah, and Empire?

2009-03-24T11:25:00.007-04:00

Now I completely understand that there are numerous ways to read texts, and while often times this can be traced to an authors own presuppositions, this limitation should not be used to disregard all readings, there are still good or bad readings. And while I am not familiar with many of John Hobbins' readings I wonder about his assessment of Israel's appropriation of Cyrus, and by implication thier acceptance of his Empires. I am not saying that his reading is wrong, I would just like to tease out some thoughts to see how he responds.

Hobbin's uses the presence of Cyrus in Second Isaiah to argue for a favorable view of Cyrus and his Empire among those in exile. He states:

"On the other hand, Persian imperialism in Isa 40-48 is described in glowing terms. The Persian conquest of Babylonia and the Levant under the leadership of Cyrus was viewed positively insofar as it brought an end to Babylonian imperialism, treated everyone with a measure of respect, and fixed as a goal the extension of its writ to the Aegean isles and coastlands. This passage most likely has Cyrus in mind (Isa 42:1-4)..."

It is true that YHWH's call of Cyrus is important, namely because the text associates him with the redemption of Israel. Cyrus is a depiction of YHWH's power, as the text insinuates it is YHWH who raised up Cyrus from the beginning, it is YHWH who will bring the rulers to nothing, and again it is YHWH through Cyrus who will both destroy Babylon and rebuild Jerusalem. Cyrus is even likened to Moses as the responsible agent in the what might be termed the new exodus, the text even goes on to call Cyrus a messiah and a shepherd, certainly insinuating beyond all doubt that YHWH is clearly affirming him. So Hobbin's is correct that Cyrus and thus by implication his empire is described in glowing terms.

But this is precisely where his argument seems to break down, because despite YHWH's affirmation of Cyrus (obviously depicted through the prophet), it is this very depiction that becomes the center of Israel's argument with YHWH, for it is seemingly YHWH's choice of Cyrus as their rescuer that doesn't sit well with them. Thus in 44.24-28, after YHWH declares himself the creator of all, the confuser of the wise, and the one who commands Jerusalem to be rebuilt, YHWH slips in that, 'it is I who say of Cyrus, ‘my shepherd’ and he will perform all my desire'. Then in 45.9-13 YHWH announces misfortune to those who dare question their maker, pointing out that since he is the creator of all things that he can do what he pleases, exclaiming, 'I have aroused him [Cyrus] in justice’. And again in 46.5-11 YHWH begins by mocking the idea that he can be regarded as an idol, reminding the rebels (Israel) that he alone knows the end from the beginning. He finishes by declaring that he will accomplish his purposes 'calling a bird of prey from the East, the man of my purposes…' And finally in 48.14, YHWH reaffirms that he 'loves him [Cyrus]’, and it is Cyrus who ‘…shall carry out his good pleasure on Babylon'.

The point I am trying to make is that even though the text (as a substitute for the prophet and YHWH) seem to think highly of Cyrus, and his Empire, because they are to be YHWH's agents in freeing his people, the people don't seem to share this opinion. Hence the disputations.

While the question of why this clash between YHWH and Israel over Cyrus, is of course much harder to answer. (It could have been similar to Habbakuk's disappointment with pagan liberators, I am not sure.) The text no doubt uses the rejection of Cyrus, to highlight Israel’s refusal to accept YHWH's plan. Thus bringing Israel’s recalcitrant heart into the open.

So while the prophet may be describing Cyrus in glowing terms, the people are not buying it.

_______________

See Further:

John Goldingay, The Message of Isaiah 40-55: A Literary-Theological Commentary, 253-300.

Lisbeth S. Fried, "Cyrus the Messiah? The Historical Background to Isaiah 45:1," 391.

K.D. Jenner, "The Old Testament and Its Appreciation of Cyrus," Persica 10 (1982): 284.

Ralph W Klein, Israel in Exile, chapter 5.

Rikki Watts, "Consolation or Confrontation," 41-42.

The Copenhagen/Sheffield school has been expanded, all are welcome!

2009-03-23T13:03:00.006-04:00

What started out with William Dever's entertaining characterization of several Sheffield scholars who practiced their craft in, or rather on the topic of, the ANE and Biblical Studies has now been broadened to encompass a NT scholar(s).

While the first mention of the Sheffield School of Biblical Studies was quite ridiculous for anyone who has taken the time to read any of the distinctive works of such notable scholars as David Clines, Diana Edelman, Philip Davies, Keith Whitelam, Hugh Pyper, and Cheryl Exum. Clearly one should be able to very quickly see the folly in putting all of these scholars into some kind of homogeneous school. Even for those who have questioned certain aspects of Israel's past, they are much too divergent in their views to be considered a school of thought, quite frankly the idea is ludicrous. But at least one could understand why Dever used the term for his rhetorical and polemical purposes, even if it was childish to do so.

But now the gloves are off and their is a new Sheffield School, or perhaps it is an extension of the first, that fact is really of no importance. The "Postcolonial Sheffield School" is now open for business, and seemingly all are welcome. With the addition of James Crossley, Loveday Alexander, Barry Matlock, and Jorunn Økland pretty much all viewpoints have been amalgamated into one homogeneous School.

On a side note: How did John Hobbins get Crossley's book, I have been waiting since SBL to get my hands on this?

Also: see Jim West's take here .

Wall-O-Books Meme

2009-03-23T08:44:00.002-04:00

Saw this over the weekend and thought about starting a dreaded meme, but this one a photo meme, i.e. post a picture of your wall-o-books!

Mine will appear shortly....

Ganging up Ikea shelves for a striking, cheapass wall-o-books

from Boing Boing by Cory Doctorow

Eva combined $1056.95 worth of Ikea EXPEDIT shelves to build this awesome megashelf -- I'm such a sucker for the wall o'books.

Eva's zes kasten (via Apartment Therapy)

Empires, Mercy, and Obedience

2009-03-06T13:22:00.002-05:00

Back to Elliott's Arrogance of Nations, we are now up to the chapter on CLEMENTIA, or mercy. Mercy if you understand politics is the prerogative of those who have power. In this case the Emperor. It is the Emperor who has the ability to show those who are truly powerless and submissive mercy and it is up to him to determine what is and what is not merciful. It is nice to be the one in charge of making these decisions. Now it is easy to see how Paul's proclamation of God’s mercy as the public manifestation of God’s Justice could be offensive. Because ultimately the purpose of mercy is that for those who have received such mercy they are supposed to be so moved as to respond in obedience. But according to Paul all the world – not just the Judeans- is accountable to God. But the subtext to all this is that it is the losers who receive mercy.

So who were the losers in Rome during the time of Paul's letter. Well Elliott would argue, based on a number of things, including the "in chrestus" expulsion, the recent return of the homeless and jobless Judeans, and from the perspective of mercy coming from the Emperor, that the Judeans were indeed the losers. For Paul if the Romans buy into this form of thinking then it naturally would beg the question of whether Israel stumbled so as to fall. Paul's task is to get the Romans to be able to see past the surface of history, to see that mercy comes from the justice of God and not from throwing your lot in with the Empire.

Now this is a very cursory attempt to summarize Elliott, his chapter, and his book, is much richer than my feeble attempts at summary make it seem.

Two Books of Note: and a little nepotism

2009-03-04T15:58:00.003-05:00

Because I know some of you are preparing your SBL buying list early this year be sure to make room for two of what I am sure will be the best books to come out on social memory and the application of social scientific theory in 2009. Both of these authors are great thinkers and great people so even though the economy is in the tank be sure to pick up at least one copy of each! Here are the blurbs from T&T Clark:

In Structuring Early Christian Memory: Jesus in Tradition, Performance Rafael Rodriguez embarks upon how social memory research has obscured the relationship between past and present in New Testament studies. This captivating debate focuses on the figure of Jesus, a ‘historical Jesus’, and Rodriguez formulates many interesting observations in his quest to find whether it is possible to clearly separate ‘authentic’ from ‘inauthentic’ traditions.

Reading Ephesians: Exploring Social Entrepreneurship in the Text, by Minna Shkul, explores how Ephesians connects in social entrepreneurship, a process that has shaped the emergence of Christian Identity. Shkul’s intriguing discussion stands against the widely assumed theological presupposition that something was wrong with the Judaism practised at the time, but rather focuses upon the divine ‘legitimating’ of the Christian group and its culture.

metalepsis: Yoga vs Christianity

2009-02-26T12:21:00.000-05:00

metalepsis: Yoga vs Christianity

Yoga vs Christianity

2009-02-26T11:44:00.003-05:00

Now I usually don’t comment on such silly things on my blog, leaving the few posts that I do post, to my current academic interests, but this is just too funny.

Apparently CNN did a little spot about Yoga and Christianity, I didn’t bother to watch it, because I just don’t care what people think about Yoga and Christianity, call me an elitist. Well this particular segment had Doug Pagitt and John McArthur both men who espouse to follow the Christian faith, and they I assume gave their views on the subject. But the funny thing is, and this is real funny, they caught Pagitt talking to a women on the set after the segment, and here is what transpired:

Pagitt: Yeah, yeah,…well, you’re sure welcome. Ok, so was it on live too, and then be re-aired? Huh; yeah, that’s great. Thanks. Bye-bye.
Woman: [Way to] go.
Pagitt: Well, thanks. It’s just so weird, isn’t it? [background, “Yes.”] To hear people say stuff like that, like what he’s saying?
Woman: [unintelligible] the reason why younger people don’t go to church. You know what I mean?
Pagitt: I do.
Woman: Because everything is so black and white. You know a position has nothing to do with your body and your spiritual th–you kidding me? [Pagitt snickers in the background] Seriously.
Pagitt: Seriously, [mockingly] “if you want to relieve stress go to the Word of God.” [chuckles]
Woman: Yeah.
Pagitt: [snickering] Oh my goodness.
Woman: It’s like, that’s totally separate; how can you even–ah.
Pagitt: Ah, I don’t know; I…
Woman: I’m glad they have you.
Pagitt: Thanks. Thanks, I apologize for him. [laughs]. Ah…
Woman: [sighs] Well, maybe since that was such a nice conversation, they didn’t give us a lot of time, maybe we can see you again–
Pagitt: Maybe we’ll do it again sometime. Wouldn’t that be fun.
Woman: I got your recording so they did go live with it.
Pagitt: Well, that’s nice.
Woman: That’s here… [unintelligible] you have a DVD–
Pagitt: I have a DVD player. Now my phone should start ringing. All my quirky friends calling me.
Woman: “I saw you…”
Pagitt: “You were pathetic.”
Woman: [laughing]
Pagitt: “I told you to sit up.” I can hear it now.
Woman: No, you were great.
Pagitt: Well, thanks.
Woman: And you didn’t sound crazy either.
Pagitt: [laughing] Thanks.
Woman: Like tha’ other guy. But then you get to watch it again, so…
Pagitt: Yeah, watch it over and over.
Woman: An’ wanna make more copies.
Pagitt: Thanks.
Woman: It was cool to meet you.
Pagitt: Yeah, thank you. Good to know you.
Woman: Yeah.
Pagitt: Should I leave the tag with you.
Woman: I’ll take it for ya. Is it easy for you to go out that way?
Pagitt: Go out that door? Yeah, because I’m parked across the street.
Woman: Oh, cool.
Pagitt: Ok.
Woman: Alright, you have a good day.
Pagitt: Thanks so much.

Now the reason this is so funny is that people (well cronies of John) are now all over Pagitt for apologizing for what John MacArthur said. From this transcript it looks like John said something about finding stress relief akin to yoga in the word of God. Well whatever… I kinda feel for Pagitt because I don’t think he intended his remarks to call into question MacArthur’s Christianity, just his crazy Yoga beliefs. The moral of the story is only debate a fundamentalist if you want to distance yourself from them, and if you never again want to engage them.

Change

2009-02-20T09:01:00.000-05:00

Something to Ponder

2009-02-15T09:16:00.003-05:00

"Every position on postmodernism in culture - whether apologia or stigmatization - is also at one and the same time, and necessarily, an implicitly or explicitly political stance on the nature of multinational capatalism today."

Justice, what is it good for... Post 5

2009-02-06T15:05:00.003-05:00

Folks, I think I was close to getting back on the biblioblogs page, but alas I must have no pull with Brandon Wason, nor with Jim West. I can't believe that my Sheffield connection didn't do anything for my chances. Why did I pay so much for an education if it doesn't even get me on to the biblioblogs site? I thought Sheffield was the mecca for Jim, I have heard stories of his regular pilgrimages and ritual sacrifices that he has offered to the the great paternoster in the north. The same paternoster that I myself made regular sacrifices to weekly as a student.

