Blue Cord

I am currently reading Christophe Nihan’s From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch. This book was my big purchase at the SBL, and the more I read of the book the more I am glad I bought it. The book is very well written, clearly organized, and beautifully argued. The topic of the book is the composition of Leviticus (I can hear the collective yawn from the majority of my readers), but in dealing with this subject Nihan has to deal with broader issues in source criticism.

I am currently in the second chapter, where Nihan is dealing with the question of the extent of the Priestly Document.¹ Working backwards through Deuteronomy and Numbers, he finds no suitable ending to P in those texts. He then skips Leviticus and moves to Exodus. A large section of this chapter is devoted to arguing that Exodus 25-31 as a whole are a part of the original P document instead of being from several redactional hands (with a few exceptions). Within this section, however, he finds no suitable ending for P. This means the ending must be in Leviticus, as he will no doubt argue in subsequent chapters.

One of the issues he addresses is whether Exodus 35-40 were a part of the P document or are later additions. Israel Knohl has argued that PT sees the tabernacle as being built by Moses while HS views it as the work of all the people.² Nihan disagrees, and points to Pola’s argument that P frequently contains “execution formulas” in which commands from God are paired with passages in which the command is carried out.³ He argues that it would be odd to find the command to build the tabernacle without also having a report of its completion.

I am not completely convinced either way, although I still lean towards Exodus 35-40 coming from HS. I can easily see some short expression of completion in PT that has been expanded into a larger section by HS. I think the theological differences between 25-31 and 35-40 are stronger arguments than an expected execution formula.

This whole topic feeds into a post I made prior to the SBL about the covenant at Sinai in the Priestly Document. If the ending of P is found in the building of the tabernacle or in the consecration of the priests in Leviticus 8-9 (as Nihan argues), then the setting up of the cultus would be the one of the main goals of P. It would fit nicely with Mark George’s idea that the completion of the tabernacle is the completion of creation.⁴ This ending would also explain why P is focused more on the Abrahamic covenant than one at Sinai as Steve Cook has argued.⁵

1. Nihan views P as a document, and not as a redaction the way Frank Moore Cross and others have seen it. [back]
2. Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 64–66. [back]
3. T. Pola, Die ursprünglich Priesterschrift, WMANT 70 (Neukirchen–Vluyn, 1995), 116ff. [back]
4. Mark K. George, “Israel’s Tabernacle as Modification of Priestly Creation,” paper delivered at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, 2007 (San Diego). [back]
5. Stephen L. Cook, “Holiness Versus Reverence: Two Priestly Theologies; Two Priestly Schools” (forthcoming). [back]

This was generally a slow year for me in terms of books at the SBL, owing to the fact that I am currently somewhat underemployed. I did manage to pick up some books, so I thought I would list them here.

• Kittredge, Cynthia Briggs. Conversations with Scripture: The Gospel of John. Anglican Association of Biblical Scholars Study Series. Harrisburg, Penn.: Morehouse Publishing, 2007.

This is the latest book in the Conversations with Scripture series. My book on the legal material in the Pentateuch was released in this series last year. I got this one for free because I am on the editorial board for the series. Cynthia’s book is being sent to all the Anglican bishops who will be attending Lambeth, since the Gospel of John is going to be the subject of their Bible study for the conference. If you are looking for books to use in parish Bible studies, I would urge you to consider this series. The books that are out so far are Revelation, The Law, Parables, and The Gospel of John.

• Van der Toorn, Karel. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2007.

This book was the subject of one of the Hebrew Bible and Cognate Literature sections this year. I tried to go to the session, but it was overflowing with people. I will have to settle for reading the book.

• Watts, James W., ed. Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch. SBL Symposium Series. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001.

This book has been out a while, but I haven’t picked it up until now. I find the idea of Persia commissioning the Torah to be unlikely, but I thought I would give it a shot. Apparently many of the contributors to this book also find it unlikely, but the SBL Symposium Series always goes a good job of exploring issues such as this.

• Nihan, Christophe. From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe 25. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.

This is the book I am most looking forward to reading. As I mentioned in a previous post, I heard Nihan speak at one of the Pentateuch sections. The book is an expanded form of the author’s dissertation at University of Lausanne, Switzerland, under Thomas Romer. It was a bit more than I had planned to spend, but I did get an author’s discount since my own dissertation was published in this series. As it turns out, the author’s discount at Mohr Siebeck is larger than the standard convention discount for their books, so that made it a little more affordable. It still cost more than a paperback book has a right to cost. Nihan apparently draws on Israel Knohl’s ideas, which have been so helpful in my own work.

