Christianity
Book Review: “Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture” by David A. deSilva
Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture by David A. deSilva introduces readers to the cultural context of the New Testament.
The book is divided into chapters that tackle each of the major topics. There are two chapters on honor and shame. The first introduces the concepts of honor and shame to understand how such concepts worked in the NT period. The second chapter specifically talks about the concepts of in the NT itself. The next two chapters are about patronage. The first is to show how patronage worked, while the second applies that to the notion of grace in the NT. The next two chapters cover kinship. First, deSilva outlines how families worked in the first century world. Then, he applies that in the next chapter to the concept of a “household of God” in the NT. The next two chapters cover purity in the biblical world.
Example after fascinating example is used by deSilva to demonstrate the cultural differences between the NT setting and our own. These are across the whole array of topics deSilva introduces throughout the book. That makes the book not just a resource for learning about the culture of the NT world, but also something to help actually apply that understanding to the Bible. These applications are direct from the text, such as the understanding from the book of Hebrews (13) in which the author talks about the imprisoned being remembered as though they are “the same thing, though separate individuals” (252). This kind of insight is absolutely dripping from the book.
Readers looking to more fully understand the NT should consider this book a must-read. It illuminates much of the cultural context of the Bible.
Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity is a fascinating book that can help change how readers see the Bible. I recommend it for those looking to more deeply understand both the context and meaning of Scripture.
All Links to Amazon are Affiliates links
Links
Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!
Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)
SDG.
——
The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.
“Discipleship in a World Full of Nazis: Recovering the True Legacy of Dietrich Bonhoeffer” by Mark Thiessen Nation
Discipleship in a World Full of Nazis: Recovering the True Legacy of Dietrich Bonhoeffer is an alluring title that promises to push at scholarly boundaries. Any time a book seeks to “recover” a “true legacy,” there are a number of ways it could go on the subject. It could be a sensationalist look at the topic, or a more measured look at something that has, heretofore, been sensationalized. Mark Thiessen Nation seeks here to rethink Bonhoeffer’s alleged participation in the plot to kill Hitler, among other things.
Mark Thiessen Nation’s thesis is fairly straightforward: consensus scholarship regarding Bonhoeffer’s involvement in the plot to assassinate Hitler is grounded upon shaky historical ground and should be rejected in light of his apparent and actual pacifism. In order to argue for this end, he makes three early points in favor of that thesis- Eberhard Bethge leaves the impression that Bonhoeffer was involved in the plot to kill Hitler; the evidence for why Bonhoeffer was arrested point in another direction; and, finally, the starting point for evaluation of Bonhoeffer’s life, legacy, and theology ought to be located in a place other than as a resisting pastor involved in the plot to kill Hitler (3).
What is interesting is that I doubt many Bonhoeffer scholars would dispute almost any of these theses. Eberhard Bethge clearly gives the impression Bonhoeffer was involved. There’s no reasonable way to dispute that. The evidence for Bonhoeffer’s being arrested does not suggest it was due to a plot to kill Hitler. No Bonhoeffer scholar I am aware of actually suggests that Bonhoeffer’s involvement in a plot to kill Hitler is the lens through which his whole life should be read. What this means is that Mark Thiessen nation, in picking these theses early on, essentially gives himself an easy hit, teeing it up so that he can knock it out of the park. By doing so, it gives the arguments that follow a veneer of support. After all, his earliest theses were proven to be at least mostly correct! One could be forgiven for thinking the rest of the argument would flow from these points, but one would be mistaken.
An important aside about these early theses is warranted. The evidence regarding Bonhoeffer’s arrest not being related to a plot to kill Hitler does not help Thiessen Nation’s narrative, because none of those arrested around the same time as Bonhoeffer were arrested for that reason either! If Hitler had known of a plot to assassinate him, does anyone actually think he would have let those would-be assassins sit in prison rather than torturing and murdering them immediately (as he did once he discovered the plot)? The reasons for the arrests of these others is a matter of historical record, but by emphasizing that Bonhoeffer, uniquely, was not arrested due to a plot to assassinate Hitler, Thiessen Nation makes it seem as though this is some major point against historical arguments for his involvement. But that’s an unwarranted leap, again, given that the plot had not yet been discovered. No one could have been arrested for a plot that those doing the arresting didn’t know about yet! Unless Thiessen Nation is aware of some historical data that says they were aware of that plot contemporaneous with Bonhoeffer’s arrest (having read much literature on this, I don’t know of any, but I can hardly claim to have universal knowledge of the topic), this point is superfluous at best, disingenuous at worst, because it sets up readers to doubt Bonhoeffer’s involvement based on this lack of reason for the arrest.