I do promise to stop the groveling ... soon.

Ok, now for the next topoi that Elliott brings to light in his reading of Romans is JUSTITIA. Now justice is by and far the biggest subject in Romans, however many people are not able to see this because they frame Paul's justice talk in individualistic pietistic ways like, "how can I be made right in the sight of god". The problem with such individualistic notions is that they are foreign to the NT and Paul. What Elliott wants us to understand is that the notion of morality is often given to, and an authority enjoyed by, those with the actual power to dominate others. This is pretty basic stuff, and even if you detest Foucault and his cronies this statement seems pretty uncontroversial, right. So in looking at Paul's justice talk in comparison to the Empire's we can see that what Paul is doing is contesting the morality of the Empire and confronting the imperial claims and propaganda.

A number of things that Elliott highlights in the text of Romans that Paul is confronting are (1) the notion that Caesar is the embodiment of divine Justice, (2) the proclamation of Caesar's triumph, and (3) the notion that Rome has brought peace to the world, to highlight just a few. Paul's point is to give his readers/hearers the ability to see that appearances are deceiving, and that reality should not be read from current events, but rather through an apocalyptic imagination.

Elliott does something really interesting in this chapter. Now I am not sure that I am entirely convinced, but I must say that Elliott is one of the most provacative and interesting interpretors of Paul that I have read, I put him with the likes of Nanos and Stowers as my favorite authors to read on Romans. Elliott takes the famous "chrestus" pronouncement as having a real effect on the Jewish community of Rome. I tend to see the "chrestus" evidence as overblown, and of little relevance for interpretations of Romans, but that is because most people use it as evidence of a Jewish Gentile split in Rome. Elliott sees it as having an effect on how the recently returned Jews would have been perceived socially and politically. In the case of the Roman imperial order they would have been deemed as the weak, poor because they would have had to start over whence returning to Rome, and the marginality of these returned Jews, would have called into the power of the Jewish god. Elliott surmises that the presence of a marginalized poor Jewish community would have been bad PR for the Jewish god, especially when compared to the imperial rhetoric of triumph. Paul is thus intent in his letter to the Romans to contrast his message with the political realism of the Empire.

It is definitely food for thought...

A Plea, A Post, and (im)Perium

2009-02-02T13:16:00.003-05:00

So blogging is not as regular as I had hoped. I must admit that I am not as bright as most bibliobloggers, and that the process of writing is a painful art form, that i have yet to master (and don't have much realistic hope of ever mastering). But i trudge on in the hopes that Jim West will allow me back on the bibliobloggers site (I think I was on once) even though I don't post enough for him (at least once a week). Ok I am really hoping that Brandon Wason just uses his clout as moderator and just bypasses jim's screening process all together, sneak me in Brandon! Either way obscurity is hard to maintain on the internet, so at least I have achieved something, Right.

Ok, now back to our synopsis of Elliott's The Arrogance of Nations. Now like Elliott, I too believe that the exigence of Paul's Letter to the Romans is found in God’s active purpose in calling himto bring about the “Faithful obedience among the nations” (1.5). And so begins the investigation into a series of topoi that help one understand the dialogical character of Paul's letter to the Romans.

The first topoi Elliott presents is that of IMPERIUM, which loosely translates into something like "the power or status a person or group has". Imperium was very important to Rome, as it is to any government, because in the maintenance of power the consent of weaker peoples is of paramount importance to the ways in which the powerful seek to represent their rule both to themselves and also to their subjects. Elliott suggests that because the obedience of the nations was the prerogative claimed by the Roman Emperor that as a natural consequence we must situate Paul’s rhetoric in this wider field of discourse. It is here that the categories of coercion / consent / obedience / subjection become helpful in navigating imperium. Naturally all governments, and Empires are no exception here, are systems that are always in permanent crisis of legitimation, so it is within these tensions that the rhetoric of Romans and Paul's program as the apostle to the nations promises to be fruitful.

Elliott uses James C. Scott's Hidden Transcripts as a tool in this exploration. (the Public Transcript = the direct interaction between dominant and subordinate classes and the

Hidden Transcript = the interaction between either the subordinate classes themselves, and or between the dominant classes, that they don't want the other classes to know about.) So rather simplistically (this is due to my simplifying, and is not meant as a polemic of Elliott's study) the public transcript that makes up the backdrop of Paul's letter to the Romans is essentially the idea that justice and faithfulness are the hallmarks of beneficent Roman rule.

Because this public transcript was so prevalent, Paul needed to win the hearts and minds of the Romans. He did this by offering an alternative to the official Public Transcript of Rome. It is important then that we notice a few terms and how they were used in both the Public Transcript/and in Paul:

1. Lord was a title for Caesar/Paul uses it to refer to the Messiah

2. Gospel was the propaganda of the emperor’s victories and described his accession to the throne/Paul uses it to describe the power of the Messiah.

3. Faithfulness was ones loyalty and steadfastness to the Emperor/Paul uses it to either describe ones loyalty to the Messiah, or the Loyalty of the Messiah to God's plan/promises. (here Elliott sees faithfulness and obedience as interchangeable terms).

Elliott's reading results in some keen insights:

1. Paul evokes imperial language, “Greeks and barbarians” in order to show that he will not be engaging in the “civilizing mission” of Rome.

2. Paul rather playfully rejects the honor and shame codes current among the Roman elite.

Up next...JUSTITIA

the messy work of interpretation

2009-01-15T10:23:00.002-05:00

No-one today - even for the first time - can read a famous novel or poem, look at a famous painting, drawing or sculpture, listen to a famous piece of music or watch a famous play or film without being conscious of the contexts in which the text had been reproduced, drawn upon, alluded to, parodied and so on. Such contexts constitute a primary frame which the reader cannot avoid drawing upon in interpreting the text.

- Daniel Chandler

Year in Review: Top Ten Music of 2007

2009-01-02T14:47:00.002-05:00

Ok I know I am a little late on this, but I really haven’t given all the 2008 candidates enough spins, although Santogold, Frightened Rabbit, and Cut Copy will certainly make the cut. With out further fanfare or explanation, here are the top ten albums that still get consistent play time on the ol’ Ipod.

Number 10: Menomena: Friend or Foe

This is a really good album that rewards multiple listens. Most of the tracks have strong enough hooks to keep you interested. It is an album that is always on the verge of exploding into a cacophonous avant guard crescendo, but thankfully never does.

Number 9: Modest Mouse: We Were Dead Before the Ship Even Sank

Modest Mouse is a pinch of lyrical panache fused with a dollop of Nick Cave like angst and mixed with a heavy dose of beat. This is a great album to listen to in Florida whilst driving with the convertible top down, but if you are going to be singing, to avoid strange stares, please keep this album for crossing the alley.

Number 8:Artic Monkeys: Favorite First Nightmare

Now how could I not include a Sheffield band…the Arctic Monkeys really did put together a great sophomore album. Although just a few songs still remain on the playlist.

Number 7: Bloc Party: A Weekend in the City

For me the matrix of this album is found in the title, but this is not to say it is a story about a weekend in the city, but rather the songs all find their meaning and sense through a contemplation of this theme. I still listen to this album, and it still elicits an emotional response from me, it is truly a gem. There is not a song that doesn’t resonate.

Number 6: Band of Horses: Cease to Begin

Cease to Begin is nice guitar driven music with an ambient feel that you wouldn’t mind listening to at a coffee house, yet it still has that summer anthem feel. Again another album I can listen all the way through and not get tired of it. The only downfall of this album is that it is ripe for those emerging worship services that are so keen on ruining good music.

Number 5: Kings of Leon: Because of the Times

Probably the hardest music to make the list, my kids (6 and 4) like grooving to this album, and they pick up on the strangest words within the songs. Fans is truly genius rock song with stirring syncopation you can be sure that this song will some day make it on to Rock Band, if it has not already.

Number 4: Arcade Fire: Neon Bible

Canadian’s version of a rockier hipper Polyphonic Spree, this music is worthy of a cathedral, just sit and listen to the pent up emotion in the songs and enjoy. Oh and fill your tea cups with gin!

Number 3: The National: Boxer

I love this guy’s voice. Some of this music has a Springsteen guitar feel but with much more melancholy undertones. Boxer, despite the title, is best served with a contemplative gin and tonic and a comfy chair. (you can substitute a nice scotch, if that is your thing)

Number 2: Feist: The Reminder

Just listen to her voice and I promise you will be enchanted, listening to Feist is my Pan’s Labyrinth.

And of course the number one Album of 2007 is…….

Radiohead’s: In Rainbows

This is the number one album not just because of their innovative pay as much as you like slap to the record industry’s failed business model. It is a sonic master piece that opens up and offers more listen after listen. This would be the album that I would be happy to be stranded on an island with. It is a truly rich album, and the theological ramifications of Black Swan just add to its perfection for me.

THE ARROGANCE OF NATIONS (III)

2008-12-26T14:56:00.001-05:00

Elliott's main thrust in the book is to flesh what he perceives to be Paul’s critical engagement with the Roman imperial ideology. Here I think Elliott is on to something, and so do loads of other interpreters for that matter, but what separates this book from others is Elliott's careful focus on this engagement. For Elliott the purpose of Romans is Paul’s attempt to counter the Roman Imperial Ideology and the corrosive effects it has on the Roman congregations of Christ-believers. Elliott establishes his argument by examining what he terms as Imperial Topoi (which I shall discuss in later posts).

Because in large part I agree with Elliott, I naturally am not looking for him to present a slam dunk case for his thesis, if anything my reading of Elliott helps me make a stronger case for my own reading of Romans. But even if you do not see political polemics as being key to the interpretation of Romans, Elliott at least presents it as a reasonable reading of the text and I think anyone would benefit from Elliott's presentation.

Here is How Elliott fleshes out his political reading of Romans and some of these are redundant (this is due to my presentation rather than Elliott’s):

· As stated before Elliott takes for granted that a political reading of the NT is the absolute horizon of all reading and all interpretations.

· So with that we need to look for the Strategies of Containment, or those forces in Paul’s day (and in our own for that matter) that repress certain ways of thinking from our consciousness. ( A present day example of this would be the fact that much of the western church has no problem reading capitalism back into the NT text.)

· We also need to listen to what is said in the text, and also to what goes unsaid, and we need to be willing to read against the grain.

· We need to keep an eye out for what Elliott terms, fissures in the text, (I use ungrammaticalities) or places where a unified surface reading becomes impossible, we need to notice and attend to the subterranean forces at work beneath the text.

· The rhetoric of Romans, as Elliott teases out, shows that Paul participated in a cultural transcript, drawing on the repertoires of Judean scripture and apocalyptic writing that was inescapably in conflict with the empire’s absolutizing claims of allegiance.

· Paul was engaged in the unfinished drama in which competing visions of history’s fulfillment are pitted against one another, for this reason we recognize with Jameson that the ultimate horizon of political interpretation is the sweep of history itself, we need to read Paul in this light.

· Ultimately any reading ought to unmask, unveil, and uncover the deep logic that legitimizes exploitation, especially when that injustice bears the sheen of divine patina.

The Arrogance of Nations (Part II): Voice of the Voiceless

2008-11-14T15:02:00.004-05:00

Fundamentally the key for Elliott in unlocking Romans is a particular kind of political reading (I will offer a spoiler and say leftist). If Romans is about justice (which it is), and justice is something that takes place between human beings (and that is certainly part of it), then the letter to the Romans ought to be an interesting read for just about anyone. Elliott’s off to a good start here, if he can convince anyone of this. And here is Elliott’s problem, everybody already knows what Paul’s letter to the Romans is about, and while many may concede that it is about righteousness, or justification, their definition of those terms tend to be abstract and individualized (how god makes me right with him, and then me right with others). So it is Elliott’s task to offer a corrective.

Well we (the masses) need a couple of ground rules in order to understand what justice is all about. The first rule is to reject every approach that favors the rich to the detriment of the poor. The second rule is to read the NT texts so that they address the reality of empire as an omnipresent, inescapable, and overwhelming sociopolitical reality (Fernando Segovia, not the guitar player).

