SBL left the site SOL

So last weekend I was at a conference done by the Society of Biblical Literature and a couple of other groups. I decided that I'd like to write a piece on a couple of the items there but I've managed to bury myself catching up on some of the work I missed while away. Perhaps next week I'll have the piece on the SBL conference ready. In the meantime I will cease delaying further discussion of hockey. My first round predictions went pretty well and there won't be any changes for the second round. I'm going with Detroit, Chicago, Boston and Washington. In related news, Mike Brown got five minutes for a clean (hard) hit. It's strange cheering for Detroit and getting the favour of the zebras. Shaming really. Makes me glad to be an Oiler fan.

The Historical-Critical Method

Krentz, Edgar. The Historical-Critical Method. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002.

This book is an introduction to the historical-critical method in the field of biblical studies. The book is concise which is wonderful at all times and especically for an introduction. The author takes time to give an historical overview of the method's development. Krentz also takes time to describe the various practices of modern scholars in finding meaning in the biblical text. He concludes by stating some of the objections that some modern scholars have raised to question the historical-critical endeavour but the book never really deals with postmodern philosophy. Still, it is good to see that there is some awareness of the method's shortcomings. For those interested in how the Bible is read, especially in modern scholarly circles, this book is a very good introduction.

For those that are looking for a way to affirm their religious experience, this book will not do well. Krentz is thoroughly modern philosophically. Most religious settings care far less about obtaining historically verifiable information and much more about their own experience of the divine. For these communities, a method that leads to an explanation of what happened but does not move beyond that is ultimately unsatisfying, especially if it tears down the original religious experience in the process. For Krentz "an existential interpretation that does not have a corresponding reality in history is not helpful" and personal experience is "nonhistorical." Religious readings and experiences are basically set aside in favour of the tools of historical research.

Thus, there is some disconnect between his reading of the Bible and a religious reading of scripture. This isn't good or bad, but the distinction is apparent, even to Krentz. As he says: "The gap between scholarship and the church often is great. Many people still fear historical criticism in biblical studies. The results of critical scholarship have made the Bible a strange, unused, and even silent book."

Reading Psalm 139

I have recently started attending a church in Langley that I like it very much. One thing that I do find interesting in this or any church is the way people interpret scripture and what authority is implicit in order to justify that interpretation. The most recent sermon that I heard used Psalm 139 as a base text and focused predominantly on the final two verses:

"Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my thoughts. See if there is any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting."

This was interpreted as a plea by the psalmist (interpreted as David) to see his own depravity. The speaker articulated that God will show us only a portion of our wicked ways because we would otherwise be overwhelmed by the depth of our sinfulness. This was linked to some common things that people need to "deal with" like feelings of guilt, bitterness, anger and fear. Thanks to Christ's redemption (the way everlasting) we are able to slowly overcome the things that God shows us.

I found this interpretation very interesting because, from a historical perspective, the opening assumption that God will find the psalmist wanting seems incorrect. The psalm looks to be written in two parts, verses 1-18 and 19-24. The first section is praise extolling the omniscience of God. The second section is the psalmist asking for God to destroy his enemies. The final verses are a reminder to God that he knows the psalmist's righteous ways and therefore deserves to be delivered. I think it is fair to say that the psalmist definitely sounds either angry or embittered:

"O that you would kill the wicked, O God, and that the bloodthirsty would depart from me - those who speak of you maliciously, and lift themselves up against you for evil! Do I not hate those who hate you, O Yahweh? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you? I hate them with perfect hatred; I count them my enemies. Search me..."

Now, as someone that interprets the Bible as a metaphor for the Edmonton Oilers I'm not really in a position to pass judgment, but if I was, I still wouldn't have a problem with the interpretation offered in the church. However, it does speak to the fact that the authority for the interpretation is not coming from what the text meant to the author.

Uh oh. So where is it coming from?

One good place to look is the theology of the community. This is from the statement of beliefs on the church's website:

"WE BELIEVE that the whole world is under the domination of Satan and that all people are sinners by nature and choice. All people therefore are under God's just judgment."

Now that statement comes, not only from the church in Langley, but from the Association of Vineyard Churches Statement of Faith. This statement is informed by a particular understanding of human sin represented by John Calvin among others: people are all completely sinful before God. The statement also seems to ascribe to a particular view of the creation story in Genesis 2-3 in which sin is passed on from Adam to all people. It is interesting to note that this is not presented by the book of Genesis but, over time, became the dominant interpretation in both Christian and Jewish circles (just like the identification of the snake in the story as Satan). The reading of Christ as the way everlasting is ancient indeed. One famous old guy that interprets Psalm 139 this way is Augustine but there are many, many others that read this text with Jesus in mind. Needless to say, the psalmist didn't.