Another salient historical point that Thiessen Nation only raises occasionally is that there is no evidence directly linking Bonhoeffer to the plot to kill Hitler. While this seems possibly correct in regards to a paper trail, it seems incorrect regarding those who knew Bonhoeffer personally. Again, this would include Eberhard Bethge. Time and again, our author here notes that there is little to no evidence for Bonhoeffer’s involvement; yet testimonial evidence is evidence, and we have that. Additionally, nothing is made of the relevant point that those involved in a plot to assassinate a brutal dictator would hardly keep everything on paper for posterity. It shouldn’t be that surprising in this case to hold to the dictum that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Still more, Thiessen Nation does not acknowledge that, after World War II in Germany, those who had worked against the Third Reich were still viewed with suspicion for many years. Bonhoeffer was not exempted from this, and it would surely be a point in favor of additional secrecy regarding those involved in any plot to kill Hitler. It’s not a particularly delightful thing to acknowledge, but all of these are facts of history that are borne out in research of the time period.
Thiessen Nation goes on to argue that various points are in favor of reading Bonhoeffer as a committed pacifist. While noting some difficulties with earlier writings, he finds great support in Discipleship and argues for this as a core point of Bonhoeffer’s ethics (see chapter 4). Then, he turns to Ethics and this is where I think the argument starts to come apart. First, he sees Bonhoeffer’s rejection of Kantian absolutism and even applauds it (125-126). This is a point often missed in examination of Bonhoeffer’s–and Lutheran–ethics generally. This ethic rejects a kind of totalitarian deontology in favor of a more situational ethic. This point would actually obviate against a reading of Bonhoeffer as purely pacifistic, as this would require a kind of Kantian commitment to pacifism, but the topic is not explored further.
Thiessen Nation next hones in on the quote from Bonhoeffer that “everyone who acts responsibly becomes guilty.” He suggests that this quote should not be read contextually related to a background of a plot to assassinate Hitler, but rather as a way of understanding the broader context of the war. This certainly resonates with me, and I think that it would make sense. Indeed, I would not personally limit that quote or the general discussion of Bonhoeffer’s thought on responsibility to his involvement (or not) in the plot to kill Hitler. If he was involved, his reasoning on responsibility certainly makes sense of how it would work within his ethical system. Taking away this involvement, Thiessen Nation casts about for another motivation for the reflection on responsibility. He lands on it coming from Bonhoeffer’s reading of letter(s) from his student(s) regarding their own involvement in the Third Reich (129-130). Such is a fascinating thesis, and allows for additional areas of research regarding Bonhoeffer’s life. However, Thiessen Nation pushes it farther, tying Bonhoeffer’s reflection on responsibility to the awful acts of his students, including “cold-blooded murder of civilians and surrendered soldiers” (129, see also 129n21). This is, in my opinion, one of the worst re-readings of Bonhoeffer I’ve read. Bonhoeffer’s entire discussion of responsibility is set against the background of becoming guilty not for oneself but for the sake of the other. To read that as a justification of “cold-blooded murder” simply because Bonhoeffer was somehow struggling to justify his students’ actions makes this a horribly motivated and specious justification for, well, cold-blooded murder! And it doesn’t make any sense of Bonhoeffer’s own words, as he wrote this all in context of taking on guilt for one’s neighbor! How could one do that if one is too busy murdering them?
I would almost second-guess my reading of Thiessen Nation here, because it seems such an off-base reading of Bonhoeffer, but he makes it quite clear that it is his intent to suggest Bonhoeffer was somehow justifying this cold-blooded murder: “Might [Bonhoeffer] have been thinking of [his students’] letters when he wrote that it worse to be evil than to do an act of evil? …in the midst of extremely difficult circumstances, Bonhoeffer is quite sensitive toward his former students who either were not convinced by his teaching on nonviolence or who couldn’t face the consequences of formally claiming to be a conscientious objector, which was a capital offense” (130). He goes on to say that “my hypothesis is more likely than any notion that he is writing reflections to justify his ‘involvement’ in any attempts on Hitler’s life” (ibid). This removes any doubt of this reading: Thiessen Nation is genuinely suggesting that Bonhoeffer wrote this section on responsibility to justify his students’ and friends’ actions of choosing to murder civilians instead of die as a conscientious objector. If he’s right in this reading, he has turned one of my favorite sections of Bonhoeffer’s work into a heinous justification of evil.
