BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 45
January, 1993
Copyright 1993, Biblical Horizons
Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative
Sheffield, England: Almond Press, 1983.
Reviewed by Peter J. Leithart
This volume is the ninth in the "Bible and Literature Series" under the general editorship of David M. Gunn. According to its author, who teaches Hebrew at the University of Maryland, the book is an effort to describe "how biblical narrative constructs its representations—i.e. how it tells its stories." This involves the discipline of "poetics," which "describes the basic components of literature and the rules governing their use. Poetics strives to write a grammar, as it were, of literature" (p. 15). The book examines the Bible’s techniques of characterization and point of view, and then applies its findings to the book of Ruth. The final chapter of the book assesses the value of historical critical scholarship from the viewpoint of poetics.
E. M. Forster first categorized characters as "flat" (incompletely developed) or "round" (fully developed); Forster said that a "round" character is a one who can surprise us without losing credibility. Berlin, however, proposes a threefold classification: full-fledged characters, types, and agents. She fills in this classification by examining the characterization of David’s wives in 1-2 Samuel. Michal, she argues, is a full-fledged character, with feelings, motivations, and opinions of her own. In 1 Samuel 11-12, Bathsheba appears as an "agent," a character necessary to the plot but whose thoughts, feelings, and personality are almost completely ignored; as Berlin notes, 1 Samuel 11:26-27a present in "one and a half cold, terse verses . . . the condition of a woman who has had an adulterous affair, become pregnant, lost her husband, married her lover, the king of Israel, and borne his child!" (p. 26). In 1 Kings 1-2, however, Bathsheba appears as a full-fledged character involved in the furious political maneuverings that dominate the court as David lies dying. Abigail, Berlin argues, is a "type" who represents the archetypal wise woman.
Characterization is accomplished in biblical narrative through a number of techniques. Unlike modern novelists, the biblical writers are reticent in their physical descriptions of human beings, though, as Berlin points out, the Bible is full of detailed descriptions of objects and events. Physical descriptions of persons are, however, insufficiently detailed for the reader to form a picture of the character; Bathsheba is beautiful, but there is no hint whether she is blonde or dark, whether she has blue eyes or brown. When physical traits are revealed, they serve as indicators of the quality of the character; Esau is hairy because he is bestial. More frequently, character is developed by relating inner thoughts or speech. Alternatively, character might be clarified through the use of contrast, whether with another character or with the earlier actions of the same character.
Berlin helps to explain point of view by comparing narrative to film; the point of view is the camera angle on a scene. While biblical narrative is often written from the point of view of an omniscient narrator, Berlin shows that the Bible actually employs multiple viewpoints. This, she argues, is part of what gives biblical narrative its profound realism. Through most of Genesis 22, for example, the story’s viewpoint is that of Abraham; Berlin notes that "we see the designated place for the sacrifice only when Abraham glimpses it from afar." For one brief moment, however, the camera shifts: Verse 6 tells us that "the two of them [Abraham and Isaac] walked away," as if the reader were left behind with the servants. These camera movements, however, takes place in the wider context set by the narrator at the beginning of the chapter. From the beginning, the reader knows something that Abraham does not, namely, that the Lord is testing him (v. 1). This combination of the omniscient narrator’s viewpoint and the limited knowledge of the characters is used to comic effect in the book of Esther.
Berlin explores especially what she calls, following Boris Uspensky, the "phraseological level" of point of view. By this she means linguistic features that indicate that point of view is being expressed. Her discussion of the particle hinneh, which she develops at length in the chapter on Ruth, must serve to represent her overall approach. This particle, often translated as "behold," is frequently used as a kind of stage direction in biblical stories. It may, for instance, indicate a shift in the camera angle. 1 Samuel 19:16 says, "The messengers came and hinneh the teraphim were on the bed." At the beginning of verse 16, we are viewing the messengers as they enter Michal’s room, but with the hinneh, the scene changes and we are now looking through their eyes. The reader already knows that the teraphim are in the bed; the hinneh serves to indicate that now the messengers know it. The same particle is used to introduce new characters (cf. Ruth 2:4).
