Deconstructing A Title . . .

I was looking through my Zondervan Academic catalog that arrived in the mail today and came across a title for a forthcoming book that rubbed me the wrong way.  Well, to be more specific, the sub-title rubbed me the wrong way, which made me go back and get wrongly-rubbed by the title.  I haven’t read this book yet but I will when it is released.  I thought I’d walk through my reaction to the title, however, just for the sake of discussion.

Title = “The Bible Among the Myths”

Interesting title.  Perhaps this will be a volume about the various mythic expressions and themes that are found in both the Bible and extra-biblical literature; things like angelic beings, Job’s “hasatan“, the sea-monstors of Ps 74.13-14, etc.  This could be a neat study of the various fantastical features of the biblical (especially the apocalyptic) accounts.

Another thought struck me, based on Webster’s Dictionary’s definition of myth: “an old traditional story or legend, especially one concerning fabulous or supernatural beings, giving expression to the early beliefs, aspirations and perceptions of a people and often serving to explain natural phenomena or the origins of a people etc.”  Using this primary definition of the word “myth,” perhaps this book might deal with how the various biblical narratives function as “identity shaping” material – literature by the community, for the community as they forge their corporate identity (in this case, as the people of YHWH) utilizing the grandiose and supernatural categories available in the mythic genre.

The subtitle, however, struck me as quite flawed:

Subtitle = “Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature?”

The subtitle capitalizes on the recent debate that has raged in evangelicalism over the comparative method by weighing in on the matter of whether the biblical literature can be compared with contemporary ancient Near Eastern literature in any significant or meaningful way.  While I don’t know exactly how this author is going to argue his point in these pages, it seems likely that he will emphasize the unique-ness of the Bible, either by down-playing the commonalities it shares with other literature or by centering his case around his prolegomena and showing that the bible is unique simply by being God’s word. (Note: one of the endorsements of this volume gives me the impression that this is the direction it’s going.) Either way, something important is missed.  The full title:

“The Bible Among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature?”

The sub-title narrows the word “among” in the title.  Now rather than speaking of the Bible in its human genres as one of many mythic presentations written by ancient peoples, it says that though it is among the myths, it isn’t really among the myths.  At least not unless you believe it is “just [read: merely] ancient literature.”

Perhaps I could propose a different book.  The “or” could be replaced by “and.”  Here we would capitalize on the import of “just” (which seeks to show that there is indeed something unique about the Bible) but still offer a robust approach to the very normal types of texts found in the Bible.  My proposed title:

“The Bible Among the Myths: “Unique Revelation” and “Just Ancient Literature.”

When we read the Bible, we are struck by the foolishness of it all; that God has been pleased to reveal himself in such an earthy way (cf. 1 Cor 1.23 on how the gospel itself is “foolishness.”).  And yet, when we read that very same Bible, we are struck by its majesty.  It is these very words that God has spoken.  These words are the ones that go forth and don’t come back void (Isa 55.11), these words bring an army of dry bones to life (Eze 37).

This new title would help us to face squarely some of the very non-impressive genres and style used by the biblical writers.  We’d note that in many ways, the Bible is as difficult and problematic as any ancient document.  And yet we’d come to embrace that very difficulty, recognizing that it is this very form that God was pleased to give to us and that testifies to his redemptive plan.

Of course, if we insist on holding to secondary meanings of the word “myth” – i.e., the idea that myth means “false,” “non-existent,” or “untrue” – then perhaps we need a different title altogether:

The Bible Among the Fictions: “Unique Revelation” and “Just Ancient Literature” (Unlike the Fictions Which Are, Of Course, Only the Latter)

But of course, such a title isn’t quite as snappy and starts to sound like I’m just trying too hard.

_______________
Andrew

The Uses of the Law

When the Reformed and Lutheran scholastics talked about God’s moral law (lex moralis), they taught that there are three basic uses of the law (usus legis).  They are:

1) The civil use (usus politicus sive civilis).  That is, the law serves the commonwealth or body politic as a force to restrain sin.  This falls under the general revelation (revelatio generalis) discussion in most of the scholastics as well as natural law (cf. Rom 1-2).

2) The pedagogical use (usus elenchticus sive paedagogicus).  That is, the law also shows people their sin and points them to mercy and grace outside of themselves.  In Muller’s summary, this is “the use of the law for the confrontation and refutation of sin and for the purpose of pointing the way to Christ” (p. 320).  This can be found in the Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Days 2-4.