Bonhoeffer’s words themselves appear to obviate against this reading, however, because in the section on responsibility in Ethics, he explicitly states that human beings must become guilty not for the sake of themselves or their own attempts to be guiltless, but “entering into community with the guilty of other human beings for their sake. Because of Jesus Christ, the essence of responsible action intrinsically involves the sinless, those who act out of selfless love, becoming guilty” (Ethics, DBWE: 276). Where can one truly justify murder of innocent others for the sake of preserving one’s own life in this text? Where could one read it at as Thiessen Nation does? It is an utterly nonsensical reading of Bonhoeffer to read him as justifying murder to avoid capital offense.
Mark Thiessen Nation himself, according to this profile, was a conscientious objector to Vietnam. I hesitate to speculate, but is it possible that he is looking at his own situation, likely knowing others who committed awful acts in Vietnam, and trying to provide some kind of a posteriori justification for those acts, roping Bonhoeffer into such a defense?* The reading seems radically American and individualistic, putting one’s own well-being as such a high good that becoming guilty of “cold blooded murder” to avoid one’s own capital punishment is seen as good for the sake of the other. Again, none of this makes sense in light of Bonhoeffer’s own work. Thiessen Nation concludes this section acknowledging we can’t know the exact reason for Bonhoeffer’s deliberations on guilt, which would have been a better overall point (though still hotly disputed) (130). Yet this last minute broadening of scope does little to overcome the fact that he asserted earlier that his reading of Bonhoeffer justifying mass murder for the sake of one’s own life is somehow more likely than Bonhoeffer justifying tyrannicide for the sake of the other. Again, it is ludicrous to the point of the absurd to read Bonhoeffer this way in the context in which these words were set.
Belaboring the point even a little more, Chistine Schliesser, in the aptly titled Everyone Who Acts Responsibly Becomes Guilty, argues that one can see this thread of guilt for the sake of the other throughout Bonhoeffer’s entire works. It’s more complicated than that, of course, but that book offers an excellent overview of the concept of guilt in Bonhoeffer.
Another problem with Thiessen Nation’s overall theses related to Bonhoeffer’s pacifism is that he is only capable of reading Bonhoeffer as wholly pacifistic through revisionism (see the discussion above); through arguing against some early biographers and friends of Bonhoeffer (eg. Bethge- who would almost have to be accused of lying if Bonhoeffer were not involved in the plot against Hitler in any way); or through arguing that Bonhoeffer changed his mind not infrequently, only settling on pacifism after a number of other ethical stances were attempted. The former two points have been spoken for already, but I think the latter point is worth a very slight reflection. Thiessen Nation, while critiquing other authors who seek to place Bonhoeffer in his Lutheran perspective (eg. Michael DeJonge), fails to take Bonhoeffer’s Lutheranism seriously. Bonhoeffer quoted Luther more than any other theologian, and it is not difficult to trace many aspects of Bonhoeffer’s theology directly to Luther. This includes his ethics. Thiessen Nation was right earlier to note the rejection of Kantian ethics in Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer (and Luther) rejected deontology. This rejection allowed for a more dynamic or situational ethic that could be adjusted to current contexts rather than delivering principles that would last for eternity. It seems to me that a better reading of Bonhoeffer that doesn’t require re-interpreting or rejecting parts of his ethic would simply be to take it as a development of Lutheran ethics, in which sometimes pacifism is the right response and even perhaps a broad ideal, but at others, taking on guilt for the sake of the other is required.
Discipleship in a World Full of Nazis is a provocative look at Bonhoeffer’s alleged pacifism. I believe it largely misses the mark, and misses it badly in some cases. The author’s [with others] earlier Bonhoeffer the Assassin? (my review here) made a more limited argument. It is clear to me, having read this work, that trying to double down on reading Bonhoeffer as a pacifist will only work if one shoehorns his ethics into corners that don’t make sense contextually. Overall, I think this book does not succeed in its argument.
*Rev. Beth Wartick made this point to me in conversation.