So begins Elliott’s quest of explaining the thesis of Paul’s letter to the Romans as a comparison between two rules. And a quest for Paul to explain which rule is truly righteous and which rule has the power to make the world truly peaceful.

A Brief Look at Neil Elliott’s The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire (Part 1):

2008-11-12T15:34:00.003-05:00

First off if you liked Colossians Remixed, you will like this book, although it is geared more towards an academic crowd. It is a challenging read that promises to both confound as well as challenge.

Full disclosure, I am a big Elliott fan, and wish this book was published before I submitted my thesis, because I certainly would have changed some things. I love reading books that offer new answers to some really old questions, namely because they are fresh, but also because they make you think through your positions. Now my convictions on Paul are pretty loosely held, so if you are threatened by new interpretations, you may not care for this book. But I have read too many books on Paul that are a mere regurgitation of what everybody already knows, and offer very little to keep but a rehashing of all the overplayed theological arguments in Romans, just picking sides along the way. This book reminds me of one of my mates synopsis of the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ" and why it was his favorite Jesus movie...

“Because it is the only movie about Jesus where I don't know what is going to happen next.”

Now to be fair Elliott doesn’t just make up stuff, he offers good arguments for what he says, and his conclusions are very plausible. So pick up the book, it is worth it!

Apologists Needed

2008-11-05T13:13:00.001-05:00

1:03 PM (9 minutes ago)

4-1 odds on the existence of God

by David Pescovitz

Online betting outfit Paddy Power is offering 4-1 odds that God exists. So far, folks have wagered $5000 on the question. Interest has increased resulting from an atheist ad campaign on London buses with the slogan: "There's probably no God." From The Telegraph:

A spokesman for Paddy Power said that confirmation of God's existence would have to be verified by scientists and given by an independent authority before any payouts were made, however.

He added: "The atheists' planned advertising campaign seems to have renewed the debate in pubs and around office water-coolers as to whether there is a God and we've seen some of that being transferred into bets.

"However we advise anyone still not sure of God's existence to maybe hedge their bets for now, just in case."

"Paddy Power offers odds of 4-1 that God exists"

Fear and Loathing in the USA

2008-11-04T13:55:00.004-05:00

In looking forward to James Crossley's new book, and the little teasers via his blog, I can't help but reflect upon the rhetoric used in the 2008 presidential election, and wonder what poor Edward Said is doing in his grave (restless I suspect). Even worse I can not imagine what it would be like to be a U.S. Muslim, in particular during this political climate. The advertisements that bombard my "swing" state are replete with simplistic binary statements, that are designed to invoke fear of the "other" and in some cases out right hatred. Even the Daily Show, which had a segment of interviews canvassing Palin/McCain supporters about what they thought of the possibility of an Obama presidency was quite disturbing (even if these were just the edited outtakes). I was glad that McCain during a speech corrected someone in the crowd about Obama, saying that he was a good family man (does this imply though that Muslims are not), but I do not think he has done enough to stop this kind of innuendo (especially when his running mate seems, to me, to be fueling the fire). The sad thing is that nobody seems to care, as if electing a black man to the presidency mitigates this type of bigotry. I think Colin Powell said it best when he said America is better than this, but if the proof of the pudding is in the eating, I am not so sure how we Americans fair?

PROOF: Christianity reduced to being the United States' new civil religion?

2008-10-31T13:05:00.002-04:00

the cultural angst of late capitalism

2007-10-12T07:22:00.000-04:00

I am a moth
who just wants to share your light
I'm just an insect
trying to get out of the night

I only stick with you
because there are no others

You are all I need
You are all I need
I'm in the middle of your picture
Lying in the reeds

It's all wrong
It's all right
It's all wrong

Exile and the Problem of the Diaspora

2007-10-07T10:15:00.001-04:00

Exile and the Diaspora

A far more profound challenge for the exile and return motif is raised when the evidence is read in such a way as to call into question any use for the exile. More specifically does the exilic element in Second Temple Judaism(s) loose all its ability to resonate, if it is discovered that the Jews of the diaspora were not languishing in the constant reminder of national sin and thus longing for an idyllic restoration?

This new perspective of the diaspora argues that even though the Greek term for ‘diaspora’ may mean ‘scattering’, and while it has been argued that in ancient Jewish usage the term generally had connotations of ‘exile’, which was brought about by divine judgment,[1] we now know that some, perhaps most, Jews in the ancient ‘diaspora’ did not think of their location in that way, nor did all necessarily regard Palestine as their ‘homeland’ in any meaningful sense.[2] Many Jews were integrated into their respective cities of residence, and this did not mean the abandonment of active attention to Jewish distinctiveness. It was as Jews that they were involved in, and part of, the life of the cities in which they lived.[3]

The issue is often too readily conceived of in terms of mutually exclusive alternatives: either the Jews regarded their identity as exilic and the achievement of their destiny was wholly dependent upon re-entry into the Land; or they clung to their heritage abroad, shifting attention to local and regional loyalties, and cultivating a permanent attachment to the diaspora.[4] Those alternatives, of course, have continuing contemporary resonance, but the Jews of the Second Temple period did not confront such a stark choice.[5] The diaspora was not something to be overcome.[6] It was not as if pinning away for the restoration of their homeland was the single ideal which Jews embraced to remain faithful.[7] As a matter of fact, the Jews living around the Mediterranean were unapologetic and not embarrassed by their situation. They did not describe themselves as part of any diaspora. They did not suggest that they were cut off from the center, leading a separate, fragmented, or unfulfilled existence. People from communities and nations everywhere settled outside their places of origin in the fluid and mobile Hellenistic world without abandoning their identities as Athenians, Macedonians, Phoenicians, Antiochenes, or Egyptians. The Jews could eschew justification, rationalization, or tortured explanation for their choice of residence, for they felt no need to construct a theory of diaspora.[8] The Jewish communities abroad still paid respect to the holy land while standing in full harmony with and allegiance to the Gentile governments. Diaspora Jews did not bemoan their fate or pine away for the homeland. Nor, by contrast, did they ignore the homeland and become people of the book, which became a surrogate for the temple.[9] Palestine mattered, and it mattered in the territorial sense, but it was not a required residence. Just as the Jews made pilgrimages to the Temple in Jerusalem, they likewise announced a devotion to the symbolic heart of Judaism and had singular pride in the accomplishment of the diaspora. Jewish Hellenistic writers were not driven to apology. Nor did they feel obliged to reconcile the contradiction, for as they saw it, there was none.[10]

The advancement of this corrective concerning the ability of Jews in the Second Temple period to live faithfully in foreign lands is needed and welcomed. And while we agree that it is simplistic to view the various Jewish rehearsals of the biblical history of exile as automatically proof for exilic thought in the Hellenistic diaspora, it seems that Gruen is alternatively too quick to gloss over any mention of exile during the period as having any present day ramifications. When we view the use of exile as shorthand for the multifarious ideas that restoration is still future, we are able to hold together the present day resonances of exile, without the doleful picture in which Gruen seeks to eradicate.[11] It is true that during this time the Jews did very little about their desire to be free from Roman rule and create a Jewish state in Palestine. But as James C. Scott has shown us it is dangerous to interpret passivity as equal to the idea that Jews had no hopes for a Jewish state at all.[12]

The crux of the issue resides in the questions that Gruen so carefully raises: does exilic theology have to be a theology of despair, a theology of national corporate guilt, where the righteous individual bemoans the fact that the nation is not what it ought to be, that the Temple is not functioning as it ought, or that Israel is not under self-rule?[13] Could it be that a man like Yeshua Ben Sira, while possibly being content with the religious autonomy the Jews enjoyed at the time, nevertheless dreamed that the Jewish nation would regain the political grandeur it had once enjoyed in the past (whether this be described in terms of political nationalism, or as discussed earlier in terms of the eschatological end of time)?[14] In fact exile could be interpreted metaphorically as Neusner postulates, in order that an ‘Israel’ might never take its very existence as a permanent condition; rather, the paradigm of exile and return might remind the Jews that ‘the life of an Israel was never to be taken for granted but always to be received as a gift.’[15] In this manner all Judaism(s) became a reworking of exile and return, alienation reconciliation, a group troubled by the resentment of that uncertain past and of that future subject to stipulation.[16]

Whatever the term exile meant to the various Judaism(s), it was obviously still a powerful symbolic term, with a potent array of meanings. It was the type of concept that was malleable enough for the variegated Judaic groups to use in diverse ways without talking about completely different concepts. It does not follow that all Jews were waiting for restoration in a literal sense (land), and it does not follow however that all Jews mourned their national sin and eagerly awaited God’s vindication (although no doubt some did). And while the remnant theology offered a way for the individual to be holy despite the larger sin of the nation, it did not diffuse the use of the exilic narrative as a powerful narrative.

Our task in this section was to offer enough plausibility to warrant our looking at Paul through the lenses of exile and return, through the lenses of a powerful biblical and extra-biblical motif in which the ‘second exodus’ was prevalent.[17] We have seen that neither the existence of a remnant theology nor the perspective of an assimilated faithful necessarily negate the powerful symbolic images of exile and return. We have also acknowledged that not all the Jews of this period believed that they were still in exile, and among those Jews who did, there was even more diversity as to how they thought the restoration would be consummated.[18] Whatever the Jew on the ground actually believed, we may never know for certain, but there are enough texts which have come down to us, that speak of a continued state of exile after the (re)building of the Second Temple, and its subsequent destruction, so as to speak of a plausible shared cultural background of exilic thought, albeit malleable enough to speak in many different ways.[19]

Technorati tags: Exile, Diaspora, Second Temple Judaism(s), N.T. Wright, Exile and Restoration, Exile and Return

[1] See, Unnik, Das Selbstverständnis Der Jüdischen Diaspora in Der Hellenistisch-Römischen Zeit, 89-147.

[2] Barclay, "Diaspora Judaism," 48. It is important not to understand the encounter with Judaism and Hellenism as being one of only enmity. Furthermore, it follows that hellenization is not a single entity, and so if you are hellenized in one aspect it does not follow that you are hellenized in every respect. Perhaps a more nuanced view of diaspora Judaism is to recognizes that the object was not to ape Greek culture so much as to re-express Judaism within it, sometimes even with a significant polemical edge against non Jews. So Barclay, "Diaspora Judaism," 49, 51, 53. See also Thomas Kraabel, "Unity and Diversity among Diaspora Synagogues," in The Synagogue in Late Antiquity, ed. Lee I. Levine (Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1987), 57-58, who argues that over the centuries many Jews left the homeland voluntarily, just as did other people of the Mediterranean, to seek their fortunes in the centers of power of the Hellenistic and Roman world. These individuals did not understand themselves to be in exile, but rather welcomed and desired immigration as part of a new situation that was also under the control of Providence. The diaspora was not exile; but in some senses it too became a holy land.

[3] Paul R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 187.

[4] Many who view the diaspora in this way view the Jewish people as no longer people of the ‘Land’ but as people of the ‘book’.

[5] Gruen, Diaspora, 235.

[6] Gruen, Diaspora, 233.

[7] Gruen, Diaspora, 234. cf. Deuteronomy 30.2-5; 1 Kings, 8.33-34, 8.46-51; 2 Chronicles 6.24-25, 36-39; Jeremiah, 29.10-14.

[8] Gruen, Diaspora, 243; Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 Bce - 117 Ce), 418-24, also argues that the attachment of the motherland could coexist with fidelity to the regions abroad, although he regards the degree of attachment as dependent upon the circumstances of the community.

[9] A popular alternative to an exilic understanding of Second Temple Judaism(s) is to posit that the Jews where in no way interested in a territorial sanctuary or national legitimation because through the Babylonian diaspora they had become ‘the people of the book.’ In this view their homeland resides in the text—not just the canonical scriptures but in a wide array of Jewish writings that help to define the nation and give voice to the sense of identity. Thus for these Jews the diaspora is no burden, but rather a virtue in the spread of the word. This justifies a primary attachment to the land of one’s residence, rather than the home of the fathers. See S.D. Ezrahi, "Our Homeland, the Text...Our Text, the Homeland," Michigan Quarterly Review 31 (1992): 463-97; G Steiner, "Our Homeland the Text," Salmagundi 66 (1985): 4-25.

[10] Gruen, Diaspora, 252.

[11] Gruen, Diaspora, 239.

[12] Doron Mendels, The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism: Jewish and Christian Ethnicity in Ancient Palestine (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 7.

