Scripture in the New Testament : literary and theological perspectives (original) (raw)
Novum Testamentum, 2010
Th is book (declared "best academic book of the year" by the Association of Th eological Booksellers during the SBL Meeting at Boston in 2008) is, according to the Introduction by the editors (pp. xxiii-xxviii), a commentary on all those NT passages in which the OT is used, in the form of either quotations or probable allusions. As a rule, six questions are asked for quotations and for clear allusions: (1) What is the NT context? (2) What is the OT context? (3) How was the OT source used in early Judaism? (4) What is the textual background of the quotation or allusion? (5) How has the OT passage been interpreted in its new context in the NT? (6) What theological use does the NT author make of the OT quotation or allusion? Th e NT documents are discussed in their canonical order:
AJS Review, 2003
This is an interesting, well-written and important study, relevant to anyone interested in better understanding metaphor in the Bible, figurative language, or idolatry. David Aaron, Professor of Bible at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Cincinnati, was trained in rabbinics and linguistics at Brandeis University; this training offers him a certain sensitivity to how language, especially what many would consider figurative language, functions. Thus, the book really deals with the importance of understanding semantics for interpretation. The core claim of the book is that most statements that biblical scholars consider to be metaphorical are not metaphorical. Aaron depicts this first by critiquing a common "binary" view of language, which views all utterances as either literal or metaphorical, and assumes that words' meanings are determined by "ontological identity," that is, necessary and sufficient features that adhere to the word itself. Instead, following the Brandeis University linguist Ray Jackendorff, Aaron speaks of "typicality conditions" (p. 77), noting that indeterminacy and fuzziness are part of human language (p. 76). Though certain words may be clearly defined, e.g. scientific words by the scientific community, most words from the general perspective are like "dog"-"We know a 'dog' when we see one" (p. 74). Not all linguists agree with this notion of semantics. However, as Aaron correctly notes, this notion has an important implication: it suggests that there is not a binary opposition between literal and metaphorical language, but, rather, a gradient. Thus, most scholars incorrectly overextend the concept of metaphor, ignoring natural semantic fields of words (p. 110). Biblical images like "God is king" belong in this gradient, and should not be considered metaphorical, because they do not require what James Fernandez suggests metaphors require: "a stretch of the imagination" (p. 61). According to Aaron, "'metaphor' should be saved for a more distinctive rhetorical strategy, one that involves a process or decoding and mapping" (p. 111). He also develops a criterion for suggesting when we have a true metaphor (pp. 101-123), and makes it quite clear that scholars have exaggerated the extent of metaphorical God-talk in the Bible for several reasons, including misunderstanding the nature of metaphor, having anachronistic biases about the biblical text; and treating the Bible too much as a unity. The latter points are certainly correct; the former will depend on whether the linguistic perspective of Jackendorff is compelling. The concluding chapters deal predominantly with idolatry, aniconism, and the ark as an icon. He correctly observes that too many scholars accept Deutero-Isaiah's depiction of idolatry as normative for the entire Bible. He suggests that the ark originally had an iconic status in early Israel, and that groups in Israel treated (an)iconism in particular ways not for theological reasons, as most scholars suggest, but for a combination of social and political reasons, mostly related to the as-She solves it-hesitantly, though-by pointing to evidence of the existence of such influential noblewomen, for example, an inscription from Aphrodisias that recounts the influence of Livia's advocacy on behalf of the Samians. In the end, Josephus's apologetic strategy may be more than wishful thinking. Even more typical and for Matthews' purpose more important is the case of Plotina, Trajan's wife, who-at least according to the Acts of the Pagan Martyrs-supported the Jews (Plotina is discussed in Chapter 3). Chapter 3, "'More than a few Greek Women of High Standing': 'God-Fearing' Noblewomen in Acts," discusses the role of prominent Gentile women, whom Paul encounters at several instances in his missionary journeys (Acts 13:50; 17:4; 17:12). Matthews includes here an unnecessarily lengthy discussion of the term "God-fearer," only to conclude (rightly so) that the term is not a fiction of Luke (as Kraabel had argued), but actually existed in history. Matthews shows that Luke's presentation of prominent women follows the same pattern as in Josephus. Luke underscores the role of upper-class Gentile women, while limiting the sphere of action of women in other contexts. As in the case of Josephus, Matthews wonders about the efficacy of such apologetics. Given the resentment of the Greco-Roman literati toward politically active women, why would an apologetic author depict Gentile women who patronize, and sometimes affiliate with his community? As in the preceding chapter, Matthews suggests that a partial explanation might lie in the fact that the phenomenon of elite women's benefaction was not just a fancy. Who then would endorse religiously active women as they are presented in Josephus and Luke? The fourth and last chapter of this short book, "First Converts: Acts 16 and the Legitimating Function of High-Standing Women in Missionary Propaganda," provides an answer to this question. Screening a wide range of texts (from Euripides' Bacchae to Philo's Therapeutae), Matthews identifies a line of argument in Greco-Roman texts concerning the special function of women in missionary religions. In fact, women's religious function in the Greco-Roman world was often viewed as proper and virtuous. The potential audience of Josephus and Luke, one might add, was therefore as divided with regard to the religious role of women as these two authors were themselves. This relates to a further question, often raised in recent years in Josephus studies: is "apologetics" really the right term for Josephus and Luke?