Dear John…

Dear John,

I have to say that, next to the Synoptic Gospels, your rendition of the Jesus story is quite strange, odd, and bothersome. The way you portray Jesus in Jerusalem all that time when he hardly ever makes the trip in Matthew, Mark, or Luke gives some of us pause for thought as to whether you are playing fast and loose with the traditions. But I do appreciate you neatly dividing your story into (1) Prologue, (2) Books of Signs, (3) Book of Glory. Very tidy. Well done.

You may not be aware of this, but some scholars these days doubt the authenticity of the fanciful, larger than life stories attribute to Jesus. Now, I’m not saying I’m part of that cohort, but I have to admit that some of them are a bit strange. Maybe you could have spread them out a bit with more normal stories like, say, the rich young ruler (the others made good use of that one). Just a thought. Maybe you could include it if you do another redaction?

Also, since I have your attention, could you come clean as to whether you wrote Revelation? That gives some of a bit of trouble too. Thanks.

Faithfully yours,

Michael

Divine Sonship in Egypt

This weekend, I was in NYC at Central Park, which has an obelisk popularly called, “Cleopatra’s Needle”. This obelisk was originally erected in Heliopolis on the orders of Thutmose III around 1450 BCE. It refers to Ramesses as  the “Beloved of Ra”, the “Chosen of Ra”, the “Son of Ra”, the “Beloved of Amun”, and so on. The inscription seems to describe the divine sonship of Ramesses as a status bestowed upon him (n.b. the line “granted life like Ra”). There doesn’t seem to be any notion of preexistence, especially since Ra himself is a creation by the gods, and Ramesses is explicitly referred to as a creation of Ra at the top of the third column. See a partial translation below:

Note the emphasis on the divine sonship conferred on Ramesses.

For a excellent treatment of the king of Egypt as the Son of God, see King and Messiah as Son of God by Adela and John Collins, pages 1–25. The real question is in what way the writers of the canonical gospels present Jesus in a similar manner. Regardless of the degree of continuity one posits between the ancient Egyptian and early Christian conceptions, one ought to at least recognize that they are part of general trend to understand the king to be in some way divine.

It’s Official!

It’s official! Ecce Homo is officially a biblioblog. I always had my suspicions, so I’m glad this has now been cleared up. My next goal is to move from “Regular” to “Red Hot”. Then, to the Biblioblog Top 50! Then, to Disney World!

PhD Programs and Book Reviews

Over the break I visited the PhD programs for Princeton Theological Seminary and Yale University. My meetings and interviews went well, and I’m looking forward to applying to both schools in the fall. In the days to come, I’ll post about the experience. Also, in preparation for those meetings I read books by all the faculty members with which I was to meet. This is highly suggested as it rightly conveys that you care interested enough in the school (and the scholar!) to do your homework.

In the days to come, I’ll be reviewing those three or four books (I’ve already reviewed King and Messiah as Son of God by Adela and John Collins).

Until then…

RBL Newsletter for March 19, 2009

Here’s the new material from RBL… (BTW – I’m at Princeton Theological Seminary tonight and tomorrow, attending classes and meeting with professors and students. So far, it has been great. Princeton is awesome and [literally] everyone has been really nice to us [so far]. Tomorrow afternoon, Rachel and I are off to NYC for the weekend, then to Yale. A truly whirlwind trip. Stay tuned for a more proper recap. I’m sure you’ll loose sleep for the excitement.)

____________________

The following new reviews have been added to the Review of Biblical Literature and listed on the RBL blog (http://rblnewsletter.blogspot.com/). See also below for new reviews in The Bible and Critical Theory.

James Rowe Adams
From Literal to Literary: The Essential Reference Book for Biblical Metaphors
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6520
Reviewed by Christine Treu

Moshe Anbar
Prophecy, Treaty-Making and Tribes in the Mari Documents during the Period of the Amorite Kings (From the End of the 19th Century B.C.E. Until 1760 B.C.E.) [Hebrew]
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6061
Reviewed by John Engle

Dianne Bergant
Scripture: History and Interpretation
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6557
Reviewed by Sean P. Kealy

Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert and Martin S. Jaffee, eds.
The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6371
Reviewed by Daniel R. Schwartz

Norman C. Habel and Peter Trudinger, eds.
Exploring Ecological Hermeneutics
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6599
Reviewed by John Painter

Randall Heskett
Messianism within the Scriptural Scrolls of Isaiah
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6108
Reviewed by J. Todd Hibbard

Lynn R. Huber
Like a Bride Adorned: Reading Metaphor in John’s Apocalypse
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6551
Reviewed by Tobias Nicklas

Bernard S. Jackson
Wisdom-Laws: A Study of the Mishpatim of Exodus 21:1-22:16
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6196
Reviewed by Assnat Bartor

Mark Leuchter
The Polemics of Exile in Jeremiah 26-45
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6547
Reviewed by Wilhelm J. Wessels

Susan Niditch
Judges: A Commentary
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6393
Reviewed by Yairah Amit

Susanne Scholz
Introducing the Women’s Hebrew Bible
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6410
Reviewed by Amelia Devin Freedman

Joseph B. Soloveitchik; edited by David Shatz, Joel B. Wolowelsky, and Reuven Ziegler
Abraham’s Journey: Reflections on the Life of the Founding Patriarch
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6398
Reviewed by Ralph K. Hawkins

Charles H. Talbert
Ephesians and Colossians
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6544
Reviewed by Andrew T. Lincoln

Henry A. Virkler and Karelynne Gerber Ayayo
Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6255
Reviewed by Oda Wischmeyer

Robert L. Webb and John S. Kloppenborg, eds.
Reading James with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of James
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6448
Reviewed by Peter Frick

———————————————————————–
The Bible and Critical Theory
Volume: 5, Number: 1 February 2009
———————————————————————–

Seriously?

