Follow the money...

Can you imagine the health gains in the U.S. population if the half-trillion dollars in annal Big Pharma revenue were allocated to educating the public about WFPB [whole foods, plant-based] nutrition, and to making sure that fresh, organic, sustainably grown produce were available and affordable for all Americans? We can hardly imagine such an initiative; it seems utterly impossible within the current system. By why? Why, if the all-out promotion of WFPB would be such a positive thing, is it unthinkable that our society would coalesce around a nutritional Manhattan Project? Because we know that health research and programs reflect the priorities of for-profit industries, not science in the public interest. Such an initiative would pay dividends in heath, not dollars (although in the long run, the results would pay off in dollars saved on health care, too!).— Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition, page 226

It's too easy

Choosing plant-based foods over animal-based foods reduces pain in so many ways. It alleviates our bodily pain. It minimizes the pain animals experience by reducing CAFO farming. It also reduces human suffering associated with global poverty and hunger. Given all that, it’s easy to see that investing in programs that promote, distribute, and encourage the growing of whole, plant-based foods in poor countries would be far more economical and effective than reductionist attempts to solve all these problems separately, as if they had nothing to do with one another.— Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition, page 174

What about methane?

Robert Goodland, the longtime senior environmental advisor to the president of the World Bank, and Jeff Anhang, his colleague at the World Bank Group, have determined that livestock rearing contributes at least 51 percent of total global warming.

The most famous greenhouse gas, the one that gets most of the attention from the media, activists, and policy makers, is CO2. But CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, and is not in fact the one most sensitive to reduction efforts. Methane (CH4) offers a more promising lever with which to push back global warming. Molecule for molecule, methane is about twenty-five times more potent in trapping heat than carbon dioxide. But more important, methane, with an atmospheric half-life of seven years, disappears from the atmosphere far faster than carbon dioxide, which has a half-life of more than a century. So almost as soon as we eliminate sources of methane, its contribution to the greenhouse effect begins to wane significantly. By contrast, even after we stop releasing CO2, the gas that has already been released will contribute to global warming for decades.

When the amount of methane in the atmosphere is considered over ta twenty-year period, its global warming potential is said to be seventy-two times that of CO2. And methane is largely associated with industrial livestock production. This means that reducing meat consumption, the main driver of the livestock industry, may be the most rapid way to affect global warming. It turns out that our present programs, focused on carbon dioxide reduction, are mostly a lot of hot air—in more ways than one.

If this new assessment of the methane contribution is correct, the implications are momentous. I am puzzled as to why more people in the environmental community aren’t paying attention to this. Do they not want to challenge the livestock industry? Maybe we need bioengineers to figure out how to entrap and safely process cow farts. Failing this, maybe we should stop producing and eating the machines that do the farting.— Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition, pages 168–69 (emphasis original)

It just isn't sustainable in the long run...

• Animal protein production requires eight times as much fossil fuel as plant protein. • The livestock population of the Unites States consumes five times as much grain (which is not even their natural diet) as the country’s entire human population. • Every kilogram of beef requires 100,000 liters of water to produce. By comparison, a kilogram of wheat requires just 900 liters, and a kilogram of potatoes just 500 liters. • A United Nations-sponsored workshop of about 200 experts concluded that 80 percent of deforestation in the tropics is attributable to the creation of new farmland, the majority of which is used for livestock grazing and feed.— Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition, page 166

<idle musing>
And this is where theology intersects life. This lifestyle is just not sustainable. It is bad stewardship of the earth.

Dare I say it is sinful? Well, at least at the level we are doing it, I think I can say that...
</idle musing>

But I want it to mean this!

In the face of insufficient data, any judgment is weakly founded. Since the Qumran texts are the very epitome of incomplete data, caution is necessary.—Ronald Hendel in Steps to a New Edition of the Hebrew Bible, forthcoming from SBL Press

<idle musing>
Wise words! Many have ignored the perils and gone beyond the data...
</idle musing>

One-dimensional thinking

I know many environmentalists whose commitment is manifest and commendable, but stops at their lips. It’s understandable; many of our favorite “foods” (or, more properly, food-like items) are highly addictive. And our relationship with food is far more emotionally fraught than, say, our relationship with incandescent light bulbs or plastic shopping bags. But even these far-seeing and far-thinking activists are wearing reductionist blinders if they cannot see that their personal food choices matter at least as much as—and I would argue considerably more than—recycling and using energy-efficient light bulbs.— Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition, page 165

<idle musing>
Indeed! What's the greatest source of methane (which is the largest cause of global warming)? Confined feeding operations (CAFOs)!

That's right. Every time you eat a hamburger or steak you are contributing to global warming. Probably more so than using a styrofoam box to wrap the leftovers in...

Whole foods, plant-based diet. Good for the health of the person and the planet!
</idle musing>

The magic bullet that isn't

The danger of our increasing consumption of supplements is more than just the documented negative effects on our health. It’s that our love affair with the magic bullet of supplementation lets us believe we’re “of the hook” when it comes to eating right. Why eat your veggies when you can binge on hot dogs and ice cream and, if you get into trouble, make it all better with a pill?— Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition, page 162

<idle musing>
Indeed! I've heard people say it numerous times: "That's OK, I'll just take a calcium pill when I get home." Instead of eating veggies that are loaded with calcium.

Admit it. You're addicted to junk food! Now, take the 6 week challenge: Eat nothing but whole foods on a plant-based, animal-free diet for 6 weeks. I'll bet you feel better. And at the end of 6 weeks, when you try some of the stuff you used to eat, you'll be amazed at how bad it tastes. You will feel the oil coat your tongue and the sugar and salt will jump on your taste buds. You won't like it anymore...
</idle musing>

So where does it come from?

Population studies begun forty to fifty years ago show that when people migrate from one country to another, they acquire the cancer rate of the country to which they move, despite the fact their genes remain the same. This strongly indicates that at least 80 percent to 90 percent—and probably closer to 97 percent to 98 percent—of all cancers are related to diet and lifestyle, not to genes.— Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition, page 129

<idle musing>
I remember when I was an undergrad at the University of Wisconsin; I was hitch-hiking to school and a couple of grad students picked me up who were working on this kind of stuff (way back in the 1970s); they were discussing the results of their work with each other. The one guy said to the other, "I'm convinced that cancer is man-made." That's stuck with me—obviously, if I can still remember it 40 years later!
</idle musing>

On manipulating genes

As a research discipline, modern-day genetics addresses the consequences of that small percentage of disease-producing genes that we acquire along the way. It operates from the assumption that one day we will be able to locate and identify damaged genes and use that information to more easily diagnose and treat disease. However, it largely fails to consider how to prevent genes from becoming damaged in the first place. And the field’s presumption that genetic engineering will be able to prevent disease from occurring by repairing or replacing specific genes that cause disease, is the height of hubris, given the unimaginable complexity of DNA.— Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition, page 127

<idle musing>
Come, let us play God! So far, every time we've tried, it hasn't worked so well. But, hey, maybe this time, right? : (
</idle musing>

What is text criticism?

Textual criticism aims for a history of readings, extending from the archetype to the extant manuscripts. A historically sophisticated critical edition must present each step of a book’s textual history, to the extent that it is recoverable, and not rest on one step alone.—Ronald Hendel, Steps to a New Edition of the Hebrew Bible, forthcoming from SBL Press

Any chance?

I am convinced that most people simply believe what they want to believe about cancer causation and prevention, according to which way the nature–nurture pendulum swings in their minds. In the absence of a reliable answer to the caner prevention question, they fall back on personal nature or nurture biases.— Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition, page 121

and

Genes are the starting point for health and disease events; they are the “nature” part of the equation. But it is nutrition and other lifestyle factors, the “nurture” part, that control whether and how these genes are expressed. The influence of nurture (i.e., nutrition) has far more influence on health and disease outcome than nature (i.e., genes) .— Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition, pages 123–24

Roll your own

I am convinced that most people simply believe what they want to believe about cancer causation and prevention, according to which way the nature–nurture pendulum swings in their minds. In the absence of a reliable answer to the caner prevention question, they fall back on personal nature or nurture biases.— Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition, page 121

The end of the journey

At the end of his journey, Job returns to a place that is strangely similar to his departure point, the point from which his entire drama started. He stands in front of us as the exemplary pious individual who performs sacrifices for others. Just as he was concerned for his children, he now concerns himself with his friends (1:5 // 42:8). Job’s fate is restored (42:10–17)—his possessions and his blessings, his children and his social standing are not merely returned; they are doubled. The end result seems like the beginning. And yet everything is different. No one walks away from an encounter with illness and death and remains unchanged. Once the very foundations of our existence have been shaken, we no longer take things for granted; life appears in a new light. We only learn true human greatness and maturity through the encounter with the dark sides of human existence. The fact that the burden of Job’s journey did not break him is a sign of God’s guidance and merciful care.— Job's Journey, page 101

<idle musing>
And that's the end of our journey through the book. It's a short little book that definitely is worth your time reading. Highly recommended!
</idle musing>

Turnabout!

