Sunday, November 19, 2017

Allusive Soundplay in the Hebrew Bible

From Jonathan Kline, "What ultimately underlies the biblical writers' use of allusive paronomasia to express their conceptions about God and his relationship to humanity is a belief in the power of language that permeated the world in which the Bible arose. On the broadest level, then, by focusing on the way the biblical writers used allusive paronomasia to harness language to great exegetical effect, my intention has been to draw attention to how language was conceived of in ancient Israel. In particular, the examples I have discussed in this book--which reflect the ancient Israelite scribes' view that sounds, the smallest units of linguistic expression, have the power to reveal the significance of the past, present, and future--suggest that at least some of the biblical writers viewed language per se not as a merely human phenomenon but as expressive of the character, an indeed the voice, of God, as well as of the destiny of humanity. They apparently also considered the voice of God to be able to express itself in terms of an ever-evolving tradition, one that was always rooted in the past but that could develop fresh insights (that might be more or less continuous with early ones) in response to new circumstances."

Jonathan G. Kline, Allusive Soundplay in the Hebrew Bible, Ancient Israel and Its Literature 28 (Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2016), 126-127

Monday, May 22, 2017

Centralized Temple Worship in Israel?

It is often argued that "temple worship" outside of Jerusalem was beyond the boundaries allowed by the Torah (or Pentateuch). H.L. Ellison, however, argues that this argument is relative:
The dominant view both in Jewish and Christian circles that passages like Deut. 12:5-7, 11-14; 16:2; 26:2 demand one exclusive central sanctuary is probably incorrect. A comparison of Deut. 12:14 and 23:16 (Heb. 23:17) will show that the language used need not be given a purely exclusive interpretation. Josiah' s action in leaving Jerusalem as the only operative shrine may just as well have been motivated by his feeling that only so could he finally stamp out idolatry and corrupt religion. It is far more likely that though there was a central sanctuary at which the Ark of the Covenant was lodged, there were a limited number of other lawful sanctuaries, which had been marked out by Divine appearances or theophanies. In addition there were the many illegitimate "high places". Though we know of no such theophany at Shiloh or Gibeon, we need not doubt that there had been one. It should be noted that while there was doubtless a sanctuary at Samaria itself, in the absence of any well-authenticated theophany it was never able to displace Bethel as the leading shrine of the Northern kingdom. 
It was not the building, or even the ritual furniture, at a sanctuary that made the place holy, but the appearance of God or of the angel of the Lord (Jdg. 6:11, 2 Sam. 24:16-18) had left a virtually indelible quality of holiness there--natural phenomena would normally account for the choice of "high places". This holiness persisted whether or not men continued to worship there, so the Israelites after the conquest of Canaan could restart their worship in the places where the Patriarchs had left off centuries before. This holiness was not affected by the destruction of buildings and altar, cf. 1 Ki. 18:30. The story of Josiah at Bethel and the other sanctuaries of Samaria (2 Ki. 23:15-20) shows how a holy place could be profaned, i.e. made common ground once more. 

H.L. Ellison, From Babylon to Bethlehem: The Jewish People From the Exile to the Messiah (London: Paternoster Press, 1976), 63

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Reading Scripture in Context

"When we study God's word, over time we realize that the intent of the author may be different from what we intuitively understand in a contemporary context. The more we learn about the ancient Near East, the more we are confronted with the perspective of the original audience. We learn to reflect on how God spoke to a specific people in a specific time according to their understanding and presuppositions, with their language, culture, and history in view. We come to understand that we cannot hear the Word from the perspective of the original audience if we don't explore their world--or at least have someone share that world with us. It takes work to find out the original context of a document that is thousands of years old. And then, when we do get a glimpse into the original setting, we start to see the literature and the world as the ancient audience would have. Even then, sometimes we still do not have enough information about the original context to assert a particular interpretation dogmatically."

Jonny V. Miller and John M. Soden, In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood: Interpreting Genesis 1 in Its Original Context (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publicaitons, 2012), 68