Updates will be somewhat slower this week, at least in comparison to the past several. We are enjoying spending time with some friends who are in town. Add to that the busy Labor Day weekend, and time for blogging is a little slim. Fear not, however, as there will still be some posts this week. By next week, expect things to pick up again.

Why do most conservative evangelical Christians not even discuss Proverbs 8 in regards to the “creation wars?” The answer is simple. They instinctively understand that Proverbs 8 is not meant to be taken literally. Proverbs 8 is poetry, and like the rest of the Book of Proverbs it is filled with metaphor, simile, hyperbole and a plethora of other literary devices. We read Proverbs 8 and easily discern that its genre is not historical narrative. Because of this we understand that we cannot expect it to behave as a piece of historical narrative might behave. Yet, when we read Genesis 1 we often jump to the conclusion that it ought to be understood literally. Conservative evangelical Christians often jump to the further conclusion that this literal understanding is a kind of polemic against evolution. Yet neither conclusions are necessarily correct. Why should Genesis 1 be understood as historical narrative? I am, personally, unaware of any convincing argument for why its genre must be historical narrative, and not a whole host of other possibilities.

Where does this leave us? Certainly not hopelessly adrift, as some might suggest. It does reveal that understanding the Bible is not an easy thing all the time. It often takes hard work and study to understand the Bible, as it takes hard work and study to understand any piece of ancient near eastern literature. That shouldn’t dissuade anyone from studying the Bible, it ought to encourage everyone that it is a book worth studying.

It also ought to make it clear that genre is a key link in determining the purpose of a text. As I already mentioned, we instinctively understand that Proverbs 8 is poetry, specifically poetry meant to teach. It falls in the broader section of Proverbs 1-9 which is clearly addressed to young men as a means of starting them on the wise path in life. Proverbs 8 is part of this. In my opinion, Genesis 1 is a (possibly liturgical) polemic that shows how God is fundamentally different from the other gods (there are other ways to understand the genre and purpose of Genesis 1 that do not see it as historical narrative). The use of metaphorical and other non-literal language in either passage in no way takes away from what they are trying to do. Quite the opposite, the metaphorical and non-literal language in both passages adds to what they are trying to accomplish.

In the end, genre is vitally important to determining the meaning of a text. How one understands the genre of a text irrevocably impacts how how understands that text–whether as polemic, temple cosmology, ancient near eastern creation motif, chiastic hymn, or historical narrative. My own hope is that one day evangelical Christians may begin to understand that studying genre–and by extension other ancient near eastern literature which helps to flesh out a genre–is an important part of studying the Bible. In addition, I hope that one day we as Christians will understand that a disagreement over the genre and purpose of a text is normally not cause for throwing someone out of a church.

As a brief aside, the fact that Scripture is written in a language means that it is culturally conditioned since all languages are–by nature–culturally conditioned.

Hurtado’s brief post is well worth the few moments it will take to read.

Proverbs 8 is a poem in which the speaker, Lady Wisdom, discusses how she was with God when he created the world. Indeed, one even gets the impression that Lady Wisdom assisted God in his creative activity. Below, I include the relevant verses from Proverbs 8. I assume that everyone already knows Genesis 1.

22 “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work,
the first of his acts of old.
23 Ages ago I was set up,
at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
24 When there were no depths I was brought forth,
when there were no springs abounding with water.
25 Before the mountains had been shaped,
before the hills, I was brought forth,
26 before he had made the earth with its fields,
or the first of the dust of the world.
27 When he established the heavens, I was there;
when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
28 when he made firm the skies above,
when he established the fountains of the deep,
29 when he assigned to the sea its limit,
so that the waters might not transgress his command,
when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
30 then I was beside him, like a master workman,
and I was daily his delight,
rejoicing before him always,
31 rejoicing in his inhabited world
and delighting in the children of man. (ESV)

Recently, I’ve discussed genre and it’s importance in understanding the Bible. To illustrate this importance, I thought we might look at Genesis 1 and Proverbs 8. Both of these passages discuss what we might call the creation of the world, but they do so in widely disparate terms.

Genesis 1 is, of course, familiar to us. Proverbs 8, however, may be less so. Here Lady Wisdom explains how she was at the creation of the world. Before the world began God created Lady Wisdom. But she also gives us some hints about how God created the world. In this passage there is no hint of creation via divine fiat (i.e., God does not command things to be, and they are). Rather, God shapes the mountains. When God makes the sky firm (!) Wisdom is with him. Lady Wisdom explains that God set a limit on the sea, and made foundations for the earth.