3) The normative use (usus didacticus sive normativus).  That is, this use of the law is for those who trust in Christ and have been saved through faith apart from works.  It “acts as a norm of conduct, freely accepted by those in whom  the grace of God works the good” (p. 321).  This can be found in the Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Days 32-52.

Note: “In this model, Christ appears as the finis legis, or end of the law, both in the sense that the usus paedagogicus leads to Christ as to a goal and in the sense that the usus normativus has become a possibility for man only because Christ has fulfilled the law in himself” (Ibid.).  In other words, in both the pedagogical use and the normative use Christ is central as the one who has saved his people from the law’s demands and the one who has merited the gift of Spirit-wrought obedience.

You can read a bit more in Muller’s Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Spring Break Reading Spectacular . . .

Well it’s Friday, it’s the end of my spring break and I haven’t posted in far too long.  I’ve been too busy to contribute but Shane’s been doing some great posts to keep you all busy here at the Reformed Reader.  I thought I’d just give a list of some volumes I’ve been reading in my time off this past week (at least when not learning Syriac flashcards) and make a comment about each.

Brevard Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible.

I finally started reading Childs BT because of how helpful I’ve found his Introduction to the Old Testament As Scripture, and because I enjoy reading Phil’s blog so much.  I decided it was time to purchase and start in on Childs’ constructive work on the subject of canonical criticism.  I really can’t offer any quotes from here because it is just simply too rich to nibble at.  I’ll need to devote sustained blog-interaction to the volume, something I just don’t have time to do right now.

B. Estelle, J. Fesko, D. VanDrunen, eds., The Law is Not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant.

I was truly blown away by Byron Curtis’ contribution.  This is a top rate piece of scholarship.  Not only does Curtis draw in his more general expertise on the prophets, he has offered a complex study in linguistics, inner-biblical exegesis, and dogmatics in defending the following translation of Hosea 6:7: “Like [their ancestor] Adam, they broke the covenant; Like [the residents of the town of] Adam, they double-crossed me there” (pg. 207).  If you want to know how he got here, you’ll have to get your own copy!

Marvin A. Sweeney, Reading the Hebrew Bible After the Shoah.

This is an interesting volume, dealing with how the biblical writers wrestled with God apparent absence in times of trouble.  As a Jewish biblical scholar, he has a unique perspective on how similar questions of divine absence are asked by Jewish theologians post-Shoah [Holocaust].

Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible.

A collection of essays by Ulrich, dealing with what the biblical scrolls found at Qumran tell us about the variety of text-types attested for the books of the OT (only 1 of which is the MT).  He offers some very erudite observations of how organic the canonization process of the OT really was.

Israel Finkelstein and Amihai Mazar, The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel.

Two leading archaeologists contribute essays dealing with what archaeology can tell us about a number of phases of Israelite history.  While both avoid the extremes of maximalism and minimalism, both write from different sides of the ‘centrist’ position.  Reading the summaries by editor, Brian B. Schmidt, is a great way to quickly peruse this volume.

James VanderKam and Peter Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity.

I’ll be doing a popular-level lecture in a few weeks on the relevance of the Dead Sea Scrolls in contemporary OT studies, so I’ve been skimming through some books describing the Qumran finds.  So far, this volume has been my favorite overview, touching on the relevant issues for canon formation (like Ulrich), text criticism of the OT, and matters of whether the scrolls relate the the NT in the way that headlines often claim.  This is an outstanding, user friendly overview.  Its receipt of the Biblical Archaeology Society’s “Best Book of the Year” award comes as no surprise.

Michael S. Horton, People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology.

This final installment of Horton’s four-part series is superb.  I’ve only read a couple of chapters, but heard most of it in lecture form during my doctrine of the church course with Horton back at WSCAL.  Chapter 3, “A Liberating Captivity: The Word as Canon” is a very interesting discussion of the importance of the preached word for the church.  The relationship between orality and textuality really comes into play here.

I haven’t been able to read some other new books by Frank Moore Cross, Kenton Sparks, Daniel Sivan, and D.N. Freedman, F.I. Anderson & A.D. Forbes.  Those will just have to wait until summer.  Now to dive into another exciting quarter!