Job has been led on a long path toward conversion; he has realized that he himself was wrong. All of a sudden, however, and in a completely unexpected turn of events, God speaks once more to Job’s friends and confronts Eliphaz with this statement:

My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has. (42:7)

This unreservedly positive evaluation of Job as the “servant of God” stands in glaring contradiction to all that has been said before: Job has been judged from all sides— the three friends, Elihu, God, and even by himself—only to have God pronounce him correct in the end? This phenomenon is difficult to comprehend; it is the biggest surprise in the book of Job and demands that the interpreter bring his entire exegetical virtuosity into play.— Job's Journey, page 85

Everything? Yes, everything!

God forces Job to realize that the horizon within which he acts as creator is much larger than the horizon of human culture. The creative acts of God extend way beyond the human sphere. This becomes clear in the list of animals in 38:39–39:30 as well as in the cosmology of the first speech (38:4–38). God leads Job through the underworld, the uninhabited desert, and the region of the stars and weather. The third speech, finally, deals with Behemoth and Leviathan. Job is told that God made Behemoth, “just as I made you” (40:15), and that God plays with Leviathan (40:29). God thus operates in a world that is also occupied by gigantic forces alien and dangerous to human life. God is the lord over all spheres of creation. Job probably never dreamed of the fact that God also cares for the creatures that symbolize chaos. There is no dualism consisting of God and (human) culture on the one hand and animals and chaos on the other. The first commandment is applied radically to everything: God is lord over everything.— Job's Journey, pages 80–81

But it says very plainly...or does it?

It is not surprising that past research has left us with the impression that scholars tend to read more of their own theological opinions into the divine speeches than extract meaning from them.—Job's Journey, page 74

<idle musing>
A continual struggle, isn't it? The most we can hope for is that we remain aware that we bring our own presuppositions and pray that the Holy Spirit will break through them and give us fresh insight. And, of course, hold any opinions lightly, not tightly
</idle musing>

Job doesn't get an answer

Is this complex answer even an answer? Job had asked why God allowed him to suffer so greatly. Why him? Is this not a sign of indiscriminate use of power? Instead of an answer, Job receives two hours of natural history lessons, a little bit of astronomy, a little meteorology—and tons of zoology, as one scholar sarcastically commented. We would expect something utterly different as an explanation for Job’s suffering: information on the wager between God and the satan, for instance; or the description of a larger context of human history that might make Job’s suffering seem meaningful in the end; or at least a plausible reflection on the purpose of Job’s suffering in the course of his own life, as was presented by Elihu is his speeches. Christian readers might expect a statement of God’s com-passion and his solidarity with Job’s suffering. None of this is mentioned. Job’s suffering is not explained in terms of its necessity for the course of human history or even Job’s own psychological journey. There is no sentimental numbing of suffering as an “earthly delight in God”; no word is mentioned of God’s compassion. The mystery of Job’s suffering is not resolved. It seems as if God’s speech is anything but a response to Job. Instead, God pushes aside all of Job’s questions in an arrogant and narcissistic display of superiority. The human world is surprisingly not mentioned at all.— Job's Journey, page 70 (emphasis original)

<idle musing>
Maddening, isn't it!?
</idle musing>

The use of metaphor

The Old Testament makes use of a host of metaphorical images to describe God’s presence in the world indirectly. The most important of these “anti-anthropomorphisms” are: “Name of God,” “Glory of God,” “Spirit of God,” “Word of God,” and “Angel of God.” The specific power of these theological metaphors lies in their ability to open an imaginative space without setting clear boundaries. This intentional openness when speaking about God reveals and obscures at the same time. It allows us to sense something without knowing it. As a coincidentia oppositorum, it opens a reality to us that transcends logical bipolarity and can only be described in metaphor. The necessity of metaphorical speech—transcending the boundaries of what can be said and still give expression to the unspeakable—is a special sign of the logic of theology. An impressive image for this logic is God’s revelation to Moses in Exodus 33, where God passes him by, but also covers the eyes of the greatest of all prophets until he is gone. Appropriate theological language remains in the realm of faith and does not fall into the illusion of actually seeing.— Job's Journey, pages 55–56 (emphasis original)

<idle musing>
I like!
</idle musing>

It's beyond that even!

“Nothing earthly is able to envision appropriately God, resulting in the paradox that the God of the Old Testament is not invisible, but is also unconceivable” [“Reicht nichts Weltliches aus, Gott zu vergegenwärtigen, so ergibt sich das Paradox, dass der Gott des Alten Testaments zwar nicht unsichtbar, aber auch nicht vorstellbar ist”], W. H. Schmidt, A. Graupner, and H. Delkurt, Die Zehn Gebote im Rahmen alttestamentlicher Ethik (EdF 281; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1993) 73.— Job's Journey, page 55 n. 1

Entitlement thinking

Job does make one theological mistake, however: from his own high ethical standing, he concludes that he is entitled to a certain treatment by God. This conclusion is presumptuous on two levels. For one—this is what Job’s friends tried to show—even the best of lives falls short of the radical demands of God’s holiness and remains dependent on God’s grace. Second, Job’s arguments imply that he did not act righteously for the sake of righteousness but only with the silent expectation that he was entitled to some kind of reward. In this manner, his ethical reflection turns into hypocritical sin; it mutates into boastful pride. God reacts to Job’s ambitions of demanding his happiness on the basis of what he supposedly deserves with silence and contributes to the counseling of Job with wordless judgment.— Job's Journey, page 54 (emphasis original)

Ignore the text, then

The concept that God educates human beings through suffering, that Job’s illness is a constructive didactic measure, has moved to the center of much recent scholarship on Job. Yet there is much that speaks against advocating such pedagogy of suffering. Even if the Greek proverb that opens Goethe’s autobiography states that only a tried and tested individual can become a truly educated individual, the idea that God deliberately brings about suffering so that certain individuals may grow in maturity is more masochistic than sarcastic, nor is it justified by the text.— Job's Journey, page 36

<idle musing>
<sarcasm>Well, then just import it via your theology. Don't let the text get in your way! </sarcasm>

I know, when you state it that baldly, it's obvious, right? But how often do we import assumptions into our exegesis? Right. Continually. That's why we need the inbreaking power of the Holy Spirit, continually knocking down our presuppositions, expanding our horizons, and generally making us uncomfortable with our present interpretations of pet scriptures and pet doctrines. Semper reformandum, as the Reformers said (some say it actually goes back to Augustine [reference, please, before I believe it]). Continually being reformed; I agree, and would go further, continually being made anew, experiencing more completely the new person I am (and you are) in Christ.
</idle musing>

To whom do you speak?

The frequent passages in which Job addresses God as “you” (see 7:12–21; 9:28– 32; 10:2–18; 13:22–27; 14:13–20) are of high theological importance. This is exactly what Job is praised for in the end. Human beings can and should voice their lament to God.— Job's Journey, page 30

<idle musing>
I agree whole-heartedly! Addressing God is the beginning of theology : )
</idle musing>

Lament

As much as the idea of disputare de deo is rejected, the book of Job continues to advocate a form of speech transformed through suffering: lament as speech to God. Instead of speculation about God, the book advocates existential and authentic speech to God.— Job's Journey, page 25 n. 83

<idle musing>
Note the pronouns! about God, versus to God. That's huge! You can whine to God—the prophets do it all the time! Or you can whine about God, like the Israelites did in the wilderness with devastating results.

It's all a matter of the heart...
</idle musing>

Too true

From the ASOR Program Abstracts:

If a terracotta figurine has a head, however schematically rendered, combined with a pair of circular protrusions, however small, or widely or narrowly spaced, and wherever located on a fictive torso, however flat or oddly shaped, we are, apparently, culturally conditioned to see a female in spite of the fact that the form has no real feminine qualities, no curves or marked genitalia.

<idle musing>
Yep, and everything we don't understand is a cult object, too... (as Jim Eisenbraun quipped to me)
</idle musing>

Theology or Pseudo-Theology?

The book of Job does not promote silence about God because we cannot say anything about him. Otherwise, this book would never have been written. But the book of Job does bid farewell to certain types of theology—and we do not have to bemoan their loss: theology as the wisdom of the world projected into heaven; theology as pious reflection on a higher being that then mistakes traditional or innovative ideas about God entirely for God himself; theology that purports to communicate direct revelation from God. The book of Job distrusts and disbelieves all this to its core. Instead, it states clearly that this is not God; these are only graven images. Such fundamental criticism of all pseudo-theology is—and here we can only agree with the book of Job—not the end but the very beginning of theology.— Job's Journey, pages 24–25 (emphasis original)

God is...

Within the context of the Hebrew Bible, the book of Job thus primarily contradicts the God of justice as presented by the prophets: God, as Job shows us, can destroy us without reason. It also contradicts the merciful God of Priestly literature: we must accept God not only as the present God; he is also the absent God. Finally, the book of Job also provides, in some of its parts, a parody on the piety of the Psalms: Job’s situation transcends the options for reaching God provided by the Psalms.