There are quite obviously difficulties in reconciling a literal reading of this passage with a literal reading of Genesis 1. For instance, why is Lady Wisdom not mentioned in Genesis 1? Why does God shape the mountains here, but in Genesis he simply commands them to be? What is all of this about firm skies? In some ways, if one understands the background that both of these passages are set against (an ancient near eastern understanding of the universe, e.g., a solid/firm sky, the earth sitting on pillars, etc), they actually make some sense side by side. Nevertheless, if we were to accept the plain, literal reading of Proverbs 8 we come away with a rather different view of the creation than we do if we accept a plain, literal reading of Genesis 1.

As some readers may know, I am interested in the Hebrew verbal system. That being the case it should come as no surprise that I find Andrason’s article extremely interesting. However, I would like to withhold any substantive comments until I’ve had a chance to process through his points in a more thorough manner.

Ultimately, I think Joseph Kelly is right when he says that this debate is really about worldview. But, I think that we can narrow things down a bit more. Certainly worldview plays a huge part in this debate, but I think that a more specific issue is also at play. I’ve mentioned genre and its importance in biblical interpretation several times recently. This, I’m afraid, is another example. Mohler understands Genesis 1 as an historical narrative. I’m not certain why he sees it as such. I had a discussion with someone who agrees with Mohler recently, and his reasoning for Genesis 1 being understood as historical narrative is that such an understanding was “the plain meaning” of the text. This kind of thinking has obvious problems (e.g., “the plain meaning of the text” presupposes an understanding of genre, thereby determining how the plain meaning is arrived at. Plain meaning in poetry is quite different from plain meaning in a royal annul, which is quite different from plain meaning in a law code, etc, etc). I would assume that Mohler has more robust reasons, but I am not aware of them.

So, Mohler understands Genesis 1 as some kind of historical narrative, because of this he believes that Genesis 1 is supposed to convey a more or less literal “this is the way it happened,” view of creation. But Bible scholars, some of them quite conservative, have proposed a wide variety of ways to understand Genesis 1. For instance, some think it is a liturgical hymn. Others think that it is a functional chiasm, the first several days creating abstract things and the later days creating the concrete containers (cf., Kline, Kingdom Prologue). Still others see Genesis 1 as speaking of the world not in literal terms, but in temple imagery (e.g., John Walton). I say all of this to say that I believe that Mohler, in making his understanding of Genesis 1 a requirement for being a Christian, has in fact made his understanding of the genre of Genesis 1 a requirement for being a Christian. As far as I am aware, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is entirely compatible with any of the views I mention above. That makes Mohler a conservative among conservatives.

It is probably obvious that I find some very large flaws in Mohler’s interpretation of the Bible. I think he has failed to take into account a plethora of cognate literature. Most disappointingly, I have not–as of yet–seen him discuss the ancient near eastern literature that has a bearing on Genesis 1. Even more disappointingly, I have not seen him discuss his own understanding of why Genesis 1′s genre ought to be understood as a literal narrative explaining creation in detail as opposed to a polemic against other nations’ understanding of creation, or as opposed to temple imagery, or as opposed to any other number of options.

I’ll be dealing with Genesis 1 and genre again in the next few days, this time with reference to Proverbs 8. Stay tuned.

Let me give an example. A conservative evangelical Christian might read any number of prophecies in the Hebrew Bible and automatically apply that prophecy to Jesus Christ, because she has been predisposed to do so. Whether formally or not, she has been taught to read biblical prophecy in a certain way. Similar things take place when a reader fails to understand when metaphor is being used and when it is not. Conservative evangelicals are regularly taught that the Bible is a history book. As a result, they expect it to conform to the norms of modern history books–much like I automatically expected Charles’ map image to conform to my modern idea of what a map is for.

One could look at this from another direction. I have often heard pastors declare that the Bible is God’s love letter to each individual in a congregation. Pastors often mean well when they say this, but I think that it again leads to a misunderstanding of exactly what the Bible is. This in turn leads to a misreading of the text because the reader expects one thing but encounters something that is, in actuality, something quite different. This is, of course, at the heart of the evangelical debates about inerrancy, creationism, etc. Charles points out that looking at cognate texts can help us understand the Bible. He’s absolutely right. Looking at other ancient near eastern texts helps the modern reader to approach the Bible in the proper light so that when it does not conform to a modern ideal of a love letter, or history book, or whatever else, we are able to understand why and interpret it properly.

As it turns out, the map that Charles displayed wasn’t inaccurate at all. My expectations of it were what was inaccurate.