[13] See, for example, the puzzling criticism of Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness, 22-25, who bemusingly argues that an exilic interpretation of the Second Temple texts is just a ‘mere variation’ of an introspective psychologizing of Paul. Only the burden of personal guilt (sin) carried around by Paul, is replaced by the onus of national guilt (sin). Seifrid mistakenly views guilt with sin, the two may go hand in hand, but not necessarily. Why it follows that Jews of the Second Temple period who were expecting the return from exile, necessarily had to be guilt ridden seems to import the vary framework of introspective guilt on to the whole of the nation, a concept that Stendahl has vigorously tried to shed. See Krister Stendahl, "Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West," in Paul among Jews and Gentiles: And Other Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 78-96.

[14] Mendels, Jewish Nationalism, 6. Obviously there were Jews who accepted Roman rule and who were quite content with it. They may have actively supported the Romans because they believed either that God had justly deprived them of their state or that the Jews no longer needed an independent state.

[15] Neusner, Judaism When Christianity Began, 58.

[16] Neusner, Judaism When Christianity Began, 59.

[17] Of course there are those who deny or downplay the exile/return motif by offering an alternative narrative altogether. Most notably in the essay ‘See How They Go with Their Face to the Sun’ John Howard Yoder, For the Nations: Essays Evangelical and Public (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 51-78., sets out the history of diaspora Judaism as a means for God to accomplish the world mission that was impossible when Israel was settled in Judea. Thus instead of the theology of exile/return, the normative theology according to Yoder is that of the diaspora found in Jeremiah 19.4-7. The new pattern for the Jews was to live well among a foreign people, because in their ‘welfare you will find your welfare’. See also Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 242-60; John Howard Yoder, Michael G. Cartwright, and Peter Ochs, The Jewish-Christian Schism Revisited (Radical Traditions; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). For a recent biblical theology of exile that incorporates many of these ideas see Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, A Biblical Theology of Exile (Overtures to Biblical Theology, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002).

[18] This is to say that the invention of single coherent grand narrative, like Wright suggests, which controls the range of Jewish expectations during this period is probability untenable. See the criticisms ofJames D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 473-77.

[19] Certainly enough evidence exists to move forward with a reading attuned to the motif of exile and return, even if such motifs were never part of the larger shared cultural background. See also the discussion in, J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 29-33.

Radiohead

2007-10-02T05:41:00.000-04:00

I Just found out and had to post this:

This appeared on the Radiohead blog yesterday:

Hello everyone. Well, the new album is finished, and it's coming out in 10 days; We've called it In Rainbows. Love from us all. Jonny

The interesting thing is that Radiohead has been without a recording contract since their last album, and I imagine that any record label would have died to get Radiohead signed on, but when you are the super group of post rock, are you really concerned about distribution... So here is their little experiment, I think it is brill.

Two options. First you chose to download it from the "In Rainbows" site. (The kicker is You decide what to pay for it.)

Or you order the "Discbox" which includes two cd's and vinyls, a book with artwork and lyrics, and the download. Price 40 pounds.

It will be interesting to see if this is it, or if they will indeed sign a distribution deal, down the road. It would also be a great way to see what the price the public think premiere music should sell for.

Exile and The Problem of the Remnant

2007-10-01T05:23:00.001-04:00

Exile and the Remnant

During the tenuous times of the ‘historical’ exile, the proliferation of what might be termed ‘remnant’ theology was developed. It was most likely developed in an effort to make sense of the delay of the second exodus and the ongoing tribulations felt by those Jews in captivity. The theology of a remnant can be traced to the canonical book of Isaiah, especially chapters 56-66. This theology of a remnant dealt with the issue of exile through the obedience and faithfulness of a few.[1] The general thinking was that if God was indeed going to be faithful to his covenant then he would have to preserve at least some of Israel. So even though the nation experienced the punishment for her sins collectively, there was still a reason for the individual to be faithful to the covenant. A careful reading of several texts of the Second Temple period seem to point to the developing view that only a remnant would survive to see the blessings of the restoration.[2] At its core this theology consisted of this basic story: the people transgress against yhwh’s will and thus anger him; yhwh is said to destroy the godless among the people; while yhwh spares the remnant.[3]

The existence of a remnant theology has recently been used to call into question the power the concept of exile and return had over the Judaism(s) of the Second Temple period.[4] It is argued by Seifrid, in rather syllogistic fashion, that a belief in a continuing exile demands that generally the Jews regarded themselves under a corporate guilt (guilt for Seifrid is equivalent to sin) and lamented their condition; but since remnant theology insists that Israel is divided into two groups, the pious and the wicked, the sin of the people as a whole can no longer be considered absolute, as an exilic reading would require; no corporate sin, no continuing exile.[5] Seifrid essentially wonders how the nation as a whole can be under sin, while at the same time the remnant, still under the umbrella of the nation can be considered faithful.[6] But Seifrid’s critique seems to be flawed on at least two fronts. Firstly, no one who argues for a continuing exile thinks that this state is due to the Jews sense of guilt. But as the prophets in the Scriptures of Israel are fond of saying, the exile is because the nation has failed to live by the covenant and failed to be obedient to yhwh.[7] Secondly, his notion that the concept of national sin can not coexist with remnant theology seems to be a quarrel with the idea of remnant theology itself, rather than that of a continuing exile. If Seifrid is right then why did these Jews hold to any view of restoration at all? What value would they see in nurturing any hopes related to ethnic or national Israel?[8]

It is possible, of course, that restoration was simply such a strongly held traditional belief, clearly expressed in the Scriptures, that removing it completely from the theology of these groups would have been impossible.[9] There is, however, another motivation that would make sense of the inclusion of the theology. The continuation of Israel in some form, even after judgment, offered the opportunity of vindication for the teachings or 'way' of the remnant group. Elliott writes:

It is a feature of these writings…that Israel would eventually come to the knowledge that the righteous were correct all along, even openly honoring them. Since Israel was the larger unit over against which these groups defined themselves, since Israel was the group they argued with and protested against, and since Israel shared with these groups similar claims on a common inheritance, it can be seen how a fuller restoration would grant to the cause of the remnant groups an especially satisfying, and ultimate, vindication.[10]

The faithful remnant of the present, having perceived an unprecedented degree of apostasy in the nation, and having voiced its protest against the present state of things and against Israel, firmly believed that its message of protest and teaching about the true righteousness would eventually be vindicated. This vindication would not only be by the Gentile nations being brought into the fold, but even more significantly, by the ‘elect’ nation itself, as they would come to honor the remnant group and eventually join their cause.[11]

But in most of these texts, while a return from exile is acknowledged, the teaching is that exile is an ongoing condition, one that may never end in historical time. The burden of these authors consequently fits within the same framework of an exilic narrative; i.e. to provide the necessary information and consolation so that the readers of their messages are able to cope with the discouraging course of history and to renew their confidence in the God who governs and directs all of history.[12]

But even if these texts only envision a return from exile within the sectarians own group, the wide variety of texts certainly would speak then of competing groups who would view themselves as the true remnant. Thus showing that the exile and return motif was a strong way to talk about who was the true remnant, and thus proving that the motif still carried strong currency in the Second Temple period.

[1] On remnant theology see, R. E. Clements, ""A Remnant Chosen by Grace" (Romans 11.5): The Old Testament Background and Origin of the Remnant Concept," in Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F.F. Bruce on His 70th Birthday, ed. Donald Alfred Hagner and Murray J. Harris (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 106.

[2] In Hebrew tyrav or hljylp, the concept of remnant, following the usage in the Hebrew Bible, assumes that sectarians at Qumran were the true representatives of the biblical remnant and it is they who will therefore survive into the end of days. This notion appears in 4Q393 (Communal Confession) frag. 3.7, where the author sees himself and his fellow (sectarians?) as the remnant of the patriarchs in accord with God’s covenant with Abraham. See Schiffman, "Concept of Restoration," 207.

[3] See the discussion in Antti Laato, Who Is Immanuel?: The Rise and the Foundering of Isaiah's Messianic Expectations (Åbo: Åbo Academy Press, 1988), 88-94.

[4] Mark A. Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness: Paul's Theology of Justification (NSBT 9; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 21-25.

[5] Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness, 22.

[6] Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness, 23. Ironically, the idea of a remnant theology might have been the impetus for a more individual conception of restoration, an idea that suggests the covenant endured through those individuals who despite the rebellion of the nation as a whole remained faithful to yhwh. See Gary W. Burnett, Paul and the Salvation of the Individual (Biblical Interpretation Series 57; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 81-82; Géza Vermès, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York: Penguin Press, 1997), 68-9.

[7] Seifrid seems to think that the conception of national sin is highly superficial when compared to Paul’s view of sin. Seemingly setting up the continuing exile as a foil to the heart of Paul’s real thought on sin. See Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness, 22.

[8] Not to mention Seifrid’s assumption that the sin of Israel is somehow their quilt, and not their disobedience? So Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness, 22, 24-5.

[9] According to Neusner the motif of exile and return itself was a self fulfilling prophecy which all Judaic systems have incorporated, regardless of whether it ever meshed with reality. See Jacob Neusner, "Exile and Return as the History of Judaism," in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions, ed. James M. Scott (JSJSup 56; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 221-38. One of the main reasons for this was the authoritative nature of the scriptures Jacob Neusner, Judaism When Christianity Began: A Survey of Belief and Practice (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 63. Neusner posits that this paradigm of exile and return, even when the Jews in question had no experience of exile and return, tells us more about the power of religion not merely to respond to world, but rather to define the world. See Neusner, Judaism When Christianity Began, 58.

[10] Elliott, Survivors, 636. cf. 1 En. 90.30; Jub 1.25

[11] Elliott, Survivors, 637.

[12] Vanderkam, "Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature," 109.

Technorati tags: Remnant, Exile, Seifrid, N.T. Wright

The Variegated Nature of the Exilic Motif in the Second Temple Period

2007-09-23T17:40:00.001-04:00

One may wonder if it is enough to sift through the extant texts and to isolate the views of exile and return, which may not have been as important as they seem to be when isolated from their contexts, and marshal this as evidence for a narrative world view, an orthodoxy, or even an orthopraxy. The burden of describing the various Second Temple Judaism(s) in relation to exile and return becomes how much evidence is needed to maintain that the ideas of exile and return proliferated down to the ‘common people’ and were thus powerful and meaningful motifs during this time period?[1] And moreover what kind of evidence is permissible as evidence at all? It is noted that just as there is no uniform theology in the texts of the Second Temple period there is also no uniform orthodoxy of exile and return. And it is important to remind ourselves that a list of texts is not necessarily proof that such ideas ever proliferated beyond those who read and preserved those texts, but texts are by in large all we have to go on. Thus we move forward with a plausibility, noting that the Jewish sources represent a wide spectrum of divergent thinking upon the subject of exile, but a thinking nonetheless.

Two further questions that logically might seem to call into question the use of the exile as a powerful shared narrative in the Second Temple Period that need to be addressed are; firstly, the notion of a remnant theology emerging in the early Second Temple Period, and secondly the possibility of a vibrant assimilated Jewish community which would have no need for restoration.

[1] This is of course a central problem to all social histories of antiquity, not less a problem with all ‘history of ideas’ in antiquity.

Technorati tags: exile and Restoration, exile, Continuing Exile, Second Temple Judaism(s)

The Concept of Exile during the Second Temple Period: Part 8 Conclusions

2007-09-18T05:36:00.001-04:00

Conclusions concerning exilic thought

As seen from this brief sampling of texts the exile was still a very powerful motif used in the literature of the Second Temple period, although the term exile can be misleading in that it no longer refers to the initial forced diaspora under the Babylonians, nor does it refer to Israel’s displacement from the land, rather what we see in these texts is that the idea of exile had evolved into a shorthand for the complex set of beliefs concerning Israel’s present plight and their continuing future restoration.[1] Exile as non-restoration was a powerful set of ideas that were used in this period, even if they were never universally applied in any normative way.[2] In the Judaism(s) of the Second Temple period we see that the ideas of exile/return (restoration) were used in multifarious ways to serve the ideological needs of the various communities in which they spoke to. If there was continuity in the use of the exile/return (restoration) in this period it was at the basic conceptual level, namely that the end should recapitulate the beginning (the Urzeit/Endzeit or protology/eschatology) pattern.[3] But despite the wide variety of uses in this period it is evident that the basic thought structure was still used and still maintained currency with the various Jewish groups.