• Roncace, Mark, and Patrick Gray. Teaching the Bible through Popular Culture and the Arts. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007.

This is the second book on which Roncace and Gray have collaborated. Their first, Teaching the Bible: Practical Strategies for Classroom Instruction, was very helpful. Both books offer practical classroom exercises for teaching classes in the Bible. As the title suggests, this volume contains activities that draw on television, movies, music, poetry, and literature as a way to help students understand elements of the biblical text.

In addition to the bibliobloggers lunch, I also attended a couple of sections. The first was the Pentateuch section.  I heard the tail end of Konrad Schmid’s paper “The Emergence and disappearance of the Separation between Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic History,” all of Thomas Romer’s paper “How Many Books (teuchs): Pentateuch, Hexateuch, Deuteronomistic History, or Enneateuch,” and all of Erhard Blum’s “How to Determine the Scope of Literary Works in Genesis to Kings.” Blum was not present, so his paper was read by David Carr.  These guys always deliver very dense papers, so I am hoping to be able to get copies of the papers to read and digest at length.

It was then off to a meeting with Jim, who graciously agreed to chat with me about starting a publishing company.   This was followed by a quick stop at the first biblical law section, where I heard Henning Graf Reventlow’s paper “Canaanite Cultic Law and Its Yahwistic Repainting in Leviticus 1-16, Shown by a Close Reading of the Chapter Leviticus 1.”  I was an interesting paper which tried to remove Israelite elements in Leviticus 1 in order to recover a Canaanite layer.  He argues that the basis of biblical cultic law was pre-Yahwistic.  I wasn’t convinced.

The evening consisted of the Yale reception from 7:00-8:30 and the Johns Hopkins reception from 9:00-11:00.  Both were enjoyable, but I couldn’t socialize the way I wanted to due to my laryngitis.

Today wasn’t the most exciting day I have ever had at the SBL.

I started off the day by listening to one paper at in the Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah section.  It was Mark Leuchter’s paper, “The Prophets and the Levites in Josiah’s Covenant Ceremony.” I wanted to hear it because of my interest in the history of the priesthood.  It was a good paper, although not exactly on the topic I was hoping.

I then headed over to the book fair.  The only book that really caught my attention was Christophe Nihan’s From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus. I saw it when looking for my own book at the Mohr Siebeck exibit.  Apparently they only bring books for two years, and because my was published in 2005, they didn’t bring it this year. I would love to get Nihan’s book, but even with the convention discount it is $112.

After lunch with a friend from Abingdon, I tried to go to the Hebrew Literature and Cognate Literature section on “Karl van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, and the Making of the Hebrew Bible.” It was packed to overflowing, so I didn’t bother trying to push my way in. Fortunately, both this section and the 4:00 one were in my hotel, so I just came back up to my room for a while.

At 4:00 I went to the first of four Pentateuch sections.  This was a good section.  My favorite paper was entitled “Of Animals and Nations: The Reception of Dietary Laws in P, D, and H.” It wasn’t until the Q&A session after his paper that I realized it was Christophe Nihan, who wrote to book I mentioned above.  Another good paper was Mark K. George’s paper, “Israel’s Tabernacle as Modification of Priestly Creation.” He argued that the construction of the tabernacle is the completion of the creation begun in Genesis 1.  In contrast to the gods who build the temple at the end of creation in Mesopotamian myths, in P the tabernacle building in Exodus 25-31 and 35-40 are the conclusion to creation.  This could dovetail nicely with my discussion of the covenant at Sinai and what Moses received there according to P.

I finished the evening with a nice dinner with two good friends from seminary, one from the largest US state and the other from the second largest.

My previous post about my original blog at Xanga got me reading over some of my posts from that blog. One in particular I still think is a good read. Although I moved many of my Bible-related posts to Blue Cord, this one never made it. So, to ensure that it gets included on Blue Cord - and because it is related to All Saints’ Day - I thought I would repost it here. It was originally posted November 5, 2005.

Original post:

I have been thinking for some time about the concept of heroes. The genesis of this line of thought lies in this past summer when my favorite baseball player, Raphael Palmeiro, was found to have used performance enhancing drugs and lied about it to Congress. It reminds me of my first experience with a fallen hero. When I was a teenager, I found out that my hero James T. Kirk from Star Trek was played by an actor who was quite egotistical.