All Links to Amazon are Affiliates links
Links
Dietrich Bonhoeffer– read all my posts related to Bonhoeffer and his theology.
Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!
Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)
SDG.
——
The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.
Book Review: “Reading the Bible Around the World: A Student’s Guide to Global Hermeneutics”
Reading the Bible Around the World introduces readers to seeing global perspectives on the Bible.
The book is clearly meant to be, as the subtitle suggests, “A Student’s Guide to Global Hermeneutics.” It’s a pithy volume, but each chapter packs a punch. The authors go through Latin America, Africa, Europe/Euro-American, Asian, and Diasporic approaches to reading scripture, dedicating one chapter to each topic. Each chapter is about 20 pages, but stuffed with information. Each chapter highlights the main names in hermeneutics in each area, and gives a couple specific looks at how things like the Parable of the Loving Neighbor (Luke 10), the story of Ruth, or other passages. These latter parts of the chapters help readers to understand the context provided in the earlier parts.
Reading the Bible Around the World is a brief, interesting look into global readings of the Bible. Recommended for those looking to expand perspectives beyond American-centric readings of Scripture.
All Links to Amazon are Affiliates links
Links
Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!
Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)
SDG.
——
The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.
Book Review: “The Trinity in the Book of Revelation” by Brandon D. Smith
The Trinity in the Book of Revelation: Seeing Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in John’s Apocalypse by Brandon D. Smith starts with the charge from Gregory of Nazianzus to take theology as a serious task. And the book does exactly that, sifting through the book of Revelation to highlight the Trinitarian theology found therein.
Smith repeatedly notes that Revelation is a confusing book and this has lead to a wide and wild assortment of theories about its genre, its meaning, and its conclusions (7-8). Smith approaches the book from a patristic perspective (11ff) and this leads to some of his differentiation from other recent authors. After laying the groundwork for reading the Revelation in light of the Trinity, Smith launches into three chapters, one each on Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The latter chapter highlights again Smith’s commitment to patristic theology. He notes that the Church Fathers did not always agree, even in regards to the focus on the Holy Spirit (144). Smith notes that Basil took a hardline response against any who downplayed the Holy Spirit’s work or divinity.
After these three chapters on Persons of the Trinity, Smith wraps up the arguments of his book by noting not only problems with missing the Trinitarian power of the book of Revelation but also some issues with modern readings of the book.
The Trinity in the Book of Revelation not only highlights the Trinity as a major theme in Revelation, but also manages to eliminate some of the perceived need for some wild-eyed theories about the book. I recommend it.
All Links to Amazon are Affiliates links
Links
Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!
Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)
SDG.
——
The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.
Book Review: “Touch the Earth: Poems on the Way” by Drew Jackson
Touch the Earth is the second part of a poetic reflections on the Gospel of Luke through poems. Before going farther, I can attest that it is well worth reading on its own, even if one hasn’t read the first (as I had not).
Jackson’s lyrically rich poems reach into the Gospel of Luke and ask us as readers to dive into the text, to feel the words flow, and to reimagine what the world might be if we experienced the Gospel as such beauty. The book is part dramatic reimagining, part reinterpreting. Jackson calls us to envision the truths of the Gospel and draws them out in a beautiful form.
One of my favorite portions of Luke is the section from Luke 10 and following in which Jesus repeatedly establishes himself as a masterful teacher and prophetic voice. Drew Jackson’s words draw that out as well. One section, which examines Luke 10:17-19, includes such phrases as:
“This is a tactic
used by men who sit in Caesar’s seat:
convince the people they are weak,
impotent and wholly reliant
on those in high places…
Power to the people
This is the work:
to realize what is already ours
and not be surprised
when the demons tremble.”
Page after page, Jackson shatters expectations and creates a beautifully alluring collection that frankly reinvigorated me as a reader. I loved it.
Touch the Earth is, frankly, a thing of beauty. I recommend it very very highly.
All Links to Amazon are Affiliates links
Links
Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!
Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)
SDG.
——
The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.
Biblical Archaeology: Does the Mt. Ebal Tablet Prove the Bible?
The “Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet” has created something of a stir in some circles, especially those interested in Christian apologetics. The find itself could be extraordinary, assuming it passes additional review. While published in a peer reviewed journal, the publication of the findings is not published in an archaeology journal, leading to some skepticism about the ability to stand up to archaeological peer review. Others have pointed out additional problems with the journal publication, some of which are summarized in an article from the Biblical Archaeology Society.