[1] Steven M. Bryan, Jesus and Israel's Traditions of Judgement and Restoration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 13; F. Gerald Downing, "Exile in Formative Judaism," in Making Sense in (and of) the First Christian Century, ed. F.Gerald Downing (JSNTSup 197; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 150; Klyne R. Snodgrass, "Reading and Overreading the Parables in Jesus and the Victory of God," in Jesus & the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N.T. Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God, ed. Carey C. Newman (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 62.

[2] E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 87, refers to the exile and return motif as 'Jewish restoration eschatology,' yet cautions that the expectation of restoration is neither clear nor consistent in the textual corpus of the Second Temple period and therefore one cannot refer to an orthodox theology of hope. Thus in referring to a motif of exile and return, I am speaking of a narrative whose basic outline is clear; god will restore his covenant people as promised, this much is clear, even if the detailed plotline is developed in diverse ways in the surviving literature. The fact that Wright seems to describe the exile as a basic belief among all Judaism(s) has been the main criticism of his portrayal of the exile.

[3] Aune, "From the Idealized Past," 147.

The Concept of Exile during the Second Temple Period: Part 7 The Testament of the Patriarchs

2007-09-06T05:35:00.001-04:00

The Exilic thought in the Testament of the Patriarchs.

The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs were probably written in the second half of the second century c.e. or the beginning of the third century c.e. [1] There is debate on whether the Testaments should be considered Jewish works with Christian additions or whether they should be just be read as origination from a Christian group. [2] Whoever the originators of these texts were, we can be certain that the person(s) in question know these Jewish traditions and find them useful for their own purposes.[3] The Testaments themselves are written from the perspective of one of the various named patriarchs and are meant to give the readers moral advice to follow after the patriarch’s own death so that the readers might be faithful and obedient.

Throughout most of the Testaments is a section that rehearses the sin-exile-return/restoration framework (henceforth, SER). The repetition of the SER passages serves to describe the history of the descendents of the patriarchs till the coming restoration.[4] In some cases the SER passages are expanded and employ the sin-punishment-repentance-salvation scheme that are common to earlier apocalypses, usually specified as sin-exile-repentance-return. These sections of the Testaments are perhaps the most stereotyped and contain many parallels to one another. They can be very short, and their content can be very general.[5]

The return/restoration portion of the Testaments can include not only the appearance of an anointed priest and/or king, the binding of Beliar, the return from Dispersion, and the salvation of the Gentiles, but also resurrection from the dead and life in a new Jerusalem and/or in paradise.[6]

In the sin sections much of the sin has to do with the general impiety of Israel and their disobedience to the ordinances of God, and in many of the Testaments this treatment is very short and general.[7] In other testaments the list of sins are given in considerable amount of detail and include such things as witchcraft, intercourse with prostitutes, intermarriage, the giving up of agriculture, and following the ways of the sons of Levi.[8] Many of these specific sins are often hard to match up with any known period in the history of Israel, or even in the later Christian era.[9]

The consequences for sin are conveyed in terms of conquest and in exile. Again this is either described in historical terms as the loss of the sanctuary, forced exile, and the judgment of God; or in greater detail as the Testament of Judah describes:

In response to this the Lord will bring you famine and plague, death and the sword, punishment by a siege, scattering by enemies like dogs, the scorn of friends, destruction and putrefaction of your eyes, slaughter of infants, the plunder of your sustenance, the rape of your possessions, consumption of God’s sanctuary by fire, a desolate land, and yourselves enslaved by the gentiles. And they shall castrate some of you as eunuchs for their wives.[10]

What is common to all the Testaments is that punishment always connotes a forced exile. Often the idea of exile can be explained in the pseudo-historical interest of the Testaments and the figures themselves looking to the future ‘historical’ exile.[11] Yet there are places in the Testaments that specifically warn the present and future generations about the result of these sins, so that when these things happen they will repent quickly. [12] The Testaments are pretty uniform in that repentance must take place before the mercy of the Lord’s restoration will be experienced. Though the restoration itself is hardly uniform; some of the Testaments have in view a physical return to the land in a future time and within history,[13] while others see the period of exile only ending at the eschatological end of days.[14] Despite these radical differences the time of exile and captivity is still an ongoing reality for the Testaments.

[1] H. W. Hollander and M. De Jonge, The Testaments of the Patriarchs: A Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 82-85.

[2] Robert A. Kraft, "The Pseudepigrapha in Christianity " in Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha, ed. John C. Reeves (Early Judaism and its Literature 6; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 55-86, has argued compellingly that, since the texts in question have been transmitted by Christians in church languages and survive in Christian manuscripts, most of them rather late, that our starting point for discussion ought to be these manuscripts. We should try to under stand these documents initially as Christian works, since this was their function in the forms in which they are actually preserved; they must have meant something to their original Christian readers, whatever their.

[3] H. Dixon Slingerland, The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical History of Research (SBLMS 21; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1977), 109.

[4] See Hollander and Jonge, The Testaments of the Patriarchs, 56.

[5] Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 233.

[6] Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 233; J. Jervell, "Ein Interpolator Interpretiert," in Studien Zu Den Testamenten Der Zwolf Patriarchen, ed. J. C. Burchard, J. Jervell, and Thomas (BZNW 36; Berlin: 1972), 36, notes that the Testaments take for granted that the Gentiles have a part in salvation; it is the position of Israel that leads to repeated warnings, calls for obedience and repentance, and promises of salvation.

[7] See TZeb 9.5; TNaph 4.1; TAsh 7.1

[8] See TLevi 14.4-8; TJud 23.1-2; TIss 6.1-2; TDan 5.4-7; TB 9.1

[9] Hollander and Jonge, The Testaments of the Patriarchs, 54.

[10] TJud 23.3-4

[11] There is a deliberate attempt to attach the exile of the testaments to the biblical exile. As evidence the terms for shame: ai0sxu/nh and ai0sxu/nesqai are also used in connection with Israel’s punishment in the exile cf. Ezra 9.7; Isa 29.22; Jer 2.26; 3.24f; 22.22; 51.51; Dan 3.33 LXX, Th; 9.7f.; Hos 10.6. SeeHollander and Jonge, The Testaments of the Patriarchs, 169.

[12] Hollander and Jonge, The Testaments of the Patriarchs, 249. cf. TIss 6.3-4 “Tell these things to your children, therefore, so that even though they might sin, they may speedily return to the Lord, because he is merciful: He will set them free end take them back to their land.”

[13] TJud 22.2-3; TIss 6.4

[14] TZeb 9.8-9

Technorati tags: Testament of the Patriarchs, Exile and Restoration, Sin, Exile, Return

The Concept of Exile during the Second Temple Period: Part 6, 2 Baruch

2007-09-03T12:50:00.001-04:00

The evidence for a continuing exile from 2 Baruch

The text of 2 Baruch, written after the destruction of the Temple in 70 ce, shows evidence that the theme of exile still resonated as a useful motif. In recounting the past Baruch seems to fuse all the former exiles into one general captivity (78.4). Like other biblical books before it, the wilderness is not represented as a place of judgment alone, where God has sent his people because of their sins, but it has the added dimension of a refuge for the righteous, a place where they have a mission to perform, so that the nations too can be found worthy at the last times (1.4; 78.5-6).[1] Baruch is represented as a prophet like Moses who deliberately frames his own work within the context of Moses (82.2-7). The problem that Baruch addresses is the fall of Jerusalem, which interestingly to Baruch is an example of the corruptibility of the present world (31:4-5), and like some explanations of the first exile, its destruction was brought about by God, not the Gentiles (7:1).[2] The resounding solution to the fall of Jerusalem is that since God has not abandoned his covenant with Israel, obedience to the Law is imperative if one is to still benefit from the promises.[3] In this vein the exodus is used in the same way it is used in Isaiah 40-55; as a motif to encourage the people to direct and dispose their hearts to the ‘Mighty One’ and ‘His Law’, so that in the end they will receive everything which they had lost, and much more, ‘by many times’ (85.3-6). In the end the Messiah will summon the nations together and judge them based upon how they have treated Israel (70.1-10). [4] He will then sit down in peace forever on the throne of his kingdom in Edenic conditions in an incorruptible Zion and in an incorruptible land.[5]

As one might expect in 2 Baruch the exile was a powerful motif that very well might be used to explain the destruction of the Temple, and thus the re-interpretation of the exile motif itself into a more positive experience was key to 2 Baruch’s (re)use of the exodus material. Instead of a place of judgment, the wilderness, became an opportune place for grieving and atoning, a place that provided a sanctuary for the righteous, a place to wait until their journey was completed by yhwh’s coming restoration (85.10-12).

[1] Vanderkam, "Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature," 105.cf. Hos 3.5, Jer 29.7

[2] David E. Aune, "From the Idealized Past to the Imaginary Future: Eschatological Restoration in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature," in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives, ed. James M. Scott (JSJSup 72; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 167.

[3] Richard Bauckham, "Apocalypses," in Justification and Variegated Nomism: A Fresh Appraisal of Paul and Second Temple Judaism, ed. D. A. Carson, Peter Thomas O'Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 175-6.

[4] Aune, "From the Idealized Past," 158.

[5] Despite the probability that this refers to a heavenly Zion, where the faithful will be received, it nevertheless still shows the power of the exile motif, even if the return is not to the literal land, but the heavenly land. Cf. Aune, "From the Idealized Past," 173.

Technorati tags: 2 Baruch, Exile, Continued Exile, Restoration, Exile and Return

The Concept of Exile during the Second Temple Period: Part 5 Josephus

2007-08-26T12:41:00.001-04:00

The evidence of a continuing exile from Josephus

Although the writings of Josephus for the most part downplay the historical exile to Babylon and at times over emphasize the positive attributes of how Jewish people can contribute to their alien environments, coupled with the fact that Josephus himself spent the last three decades living in luxurious exile in Rome, it is not surprising that he does not emphasize restoration.[1] Josephus, however, does speak of two separate instances where certain Jews who claimed to be sign prophets promised their followers signs of coming salvation; Theudas and the Egyptian.[2]

Theudas came upon the scene during the reign of the procurator Fadus (44-?46 c.e.), he most likely was responding to friction arising over a dispute about who controlled the vestments of the High Priest.[3] Although Josephus calls Theudas an impostor, Theudas convinced his followers to take all of their possessions and to follow him to the Jordan River where he promised that upon his commanded the Jordan river would part allowing his followers to cross. Fadus however sent a squadron of cavalry and took Theudas’ group by surprise, capturing most of them and beheading Theudas on the spot. The head was displayed around Jerusalem to discourage other would be prophets.[4]

Thaedus’ intentions of parting the Jordan river, strongly evokes the re-enactment of the first exodus, by associating their actions with the splitting of the Re(e)d Sea (Ex. 12.29-14.30) and the Jordan river (Josh. 3-4), this group may have thought they were enacting the Isaianic second exodus thus bringing about the end of the exile by ridding the Jews of their foreign yoke and partaking of the land promised to them.

Josephus’ account of the Egyptian is part of a longer narrative summarizing the events of Palestine under Felix, who was procurator from 60-52 c.e.[5] Like Theudas, Josephus calls the Egyptian a false prophet, but by Josephus’ own estimation the Egyptian seemingly garnered a much wider following.[6] Although there are discrepancies in Josephus’ own accounts of the Egyptian, in the Antiquities Josephus tells us that the Egyptian first came to Jerusalem and raises a following there, the mass then marches from Jerusalem to the Mt. of Olives, outside the city walls, and there the Egyptian claimed that the walls would miraculously fall down at his command, allowing his followers to enter, and probably enact an armed invasion of Jerusalem.[7]

Here too the Egyptian modeled his actions upon the events surrounding the first exodus, namely in a re-enacting of the original entrance into the Promised Land by the defeat of Jericho by Joshua, by claiming to bring down the walls of Jerusalem. The Egyptian was most likely expecting divine intervention to help them in this new defeat of the Romans and in ridding the land of the political oppressors.[8]

Evans suggests both of these ‘prophets’ were probably laying claim to the promises in Deuteronomy 18.15-22 that someday God would ‘raise up a prophet like Moses.’[9] The promises of Isaiah 40 might have also contributed to the actions of the “prophets” to start in the wilderness thus drawing continuity between their own actions and the “high way” of God in the second exodus.[10] Because these signs recalled both the exodus and the conquest they were almost certainly meant as eschatological signs.[11] There is little doubt that in both of these cases some sort of restoration was still pined for, and the fact that both events were modeled after the events surrounding the first exodus gives credence to the idea that a new exodus from exile must have still resonated with many Jews, for it is unlikely that these two men would have collected ‘masses’ of followers, if there was a general consensus that the restoration was complete and thus the exilic experience was over.[12]

[1] Louis H. Feldman, "Restoration in Josephus," in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives, ed. James M. Scott (JSJSup 72; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 226, 29.