_________________
Andrew

Christianity: So Bloody Arrogant(?)!

We’ve all heard or read things like this: “To say that Jesus is the only way to peace with God is arrogant and intolerant.  To say that the truths of Christianity are the ‘True Truths’ is snobbish and condescending.”  I’m sure you can add a few more.

These may at times seem to contain a little truth.  In fact, statements like these from agnostics or atheists can shake Christians up: “Good point; what makes me right and others wrong?”  The (post)modern tidal wave of tolerance can almost sweep Christians off their feet.   So what do we do with such claims of arrogance and snobbery?

First, we have to understand that there is “no neutral judgment seat” from which the opening questions can be asked.  There is no objective judgment seat that is “over” and “above” cultures, traditions, and belief systems.   As I quoted from Newbigin before, “There are no canons of reason which are not part of a socially embodied tradition of rational debate” (p. 64).  In fact, to suggest that Christianity is intolerant is an arrogant suggestion.  The person saying as much is arrogantly sitting on a universal throne of judgment which no person has the right to sit upon.  Besides, her remark is totally full of her own cultural baggage: she has particular presuppositions and “dogmas” by which she judges all things.  Furthermore, she has not searched out every corner of every religion that ever existed which would give her some authority in making such a claim.

Keller is helpful here too, secondly.  He says that such statements are belief statements, “unprovable faith assumptions.”  The person who says Christianity is intolerant is making a religious statement with his own doctrinal beliefs.  Keller: “It is no more narrow to claim that one religion is right than to claim that one way to think about all religions (namely that all are equal) is right.  We are all exclusive in our beliefs about religion, but in different ways” (p. 12-13).

Here is a section of Newbigin that also helps answer the opening questions.

“When we point to Jesus, and to the story which has its center in the cross, we are invoking a criterion by which all our claims to justice are humbled and relativized.  To affirm the unique decisiveness of God’s action in Jesus Christ is not arrogance; it is the enduring bulwark against the arrogance of every culture to be itself the criterion by which others are judged” (p. 166).

Newbigin also says that there are two ways to use reason when discussing the above questions: it may serve autonomy and act as ultimate judge (which no human has the right to do), or it may be open, ready to be challenged and questioned and changed.  Christianity is the latter – we abandon the sovereign claims of autonomous reason and are judged by someone, something else.  In positive terms, this is the gospel killing us and making us alive.  It takes us off the throne and teaches us the “logic of election:” I did not choose to be a Christian, Jesus chose me to be part of this story.  He sits on the throne, not me.  We don’t make truth claims, Jesus does, and his truth claims challenged, called, and changed us.  The atheist/agnostic has a problem with Jesus, ultimately.   Of course we know that if one has a problem with Christ, he has a problem with Christianity.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Augustine, Pelagius, and Kids

This book, Augustine of Hippo, is one of the better biographies of the great church father (Peter Brown’s new edition w/epilogue [Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000]).  This is a longer book (just over 500 pages), but it is well worth reading for an extensive and readable account of St. Augustine.

Here’s a summary of Brown’s section on Pelagius and Augustine.

“The basic difference between the two men…is to be found in two radically different views on the relation between man and God.  It is summed up succinctly in their choice of language.  Augustine had been fascinated by babies: the extent of their helplessness had grown upon him ever since he wrote the Confessions; and in the Confessions, he had no hesitation in likening his relation to God to that of a baby to its mother’s breast, utterly dependent, intimately involved in all the good and evil that might come from this, the only source of life.”

“The Pelagian, by contrast, was contemptuous of babies.  ‘There is no more pressing admonition than this, that we should be called sons of God.’  To be a ‘son’ was to become an entirely separate person, no longer dependent upon one’s father, but capable of following out by one’s own power, the good deeds that he had commanded.  The Pelagian was emancipatus a deo; it is a brilliant image taken from the language of Roman family law: freed from the all-embracing and claustrophobic rights of the father of a great family over his children, these sons had ‘come of age.’  They had been ‘released,’ as in Roman Law, from dependence upon the pater familias and could at last go out into the world as mature, free individuals, able to uphold in heroic deeds the good name of their illustrious ancestry: ‘Be ye perfect, even as Your Father in Heaven is perfect’” (p. 352-3).

shane lems

sunnyside wa