January 2008 - Images of Jeremiah

We have only included a few of our shorter reviews in this issue of Interpretation. If you would like to read more, please sign up for our trial subscription or become full-time subscriber today.

Who Owns the Bible? Toward the Recovery of a Christian Hermeneutic

by Karl Paul Donfried

Crossroad, New York, 2006. 176 pp. $20.00. ISBN 978-08245-2390-9.
KARL DONFRIED’S LATEST

ook is a lament for the sorry state of biblical interpretation in the American church and a rallying cry to address and transform it. In three short introductory chapters, he describes how both the religious right and left have neglected a rich, vibrant reading of the church’s Scriptures that is self-consciously located in the great tradition of the church catholic. Donfried’s recommended antidote to the current malaise is the recovery of a christological, Trinitarian hermeneutic—an approach to scriptural interpretation that entails viewing both testaments of the Christian Bible as the word of God that testifies to the Christ event and enlivens and empowers the church under the guidance of the Spirit. In two longer chapters that primarily entail close readings of the Gospel of Matthew and Paul’s letters, Donfried attempts to employ such a hermeneutic for the purpose of dis­cussing the shape of the Christian ethical life, including sexual ethics.

There is much that is sympathetic in Donfried’s articulation of his frustrations with the current state of biblical interpretation in the con­temporary American church, and his attempt to chart a path forward is admirable. The outlook of the book is ecumenical, and Donfried’s desire to be in dialogue with patristic interpreters is in step with the promising turn by many biblical scholars to the ancient reception of Scripture.

Donfried’s treatment of historical criticism requires a brief comment. He both points to the dangers of historical-critical readings of the Bible and affirms their necessity for establishing a con­trol on interpretation. Assessing the rightful status and role of historical-critical judgments in the the­ological interpretation of Scripture is one of the most significant contemporary challenges for the church, but Donfried’s cursory treatment is not sufficient given the privileged position he assigns to the meaning of the text in its original setting. In the current theological climate, such a claim must be carefully grounded rather than simply asserted.

Donfried intends to provide a theological reflection on reading Scripture followed by exam­ples of such reading that focus on Christian ethics. Richard Hays has done this with great elegance and insight in his Moral Vision of the New Testament (HarperOne, 1996), which is considerably longer and more detailed than Who Owns the Bible? Perhaps Donfried was aiming for a briefer and more popular treatment of scriptural interpretation, but in its brevity the book tends to leave significant issues inadequately addressed.

SHANE BERG
PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY

1 & 2 Kings

by Peter Leithart

Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. Brazos, Grand Rapids, 2006. 304 pp. $29.99. ISBN 978-1-58743-125-8.

THIS COMMENTARY ON the books of Kings by Peter Leithart is part of the Brazos Theological Commen­tary on the Bible. The aim of this series is to produce commentaries that interpret the Bible using the Nicene tradition as the “proper basis for the inter­pretation of the Bible as Christian Scripture” (p. 10). Commentators are chosen for “their expertise in using the Christian doctrinal tradition,” not for “his­torical or philological expertise” (p. 10). Commen­tators use whatever translation of the Bible and method of interpretation suits them. The only uni­fying element of this series is the premise that “doctrine provides structure and cogency to scrip­tural interpretation” (p. 12).

Leithart’s method is rather eclectic. He draws here and there from historical and literary criticism, but typological analysis is clearly his preferred method of interpretation. Typology may have served the early church well, but we are not the early church. Is it really possible to do typology today without the philosophical and hermeneuti­cal underpinnings that dominated the early cen­turies of Christianity? For Leithart, every use of the number “three” becomes an allusion to resurrec­tion, every body of water a reference to baptism, and every anointing is messianic. The most tenu­ous of similarities lead to typological comparisons: David/Jacob; Adonijah/Adam; Solomon/Joshua, Solomon/New Adam, Solomon/Christ; Jehu/Christ; sacrificial animals/Israel, ritually clean wild ani­mals/Gentile “God-fearers”; Saul/Ahab; Jesus/Judah; Elijah/Jesus; Elisha/Jesus; Elisha/Joseph; and judg­ment against Ahab’s house/eschatological judgment of the world/judgment passed against all nations in the cross of Jesus. No quotation better sums up his approach than “Moses is Elijah is John; Joshua is Elisha is Jesus. Yet also, Moses is Elijah is Jesus, and Joshua is Elisha is the church” (p. 172). I was amused to discover that Elisha’s floating ax is a sign of Christ’s resurrection (pp. 200, 203) and that “the inclusion of Gentiles into the new Covenant is sig­naled symbolically by many of the apostles being [Jewish!] fishermen” (p. 73).