For the book of Job, God is not just or merciful, yet he is also not unjust or cruel; instead God is—God. In the context of these various biblical positions, this statement is more than mere tautology, it is a critical position all its own. It is a striking statement, because it shows us that speaking of God was no easier in antiquity, with its mythically charged worldview, than it is for modern times.— Job's Journey, page 24

<idle musing>
Amen and amen! Maybe the primary reason for including Job in the canon was to let people know that God is bigger than our concepts of him?
</idle musing>

About that prologue...

The prologue of the book of Job is shaped like a fairy tale in order to prevent us from using it as the Archimedean point from which to set the book in motion and speculate on God and the world. The fairy-tale quality is not merely there as a container of content, but the form itself signals theological criticism of what is presented: the unreal perspective embodied in the prologue remains fictional and the prologue is very aware of this.

What do these thoughts imply for the theology of the book Job? We gain the impression that the book of Job, read from the perspective of the prologue, embodies all the characteristics of negative theology. All affirmative speech about God is called into question by the prologue. The prologue suspends the logic of the friends’ theology in the dialogues, it suspends the finality of the divine speeches, and it even suspends its own logic to a certain degree. The prologue thus successively lays out all possible solutions to the reason for Job’s suffering: theological speculation as contained in the dialogues, divine revelation as contained in the monologues of God, even metaphysical constructions as presented in the prologue. All these options must be discarded as solutions to the Job problem.

By using a sophisticated system of literary checks and balances between the prologue, the dialogues and the divine speeches, the book of Job does not answer the problem that stands at its center. Instead, by criticizing each of its own answers, it thrusts the problem back at its readers. This process of giving back the problem is a process of theological education that is designed to reject any objectified speech about God, which turns God into an object of reflection or projection. Who or what God may be is outside of human grasp—this is the message of the book of Job.— Job's Journey, page 23 (emphasis original)

<idle musing>
Wow! That's a mouthful. I'm still digesting what he's saying here, but the one thing that stands out more than anything else is the danger of making God an object instead of a being. Easy to do in academic settings, isn't it? It's a continual temptation to me, at least.

This is a great little book! I'm loving it. What about you?
</idle musing>

Nobody mentions that...

Whatever thoughts the friends entertain may be part of a usual repertoire of theological insights into the Job problem, but the prologue states in rebuttal: all this has nothing to do with what is actually happening. The logic of heaven is completely different than that used by the friends. It is so different that no one would even think of it unless they were given insight into heaven itself. In the light of the prologue, the friends’ theology is reduced to nothing more than speculation about God that has nothing to do with God himself.— Job's Journey, pages 16–17

That's too harsh!

I believe that we can make a strong and much more plausible case for the opposite hypothesis: the combination of the proleptic solution to the Job problem in the prologue with the later solutions in the rest of the book stands as the center of the theology of the author of the book of Job.

The following considerations provide explanation for this statement: first of all, the readers are given a unique perspective from which to evaluate the friends’ explanations for Job’s suffering, which appear from chapter three on. The friends move through almost the entire spectrum of possible explanations for the Job problem. Perhaps Job refuses to admit he has sinned, or he has sinned unconsciously. Perhaps he has to suffer because he—like all other human beings—is guilty by nature und must be educated in a certain manner. The friends argue back and forth within these possibilities. Job, however, rebels against all of these explanations, and the readers of the book know that he is right!

Job’s suffering cannot be explained by anything Job has done against God, nor is it the result of the fact that humans cannot be justified in the eyes of God. Even the idea of divine pedagogy is not correct. The reason for Job’s suffering lies solely in a cruel heavenly test, to which God and the satan have subjected Job. The prologue makes this absolutely clear.— Job's Journey, page 16

<idle musing>
Sounds harsh, doesn't it? But it does make sense of the evidence...what does it say about the character of God, though? I'm wrestling with that...
</idle musing>

It's all there, from the beginning

When we interpret the prologue within the context of the rest of the book, we realize quickly that the prologue contains important theological statements with regard to the book as a whole. The most important statement, which we must mention first of all, is: the prologue provides not only an exposition of the problem of the book of Job but also presents its solution. The first two chapters not only describe the circumstances of Job’s suffering; they also provide the reason behind it.

We must see this with utmost clarity: according to the prologue, Job’s suffering has a very simple, not to say a grotesquely simplistic, explanation: Job is subjected to a heavenly test. This is the only reason for his suffering. God performs a cruel experiment on Job; despite the figure of the satan, it is he who is solely responsible for Job’s fate (compare 1:11 with 1:12; 2:3; see also 1:21; 2:10). The text is especially careful to show that each of the satan’s actions affecting Job is legitimized and limited by God. In 2:3, God himself admits that it was not the satan who destroyed Job, but that the satan drove God to act against Job (סות Hiphil [swt]).

There is one modification we must immediately make to this proleptic solution to the problem of Job: neither Job himself nor are his wife or friends aware of this solution. Job only knew his suffering, not the book that carries his name. The readers alone have knowledge of the true reason for the blows that befell Job; and they have been aware of this reason from the very beginning, from chapter one.— Job's Journey, pages 14–15 (emphasis original)

Sure, that's true, but what does it mean?

In order to deal with ancient texts such as the prologue of the book of Job, scholars tend to refer to ancient cosmology that imagines a heavenly sphere existing above the earthly realm. The heavenly sphere can be the setting for actions and events just like the earth below. Although this perspective is certainly true, its relevance is limited. The limits lie where the reference to ancient cosmology leads to a cessation of interpretation. It does not suffice to explain the scene in heaven as merely the result of ancient cosmology and then pay no further attention to it.— Job's Journey, page 13

Not coherent. So, what's new?

The narratives examined in this study do not form one coherent story, but rather several ones with a wide spectrum of variations, deletions and developments. The unifying trait in all these widely different narratives is that they all relate to the duties of āšipūtu – sending evil omens and demons to the netherworld, moral judgement, healing a patient, bringing dead human souls to the hereafter and helping new-born babies into world. In regard to the curriculum of the cosmos, these narratives relate to the creation of the world, deluge, cosmic battle and to questions of legitimate political power. In allegorical and compressed manner, the Adapa myth told all these stories from the point of view of exorcism.— The Overturned Boat, page 101

<idle musing>
Why should we expect them to be coherent? Our lives rarely are, so why should the lives of the ancients be different? Most people's theology is created on an "as needed" basis, just like it was back then. If it works, great.

Mind you, I'm not endorsing that mindset! I agree with Socrates that the unexamined life isn't worth the living; but I also realize I'm in the minority there. And my life isn't always coherent! My life and theology are a work in process.
</idle musing>

The divine economy

Scripture is not an end in itself. Scripture and its interpretation are part of a larger divine economy; Scripture is a witness to God’s action in the world, and faithful interpretation of Scripture by the church is testimony to the continued action of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Unity cannot be found merely on the level of the text, but within the totality of the church’s life. It is reflected partially in Scripture, in creed, and in faithfulness. But this “unity” is not the same thing as conceptual neatness; it does not sidestep the partial, human act of interpretation.— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 152

<idle musing>
That's the final excerpt from this book. Next up is Job's Journey.
</idle musing>

It's by grace

The identity of Jesus within Scripture is never finally interpreted because it is textually mediated. Second, because it is textually mediated, Christ is not contained within Scripture, but is made known to us through it. Although Scripture’s depiction of Christ is part of the economy of salvation, Christ is not the text itself. And third, because the righteousness we receive as the image of God is renewed in us is simply the restoration by grace of God’s creative intent, we do not overwhelm Christ’s identity because we never cease to be creatures. The righteousness Christ gives us is his human righteousness. That is, we do not receive the divine nature itself by participating in the means of grace. We become only by grace what he is by nature.— Reading the Way to Heaven, pages 141–42

New garments

The giving of new garments also has a legal significance. The donning of clean garments was the final ceremony in trials such as judicial ordeal, and served as an indication of acquittal and legal purity (Frymer-Kensky 1977: 110). It was a general Near Eastern custom for somebody declared clear by the trial to wash oneself and put on clean clothes. In Zechariah 3:4 the angel of God gives Joshua the High Priest clean garments for his office. The Sumerian hymn Enlil in the E-kur associates clean garments with righteousness (lines 29-31): “the city which is endowed with truth, which makes righteousness and justice endure forever, where clean garments are put on at the quay” (Frymer-Kensky 1977: 111). As in the Mesopotamian witchcraft literature and medical incantations, the quay is here a symbol for detainment and redemption, a place associated with liminality.— The Overturned Boat, page 86

So that's how it works!