[2] The account of Theudas is found in Ant. 20.5.1, 97-98; and the account of the Egyptian Jew is found in JW 2.13.4-5, 258-263; Ant. 20.8.6, 167-172.

[3] Rebecca Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 114-15.

[4] Gray, Prophetic Figures, 115.

[5] For the larger narrative see, JW 2.13.4-5, 252-265; Ant. 20.8.6, 160-172.

[6] In Acts 5.36 Gamaliel 1 claims that Theudas had about 400 followers while Josephus cites that Theudas was able to convince the ‘majority of the masses.’ This is contrasted with Josephus account of the Egyptian in JW where he claims the followers to be in the 30,000 range.

[7] On the possible reasons for the discrepancies between JW and the Ant. see Gray, Prophetic Figures, 116-17.

[8] Gray, Prophetic Figures, 119.

[9] Craig A. Evans, "Aspects of Exile and Restoration in the Proclamation of Jesus and the Gospels," in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions, ed. James M. Scott (JSJSup 56; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 303.

[10] Craig A. Evans, "The Beginning of the Good News and the Fulfilment of Scripture in the Gospel of Mark," in Having the Old Testament in the New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter (McMaster New Testament Studies; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 101.

[11] E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 171; Richard A. Horsley, Christian Origins (A People's History of Christianity 1; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 30.

[12] Horsley, Christian Origins, 29. Josephus may have used these instances to reassure the Romans that he supported the swift action taken against these false prophets, but nevertheless these ‘rebels’ were able to garner popular support precisely because exilic notions still prevailed. See Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992), 110.

Technorati tags: Exile and Return, Exile, Restoration, Josephus, Second Temple Judaism(s)

Homi Bhabha

2007-08-23T07:40:00.001-04:00

Communication is always a process

that is never perfectly achieved

and that there is always

slippage,

a gap,

between what is said

and what is heard.

Technorati tags: Homi Bhabha, Communication, Slippage, Ania Loomba

The Concept of Exile during the Second Temple Period: Part 4 Qumran

2007-08-18T09:34:00.001-04:00

The evidence for a continuing exile from the texts of Qumran.

Probably the least controversial group of texts that speak of the potency and power of exilic ideas and restoration are those texts discovered in the Dead Sea.[1] While the concepts of exile and restoration are prevalent at Qumran, they oscillate between the restoration of the land of Israel, the restoration of Jewish people, the restoration of the temple, and the restoration of sacrificial worship, and restoration to a ritual purity and perfection.[2] Furthermore it is often hard to distinguish from the concept of restoration and the overlapping concepts of remnant, eschatology, and messianism. Such fluidity found within these texts ensure that any evidence given for continuing exilic thought must admit to only being a partial picture of the texts and certainly nothing like a theology. [3]

That being said the texts found at Qumran do show that the community[4] itself may have been modeled after the exodus traditions.[5] With this insight it can be readily appreciated just how central the theme of exile was to the authors of the Qumran manuscripts. Martin Abegg, Jr. states that:

While the sojourn in Egypt and exile of the northern tribes was still reflected in the writings, it was the Babylonian exile which had captured the corporate imagination. In a very real sense it had become a new paradigm which spoke of how god dealt with his people Israel. The new going down to Egypt was the deportation to Babylon in fulfillment of God’s warning of Judgment (CD 7.9b-15). The return was followed by an important albeit unknown event which led to a lengthy wilderness wandering (1QS 8.12b-14)—the new Sinai—so as to prepare for the coming of God. The New Moses was the Teacher of Righteousness. The Faithful then waited for God to bring them into the land of promise—the iniquity of the Amorites not yet being full—and establish them in their rightful place (4Q171 1-10 ii 26-iii 2).[6]

It is possible that the Qumran community believed that it was already living in the eschaton (cf. CD 1.12), and that the eschatological salvation was, already present and able to be found by following the Teacher of Righteousness whom God had raised for this purpose.[7] The Damascus document gives the impression of a community which thought of itself as the continuing faithful remnant of returnees from the Babylonian exile (CD 7.20-8.2). By framing the eschatological beliefs in the ‘historical’ return from exile it could be argued that the community themselves thought that they were indeed the first-generation of the 'new Israel' to return from exile.[8] In fact when the Damascus document speaks of the returnees (CD 3.21-4.4) it ignores the historical return of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Zerubabbel, since in the sect’s eyes the exilic period would continue until the sectarians took control of the Temple’s ritual at the end of days. In other words the restoration is not an event that had already taken place in the Persian period, but rather a part of the eschatological future being played out already in his own day.[9] Although the texts make reference to the restoration as in the process of happening, this was still only a kind of prototypical return in which they modeled their vision of the future.[10] In this sense there was still a future element that had not yet taken place.[11] And at least for this segment of Judaism(s), as far as these texts represent a community, the matrix of exile and return was not only very powerful, but central to their own self-understanding.

Another interesting set of texts found at Qumran that speak of restoration in terms of the past exodus are the liturgical and hymnic texts. It has long been realized that because these texts do not betray sectarian terminology they may in fact have already been in use before the sect came into existence and may have been used by much wider circles of Jews in the Second Temple period.[12] One of the most interesting aspects then of these texts is that they include prayers for the restoration of Jerusalem and the ingathering of the exiles at a time when Jerusalem and its Temple actually stood and when the bulk of the Jewish people remained in the Holy Land. Clearly, this is an example of how the restoration does not necessitate purely physical conditions, but restoration also rests on religious and political dissatisfaction with the state of the nation and its religious life.[13]

In The Words of the Heavenly Lights (4Q504), which are a collection of prayers for each day of the week, we find a particularly strong recollection of Israel’s past, in an effort to stir up hope in a future restoration. The prayer itself reads as if it could be found in Isaiah 40-55 asking God to “Remember Thy marvels which Thou didst for the poor of the nations,” asking God to heal them from the sin which caused the exodus, calling for the restoration of Israel so that the nations might see God’s glory. This text looks to a time that is yet future, where there will be “neither adversary nor misfortune” but “peace and blessing.” In Zion God’s holy city, they call for God to remember his Covenant, asking him not to forsake Israel whilst in captivity, seeking God to save them from all the nations of their exile, near or far, as has been promised in Scripture. Likewise, in frag. 6 6-8, in a clear reference to Isaiah 40, God is asked to bring His people back on the wings of eagles. [14] These strong allusions to the Isaianic second exodus in 4Q504, and fragments, surely betray a strong longing for a future restoration that speaks of a still future restoration from sin and exile even at a time when the Temple stood and many Jews resided in the land.

[1] When discussing exilic thought in the texts found at Qumran it is important to recognize that despite the fact that most scholars identify these texts with the Essenes, the texts themselves betray a wide diversity of thought on a number of areas, especially that of exile and restoration. See Lawrence H. Schiffman, "The Concept of Restoration in the Dead Sea Scrolls," in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives, ed. James M. Scott (JSJSup 72; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 205.

[2] Schiffman, "Concept of Restoration," 203. Furthermore once we begin to examine specific features of the sectarian ideology of restoration in the Qumran documents it is not clear whether only the sectarians will share in the ultimate eschatological restoration, or whether all the people of Israel as a unity will be restored. Cf. The Pesher Psalms’ (4Q171) 3: 10-13 with 4Q385 (Pseudo-Ezekiel) frag. 2, 4Q386 (Pseudo-Ezekielb) frag. 1, and 4QMMT.

[3] Schiffman, "Concept of Restoration," 205.

[4] I hesitate to speak of a Qumran community here because the exact nature these texts played within the community is open to debate. Thus I speak of community knowing that any conclusions cannot definitively speak of the views held by one group, especially the Essenes, but rather may only be evidence of minority views within these texts.

[5] Frank Moore Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran (New York: Doubleday, 1961), 56 n. 36a, notes that the camp of the sons of light is ordered according to the prescriptions of the mosaic camp in Num 2.1-5.4; 10.17-28; (1QM 3.12-4.11). The Law of the camp (Num 5.1-4) is kept (1QM 7.3-7). The victory of God in the final war is compared with the first exodus (1QM 11.8). The typology of the Mosaic camp lies close to the surface in CD, 1QS and 1QSa.

[6] Martin G. Abegg Jr., "Exile and the Dead Sea Scrolls," in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions, ed. James M. Scott (JSJSup 56; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 125.

[7] On the variety of eschatological views at Qumran see, e.g., Philip R. Davies, "Eschatology at Qumran," Journal of Biblical Literature 104 (1985): 39-55; John J. Collins, "The Expectation of the End in the Dead Sea Scrolls," in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint (SDSSRL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 86-88. On the problems of interpreting the ‘age of wrath’ see, Philip R. Davies, The Damascus Covenant (JSOTSup 25: Sheffield Academic Press, 1983), 61-69.

[8] Mark Adam Elliott, The Survivors of Israel: A Reconsideration of the Theology of Pre-Christian Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 542-43, states that, ‘This could mean that the sect considered themselves later returnees, to be distinguished from those who returned at the time of Zerubbabel, Ezra, Nehemiah, or that they discounted this earlier return as entirely ineffective or incomplete, or at best conditional on the faithfulness of the returnees.’ See also Shemaryahu Talmon, "Between the Bible and the Mishna," in The World of Qumran from Within: Collected Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 48.

[9] Schiffman, "Concept of Restoration," 208. See also CD 6.11-14; 20:20-21, 32-33.

[10] Shemaryaha Talmon, King, Cult and Calendar in Ancient Judaism: Collected Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1986), 214-15.

[11] Davies, "Eschatology at Qumran," 52; Collins, "The Expectation of the End in the Dead Sea Scrolls," 90.

[12] Schiffman, "Concept of Restoration," 219.

[13] Schiffman, "Concept of Restoration," 217-18.

[14] Schiffman, "Concept of Restoration," 218. The ingathering of the exiles also features in the Festival Prayers (4Q509 frag. 3 3-5) and also appears to be mentioned in 4Q528 (Hymnic or Sapiential Work B) 3.

Technorati tags: Exile and Return, Restoration, Qumran, Secound Temple Judaism(s), N.T. Wright, Exile

Patron Saint

2007-08-16T20:43:00.001-04:00

There is a reason why Dorothy Day is the patron saint of missional/emergent/emerging Christians:

Love of brother means voluntary poverty, stripping one's self, putting off the old man, deny one's self. It also means non-participation in those comforts and luxuries which have been manufactured by the exploitation of others. While brothers suffer, we must suffer with them. While our brothers suffer from lack of necessities, we will refuse to enjoy comforts. These resolutions, no matter how hard they are to live up to, no matter how often we fail and have to begin over again, are part of the vision and long-range goal of the catholic worker.

Technorati tags: Catholic worker, Dorothy Day, Christian, Love of Brother

Why they call him a saint...

2007-08-13T16:10:00.001-04:00

Augustine's ultimate test for exegetical correctness is whether one's interpretation "contributes to the reign of charity." Thus for Augustine the imaginative empathy to identify with the other and to welcome the stranger is the sine qua non of all ethics.

-See De Doctrina Christiana 3.15.23

Technorati tags: St. Augustine, Interpretation, exegesis, ethics

The Concept of Exile during the Second Temple Period: Part 3 Jubilees

2007-08-12T10:00:00.001-04:00

The evidence for a continuing exile from Jubilees.