What I want to hone in on, though, are the fantastical claims made about the fine by Scott Stirpling, one of the archaeologists involved in the find and interpretation thereof, in a video he made with Sean McDowell. The video is on YouTube and entitled, “Oldest Hebrew Writing? Mt. Ebal Curse Tablet (Revisited).” Stirpling makes a number of claims in this video, and I think some of these are emblematic of the way the apologetics community unfortunately over-inflates the evidence for Christianity. This, I believe, is detrimental to the aims of Christian apologetics, because if we make claims that cannot be adequately backed by evidence, it makes people more likely to doubt other claims which may have a better evidentiary grounds for belief.
I won’t be reviewing the whole video, nor do I personally have expertise in archaeology. Any time I write about the “curse tablet” it should be understood that is meant as an “alleged” due to the highly controversial nature of the find. What I want to point out instead are problems with what I do have expertise in: apologetics.
Stirpling claims, among other things:
1. the curse tablet provides evidence for the notion that Moses and Joshua were literate (Starting around 20:00 into the video)
2. The curse tablet is directly tied to Deuteronomy 27 and Joshua 8 as a real find that really backs up those specific chapters of the Bible (21:20 and following)
3. The curse tablet undermines the documentary hypothesis (35:00 and following)
4. The curse tablet summarizes Deuteronomic curses and therefore provides evidence for them as historical events (9:20)
1. Curse Tablet and Literacy
The argument here has a number of hidden assumptions. First, that having a single inscribed tablet suggests widespread literacy. Second, it appears Stirpling is actually at least skirting the claim of suggesting this tablet just was written by Joshua and/or Moses. That’s a huge assumption and claim that I don’t think anyone could take as anything beyond invention. Would it be great to have? Of course! But this tablet is not that proof. It’s not like it’s signed “-Moses” or “-Joshua.” I don’t get it. Even assuming the tablet has writing, and that that writing is earlier than the earliest Proto-Hebrew we have, one has to ask the question: how does this prove that Moses and/or Joshua were literate/wrote this tablet? So far as I can tell, there is no evidence to suggest this is correct.
2. and 4. Curse Tablet and Bible verses
I couldn’t find the exact time stamp for one of the claims I heard from Stirpling as I listened to the video a couple times, but not only does he claim that the curse tablet is tied to Deuteronomy 27 and 28 and Joshua 8, he also claims that Job 19:24, in which the author exclaims desire to have their words inscribed by iron implement(s) on lead shows that this curse tablet is the exact kind of thing being referenced there. If a reader happens to watch the video and can find that reference again, I’d appreciate it.
Anyway, this claim is incredible to me. Not only does Stirpling acknowledge immediately after making it that he has to presuppose the exacting historical nature of the references in the Bible in order to make the argument (thus making it a kind of loop: Dt. 27 and Jsh. 8 and Job 19 all tie together to show a lead curse tablet; the lead curse tablet proves the veracity of those references), but the claim itself is so much stronger than the evidence at hand suggests we ought to make. Assuming Stirpling is right about the date of the tablet, its location[1], it actually having text, that text actually being “Proto-Hebrew,” and that text actually reading as Stirpling et al. suggest it does, how does a tablet that reads [quoting directly from their paper]:
“A.You are cursed by the god yhw—cursed. B. You will die, C. Cursed – C’. Cursed, B’. you will surely die. A’.Cursed you are by yhw—cursed.”
…how does that text actually support the claim that this is a summary of Deuteronomy 27 and 28’s curses? What exactly is there here to tie this tablet so explicitly to the exact curses of Deuteronomy, as Stirpling directly claims it is? Other than it using the word “cursed” and a possible version of the divine name, YHWH, what connection is there between this tablet and the verses it’s supposed to confirm? There doesn’t seem to be any other than in the imagination of those who want to connect the two, and that’s highly problematic for evidential value.