The Marduk-Ea dialogue seeks to ensure that the incantation of the earthly exorcist comes directly from the gods. When the exorcist declares that “the incantation is not mine”, nothing depends upon his person anymore (Geller 2010: 29). In other words, his identity is fused with that of the Divine Exorcist. The voice of the patient in such incantations is usually not heard, (s)he is a passive object of all that is happening around. He is referred to in the third person, described as “a man son of his god” or the “distraught man” (Geller 2010: 29). The selves of the exorcist priest and his patient became united and identified with the healer deity, positively transfigured and handed back to the participants. This fusion of identities becomes possible because the condition of illness of the patient was experienced by Adapa during primordial times and was a part of exorcist’s identity. This identity cohesion is reflected in a late lexical list of professions, which has fourteen different identifications for the exorcist āšipu, also including the most usual term for “patient”, ^lúpap.hal (see Geller 2010: 47-48).— The Overturned Boat, page 73

<idle musing>
So we run into Eliade's illud tempus here. According to that way of thinking, the goal of ritual is to get back to the sacred time (illud tempus [that time] in Latin) when divine activity was stronger, to transpose the current events into that time so that the power of the divinity can overcome the problems.

I've always found the theory attractive, but have also been a bit skeptical; it seems too simplistic. But, at the same time, there are parts of it that resonate with me. Of course, I always run it through my Christian theology filter...
</idle musing>

Self, meet God...

Scripture reveals not only God to us, but us to ourselves, so that we see our need for God. Due to this soteriological context, Paul is not only addressing the Corinthians in his day, but he is addressing all Christians everywhere. To read figurally here is to hear the address of Scripture as directed to the church reading now.— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 137

To what end knowledge?

For Wesley, the knowledge and love of God is the end for which humanity is created, the experience of which is happiness. The renewal of the image is induction into the love of God, and as Dawson says, love is a relation. Jesus’ glory must, for those who will respond to the gospel, have a salvific effect, but note too that “his almighty Spirit” performs this effect. For Wesley, it is not simply a matter of negotiating the proximity of two identities, Jesus’ and ours. There is even a certain crudity about doing so, when instead it is more appropriate to speak of the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit who relates us to Christ in love; the Spirit is the agent of transformation, who works through Scripture as a means of grace. Another way of putting this is that the Spirit reinterprets our identities, so that our reading of Scripture, our interpretation of Jesus’ identity, is responsive to grace.— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 136 (emphasis original)

The limits of historical criticism

Historical criticism contributes a consciousness to the difference in contexts that creates questions. The key is not to allow that socio- historically derived knowledge of difference to become absolute, a possibility foiled to a degree by the text itself. Working on the assumption of an absolute difference in context between present and past, and further assuming the “real,” singular meaning of a text was located in that past, historical criticism often tried to bypass the text as it is received in the church through reconstructions of the text’s development. But by respecting the literal sense of the text, the language on the page is taken seriously in its own right, and the theological context of interpretation is preserved, since it is the church that hands down its Scripture through history. For this reason, the canonical, final form of Scripture is taken at face value. From a theological perspective this is actually the approach that best respects its otherness, for it is in this mode that the Bible is read as Christian Scripture.— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 127

More on ANE birth rituals

In the Marduk Ordeal, Bel’s fall into the water plunged him into the annual cosmic battle against Tiamat, which took place in the watery realm of the sea or, interchangeably, in the netherworld river Hubur. This imagery is again related to amniotic fluids in the womb, visualized as a cosmic ocean in Babylonian birth incantations (Stol 2000:125). In other words, Marduk is detained in the womb of Tiamat, at the same time fighting his cosmic battle against her in order to release himself from the netherworld prison. Therefore, an unusually harsh combat was imagined to take place between the two in the Marduk Ordeal, and the period in which Bel was detained by the power of Tiamat was extended.

The metaphor of combat is sometimes found in birth incantations in which the struggling mother is compared to a warrior on the battlefield. The unborn child, surrounded with confusion, is locked behind the bolts and doors.— The Overturned Boat, page 58

<idle musing>
See, giving birth really is a battle! : )
</idle musing>

It's never the same text twice...

Texts are not inert objects acted upon methodologically by a reader who discovers the one correct meaning. Rather, texts have numerous (though not infinite) meanings, what is sometimes referred to as a surplus of meaning. A reader comes to the text from a particular point, with questions, and this stimulates the interpretive process that births meaning. The inexhaustible nature of a text, its polysemy, permits continued rereadings, the occasion for which is created by the context of the reader. After all, as Eco notes, the background of the reader is typically different than the author’s, but this can be the fertile ground that raises new questions that drive rereadings.— Reading the Way to Heaven, pages 125–26 (emphasis original)

New blog from SBL Press

SBL Press has started a blog with recommended changes to SBLHS2. If you are a copyeditor, or an author, this would be a good blog to follow. Here's the URL:
https://sblhs2.com/.

Shameless plug:
I am maintaining a list of abbreviation updates here. Yes, I'm behind in answering a query. I hope to get that taken care of this week...

Further shameless plug: Here's the table of contents for all the copyediting stuff.

The womb as tomb

I'm in the process of reading The Overturned Boat right now. I wasn't aware of the following:

Birth incantations aid the woman in labour to break free the “boat” from the darkness of womb, to wash out the baby bound by the umbilical cord to the “quay of death” (Stol 2000: 69). The following recitation is intended for a woman having difficulty in giving birth:

The boat is detained at the quay of death; the magurru boat is held back at the quay of hardship. ... May it come out from hardship; [may it see] the sun (Scurlock 2014: 601, half brackets omitted).

The association between the drowning boat and dying woman was used in scientific texts, e.g. in the apodosis of an Old Babylonian liver omen: “the full(y loaded) boat will sink; or: the pregnant woman will die in her giving birth” (Stol 2000: 62). Therefore the unborn baby in the womb that was too voluminous to be delivered could be regarded as being fatally locked in the netherworld prison, failing to find its way out from the amniotic fluids. Nobody except the divine exorcist Asalluhi could see what was inside of these waters (Frymer-Kensky 1977: 603). In the following Old Babylonian incantation, the locks and doors are broken down to let the baby out:

In the waters of intercourse, the bone was created; in the flesh of muscles, the baby was created. In the ocean waters, fearsome, raging, in the far-off waters of the sea: where the little one is – his arms are bound, inside which the eye of the sun does not bring light. Asalluhi, the son of Enki, saw him. He loosed his tight-bound bonds, he made him a path, he opened him a way: “Opened are the paths for you, the ways are [alo]tted for you. The [divine mid]wife is sitting for you, she who creates [...], she who creates us all. She has spoken to the doorbolt: ‘You are released’. Removed are the locks, the doors are thrown aside. Let him knock at [the door], like a fish (dadum), bring yourself out!”

Those who are not released are detained in the ordeal prison, which prevents them to advance to the world of the living. In the Maqlû incantations the terms “ford, entrance” (nēberu) and “quay” (kāru) are used for such places of detention. The exorcist binds the witches and their sorceries to remain there (I 50-51):

Incantation: I have blocked the ford, I have blocked the quay, I have blocked their sorceries (coming) from all the lands!

The exorcist intends to prevent the entrance of the witches to the world of the living, leaving them eternally blocked on the “quay of death”. The opposite is the case in exorcistic birth incantations where the child is expected to become delivered from the “quay of hardship” to the world of the living (BAM 248 I 44-50):

“The boat is detained [at the quay] of narrowness (pušqi), the magurru-boat is held back [at the quay] of hardship. [Whom should I] send to merciful Marduk? May the boat be loosed [from the quay] of difficulty, may the magurru-boat be freed [from the quay] of hardship. [Come out to me] like a snake; slither out to me like a snake. May the woman having difficulty having birth bring (her pregnancy) to term so that the infant may fall to the earth and see the sunlight” (Scurlock 2014: 595, 601).

In comparison to Maqlû passage, the birth incantations intend to achieve just the opposite – to release the unborn bodies from the “quay”. The same Akkadian verb for “holding back” (kalû) is used in both contexts. This difference is related to the positive and negative outcomes in the reintegration stage that is crucial for the Self going through a religious experience. While child’s birth assures the positive integration of the Self from the point of view of a healthy mother and her baby, the witches and demons experience a failure in their binding process and remain stuck at the quay of death, unable to leave the netherworld.— The Overturned Boat, pages 52–53

<idle musing>
Fascinating, isn't it? This is a very interesting book, if you are into ANE religion, that is. Some of the stuff is highly speculative and reminds me somewhat of reading the early 20th century history of religions—which I love to read, but take with a pound of salt : )

Anyway, here's the details on the book:

The Overturned Boat
Intertextuality of the Adapa Myth and Exorcist Literature
State Archives of Assyria Studies - SAAS 24
by Amar Annus
Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project - NATCP, 2016
Pp. xii + 148, English
Paper, 17.5 x 25 cm
ISBN: 9789521094910
Your Price: $59.00
www.eisenbrauns.com/item/ANNOVERTU

Now it's off to clean a few cabins...
</idle musing>

Just how polysemious is that text?