The book of Jubilees, written in the second century b.c.e, is a re-representation of the biblical history from creation to the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai in order to re-contextualize the narrative for a new generation.[1] The author still sees the restoration from exile as a future event.[2] A striking feature in the narrative that attests to this is set in the wilderness where the Lord tells Moses that once the people enter into the Promised Land, then they will turn to other gods and abandon the covenant (1.7-11). The result of these transgressions is exile, but the text is unclear on which exile is referred to (1.13-14). While the author of Jubilees is rehearsing the biblical narrative, it is evident by the subsequent criticisms of Israel that this return and restoration have not happened.[3] For instance in the vision of the end of exile the author states:

And afterward they will return to me from among the nations with all their heart and with all their soul and with all their might. And I shall gather them from the midst of the nations. And they will seek me so that I might be found by them. When they seek me with all their heart and with all their soul, I shall reveal to them an abundance of peace and righteousness. And with all my heart and with all my soul I shall transplant them as a righteous plant. And they will be a blessing and not a curse. And they will be the head and not the tail. And I shall build my sanctuary in their midst, and shall dwell with them. And I shall be their God and they will be my people truly and rightly. And I shall not forsake them, and I shall not be alienated from them because I am the Lord their God (Jub 1.22-23).[4]

For while the following passage reminds the readers that the return and restoration are bound up in the covenant promises of God to never forsake his people.[5] The eschatological significance of this passage is furthered demonstrated by the subsequent prayer of Moses to not abandon His people Israel (19-21). The Lord responds to Moses

And the Lord said to Moses, “I know their contrariness and their thoughts and their stubbornness. And they will not obey until they acknowledge their sin and the sins of their fathers. But after this they will return to me in and with all of (their) heart and soul. And I shall cut off the foreskin of their heart and the foreskin of the heart of their descendants. And I shall create for them a holy spirit, and I shall purify them so that they will not turn away from following me from that day and forever. And their souls will cleave to me and to all my commandments. And they will do my commandments. And I shall be a father to them, and they will be sons to me. And they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’ And every angel and spirit will know and acknowledge that they are my sons and I am their father in uprightness and righteousness. And I shall love them.

It is in light of this that the author predicts that the people will repent while in exile, not only for the present generation’s sins but also for the sins of their ancestors.[6] The return, the sanctuary, and the new ability to perfectly obey the covenant all point to an ideal future that will come about at the ‘end of time.’ In fact the surface narrative of the whole book climaxes, in the expected jubilee of jubilees, when Israel is to be liberated from slavery in Egypt and receives back the land that is rightly theirs by inheritance.[7] This return from exile is thus envisioned as an eschatological return mapped out in terms of the traditional Sin-Exile-Restoration pattern.[8]

[1] Lester L. Grabbe, Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period: Belief and Practice from the Exile to Yavneh (London ; New York: Routledge, 2000), 63; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 72, Jubilees is by and large concerned with halakhah.

[2] Vanderkam, "Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature," 103.

[3] What is interesting here is that the author of jubilees does not resort to a remnant theology, but rather envisions that since all Israel suffer together (1.12) all Israel will turn back to God (1.15-16). Cf. Martha Himmelfarb, A Kingdom of Priests: Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism (Jewish Culture and Contexts; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), 81-82.

[4] The translation is that of O. S. Wintermute, "Jubilees," in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Garden City: Doubleday, 1983).

[5] Peter Enns, "Expansions of Scripture," in Justification and Variegated Nomism: A Fresh Appraisal of Paul and Second Temple Judaism, ed. D. A. Carson, Peter Thomas O'Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 97.

[6] Gene L. Davenport, The Eschatology of the Book of Jubilees (Studia Post-Biblica 20; Leiden: Brill, 1971), 27. The author knew that the transformation of Israel’s heart had not yet taken place, for in his own day there was apostasy. What we usually think of as the return from exile had not, in fact, led to a new allegiance to God, but to repetition of the old unfaithfulness and rebellion. Israel had not yet sought God with all her heart. He had not yet truly been found by them. The author however was hopeful that in his own day the authentic return form exile was beginning to occur, that the time of God’s return was now.

[7] James M. Scott, On Earth as in Heaven: The Restoration of Sacred Time and Sacred Space in the Book of Jubilees (JSJSup 91; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 164-65; James C. Vanderkam, "The Origins and Purposes of the Book of Jubilees," in Studies in the Book of Jubilees, ed. Matthias Albani, Jörg Frey, and Armin Lange (TSAJ 65; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 22.In fact Doron Mendels, The Land of Israel as a Political Concept in Hasmonean Literature: Recourse to History in Second Century B.C. Claims to the Holy Land (TSAJ 15; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1987), 59, 63-5, states that the raison d’`etre of the book was the reconquest of the land.

[8] Scott, On Earth as in Heaven, 165.

Technorati tags: Continuing exile, Jubilees, Exile and Return, Restoration, Second Temple Judaism(s)

The Concept of Exile during the Second Temple Period: Part 2 Yeshua Ben Sira

2007-08-04T13:00:00.001-04:00

A litany of texts from the Second Temple Period can be amassed to support the interpretation that the return to the land and the rebuilt temple had not ended the exile, in the imaginations of many Second Temple Judaism(s).[1] Here we will rehearse only a few.[2]

The evidence for a continuing exile from Yeshua Ben Sira.

The book of wisdom compiled by Yeshua Ben Sira was composed early in the second century b.c.e., and for the most part it can be compared to the book of Proverbs, where its contents concern views concerning right and wrong.[3] Although, the Wisdom of Ben Sira has a peculiar text that suggests Israel still remained in a state of oppression and that the exile was still continuing.[4] In a soliloquy reminiscent of the prophets of old, Ben Sira reminds his readers of the justice that ultimately would culminate in the eschatological judgment. In contrasting the mercy of God with the justice of God, Ben Sira speaks for God stating:

He will not ignore the supplication of the orphan, or the widow when she pours out her complaint. Do not the tears of the widow run down her cheek as she cries out against the one who causes them to fall? The one whose service is pleasing to the Lord will be accepted, and his prayer will reach to the clouds. The prayer of the humble pierces the clouds, and it will not rest until it reaches its goal; it will not desist until the Most High responds and does justice for the righteous, and executes judgment. Indeed, the Lord will not delay, and like a warrior will not be patient until he crushes the loins of the unmerciful and repays vengeance on the nations; until he destroys the multitude of the insolent, and breaks the scepters of the unrighteous; until he repays mortals according to their deeds, and the works of all according to their thoughts; until he judges the case of his people and makes them rejoice in his mercy. His mercy is as welcome in time of distress as clouds of rain in time of drought (Sirach 35).

What starts out as an appeal for justice concerning those who cannot defend themselves turns rapidly into a plea for eschatological vindication.[5] Ben Sira has taken a common conception of how that nation Israel was to practice social justice as a nation, and turned it on its ear. The implication in this text is that it is the nations that bear the brunt of responsibility for the condition of the widow and the orphan.[6] The Most High is called upon as the Divine Warrior, reminiscent of the first exodus, to repay the nations and to destroy the insolent until they are judged according to their deeds. For Israel, she will rely upon the mercy of the Most High in this present time of distress. The text continues:

Have mercy upon us, O God of all, and put all the nations in fear of you. Lift up your hand against foreign nations and let them see your might. As you have used us to show your holiness to them, so use them to show your glory to us. Then they will know, as we have known that there is no God but you, O Lord. Give new signs, and work other wonders; make your hand and right arm glorious. Rouse your anger and pour out your wrath; destroy the adversary and wipe out the enemy. Hasten the day, and remember the appointed time, and let people recount your mighty deeds. Let survivors be consumed in the fiery wrath, and may those who harm your people meet destruction. Crush the heads of hostile rulers who say, "There is no one but ourselves." Gather all the tribes of Jacob, and give them their inheritance, as at the beginning. Have mercy, O Lord, on the people called by your name, on Israel, whom you have named your firstborn. Have pity on the city of your sanctuary, Jerusalem, the place of your dwelling. Fill Zion with your majesty, and your temple with your glory. Bear witness to those whom you created in the beginning, and fulfill the prophecies spoken in your name. Reward those who wait for you and let your prophets be found trustworthy. Hear, O Lord, the prayer of your servants, according to your goodwill toward your people, and all who are on the earth will know that you are the Lord, the God of the ages (Sir 36:1-22) .

In perhaps the most violent text in Sirach, Ben Sira again uses the language of the exodus this time in an effort to plead with God to enact a new exodus, ‘Give new signs, and work other wonders; make your hand and right arm glorious…Hasten the day, and remember the appointed time, and let the people recount your mighty deeds.’[7] It is clear that while Ben Sira echoes the Scriptures of Israel, it is not for the purposes of simply recounting the glorious past, but rather like the Isaianic new exodus, he seeks to evoke the traditions of the past so as to foster a new hope in these new times of distress.[8]

[1] See, e.g., Tobit 13.5; 14.5-7; Baruch 2.7-10, 14; 3. 6-8; 4.18-23; 5.7; 2 Macc 1.27-29; 2.5-7, 18; 1QM 1.3 ; 1QpHab 11.4-6; CD 6.4-5; 4Q504-506; 1 Enoch 89.73-75; cf. 4.83-90; T. Mos. 4.8-9, 13; Pss. Sol. 8.28; 4 Ezra 13.40-48.

[2]For a more thorough reckoning of the texts see: Evans, "Aspects of Exile and Restoration in the Proclamation of Jesus and the Gospels," 299-328; Craig A. Evans, "Jesus and the Continuing Exile of Israel," in Jesus & the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N.T. Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God, ed. Carey C. Newman (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 77-100; Micheal A. Knibb, "The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period," Heythrop Journal (1978): 253-79; James M. Scott, "Exile and the Self-Understanding of Diaspora Jews in the Greco-Roman Period," in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions, ed. James M. Scott (JSJSup 56; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 173-218; Wright, People of God, 280-338; F. Gerald Downing, "Exile in Formative Judaism," in Making Sense in (and of) the First Christian Century, ed. F. Gerald Downing (JSNTSup 197; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 148-68.

[3] George W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), 59.

[4] John Joseph Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1997), 23, suggest that chapter 36 was a later addition added sometime in the Maccabean period.

[5] This text echoes Isaiah 1.10-17

[6] This implication can be taken when read within the context of the eschatological fervor of Sir 36.1-22, but may simply intimate God’s universal judgment over the unrighteous, whereby he repays all according to their deeds. See Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 111.

[7] In fact it is because of the violence of this text and the fact that no where else does Ben Sira invoke wrath upon the nations, that this text is disputed. See the discussion in Theophil Middendorp, Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras Zwischen Judentum Und Hellenismus (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 125-32. But even if this text does comes from a latter time (i.e. the Maccabean period) the point still holds that the there were Judaism(s) of the Second Temple that still found it useful to invoke the motif of the second exodus in times of distress.

[8] Ex 15.15-16, Ex 7.3, Contra Gruen, Diaspora, 235, who, although he acknowledges Ben Sira’s plea for the gathering of all the tribes of Jacob, to be restored as from the beginning (36.10), he attributes this to mere echoes of the biblical texts, implying that these echoes have nothing to do with the longing for return felt in the diaspora. However, one might wonder why Ben Sira bothers to echo these texts at all, for what other end could the powerful images of the ‘exodus’ motif produce? The more pertinent question for Gruen’s thesis to my mind would be: Is it possible to long for an Isaianic like restoration without condemning the present diaspora? See next section.

Technorati tags: Ben Sira, Exile, Second Exodus, Wright, Exile and Return, Ongoing Exile

Just Look in the Yellow Pages...

2007-07-31T19:53:00.001-04:00

The following is an excerpt from Jonathan Kozol’s Amazing Grace:

In my pocket I have a card I picked up in the subway that announces what the president of the transit system has described as the new ‘gospel’ that New York will henceforth ‘preach’ in regard to subway beggars. ‘when you’re on a train,’ the card instructs the passengers, ‘don’t give money for any purpose….The best way to help end panhandling is not to give…Don’t give.’
I hand it to her and she looks at it awhile and seems reluctant to react. At last she says, ‘I’m surprised that he would dare to use a word like ‘gospel,’’
The message on the card is cleverly constructed. It does not prohibit charity but recommends an arms length version. If we feel upset, it says, ‘Look in the Yellow Pages under…Human Services.’
I ask her, ‘Do you think anyone will do that?’
‘Not really,’ she replies. ‘I don’t think that’s the purpose of it anyway. I don’t think the point is charity but self-protection. Looking into the eyes of a poor person is upsetting because normal people have a conscience. Touching the beggar’s hand, meeting the gaze, makes a connection. It locks you in. It makes it hard to sleep, or hard to pray. If that happened, you might be profoundly changed, the way that Paul was changed. Writing a check to the Red Cross or some other charity can’t do that. What this card is really telling us is, ‘Do not open up your heart. Don’t take a chance! Send a check to us and we will do the touching for you.’ That’s why I think that this is sacrilegious.
‘The message of the gospel is unalterably clear, ‘Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away.”