3. Documentary Hypothesis
The Documentary Hypothesis itself is a bit of a misnomer, as its splintered off into a number of different theories, and more recent works I’ve read (extreme caveat–I’m not an expert, so I may very well be behind the times here) seem to suggest that the overarching hypothesis has fallen somewhat out of favor due to its somewhat pedantic way of reading the Bible. Anyway, it’s really not clear to me how this find, if genuine, is supposed to undermine the Documentary Hypothesis (DH hereafter). We know that worship of YHWH was more ancient than most or all of the Bible, and that YHWH was worshiped in other lands possibly or probably prior to the ancient Israelites coming into the region. So having an ancient inscription using the name YHWH does nothing to the DH so far as I can tell. It’s not that no one ever used the name YHWH before the Yahwist came and edited the Bible. Instead, the DH, to my knowledge, suggests that a Yahwistic worshiper came through later and edited the Bible to insert YHWH’s name into portions somewhat haphazardly to ensure worship was properly being directed to YHWH instead of just or merely Elohim/El. But nothing about the date of the use of the divine tetragrammaton would somehow disprove or distort the DH. I’m willing to be corrected here, of course, but I just don’t see the relevance.
Conclusion
More study of the Mt. Ebal curse tablet is needed. I personally hope it turns out to be something genuine that might have value. The limited scope of the supposed text on the tablet, however, along with the already highly contested nature of the text itself makes me urge caution. We should not set up apologetics claims that are so grandiose that it’s easy to knock them down.
Additional Notes
[1] Stirpling admits at several points that his group is relying upon the earlier excavators’ accuracy in reporting exactly where the debris that they sifted through came from. Allowing for human error, it’s possible the tablet didn’t even come from an altar as the report claims. Moreover, the location of Mt. Ebal is, according to Stirpling himself, only known through the Bible. So while that doesn’t mean it’s wrong, one does wonder how one can tie this exact find to this exact mountain as the exact one in the Bible and on the exact altar of Joshua, as Stirpling claims in one of the claims I’m not covering at more length. He really does say that he thinks that the rounded altar this tablet supposedly came from due to notes from another archaeologist about where the debris came from that they sifted to find the tablet just is the altar Joshua used in Joshua 8. Why? It seems mostly because that would be of the most apologetic significance.
SDG.
“Resisting the Bonhoeffer Brand: A Life Reconsidered” by Charles Marsh
Charles Marsh’s biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Strange Glory, sparked quite a bit of discussion when it was released. What many readers might not have realized, however, is that it also led to quite heated debate in scholarly circles related to Bonhoeffer studies. With Resisting the Bonhoeffer Brand: A Life Reconsidered, Marsh responds to scholarly critique of his biography, highlights some of the difficulties and joys of writing biographies, and calls readers to push to better understanding of the life and theology of Bonhoeffer.
The book’s short length should not deter readers looking for deep exploration of Bonhoeffer’s life. It’s essentially an extended essay on writing Strange Glory, writing biographies generally, how to evaluate the accuracy and impact of history, and, most extensively, a response to another Bonhoeffer scholar’s persistent critiques of Marsh’s biography. That other scholar is Ferdinand Schlingensiepen, whose own biography of Bonhoeffer, Dietrich Bonhoeffer 1906-1945: Martyr, Thinker, Man of Resistance remains a book I recommend to readers as well. But Schlingensiepen took great issue with Marsh’s exploratory directions in the latter’s life of Bonhoeffer, ultimately going a bit off the rails at points, not just criticizing Marsh for the kind of small mistakes all biographers make (eg. geographical, a few temporal, etc.) but also arguing that Marsh’s biography is entirely useless because it doesn’t focus on Schlingensiepen’s own preferred trajectory of reading Bonhoeffer.
Specifically, Schlingensiepen takes a nearly obsessive interest in critiquing Marsh for not focusing on minutiae of the church struggle in Germany and upbraids him for not following Bethge’s biography of Bonhoeffer more closely. Marsh, in turn, notes the errors with such a critique, both for pigeonholing Bonhoeffer’s own life into less impactful and radical than it was and in failing to allow for new avenues of research into Bonhoeffer. It appears that, for Schlingensiepen, the Confessing Church must be entirely without error, while narratives of Bonhoeffer’s life must never depart from prior research.
Marsh effectively answers Schlingensiepen’s critiques time and again, all while pushing for a resistance to a kind of “Bonhoeffer Brand” that would limit exploration of his life and theology to only that which is approved or has been done before.
Resisting the Bonhoeffer Brand is a book I would consider essential reading for those interested in studying Dietrich Bonhoeffer. It also is a great look at the challenges and delights of writing biographies more generally. Highly recommended.
All Links to Amazon are Affiliates links
Links
Dietrich Bonhoeffer– read all my posts related to Bonhoeffer and his theology.
Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!
Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)
SDG.
——
The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.
Book Review: “Renewal Worship: A Theology of Pentecostal Doxology” by Steven Félix-Jäger
Renewal Worship: A Theology of Pentecostal Doxology provides a broad overview/theology of Pentecostal worship.
The first thing that immediately came to my mind on starting this book is the discussions and debates I’ve engaged in over Pentecostal theology. As a Lutheran, there are some quite large differences in theology and practice. However, Lutheranism also doesn’t have a fully-fledged view of gifts of the spirit, a stance on continuationism vs. not, or really much interest in those debates. Knowing that some of these discussions quickly turn sour (such as having been told I’m unsaved because I held to a different consideration of what it meant to be baptized), I was cautious on cracking the cover here. I’m pleased to report that Félix-Jäger does not engage in such frivolous dismissal of other Christians. Instead, he’s provided here a substantive look at Pentecostal worship that includes enough in it to be useful and informative to Christians of broad backgrounds and interests.
The book is divided into two parts. The first is a profile of renewal worship, and the second places renewal worship in context. Félix-Jäger uses the term “renewal worship” interchangeably with Pentecostal worship. In the introduction, he points out that many books on theology of worship are prescriptive–that is, they tell readers how they’re supposed to be worshiping. He notes that there are severe problems with claiming to have one single unified approach as “the biblical approach to worship” (8). Rather than attempting to provide stout arguments for why one must worship as he suggests, he instead offers the theology of worship in this book as a case study of how a Pentecostal community can worship, why it matters, and how it can be seen as exegetically satisfying.
The first chapter has Félix-Jäger going into what renewal worship is. Here, his concern for not offering prescription is evident, though he provides a contrast between evangelical (largely based upon scripture as the primary driver in worship), sacramental (based upon rituals as means for bringing grace and Christ to believers), and Pentecostal (focused on the Spirit’s involvement in worship). Admittedly, the constant use of “symbol” language for sacramental theology is grating from a Lutheran perspective, but his effort to delineate different styles of worship is of interest.
Renewal worship, he argues, can be integrated into eschatological expectation–worship as a foretaste of the feast to come (39ff). The sacraments themselves are not rejected by Pentecostal theology but integrated into a broad sense of Spirit-filled worship (44ff). Of course, there are controversial aspects in Pentecostal worship, such as the notion of healing or miraculous signs and wonders as integration of worship. Félix-Jäger again puts this into an eschatological framework, seeing healing as a sign of the coming renewal (49). He does not debate whether healings occur or how they do so. Instead, the concept of healings occurring is a given for renewal worship and not part of the scope of this book.
Félix-Jäger acknowledges some of the difficulties that have led to renewal worship getting linked to prosperity gospel (72-81). He uses lyrics from various songs to illustrate aspects of what he means by renewal worship (eg. 27-28; 137). He carefully draws lines about what is meant by speaking in tongues in worship, not falling into the trap of insisting one must do so to demonstrate salvation (as this reviewer has encountered before in argument) (87ff). The arts are integrated into worship in renewal worship, whether its music or other forms of art (106ff). Renewal worship is less structured and often depends upon a sense of flowing with the Spirit (139ff). Renewal worship is a global movement and has advantages when it comes to integration and contextualization, he argues (200ff).
Renewal Worship is of interest to anyone who seeks understanding of worship practice or is exploring more about what it means to be Pentecostal. As someone who’s not Pentecostal, I still found the book quite engaging, sometimes challenging, and certainly enlightening. Recommended.
All Links to Amazon are Affiliates links
Links
Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!
Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)
SDG.
——
The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.
Book Review: “Dawn: A Proton’s Tale of All that Came to Be” by Dekker, Oranje, and Van Den Brink
Dawn is, as the subtitle suggests, a story from the perspective of a proton from the beginning of time until now.
The authors tell the story in first person, making for some interesting asides. This gives creative freedom to talk about the “discomfort” the proton feels as it bumps up against molecules. One humorous scene is the authors’ rendition of the beginnings of evolution, as the proton is bumped, grabbed, etc. all while new molecules are formed and copied (sometimes incorrectly) (p. 33ff). The winsome way the proton’s voice is written also makes for a safe feeling for exploring some of the more difficult questions the book may raise for readers who disagree with some of the contents.