Is that even a word? Oh well, here's some good insight into answering the question:

I tap Eco for a variety of reasons. He was among the first theorists to emphasize the reader in a clearly postmodern way, but unlike more radical reader-response theories, he contends it is the text that is interpreted, not the reader’s drives. As a result, Eco is able to account for the potential multiple interpretations of a text, and provides a moderate postmodern theory that allows for textual polysemy without capitulating to the idea that texts can be made to say whatever the reader wants.— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 120–21

<idle musing>
I like that...
</idle musing>

To what end scriptural interpretation?

With the ruled nature of the literal sense in mind we can note, secondly, that interpreting Scripture—again, a means of grace—is not something done for its own sake, but to achieve a particular end. All of Scripture for Wesley participates in a message; it has a general tenor summarized in the analogy of faith. As a result, the point of interpretation is not to understand the text itself, but to understand through the text.— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 94

<idle musing>
A point that needs to be remembered by people like me. I too often get so lost in the text and what it might mean—the possible interpretations, the textual variants, the intertextual references, and on and on we go&mdasah;to the point of missing the heart of the text: to know God.
</idle musing>

The language of...

[Paul Holmer [The Grammar of Faith, 62–68, 90] argues that the desire of theologians for systematic concepts that are more precise than ordinary religious language causes them to create a scientific language, a language of learning that is at a remove; it is a language “about” religious belief. Religious language, on the other hand, is a language “of”; it is the language of faith requiring self-involvement. Concepts in the scientific sense move away from lived faith into something abstract and neutral, but concepts in the religious sense help mediate faith, aiding believers in faithful living.— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 94

How do you read scripture?

Following Protestant tradition, Wesley adhered to the primacy of the literal sense, unless tensions in the text demanded something else; at that point he would allow a “spiritual” or allegorical, reading to circumvent the problem. However, in his soteriological reading of Scripture, Wesley is constantly interpreting with an eye to how Scripture converts and sanctifies.— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 93

<idle musing>
In other words, his hermeneutic was one of holiness. I like that, myself. I might phrase it a bit differently, but the substance would be the same. Maybe that's why I identify the most with the Holiness tradition (at its best, without the legalism that too often accompanies it).
</idle musing>

Scripture as a means of grace

Scripture is therefore open to all persons seeking salvation through it because it is through Scripture that God addresses them. As a means of grace the literal sense of Scripture is the instrument by which the God who is creator of all reveals both who he is and who humanity is as well. The analogy of faith is obviously at work here, and it orients, or patterns, Wesley’s attention to the text in a way that allows him to see connections of divine intent throughout the Bible. Of course, Wesley also learns to see these connections from Scripture itself, as his commentary on Rom 9 shows. This intent is to save humanity from sin and lead it on the path of sanctification. The literal sense is thus the sense of the Bible pro nobis.— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 92

Leaders better watch out!

"The proper role of the leaders is to obediently carry out YHWH’s instructions according to the divine plan (see esp. Exod 39:32, 43; 40:33b) and witness to what YHWH is doing for the Israelites as he unfolds his covenant promise to be their God (see esp. Exod 16:6–7, 9, 15; Num 14:7, 9*). As long as they exercise this role in a proper manner they are the true leaders of the nation. However, if they do not, by not witnessing to YHWH and his holiness but seeking to take his place in relation to the people, blocking the knowledge of YHWH from them, they are not the true leaders of the nation and they will lose their leadership. However, even if Israel’s leadership is disobedient YHWH will still provide for the nation. Such leaders will be obliterated but the divine plan will still unfold, and YHWH will ensure that there will be subsequent leaders in terms of the high priests of the Aaronic priesthood (symbolized in the transference of Aaron’s clothing to his son Eleazar), so that this can occur, with each one judged in similar terms. If he is obedient to YHWH and witnesses to YHWH by mediating the presence of YHWH (as symbolized in his garments) he will remain leader; but if he blocks the knowledge of YHWH by not exercising correctly his priestly duties, he too will be stripped of his leadership."—Suzanne Boorer, forthcoming from SBL Press

What's the literal meaning?

For Wesley the literal sense of Scripture is its soteriological sense. When Wesley reads Scripture, he does so assuming that all of it contributes to the economy of salvation, as was evident in the way he could bring various texts throughout Scripture to bear on a particular theme in the sermons.— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 92

<idle musing>
But I think it is only fair to say that for Wesley, soteriology was more than just salvation as we understand it today. To him, sanctification was as much a part of soteriology as justification. There was no dichotomy in his theology between them.
</idle musing>

How to read the Psalms

What is interesting is that Wesley does not merely read the verses [of Ps 22] that show up in the New Testament christologically; he sees the entire psalm as a consistently christological text, complete with an evangelical message. Wesley assumes the Old Testament is to be read as part of the Christian canon, without question, because even there the Gospel is plainly evident. The upshot is that without the Old Testament, the New Testament would be unintelligible for Wesley.— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 91

What? A sea monster?!

"Reference to the תנין [tannin] as the sea monster or sea dragon often occurs in Hebrew texts in the context of creation imagery (e.g., Isa 51:9; Job 7:12; Ps 74:13); the תנין [tannin] represents the forces of chaos and is that which is defeated to bring about the cosmic act of creation. The cosmic dimension of this sign is reinforced when considered in relation to Egyptian mythology and culture. As Scott Noegel has argued, the serpent had cosmic import in Egyptian mythology in that Apophis, the giant serpent, was the divine enemy of Ra whom Ra would battle as he made his circuit through the underworld. Therefore, whether viewed from a Hebrew or Egyptian perspective, the action of throwing down the staff and transforming it into a תנין [tannin] has cosmic creation overtones. Moreover, the association of תנין [tannin] with chaos suggests that this sign of throwing down the staff to become a תנין [tannin] has to do with having the power to control or direct chaos, including unleashing it."—Suzanne Boorer, forthcoming from SBL Press

There's that dichotomy again

Whereas the literal sense, history, and meaning were coterminous in premodern interpretation, in modernism they became sundered, with the result that the words of Scripture became secondary as exegetes began to seek the world “behind” the text in reconstructed events and authorial intentions, or to locate meaning in dogmatic or scientific concepts.— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 71

<idle musing>
Don't get me wrong, I love digging into the background; I'm a knowledge junkie! But too often the background knowledge can cause us to disconnect—rather than connect—that knowledge from practical application to our own life. Therein lies the danger—to which I have succumbed far too often.

I suspect the phrase, "second naïveté" is meant to address this gap...
</idle musing>

Analogy of faith

Today a biblical scholar might balk at bringing 1 John to bear on the Genesis narrative for fear of doing violence to the voice of Genesis, at least not without qualification, but Wesley assumes a natural connection. Reference to Matthew while considering a point in Genesis creates no problems for Wesley precisely because they are all part of the same gospel. To be even more specific, the analogy of faith dictates that all of these verses can be brought to bear on the image of God in humanity because all—Genesis, Matthew, 1 John and so on—together witness to the truth of justification by faith. Why? Because God has authored both the Scripture that teaches justification as well as the lives whose need for salvation Scripture reveals by its teaching on justification.— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 64

How it all works

Without God’s gracious movement toward us, we would be dead in sin. Since God has so moved, the means of grace are the channels through which we can participate in the divine life opened to us.— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 57

It's not static!

[J]ustification is what God does for us, removing the guilt of sin; whereas new birth, or regeneration, is what God does in us, renewing our fallen nature. Salvation for Wesley is thus a recovery of the divine image within the heart, also known for him as the kingdom of God, allowing humanity to again experience the knowledge and love of God, which leads to love of neighbor.

Redeemed humanity is therefore set on the path of sanctification, as God’s grace continually renews persons who repent and do good works. For Wesley, participation in this graced life is called holiness, As Langford says, in Wesley’s theology “a static condition of salvation was set aside in favor of a dynamic, moment-by-moment relationship with God.” The culmination of this journey is Christian perfection, where the love of God is perfectly shed abroad within the heart, and sanctified persons fully lay hold of the life for which they were created.— Reading the Way to Heaven, pages 55–56

Summary of "deponent" verbs

Changing our categorization of -(θ)η- from the analogous English counterpart (passive) to a typologically attested middle form alters our view of Greek voice. Instead of seeing it as a passive marker with defective active outliers in an active-passive system, -(θ)η- is rightly treated as marking the less-transitive middle events—including passives—within a larger transitivity continuum in an active-middle system. The middle share of the space divides the labor across two morphological forms in the aorist and future compared to one in the present and perfect.—Rachel Aubrey in The Greek Verb Revisited

Middle voice (yes, in Greek)

Middle voice merges the energy source and energy endpoint into one participant. Instead of shifting between two participants to see the effects of the action, the middle gives undivided attention to the energy endpoint. This effectively increases its salience for the event construal. What happens to the affected participant is the most salient for our understanding of the event.—Rachel Aubrey in The Greek Verb Revisited

About those "deponent" verbs...