Technorati tags: Jonathan Kozol, poverty, gospel

The Concept of Exile during the Second Temple Period: Part 1

2007-07-28T21:41:00.001-04:00

A popular approach to the Second Temple period in respect to Pauline literature is to understand the Jews of this time as still experiencing in some aspects the ramifications of the exile.[1] Within this approach it is common to draw a bitter and doleful picture of the Judaism(s) of the Second Temple period.[2] The Jewish existence of this period is often described as both one of despair and as one of continuingly conjuring up the distant dream of restoration.[3] This perspective is often over generalized by insisting that whenever Jews were away from the Promised Land and whenever the land was not under the independent rule of a Jewish king, they would perceive themselves to be 'captive debtors' regardless of their actual status in the diaspora or in the land; economically, politically, or socially.[4] The thesis of a continuing exile has most often been applied to those Judaism(s) that found themselves in the diaspora, but recent proponents have gone so far as to declare that even for those Jews living in Palestine the experience of exile still persisted. N.T. Wright a proponent of this view, succinctly describes it in terms of worldview:

Most Jews of this period, it seems, would have answered the question 'where are we?' in language which, reduced to its simplest form, meant: we are still in exile. They believe that, in all the senses which mattered, Israel's exile was still in progress. Although she had come back from Babylon, the glorious message of the prophets remained unfulfilled. Israel still remained in thrall to foreigners; worse, Israel's God had not returned to Zion.[5]

This new twist has led scholars to re-evaluate the evidence of both diaspora and Palestinian Judaism(s), calling into question the notion of whether the themes of exile and return where prolific enough to capture the imaginations of the various Judaism(s) of this period. Thus it is our intention in this section to listen carefully to what these critics are saying about the subject of exile, in an effort to discern whether or not the themes of exile and return were still evocative enough for the various Judaism(s) to use in order to make sense of their present condition. We will further investigate whether there is traction in viewing these themes as either simple narratives of the past, thus being static and concrete, or whether these themes were more open narratives, being more fluid and open to different interpretive conclusions.

In re-examining the narrative possibilities of the exile we will look at the most recent project on the subject undertaken by N.T. Wright.[6] According to Wright most if not all Jews would consider themselves still in the exile as the quote above details, but it is posited that no ‘faithful’ Jew would ever imagine that the exile could last forever; God certainly would not allow his people to suffer under pagan oppressors without end. If he did, then the problem of the exile would have been answered in the negative, yhwh was indeed only one tribal god among many, and he had truly lost the last battle. The texts of the Second Temple Period however betray a hope, a hope based upon the ‘historical’ actions of yhwh in the past, which according to Wright predicate a future restoration. Until then Israel was to wait in faith and hope, if not puzzlement and longing.[7]

Wright explains this hope to be based largely upon the faithfulness of Israel’s God to fulfill his covenant, which would ultimately result in re-establishing the divinely intended order in the cosmos. Israel's present plight of exile was to be explained, within the terms of this divine covenant faithfulness, as the punishment for her sins. The apparent inactivity of god at the present moment to act was explained by the fact that he was delaying in order to give more time for his people to repent. The obligation of the covenant people was therefore to be patient and faithful, to keep the covenant with all their might, trusting that he will vindicate them in the future. [8]

Not until yhwh acted decisively to change things and restore the fortunes of his people would the exile come to an end. At the present time, the covenant people themselves were riddled with corruption, still undeserving of that redemption.[9] It was the prophets of old who had warned that the nation was accumulating a large onus of debts, which she would not be able to repay, and as a result she would be taken into captivity until she had paid double for all her transgressions.[10] As we have seen in the previous chapter, Isaiah 40-55 looks forward to a ‘second exodus,’ a return that in many ways would outdo the first. And despite the return of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Zerubbabel, to the land and the rebuilt Temple, there was still a sense in which the exile was yet ongoing, in which the words of Isaiah 40-55 still resonated.[11] This is evident from the speech attributed to Ezra, where he declares: “From the days of our ancestors to this day we have been deep in guilt, and for our iniquities we, our kings, and our priests have been handed over to the kings of the land, to the sword, to captivity, to plundering, and to utter shame, as is now the case.”[12] Note that here Ezra includes his own time and circumstances in the desolate period that the people had brought on by their sins. Thus it is likely that the author envisioned the audience as still in captivity, albeit in a different sense then for those who remained in the lands of the dispersion.[13] So despite the return to the land, Wright maintains that the ‘exile’, as a period of history with certain characteristic features, not merely geographical reference, was still in fact pertinent. The texts that declared a ‘second exodus’ spoke of the return from exile in a more eschatological manner. These texts remained unfulfilled, unless they are relegated to mere fanciful metaphors.

But recent studies of diaspora Judaism(s) which have sought to approach the literature on its own merits, and not for what it might have to contribute to the study of the New Testament, have concluded that the texts themselves betray a much more complex situation then the one Wright reveals.[14] These studies of the diaspora have looked at the life of various Jewish groups in a much more holistic manner, arguing for a much more sympathetic view of the role these various Jewish communities played in the wider world.[15] No longer is it effective to view Jewish existence in relation to only religious ideas and themes, rather we must take into account how these communities interacted within the wider society. In the recent research on the diaspora there has been a concerted effort to dispense with the common either/or dichotomy between assimilation and faithfulness for a both/and framework which is said to better fit the evidence of the texts in question.[16] The implication drawn from this new perspective is that the Jews would have had little reason to seek restoration, for they were on the whole content with their role in society and by in large with the status quo. So if the Jews of the diaspora where contented and contributed to the maintenance of the societies they lived in, then in what ways could the narrative of exile and return evoke meaning for them? And more pointedly does a diaspora Judaism that is both assimilated and at the same time equally committed to a Judaic religion, then completely undermine Wright’s basic thesis of exile and return? Does the conception of restoration naturally infer that the Jews have to be ‘wallowing’ in exile in order to long for restoration?[17] In order to determine whether or not this thesis can still be maintained in light of the new data, it will be helpful to rehearse some of the texts that speak of the exile during the Second Temple period itself.

[1] This thesis is of course not limited to the Pauline corpus, but to the wide spectrum of Judaism(s) of the First Century, including that of Primitive Christianity. See for example on the Jesus traditions, Craig A. Evans, "Aspects of Exile and Restoration in the Proclamation of Jesus and the Gospels," in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions, ed. James M. Scott (JSJSup 56; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 299-328; N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 126-27, 203-04; D. J. Verseput, "The Davidic Messiah and Matthew's Jewish Christianity" (paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, 1995), 102-16.

[2] I use the plural noun Judaism(s) instead of the singular noun, more for effect, as I feel the plural jars a reader into recognizing what Barclay describes as, ‘the different nuances given to the term “Judaism,” which can be viewed primarily as a web of beliefs, with multiple variants, or, perhaps more realistically, as an ethnic community whose shared symbols were powerful and enduring precisely because they were open to diverse interpretation.’ See John M. G. Barclay, "Diaspora Judaism," in Religious Diversity in the Greco-Roman World, ed. Dan Cohn-Sherbok and John M. Court (BS 9; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 56. Although he himself hesitates to use the plural noun, it is my opinion that the singular noun is unfortunately deficient in conveying the ‘web of beliefs’ that Barclay wishes it to convey, primarily because it can be read without causing the reader to question the ideas of orthopraxy and orthodoxy of the various Second Temple Judaism(s). However, Neusner’s view that all texts should be taken as evidence for distinct Judaic systems seems to be a bit extreme. See Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner, Judaism in the New Testament: Practices and Beliefs (London: Routledge, 1995).

[3]W. C. van Unnik, Das Selbstverständnis Der Jüdischen Diaspora in Der Hellenistisch-Römischen Zeit, ed. Pieter Willem van der Horst (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 89-147., Unnik gives credence to such attitudes, by stating that the very term diaspora usually connotes negative connotations of sin and punishment, both in its biblical usage and in its later Second Temple contexts. Erich S. Gruen, Diaspora: Jews Amidst Greeks and Romans (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002), 232, in a re-examination of the texts argues that this view is unrepresented by the actual participants of history.

[4] George Wesley Buchanan, Revelation and Redemption: Jewish Documents of Deliverance from the Fall of Jerusalem to the Death of Nahmanides (Dillsboro: Western North Carolina Press, 1978), 7.

[5] N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 268-69.

[6] See especially,Wright.

[7] Wright, People of God, 270-71.

[8] Wright, People of God, 271.

[9] Wright, People of God, 272.

[10] See, for example, Deut 15.8; Jer 16.18.

[11] cf. Ezra 9.8-9; Neh 9.36-37

[12] Ezra 9.6

[13] James C. Vanderkam, "Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature," in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions, ed. James M. Scott (JSJSup 56; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 89.

[14] In fairness, much of this could be due to the nature of Wright’s project: a synthesis of Second Temple Judaism in order to explain the New Testament. It is likely that any synthesis that reads the texts in order to gain a composite picture of the times, as a consequence will overlook the variegated nature of the Judaism(s) which it seeks to explain. Yet it does not necessarily follow that such a broad interpretation is completely without merit, it just may be that it only tells part of the story.

[15] See John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 Bce - 117 Ce) (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996); Barclay, "Diaspora Judaism", 47-64; Gruen, Diaspora, 232-52.

[16] See especially Gruen, Diaspora, 232-52.

[17] No where to my knowledge does Wright insist that the Jews necessarily had to be wallowing in their exile, it is rather an implication by critics, who undoubtedly fail to recognize the fallacy of the excluded middle, that to yearn for restoration is to necessarily bemoan exile.

the heaviness invovled in writing up...

2007-06-27T10:45:00.001-04:00

In the process of writing up my thesis I have noticed a significant weight gain, apparently pecking at a keyboard all day does not burn a huge amount of calories. So in an effort to not become the ire of Jim West I have started working out. But one of the drawbacks of working out is the time commitment it takes, so in an effort to redeem my time I have downloaded some Lectures from itunes. One lecture that I have really enjoyed was Cornel West's presentation of "Democracy Matters," presented at Stanford's Aurora Forum. There were times that I was so overcome by West's vision of prophetic hope that I shed some tears, now the people working out with me must have thought that I was a bit strange having an emotional experience on a life cycle, but what are you gonna do? Needless to say if you have about an hour and half of time to spend listening to a lecture I highly recommend West.

Technorati tags: Democracy Matters, Cornel West, Aurora Forum, Prophetic Christianity

Why We Need Librarians

2007-06-26T17:04:00.000-04:00

David Weinberger has an interesting synopsis of an article by Thomas Mann about the continuing need for librarians. I am not completely convinced that Mann is right, yes I think there will always be a place for librarians, but it seems like the digitalization of books and the true promise of open source learning will no doubt require new ways of efficiency in data retrieval

ZIZEK!

2007-06-19T09:19:00.001-04:00

"Are the so-called terrorist-fundamentalists, be it Christian or Muslim, really fundamentalists in an authentic sense of the term. Do they really believe? What they lack, I think, is a feature that is easy to discern in all authentic fundamentalists, from Tibetan Buddhists to the Amish here in the U.S. The absence of resentment and envy; the deep indifference to the non-believers' way of life.... In contrast to a true fundamentalist, the terrorist-pseudo-fundamentalists are deeply bothered, intrigued, fascinated, by the sinful life of the non-believers. One can feel that in fighting the sinful other, they are fighting their own temptation. So I think that a so-called Christian or Muslim fundamentalist is a disgrace to true fundamentalism."

HT: swords to plowshares: Zizek and Belief: A Lecture, A Documentary:

Technorati tags: Zizek, Fundamentalists

On Judaism and Christianity

2007-06-11T13:02:00.001-04:00

If Judaism cannot accept incarnation it is because it does not hear this story, because the Word of God as it hears it does not tell it and because Jewish faith does not testify to it. And if the Church does accept incarnation, it is not because it somehow discovered that such an event had to occur given the nature of God, or of being, reality, or anything else, but because it hears that this was God’s free and gracious decision, a decision not predictable by humankind. Strangely enough, the disagreement between Judaism and Christianity when understood in this light, while not reconcilable, can be brought into the context within which it is a difference of faith regarding the free and sovereign act of the God of Israel.

Michael Wyschogrod, "Why Was and Is the Theology of Karl Barth of Interest to a Jewish Theologian?," in Abraham's Promise: Judaism and Michael Wyschogrod, ed. Michael Wyschogrod and R. Kendall Soulen (Radical Traditions; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 216.