As I have gotten older, my concept of heroes has changed, whether they are fictional or real. I used to focus on those people who had accomplished great things: the adventurer who overcame great odds, the scientist who made great discoveries, the athlete who performed well. I still admire those people, but they are no longer my heroes. The quality that makes someone a hero now is his or her ability to deal with failure, especially moral failure.

This change in thinking has come about because of my change in understanding about the Christian life. Back in youth group in church, I thought of myself as a good person. I didn’t do the things that the “bad kids” did. I didn’t do drugs or have sex before marriage or stay out late. I was a good kid. That, to me, was what it meant to live as a Christian.

I can no longer have such delusions about myself. I know myself now to be a failure in so many areas, including the moral realm. I don’t pretend now that I am better than others just because I don’t do what some versions of Christianity have defined as the obvious sins. Instead, I know that my sin goes much deeper, affecting all areas of my life. I recognize sin as brokenness. I am not a sinner because I sin; I sin because I am a sinner.

The question for me now is how I deal with it after I have failed. How do I incorporate my failure into my self-understanding? Do I have the courage to recognize the sin and name it as such, or do I go on deluding myself that I am a good person? How do I learn to live with myself, knowing myself to be capable of the kind of things I have done in my life?

The heroes I seek now are those who have come to grips with the sinful condition of humanity and have learned to move on, not by denying their sin but by overcoming it. Palmeiro has not done that. He has continued to deny wrong doing even in the face of overwhelming evidence against him. And he has blamed others for his fault. This, much more than his use of drugs (which was bad enough), is the reason he is such a fallen hero for me.

As an aside, I also have trouble with his drug use because it goes against the essential honesty of baseball (baseball as a concept, that is, not as they way it is actually played in the major leagues). Baseball is always about who plays better. Everybody comes to the game equal in the eyes of the game, with only their difference in skill to make them a good or bad player. And even when you are winning, you still have to give the other team their chance. You can’t just hold onto the ball and let the clock run out like you do in football and basketball. You throw the ball to the other team and give them a chance to hit it. Drugs are a way of succeeding without having to have as much skill. What you are saying is that you don’t care what skill the other guy has, you are willing to use artificial means so it will look like you are better than he is. I despise that in life as much as in baseball.

Who then are my heroes now? There are many of them, both fictional and real. My father is one, for he as much as anyone knows what it was to experience personal failure repeatedly and still have to go on living. He did not do it as well as I would have liked, which is why he died during a drinking binge at the age of 53. But he did not give up trying. It is a shame that he died knowing only some of the respect that I have for him because of that.

Dostoevsky is another (the picture to the right is me next to his grave). I know I have mentioned him several times is recent posts, but my visit to St. Petersburg has renewed my interest in him and his literature. Dostoevsky was addicted to gambling. Repeatedly he would lose everything he had and have to start over again. But he always did start over. He incorporated the experience into his self-understanding and moved on. And he passed that understanding, which is in reality an understanding of all people, on to us in his writing. The genius of Dostoevsky is not that he overcame gambling, which he never truly did, but that he never allowed gambling to overcome him. He kept moving forward and never gave in. The same is true of Rashkolnikov, Dostoevsky’s “hero” in Crime and Punishment. The salvation Rashkolnikov receives at the end is in recognizing what he has done and accepting the penalty for it.

Being someone with several aspects that are not only acts of sin but lifelong problems, I draw strength from this. One of my problems is depression, which is not a sin in the sense of something I have done wrong but is certainly sin in the sense that it is a part of my brokenness. (I have other sins that are wrongs I have done and still do, but this is the one I chose to mention here.) It is not that God cannot overcome this, but that God chooses not to. What God does is give me the strength to move forward, recognizing this as a part of who I am but ultimately not the final word. Paul had to deal with the thorn in his side, but God refused to take it from him. God’s answer was that God’s grace was sufficient to make it through (2 Cor.12:7-10).

I have come to rely more on that grace and the recognition that it allows me to be honest about my brokenness. I do not have to hide the evil parts of myself, even from myself. I can acknowledge them with such and still continue. I think this is why Leviticus is so powerful. In it, God meets us where we are, demanding holiness from us, but knowing that we will not reach that standard. In those cases where we fail, God provides the sin offering and the restitution offering, the sacraments of grace. God does not abandon us in our sins, which allows us to recognize them for what they are. This makes the people of God the most honest of all people. As Christians, we can be honest because of grace, not because of our goodness.

Thanks be to God for those people in my life, famous or not, who provide me with examples of how to go on living in the midst of brokenness. They are my heroes.