When -(θ)η- was first integrated into the aorist, it involved not just a change or affectedness for the subject, but a complete change of state. If we look back at the two predicate types involved, this includes the telic-transformative lexemes as well as the state predicates. It is this relationship between change-of-state/telicity with the perfective aspect of the aorist that defines the -(θ)η- in contrast with the other middle inflectional forms. The aorist perfective aspect aids in this process because it expresses the fulfillment of that change, so that the new state is fully reached or totally complete. If a middle form is used in the present stem (imperfective), it indicates that the subject is undergoing change but it does so as a progressive reaching of the state so that the change is not fully reached. This is a difference between ἐτήκετο “it was melting” in the imperfect and ἐτάκη “it melted” in the aorist. When used with the -(θ)η- aorist stem, the change is fully complete.—Rachel Aubrey in The Greek Verb Revisited

Nice, but what does it do?

It [prevenient grace] restores 1) a basic knowledge of God, 2) the moral law in the hearts of believers, 3) conscience, 4) a degree of free will, and 5) restraint against wickedness. Humanity is therefore made able once again to enter communion with God, but only as a response to God’s gracious invitation.— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 55

<idle musing>
Nice summary of what prevenient grace (the grace that "comes before") does. Salvation is the result of God's grace, but humanity has a part in it as a response to God's initiative. Our freedom is only possible because it is a restored freedom. But, and this is where Wesleyanism differs from Calvinism/Augustinianism, all humanity is given that grace. In other words, unlimited grace rather than apportioned grace.
</idle musing>

Grace in Wesley

We're starting a new book today. It looks interesting; we'll see where it goes as we read it through. Here's the first excerpt, all the way in to page 53; this might be a short excerpt book; some books just don't lend themselves well to excerpting.

Grace is, in Wesley’s vision, what undergirds all of life. As Thomas Langford says about Wesley’s theology, “Grace is God’s active and continuous presence. Definitively expressed in Jesus Christ, grace covers the entirety of life: It creates, redeems, sustains, sanctifies, and glorifies.” Because of grace, Wesley can conceive of the Christian faith as having a certain purpose, or end, toward which everything points: “True religion is right tempers towards God and man. It is...gratitude and benevolence; gratitude to our Creator and supreme Benefactor, and benevolence to our fellow-creatures. In other words, it is the loving God with all our heart, and our neighbour as ourselves.”— Reading the Way to Heaven, page 53

A healthy corrective

We have seen that the biblical cosmos seems to be spoken of as if it were animate—as if rocks and mountains and seas and stars were living creatures. I want to suggest that this emphasis can serve as a helpful corrective to our tendency to view the world as a lifeless machine.— The Biblical Cosmos, page 204

<idle musing>
That's the final post from this delightful little book. I highly recommend it; it's written in such a way that just about anyone can understand it—and loaded with excellent insight.
</idle musing>

In which Preston Sprinkle nails it

Just ran across a great post by Preston Sprinkle on a theoretical discussion about the old "killer at the door" scenario. Here's a brief excerpt, but please read the whole thing.

Me: Okay, so let me get this straight. A preprogrammed robotic human is breaking into my home with a gun. Any attempt to stop him without using violence is taken off the table, despite the fact that nonviolent attempts to apprehend bad people with guns does actually work in the real world. And in your “real world” scenario, I have quick access to a loaded gun in the house which happens to be no threat to my four children. I’m a pretty good shot but not that good of a shot. God exists in this scenario, but despite the fact that this God typically answers prayer, for this scenario, the heavenly phone’s off the hook. And this cyborg would rather kill me and my family rather than walk with $300,000. And this is somehow your real world?

NRA: Yes, yes, that’s the scenario. What would you do?

Me: I would pinch myself because I must be in a dream. Your supposed “real life” scenario is not the real world at all. It’s a world where Jesus is still in the tomb, prayer doesn’t work, a deistic god stands off in the distance, and the deception of power has clouded your Christian thinking. But my world, the real world, has a crucified Lamb, an empty tomb, and direct access to the heavenly throne which is more effective than 10 tons of C-4.

I don’t live in a theoretical world; I live in a world turned upside down by a God who justifies the ungodly and calls us to love our enemies.

<idle musing>
Amen and amen! Why is it that we have to cordon off God in these discussions? It's as if he doesn't really exist in our daily lives. Of course, maybe he doesn't for some people. I call those people practicing atheists...

Just an
</idle musing>

Toward the absence of being

Taking this approach further still we might perhaps consider evil, when portrayed in terms of watery chaos or sea beasts, as a tendency in creation to move away from being and form towards nothingness. Here I am picking up on Augustine’s teaching that evil is not a thing, a substance, but a lack in a thing, a privation. Evil is when good things fall away from their nature.— The Biblical Cosmos, pages 202–3

God's ongoing creation

At a metaphysical level, the dragon motif also speaks truth. The biblical models of creation picture it as something that left to itself would collapse back into chaos. The world does not sustain itself or order itself. It is God who “in the beginning” ordered reality according to his Logos, thereby creating cosmos, and it is God who holds the chaos at bay from moment to moment by that same Logos. But the tendency towards dis-order is inherent in the world.

We might possibly wish to raise the discussion a notch and transpose this image into the philosophical categories of being. In that mode the sea represents non-being, literally no-thing. Read this way, the world in itself tends towards non-being, but God, through his Logos, is investing it with the powers of existence. God’s ongoing ordering of the sea then speaks of the world’s moment-by-moment dependence on God.— The Biblical Cosmos, page 202 (emphasis original)

When people pray

It may be concluded that there are three situations in which a human being utters a prayer:

1. A case of actual distress in which a man, on account of the difficult circumstances he is in, addresses himself to a god in an emotional way.
2. A wish arising from the existing situation. The circumstances, however, are not so extreme as to occasion great emotion in the prayer uttered.
3. A general wish, which does not usually originate from the existing situation. In this case, the human being does not ask for a single definite action, but for a repetition of actions, or for a lasting state.—The Greek Imperative, page 99

Center or periphery?

It is also worth reminding ourselves that neither biblical nor Ptolemaic cosmologies understood the earth to be the most important part of the cosmos—the heavens took that role. (In fact, contrary to the modern myth, in the Ptolemaic cosmology that dominated the Christian Middle Ages, the earth was the least significant part of the cosmos, being located at the center, furthest from God’s heaven.)— The Biblical Cosmos, page 198

<idle musing>
It all a matter of perspective, isn't it? We think the center is the most important, but they didn't. The most important place was where God was/is. That's still true, but we don't acknowledge it...
</idle musing>

Kiss it good-bye

The relative decrease in the number of present imperatives in the Koine in comparison with Ancient Greek may be explained by two factors. In the first place, the present imperative of transformative (especially instantaneous) verbs is used only and exclusively when the speaker is excited. Apparently in those days a present imperative was more readily used when the action could be expressed by verbs that themselves denote duration or perspective. A present imperative is used only when the situation from which the order results is clear or has been made clear to the hearer. The subjective point of view from which the ancient Greek made his choice between the present and aorist imperative seems no longer to be known to the Koine. People are no longer able to voice the finest nuances of thoughts and feelings. Instead, they adhere to objective reality, and consequently express themselves more exactly, at least in this respect.—The Greek Imperative, pages 86–87

Throw it all out!

No modern Christian can say with any intellectual integrity that the biblical view is literally correct. It is not. But does that mean that we simply cast it aside as a disposable husk? No. I propose that this biblical view was not merely a phenomenological perspective on how things appear from our location on the surface of the earth; it was also a means of divine communication. The notion that the earth matters to God is an important part of Christian theology. Ancient cosmology understood that centrality in a physical sense, but geocentrism can still metaphorically point to the importance of earth in God’s purposes.— The Biblical Cosmos, page 197

Present imperative in Koine

Apart from the present imperatives with a general sense and the present imperatives derived from non-transformative verbs, the present imperative in the Koine seems to be used only when both the speaker and the hearer have fully been informed of the situation on account of which the speaker decides that the action ordered has to be performed.—The Greek Imperative, page 85

<idle musing>
Hmmm...this one is testable. What do you think? Is it true in the NT? Could this be why Paul starts out with the theological justification of his imperatives? And sometimes starts out with aorist ones, as well?

Makes sense. But what of 3rd person imperatives? Is that a more polite version of a 2nd person imperative? That's what I think, anyway...
</idle musing>

Stars as connectors to the divine realm

Here is something important to notice about the stars in the biblical texts that we have been considering. The stars, closely linked with the divine council and with angels, were very clearly located in the sky but not in God’s heaven (they were this side of the sky-dome). Yet the divine council and the angels inhabited God’s throne room in God’s heaven (the other side of the sky-dome). So the stars functioned as a link—a visible manifestation of invisible powers; a pointer beyond themselves to the transcendent power structures of the created order.

The linking function of stars meant that a complete disjunction of heaven and earth was impossible because the stars, existing in different modes on both sides of the firmament, blurred the dividing line. The stars reminded people of the duality of heaven and earth—that there is more to creation than can be seen with the eye—but countered any tendency towards dualism: the thought that God’s heaven is some self-contained world disconnected from the visible creation. The “space” and “light” of heaven are connected to the space and light of the visible cosmos, and the light of the sun, moon, and stars represent that connection.— The Biblical Cosmos, pages 192–93

BHQ Megilloth for $20!