In addition to spurious typologies, Leithart often uses the biblical text to leap into contempo­rary discussions that defy any logical connection to the book of Kings, e.g., a discussion of church/state/ secularity/Locke with the notice that Solomon built other buildings (1 Kgs 7:1–12); modern and Christian views of the self and the condemnation of Solomon (1 Kgs 11:1–43); public/state/church relations and the Queen of Sheba’s visit (1 Kgs 10:1–29); Pope John Paul II’s speech on the culture of death and the Elisha stories (2 Kgs 4:1–44); and rationalists’ views of Jesus and Jehu’s rebellion (2 Kgs 9:1–10:36).

Other problems with this book include: mis­representing his sources (e.g. ,Walsh p. 43; Nelson, p. 69; Blenkinsopp, p. 227); the anachronistic use of the term “Gentile(s)” throughout the book; a superficial discussion of violence and God; an odd discussion of idolatry, chiasms with no point, a frightening view of God as an “equal opportunity trapper” (p. 180), the nature of God and evil; God as trickster, and vengeance against the wicked as “dear to Yahweh’s heart” (p. 223). Space prevents me from elaborating further. I have gained a much greater appreciation of the historical-critical method and of the literal sense of the text from reading this commentary. The literal sense is, after all, what God inspired the author to actually say and it contains enough theological depth that I do not have to imaginatively reconstruct the “hidden meaning” or make artificial connections where none exist. I am also now more firmly convinced that commentaries on the Bible should be left to biblical scholars.

PAULINE A. VIVIANO
LOYOLA UNIVERSITY
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

The Book of Proverbs in Social and Theological Context

by Katharine J. Dell

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006. 225 pp. $85.00 (cloth). ISBN 978-0-521-63305-5.

KATHARINE DELL CONSIDERS three major issues in this lucid study: the social context for the book of Proverbs, the theological understanding found in this text, and possible links between Proverbs and other OT writings. As she addresses these topics in sequence, Dell claims that the sharing of maxims became an important aspect of communal life in pre-exilic Israel. Although certain sections of Proverbs seem to be the product of educated scribes, Dell maintains that many sayings first cir­culated orally, in a family or tribal context. She cat­alogues references to the deity in each unit of Proverbs, concluding that there is an underlying creation theology at work in this text. Finally, she considers the impact of other biblical books on the sages responsible for Proverbs, most notably Jeremiah and Deuteronomy. In each of these sec­tions, Dell provides a comprehensive synthesis of previous scholarly work.

The most compelling and convincing aspect of this study is Dell’s insistence on the essential place of God-language in the earliest of sayings. Many commentators have argued that the book of Proverbs developed in stages, and only at a later point did a secular collection receive a “Yahwistic baptism” through the insertion of proverbs about God. Such an argument distorts a book that has a thesis about Yahweh at its core: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov 1:7). Dell rightly maintains that the theological state­ments in Proverbs about God’s creative activity and sovereignty are complementary to the general ethical concerns about how human beings should conduct their lives. This important point requires even more attention than Dell gives it here.

In addition, this study contests the notion that the worldview in Proverbs is a foreign intrusion into an OT canon that emphasizes covenant fidelity. Proverbs affirms the same deity as the other biblical writers, even if the generic conventions of Wisdom literature differ from those of the legal and prophetic books. Dell’s textual examples suggest that the compilers of individual proverbs did not isolate themselves from the rest of Israelite society, for they were clearly influenced by developing reli­gious beliefs.

This study is an important corrective to sev­eral false assumptions about the book of Proverbs. Dell’s systematic exposition and sustained interest in theological content make this a useful resource.