Anyway, all of that to say that the interpretation of Psalm 139 that I heard is being informed by these traditions. For a reader informed by these traditions, the psalmist is not proclaiming his innocence before God because according to the tradition all are guilty no matter what. This theology would also play into the personal experience of the interpreter. Psalms are prayers and people today continue to pray them. If a person with this preexisting theological framework prays this same prayer, that person will inevitably be lead to his/her own feelings of inadequacy before God. The wicked ways that are there for every person will inevitably be found and God will call the pray-er to change. The framework that the pray-er is taking doesn't really allow for any other conclusions. This personal experience of the text could (and probably did) lead the interpreter to believe that this is what the text has always meant.

So what? Well, I just like pointing out that there's a lot more going on in religious circles than "just believing what the (authoritative text) says." There's the early history of interpretation, the immediate community of the interpreter, the larger theological framework provided by the larger interpretive community (like a denomination), the wider culture in which the interpreter lives and the personal experience of the believer. That's a lot of stuff, and it seems good to keep in mind when anyone gets into discussions about what's "right" and what's "wrong" with a particular reading or belief.

Also, it definitely means that what I'm doing with hockey on this blog is OK with God.

Jesus and the Politics of Interpretation

Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. Jesus and the Politics of Interpretation. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group, 2001.

The author is writing a book that deals largely with how a person ought to do interpretation and on the interpretation of the historical Jesus and early Jesus movement. She approaches the task from a feminist perspective which I, as someone that does not read a lot of feminist work, found refreshing. She critiques any method that does not reflect on its own basic theological, political and social interests. According to Schüssler Fiorenza, without a full recognition of one’s own participation in the oppressive and self-interested structures of society, one is unable to do anything but unselfconsciously project one’s own image and thoughts onto the object of study. Her focus is research on the historical Jesus but her point extends to all fields of study.

She concludes that interpreters are doing themselves a disservice when they attempt to arrive at knowledge of the "real" Jesus because, according to her, such knowledge is impossible. Right interpretation should instead be determined by its results: there are interpretive methods that "foster exploitation and oppression" and methods that "contribute to a vision of praxis and liberation." In the end, then, one should not try to find a historical and factual interpretation, but instead a possible interpretation that serves the cause of liberation.

Some warnings. This book is probably for those already at least somewhat familiar with historical Jesus research. The tone is often caustic, especially in her dealings with other feminist commentators, so those interested in an entirely positive dialogue will undoubtedly be disappointed. The most amusing example of the highly critical nature of the book is in her criticism of a fellow feminist commentator: "Does Corley point out the speck in her feminist colleagues’ eyes in order not to see the beam in that of her brother teachers and colleagues?" The reference to Jesus' parable about being introspective rather than critical is both entirely hilarious and an enormous trap (as to criticize its use puts one in a very similar position). Finally many of the chapters in the book were created using several independent articles as a base and as a result some of the information is repetitive and in some instances sentences and paragraphs from one chapter are repeated verbatim in another.

The Birth of Satan: Tracing The Devil's Biblical Roots

Wray, T.J. and Gregory Mobley, The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil's Biblical Roots. New York: Palmgrove MacMillan, 2005.


The authors trace the evolution of the biblical origins of evil from its roots in the Hebrew Bible to the influence of later works like Milton's Paradise Lost and Dante's Divine Comedy. The book jams piece after piece of helpful information into a very manageable 180 pages and assume little or no background knowledge from the reader, especially in regard to Ancient Near East mythology. In spite of the many scholarly references, the book will probably leave authors coming from a scholarly perspective feeling a little lacking. There is discussion of the book of Revelation without reference to the work of David Aune, of the Gospels and Dead Sea Scrolls but no Geza Vermes and discussion of apocalypticism without one mention of John Collins in either the text or bibliography.

Nonetheless, the authors succeed in delivering an engaging and informative introduction to the biblical Satan (and evil in general) that bridges some of the gap between the scholarly and popular contexts. For a beginner student, or someone with little background but even a passing interest in Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern studies, this book will be very revealing and, dare I say it, enjoyable.