Wow! BHQ Megillot for $20.00 at CBD! I was checking on the availability of BHQ Genesis when I saw this:

Provision still flows

"Exodus 16* shows that through the obedience of Moses and Aaron to YHWH, and in particular in pointing away from themselves to YHWH as responsible for the exodus and as providing the gift of food, the people are brought to the true knowledge of YHWH (“I am YHWH”) as the one who brought them out of Egypt and provides them with nourishment. This is the YHWH who dwells in their midst by means of the tabernacle/tent of meeting (Exod 29:46). However, the reverse of this, Moses’s (and Aaron’s) disobedience to YHWH’s instructions and usurping YHWH’s role instead of witnessing to YHWH and his provision for the people in the eyes of the people, means that they are deposed as leaders. Their disobedient and corrupt leadership does not disadvantage the people in terms of YHWH’s provision for them—they are still provided with the water. However, such leadership that does not bring the people to knowledge of YHWH means those leaders are stripped of their leadership by YHWH and replaced."—Suzanne Boorer, forthcoming from SBL Press

Imperatives of motion

In Ancient Greek...many examples of present imperatives derived from verbs expressing motion are to be found. In the Koine literature, however, they are much more conspicuous, because so few present imperatives of other verbs occur. One even gets the impression that the Koine favours the use of the present imperative to express an order involving motion.—The Greek Imperative, page 82

Theosis

Sin corrupts this human icon of God, making humanity a broken vessel. The story of redemption is, in one important sense, simply the story of the restoration of the divine image in humanity, enabling us to function as bearers of divine glory. Our eschatological destiny is thus, in the language of classical Christian theology, deification (theōsis). This is not about us “becoming God” (which is an incoherent notion, if taken in a strictly literal sense) but it is about a union with God of such intimacy and profundity as to enable us to function as the divine image we were made to be.— The Biblical Cosmos, page 177

When do I use which?

In Ancient Greek the choice between present and aorist imperative was altogether subjective. The speaker could use a present imperative not only when from an objective point of view the situation called for a certain action, but also when only in the speaker’s opinion the situation necessitated an action.—The Greek Imperative, page 71

<idle musing>
Mind you, he means Classical when he says Ancient. Things change in Hellenistic/Koine; stay tuned...
</idle musing>

A second naivete

Unlike the biblical authors and their original audiences, we cannot take some of their beliefs literally any longer. That option is not open to scientifically literate people. But “beyond the desert of criticism” there is a second naïveté in which the text can again disclose divine truth and God can speak afresh. This is not a return to a pre-scientific view of the world but is rather a post-critical retrieval—a willingness to let God speak anew precisely through the strangeness of the ancient text. We cannot simply strip away the out-of-date views and throw them away like the peel of an orange in order to get to the ripe juice of revelation contained within. I believe that God wants to speak to the modern world through the insights of ancient cosmography.— The Biblical Cosmos, page 167 (emphasis original)

<idle musing>
What do you think? I've heard about second-naivete before and it's an attractive idea. I guess my hesitation is because I believe too much of the supernatural realm (which we as Westerners throw away) is real.

Am I mixing apples and oranges here? Is this a different issue from second-naivete? Help!
</idle musing>

Further qualifications

The dramatic content of present and aorist imperatives cannot be expressed in general terms. The dramatic content of a form depends entirely on the speaker’s state of mind, in the way he views the existing situation, and varies with the context. The only constant consists in the fact that the present stem expresses a connection and that the aorist stem does not.—The Greek Imperative, page 66

Temple writ large

So the temple is the cosmos writ small. When the priests and the high priest move around the temple performing their sacred duties, they are symbolically moving around the biblical cosmos. This may help explain why the temple was so central to ancient Israel and why its desecration and its destruction by pagan nations were understood as such catastrophic events. The destruction of the temple—first at the hands of Babylon and later at those of Rome—was in a very real sense, the end of the world.

The final vision in the book of Revelation now makes a little more sense. Not only was the temple the biblical cosmos writ small, the biblical cosmos was the temple writ large. In other words, in the world of the Bible the cosmos is God’s house. As Philo put it, “The whole universe must be regarded as the highest and, in truth, the holy temple of God” (Spec. 1.66). As such the biblical cosmos is a sacred place indeed.— The Biblical Cosmos, page 150 (emphasis original)

<idle musing>
The world comes full circle in Revelation. What God intended in the garden gets fulfilled.
</idle musing>

Netherworld or night sky?

In Mesopotamian cosmology, the night sky is identical to the netherworld, stemming from an understanding that the celestial sphere steadily rotated from east to west, bringing the heavenly bodies up and down the horizon (Woods 2009: 209). Accordingly, the heaven of daytime turned into a netherworld after the sunset, which was also a form of the cosmological ocean, Apsû, where the stars were thought to originate. During the night, the cosmic order and divine wisdom submerged to occultation into the greater netherworld, not only understood in its grim, infernal aspects, but “in its more complex capacity that encompasses certain pure or ‘blessed’ lands located around the ‘edges of the earth’ as well” (Ataç 2010: 161).—The Overturned Boat, page 40

Here and now

The speaker who uses the present imperative sees a connection between the existing situation (as he sees it!) and the action ordered. This means that, on account of the situation, he wants somebody to start performing an action at once. But we should always remember that this “at once” is not, or need not be identical with the “now” of objective reality, but is determined only by the subjective “here and now” the speaker has in mind. In this “here and now” the existing situation and the action ordered coincide. So it might be said that from this point of view (the “here and now”) the speaker views the action ordered in its perspective as part of living reality.—The Greek Imperative, page 65

Don't sell yourself short

A metal or stone image (ṣelem) of a god cannot see or hear or act and so cannot represent the living Jehovah. The only authorized image (selem) of God in Scripture is humanity; thinking, hearing, seeing, speaking, acting humanity, filled with the Spirit of God. In Genesis 1, human beings are created to be the equivalent in creation of the cult statue in a temple! That is an astonishing claim.— The Biblical Cosmos, page 143

<idle musing>
I recently taught a two-day class on the ANE backgrounds to the OT. This is one of the things I mentioned to them, but I don't think they fully understood the import of it (not that I fully understand the import of it either!). This is radical stuff, mind-boggling in its ramifications.
</idle musing>

Yet more Greek imperative fun

There are some cases in which the present imperative is used in a way which is not very easy for us to understand. We have seen that aspect is something subjective and that the speaker often does not see a situation as it actually is, but as he thinks it is, or will be later. We have also seen that, when the “here and now” is postponed, it has to be indicated in the context, as it would otherwise lead to misunderstandings. Sometimes, however, this indication is not very clear.—The Greek Imperative, page 61

<idle musing>
Well, let's just throw up our hands in despair then! But at least he's honest; not every situation fits his categories.
</idle musing>

He's bigger...

The paradox fundamental to biblical thinking is that God is present in the temple while transcending the temple. And the same paradox is found on the cosmic scale. God dwells in heaven, but heaven cannot contain God, for in the end heaven is an aspect of creation but God is the creator.— The Biblical Cosmos, page 136

I dare you to prove him wrong!

"No study has ever shown that a diet with a significant amount of animal product-based foods can reverse atherosclerosis—and no study ever will show that. Too much evidence demonstrates the opposite.

"Not even a case series of a small number of individuals on a Paleo, or animal protein-based, diet has ever shown a reversal of advanced heart disease. Even though hundreds of books are written, lots of big words are thrown around, and lots of claims are made to the contrary, it is all just hot air. These meat-based diets are the problem not the solution."—Joel Fuhrman, The End of Heart Disease, 188

About that submission thing...

Jim West just posted a hilarious picture of Jael pegging Sisera (pun intentional). That got me thinking about the current teaching whereby women are to submit to their husbands in all things.

The scripture is clear that there was an alliance between Heber the Kenite and Jabin (Judg 4:17). That being so, by killing Sisera, Jael was being rebellious against her husband! She should be up for discipline, not praise!

Something isn't right there...and I sincerely doubt that it is the scripture!

El Shaddai versus YHWH

W. Randall Garr (“The Grammar and Interpretation of Exodus 6:3,” JBL 111 (1992): 385–408, esp. 397, 406–8) argues that the name El Shaddai represents a limited or partial aspect of God, known in his promises only, and that YHWH is a more complete representation of the same God, who is known fully in the fulfillment of the promises. Accordingly he interprets Exod 6:3 as follows (401): “I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (in limited form) as El Shaddai (who makes covenantal promises). But I was not the object of (full) covenantal knowledge to them as conveyed by my name YHWH who keeps covenantal promises.”—Suzanne Boorer, forthcoming from SBL Press

More on that pesky Greek present imperative

It goes without saying that an expression which indicates that the speaker assumes a close connection between the situation as he sees it, and the action he orders, sometimes has a very emotional ring. Therefore the present imperative is used especially by persons who are short-tempered, or have an overbearing character, because such people want an action to start as soon as, in their view, the situation requires it. These present imperatives are often derived from instantaneous verbs.—The Greek Imperative, page 54

<idle musing>
Unless they aren't...which is the problem I'm having with this book. He is seeking an overarching theory, but there are so many subpoints that don't fit, so he creates little categories for them. In the end, we have a list of things the imperative can mean. Is that an overarching theory?!