Dear Colleagues,

The 2011 Mid-Atlantic Regional SBL call for papers is now available on the SBL website. The meeting will be held jointly with the Mid-Atlantic and New England/Maritimes Regions of the American Academy of Religion (AAR) on March 17-18, 2011 at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in New Brunswick, New Jersey. The call contains dates, locations, deadlines, guidelines for preparing and submitting proposals, hotel and registration information, and other important details regarding the meeting. Please follow the link below to access the call:

http://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/2011_MARcall.pdf

We are excited to announce that Dr. Lawrence H. Schiffman, Ethel and Irvin A. Edelman Professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies and Chair of the Skirball Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University, will serve as our plenary speaker and Dr. Maxine Grossman, Associate Professor of Religious Studies and Jewish Studies at the University of Maryland, will deliver our presidential address.

One of the interesting things about moving is that Mandy and I are now in a different SBL region. I’m rather looking forward to seeing new faces at next year’s regional SBL. I’ll certainly be submitting a paper proposal, though I’m not 100% sure what topic I will choose. As a random aside, in New England our regional SBL meetings were only a single day. A two-day regional meeting is going to take some adjustment in my thinking.

First, summer modules are a two-edged sword. On the one hand, they’re very helpful because it provides students a way to retake a class they may have failed to put the work into, or to take a class that they wouldn’t otherwise be able to fit into their schedule. On the other hand, there is just too much information in a standard semester-long course to try to cram it into a summer module that normally only lasts two weeks. I’ve been a student in plenty of summer classes, and it’s hard enough trying to process all the information. Having now co-taught a summer module, I know that professors don’t have it any easier. Trying to say everything that needs to be said in a short amount of time is very difficult.

Second, and related to the first, I think that I would prioritize slightly different aspects of each of the prophets I discussed with the class if I were to do it again. I’m fairly certain that this is something that even professor who have taught for twenty years say after finishing a class (even a semester-length class!). I look forward to my next opportunity to teach the Latter Prophets, as I think I’ll do much better.

Third, we used Exploring the Old Testament: A Guide to the Prophets by J. Gordon McConville. I think this textbook is quite good for a college level survey course. It also has the bonus of having a chapter on Lamentations, which Mandy somehow managed to squeeze into our survey. If I had the opportunity to teach this course again, I’d want to try some different ways of integrating the textbook with the classroom experience. As it was, we asked the students to write a one page interaction paper based on one of the boxes in the chapters covering the prophets we were going to talk about that day. We spent the first few minutes of class discussing their short papers. It worked OK, but in hindsight, I would have liked to see a little more effort by the students (generally, of course, some students did an excellent job) to process his arguments. Perhaps this would have been easier to see in a normal semester-length class? Either way, I’d like to come up with some way to improve the textbook-student-classroom relationship.

It is in her discussion of this later use of Bathsheba that I think Berlin may reach too far. She argues that in 1 Kings there is a contrast between Bathsheba and Abishag (pg 27ff). This is certainly true. However, Berlin may read too much into Bathsheba’s character. She suggests that “one can feel a twinge of jealousy pass through Bathsheba as she silently notes the presence of a younger, fresher woman.” Whether the historical Bathsheba (oh my!) may or may not have felt jealous at the sight of Abishag is, of course, besides the point. I am not convinced by Berlin’s reasoning that Bathsheba is portrayed as feeling any jealousy. If anything, I think the repetitious mention of Abishag lying with David is more to highlight his own feebleness and lack of sexual prowess, in contrast to his earlier exploits with Bathsheba who now enters as the legitimate wife. Berlin mentions this interpretation, but seems more keen to perceive a reaction in Bathsheba that I am simply not convinced is in the text. Nevertheless, an endnote (pet peeve: I hate endnotes. Footnotes are superior in every way) directs the reader to Berlin’s comments about repetition in narrative on page 74.

On page 74, deep within chapter three, Berlin makes the interesting point that repetition of facts previously mentioned in the narrative serves to shift the point of view from that of the narrator to the “newly arrive character,” (pg. 74). This is an interesting proposal, and I look forward to reading chapter three which deals at length with point of view.

On the whole, I found chapter two to be interesting, and much of what Berlin proposes is easily verifiable. Aside from her desire to see more emotion in Bathsheba than I believe the narrative allows, the chapter is quite helpful. The final part of the chapter deals with characterization. Here Berlin provides a somewhat standard treatment, although the biblical examples she provides serve well to drive home the points she makes for biblicists.