The story does, of course, run into Jesus. It’s a cool perspective when you have the first person account of a proton from the dawn of creation seeing the events surrounding Jesus. The proton even reflects on what will happen next (122) and eventually on the new creation (147).
Dawn is an interesting perspective on a number of scientific questions. It will appeal to those hoping to get a survey of the basics of how the universe grew from the beginning.
All Links to Amazon are Affiliates links
Links
Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!
Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)
SDG.
——
The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.
Book Review: “The Gospel of Peace in a Violent World” edited by Shawn Graves and Marlena Graves
The Gospel of Peace in a Violent World is a collection of essays centered around the defense of Christian pacifism. The essays are broadly arranged around five parts- biblical reflections, learning from others, war and violence, race, gender, and disability, and finally immigration and environment.
Reviewing a large, important collection like this forces a reviewer to skim across or even past many fascinating topics. We must select from among numerous excellent essays and highlight just a few for our readers. And that is the unenviable task to which I now turn. Suffice to say, this collection as a whole is well worth readers’ time.
Part one turns to biblical reflections on pacifism. I was somewhat surprised to see the very first essay by Eric A. Seibert come out and say bluntly that Christians should push back on the notion of God as warrior and indeed reject that portrayal. In response to the question of what to do with passages which simply state God is warrior, Seibert writes, “some Christian pacificstts will find it difficult to state publicly their rejection of the image of God as warrior…” for reasons such as personal cost or simply personal pre-commitment to seeing how the Bible is read. However, Seibert responds, “these assumptions about God’s very active role in determining the content of the Bible do not match the evidence at hand. It appears that ancient Israelites were free to write about God in ways that made sense in their particular historical and cultural context…” (19). This full on confrontation with biblical texts often used to undercut pacifism is a significant difference from even the next essay by T.C. Ham, who instead argues broadly that the Bible’s broad teaching on shalom is the focus. The difference between these two approaches–direct acknowledgement of difficult passages and reading of them as reflections of the culture from which they sprang vs. attempted integration–starts the book with a clear message: Christian pacifism is broader than one may think.
Part two introduces the concept in one essay of a “Pentagon for Peace” in which Randy S. Woodley argues for resources being committed to peaceful undertakings rather than the warfare/mutual destruction that seems to be the national priority today (79ff). Other essays show MLK Jr.’s passionate peace-giving activism, other historical examples of nonviolence, integration of nonviolence into human rights advocacy and more. Part three reflects upon war and violence in a number of essays. Perhaps the most shocking essay here (at least for one not as well versed in pacifism) is Ted Grimsrud’s “Christian Pacifism and the ‘Good War'” in which he notes that World War II is often taken for granted as a paradigm case of just war theory, but that upon examination, much of the justice behind the war can find cracks in the façade. This essay alone was worth reading the book for, and while I’m not totally convinced by it, I found it incredibly deep and challenging. Those who scoff at pacifism and use paradigm cases like this to argue against it should contend with such a well-reasoned argument. Other essays in this section push back on certain kinds of Christian peacemaking through violence and contend that Christianity can be a light in the darkness in the midst of violence.
Part four turns to questions of nonviolence in race, gender, and disability, bringing forward numerous surprising topics and insights to these important topics that go beyond what this reviewer would have typically associated with pacifism. These essays show the breadth of the question of violence and peace in Christian theology and how one’s theology of those questions certainly has an impact beyond the simple question of whether war is just. Part five continues that theme, applying it to questions about immigration and the environment.
My overall impression coming away from the book is that the case for pacifism is much stronger than I’d thought. I still believe that Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s ethic of peace and violence is likely the best approach, however. In that ethic, Christians may engage in violent resistance while also acknowledging the guilt which they are taking in while doing so. As Bonhoeffer wrote- “Everyone who acts responsibly becomes guilty.” Interestingly, Bonhoeffer is cited multiple times in this collection, largely as a voice for pacifism or at least a way to lean towards it. I would agree, as Bonhoeffer has plenty written that could lean that direction. A holistic reading of Bonhoeffer doesn’t portray him as a committed pacifist, however, and I maintain that position myself–peace is preferred, but resistance is allowed, while acknowledging the guilt and sinfulness that involves.
The Gospel of Peace in a Violent World provides one of the most robust defenses of pacifism I’ve read. It’s highly recommended.
All Links to Amazon are Affiliates links
Links
Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!
Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)
SDG.
——
The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.
J.W. Wartick - Reconstructing Faith 