Don't misunderstand, the book is very helpful and has good stuff. But, how do you decide which category that particular imperative fits? And is that really what we want to do? That's going back to the decoding form of language learning...
</idle musing>

Is he there?

Heaven is not eternal in the sense that God is. It is, if you will, the dimension of creation that serves as an interface between God and the rest of creation. As such, even though biblical writers will regularly speak of God dwelling in and ruling from heaven they are also aware that God is “bigger” than heaven. In fancy language, God transcends not only the earth but heaven itself. As Solomon so beautifully put it in his prayer at the dedication of the spectacular temple he had built: “But will God indeed dwell on the earth [in this temple]? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built!” (1 Kgs 8:27).

The paradox of God’s dwelling in the temple in Jerusalem captures in a scaled-down way this same tension. The Bible holds together the idea that God dwells in the Jerusalem temple with a resistance to the idea that God’s presence can be contained there. God’s presence is everywhere, even outside the Promised Land, even to the ends of the earth, and even in sheol! More than that, God’s presence is in heaven, while the temple is on earth. So while God’s presence is in the temple, it is not there in quite the same way that it is in heaven.

Some texts speak obliquely of the temple as “the place that Jehovah your God will choose to make his name dwell” (Deut 26:2). This way of speaking beautifully captures the balance. It speaks of God’s real presence in the temple (for in ancient thinking the name of a person is profoundly connected to the person; it was no mere label) while at the same time pushing against a simplistic understanding of that presence. There is a subtle distance inserted between God and the temple in the very words that speak of his dwelling in it—he causes his name to dwell there. Israel’s theologians are seeking to speak of the reality of God’s presence but also of the way in which God’s presence is unlike any other presence. Words fail when God is the topic under discussion.— The Biblical Cosmos, page 135 (emphasis original)

<idle musing>
I've been gone for the last week (in case you didn't notice!); we were visiting kids and grandkids. I also had the privilege to teach for two days on the ancient Near Eastern backgrounds to the Old Testament. This excerpt from Robin's book nicely encapsulates much of what I was trying to teach.
</idle musing>

Use the present imperative—Now!

…a Greek uses a present imperative only when he wants to stress that in his eyes the situation requires immediate action.—The Greek Imperative, page 50

<idle musing>
Remember, this is for Classical, not Koine!
</idle musing>

Rule number one

First and foremost, Jehovah is never identified with any astral entity nor with their totality. Rather, the sun, moon, and stars are entities created by Jehovah.— The Biblical Cosmos, page 110

<idle musing>
Indeed! That is the most essential element of biblical theology!
</idle musing>

It's the speaker!

Whether the speaker chooses the present stem or the aorist stem does not depend on a general rule, but only on the state of mind of the speaker. He visualized the situation and the action ordered in some way or other, and he makes his choice accordingly. Consequently, the dramatic content of an imperative can be determined only from the special context.—The Greek Imperative, page 43

<idle musing> Remember, we're talking about Classical Greek here, not Koine/Hellenistic. He'll get to those in a bit. He gives numerous examples to defend the position; I'm moderately convinced—tentatively. How's that for equivocating? : )
</idle musing>

What about those stars?

Now there is indeed a very interesting shift in emphasis in biblical literature, when it is compared with other ancient Near Eastern literature, away from a focus on their deity of astral bodies. We shall consider that in a moment. But this shift in emphasis is not a result, I suggest, of biblical authors rejecting the idea of the sun, moon, and stars as divine. What they unanimously and emphatically rejected was any idea that humans should serve and worship these astral gods. I suggest that it is this radical and decisive move that explains the theological shift in the biblical literature. The sun, moon, and stars may be gods, but they are created by Jehovah, are under his control, are appointed by him to serve humanity (giving light and overseeing the rhythms of time), and their glory serves to point to his greater glory. These are the things that interest the writers of the texts that became Scripture. Biblical writers have no interest in identifying specific stars with specific deities (except when condemning Israelites for worshipping stars as gods). The identification of stars with gods is, in biblical religion, generic rather than specific. Perhaps the worry was that an over-interest in the stars would lead to their being worshipped. And to worship the stars, in effect, upsets the order of creation and effectively makes them idols and even demons.— The Biblical Cosmos, page 109

Negative commands and choice of tense

When choosing the present stem [in a negative command], the speaker apparently wants the hearer to understand that he does not agree with the nature and the content of the action that latter is performing, for by this choice he makes it clear that he sees a connection between the action and the prohibition. Secondly, in many cases he gives the hearer to understand that he is to start “not-performing” this action immediately, i.e., that he has to stop performing it at once. By means of the aorist stem, he tells the hearer only that he does not permit a certain event to take place, that the latter is not allowed to perform a certain action. It does not make any difference whether at that moment the action is going on or not, as the speaker does not pay any attention to that.—The Greek Imperative, page 42

<idle musing>
About that post title: Yes, yes, I know. It isn't tense, it's aspect. But every now and then I drop back into traditional labels. What can I say? It got your attention, didn't it? : )

OK, we've got that taken care of, so what about the contents of the post itself? Bakker is in the process of making the case that the choice of stem in Classical Greek depends strictly on the perspective of the speaker. He will go on to argue that this has changed as Greek evolved, to the point that in Modern Greek, the present imperative has virtually disappeared. The present tense is used only when both sides agree on the reality of the situation. (Snide remark: then it certainly would never be used in the U.S. today! We can't agree on anything—not even on whether we agree or disagree!)

The question becomes, how far along that continuum in Koine? Ah, that's the rub—especially with translational Greek such as that found in the LXX. That, of course, is the substance of many articles and dissertations : )
</idle musing>

Re-creation and the exodus

The story of the exodus from Egypt can be read as a story of the God-guided journey of Israel from the periphery to the center. Israel was in Egypt, the land of slavery and chaos and death. God delivered them by leading them through the boundary-marking sea (yam suph, literally, “sea of the edge”). There God defeated the chaos dragon and led Israel into an in-between place, the wilderness. Here was great danger—hunger, thirst, and hostile peoples—but God provided and protected. He led the people to the land where they would dwell with him and find rest. This is not simply mundane geography or history as we know it—this is meaning-full geography and history, rich in sacred symbolism.— The Biblical Cosmos, page 69

What about that imperative?

OK, tighten your grammatical belts. For the next week or two we'll be excerpting from W. F. Bakker, The Greek Imperative: An investigation into the aspectual differences between the present and aorist imperatives in Greek prayer from Homer up to the present day. As you probably guessed by the long title, it's a dissertation : )

I'm not so sure but what he isn't finding what he wants to find, but some of his ideas are fascinating. He makes a distinction between Ancient Greek, by which he means Classical, Koine, and Modern Greek—yes, he follows the imperative all the way to 1950s Greece. We'll start with the Classical instances. Here's the first:

Generally said, by means of the present stem the speaker wants to make it clear to the hearer that, in view of the nature and content of the action he is performing, he wishes him to stop it, and that “right now.” When using the aorist stem, however, he only says that the action should be discontinued.—The Greek Imperative, page 40

Away with you!

In the geography of the ancient Near East, deserts were seen as liminal in-between places representing the zone between civilization and order, on the one hand, and chaos and disorder, on the other; between life, on the one hand, and death, on the other. To be cast out of a community into the desert was to be sent away from the ordered human world and thereby to lose one’s social status. In the symbolic thinking of ancient Israel the barren desert, associated with death, was further away on the holiness spectrum from the temple, associated with the living God. It is not that going into the wilderness made one unclean, but simply that the wilderness was symbolically further from the life end of the spectrum and as such represented uncleanness.— The Biblical Cosmos, page 56

<idle musing>
Which is why the Akkadian exorcist spells and Hittite scapegoat ritual, to say nothing of the Day of Atonement in Israel, sent the evil spirit into the wilderness. It was their natural home.
</idle musing>

Yamm, take two

Interestingly the dominion that God gave humanity in Genesis 1 extends to “the fish of the sea,” but no mention is made of the sea itself. That remains beyond human rule. is may explain why the sea never responds to humans in the Bible—it does not obey human orders [see note] and it never addresses humans—nor do humans ever call it to. God is the creator of the sea and thus its line-manager, so it is to God alone that it responds.

[Note] Moses’ activity with the staff at the “Red Sea” might suggest otherwise. However, note that Moses simply “stretched out his hand over the sea [follow a direct divine command to do so], and Jehovah drove the sea back . . .” (Exod 14:21).— The Biblical Cosmos, page 47