I’m getting ready for my trip to Princeton Theological Seminary and Yale. Preparing to pack, I saw the following on the TSA prohibited items page:

Seriously? “Ice axes”, “meat cleavers”, “Sabers”, “Swords”? What?! No sabers OR swords??!?! Come on! Seriously? You mean I can’t take my spear guns? This is unbelievable. This whole “safety” thing has gone too far!

At least I can check them…

King and Messiah as Son of God, Part 2

I just finished King and Messiah as Son of God. Here are some initial reflections.

1. Though the book is quite brief (261 pages), it is very concise. Each page has a wealth of information. No fluff here.

2. I like their approach, tracking “Son of God” from the ANE (especially Egypt) through Ancient Judaism to Second Temple literature then to Paul, the Synoptics, the Gospel of John and then finishing with Revelation. One bonus to the length of the book is that it is easy to track the flow of their argument.

3. Collins’ (Adela) interaction with Simon Gathercole’s assertion that Jesus is presented as preexistent in the Synoptic gospels (The Preexistent Son) is especially insightful and demands further reflection (see pp. 123-126). Essentially she argues that Gathercole has misunderstood the language about the Son of Man “coming” as formulaic, referring to travel across space (i.e. from heaven to earth). Collins argues over and against Gathercole that these references refer more to the commissioning of a specific purpose by God. Which view is correct is a difficult question.

4. The Son of Man is presented in the Parables of Enoch as a preexistent angelic being who accepts worship. I wonder how much influence passages like 1 Enoch 48 had in the first century (assuming a date prior to 70 CE). Could one use the epithet “Son of Man” without connoting preexistence in the sense of the Parables of Enoch?

5. Collins (Adela) notes that Rev 1.13-14 relies on Dan 7 in such a way as to present Jesus as both “one like a son of man” (Dan 7.13) AND the Ancient of Days (Dan 7.9). Interesting. There also appears to the be precedence for this in the Old Greek version and others that translate 7.13 as one like a son of man coming as the ancient of days, rather than to the ancient of days… (page 194-95). The reasons for such a reading are debated, but these texts would seem to have already been in circulation before Revelation was written. Jesus as both “on like a son of man” and “the ancient of days”… I like it.

6. Collins argues that Jesus is presented as an angelic heavenly messiah in reliance on Dan 10 in Revelation. I’m still chewing on this.

7. John J. Collins and Adela Collins have written a messianic masterpiece. This is must reading for anyone interested in early Christology or messianism.

Book Review: King and Messiah as Son of God, Part 1

Today I am finishing the new book by John J. Collins and Adela Yarbro Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature. Over the next few weeks I will be offering a series of comments about this important book. Stemming from lectures held by both authors given at Oxford in the Spring 2006, this book ought to be required reading for all interested in Christology and Second Temple messianism. In the mean time, you can download Jim West’s review here.

Doug Campbell Interview

Mike Bird over at Euangelion has just posted a series of interviews with Douglas Campbell. Dr. Campbell is a genius of Pauline soteriology and has a book proving it that just came out, The Deliverance of God. Check it out!

Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3

Is God a dude or not?

I’ve been working through Robert Jewett’s excellent commentary on Romans in the Hermeneia series. He is an excellent scholar and an extremely helpful person in as much as I’ve interacted with him personally.

In his commentary, he does something I’ve never seen before with reference to pronouns that he employs for God. For example, on page 617 he writes the following of Rom 10.2 (emphasis mine),

“In light of the previous argument of Romans, it [that is, κατ᾽ ἐπιγνῶσιν] it can be claimed that whereas Gentiles have knowledge of God but do not honor him (1:28), the Jews have zeal for God but do not know her.”

The first time I read something like this in Jewett’s commentary, I wondered if it was a typo, but I’ve come across it several times. I think this is done in an attempt to correct a perceived over masculinization of God, but I’m not sure [Dr. Jewett, if you ever read this please feel free to chime in!]. At first, I have to admit I was put off by it. But the more I think about it I’m not sure what’s so wrong with it. I’m mean, to be blunt, it’s not as though God has a penis (or a vagina). He is not a human being! We simply give gender to God because it is far easier to conceptualize God in a manner familiar to us. I suspect that the same is true of the biblical authors.

Anyway, what do you guys (and gals!) think? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Also, if all this talk about gender has you wondering about yourself, you can waltz on over to GenderAnalyzer and find the definitive answer (about your blog). Ecce Homo is a strong 73% male. That’s sounds about right…

UPDATE: Given the comments in the comment stream, I want to be clear: I’m NOT saying that I think God is a women. I merely noting that BECAUSE God is not a human, we should NOT NECESSARILY feel constrained to always refer to him as using the male pronoun. That’s all.