One of the values of Berlin’s work is apologetic. In the final chapter, Berlin examines source criticism (which attempts to discover evidence of earlier forms of the text) and form criticism (which attempts to discover the original, independent units of the text and to trace their development) and finds that both make unwarranted assumptions and use methods that are tone-deaf to the poetics of biblical narrative. She provides some especially damning examples of critical scholarship’s illogical and arbitrary approach. K. Koch argues, apparently in all seriousness, that "the fact that the Church uses the Beatitudes out of context proves that they are self-sufficient," to which Berlin replies, "According to Koch, the fact that I have excerpted segments of his book would indicate that these segments once existed independently from that book" (p. 122-23).
In this context, Berlin provides an interpretation of Genesis 37:18-30, a passage dissected into bits by critical scholars, and shows that "not only is the plot integrated and devoid of major inconsistencies, but we have shown a number of linguistic or rhetorical bonds between what have traditionally been considered different sources" (p. 121). On this last point, she disputes the critical notion that Reuben’s and Judah’s speeches derive from separate sources by pointing out the ways that Judah echoes Reuben’s earlier speech (references to "laying hands" and "blood").
Another beneficial effect of Berlin’s book is the way it encourages close and sympathetic reading of the Bible. It forces the believer to wrestle with God’s revelation as it is actually written, not as we might wish it were written. And it increases our wonder at the beauty and profundity of God’s Word.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 45
January, 1993
Copyright 1993, Biblical Horizons
V. Propp’s classic work Morphology of the Folktale (University of Texas, 1968) argues that one of the basic structures of folk literature is "lack, lack liquidated." A king sets out to look for a wife, and the tale ends with a wedding. Often, the hero sets out on some business and finds himself lacking the tools that he needs to accomplish his mission; the tools are later provided in some miraculous or at least unexpected way.
This pattern has a multifaceted application to the book of Ruth. The book begins with a whole series of "lacks," all of which are "liquidated" in the course of the book. There are, however, indications that Ruth was written as something more than a charming folk tale. The chronological indicator in 1:1, especially when combined with the references to David in 4:17 and 22, show that the author was concerned with God’s dealings with Israel as a whole, not just with the individual characters of the story. Ruth is redemptive history, not merely an ancient short story.
In the context of the redemptive-historical framing of the book, Naomi stands as a representative of the nation of Israel, and the Lord’s redemption of Naomi is emblematic of God’s dealings with Israel. In the background is the fact that Israel is God’s bride. When, during the time of the judges, Israel’s sins drove the Lord from her midst, Israel became a widow. The book of Judges also shows the priests of Israel were unfaithful; in this sense too, Israel had no husband. Thus, Naomi represents the nation of Israel, bereft of the protection of either a divine or priestly husband. Naomi’s "lacks" are symbolic of Israel’s; the "liquidation" of those lacks is the Lord’s promise to His people.
Each of the descriptions in the first five verses of Ruth is reversed by the end of the book. As we have already noted, the book begins in the time of the judges, a time when there was no king in Israel, and ends with a genealogy of David. Thus, Ruth shows that the Lord was at work even in the time of the judges to move Israel forward to another stage in her history.
The story begins with famine. This famine is especially noteworthy since it takes place at Bethlehem, the "house of bread." God’s judgment has fallen upon apostate Israel. It hits the breadbasket. But early on God visits His people in mercy (1:6), and Boaz, the redeemer, later provides abundant food for Ruth and Naomi (2:17; 3:17).
At the beginning of the story Elimelech and Naomi leave the land. Though Ruth and Naomi return to the land at the end of the first chapter, their recovery of "rest" in the land is not accomplished until the final chapter, after Boaz (again!) acquires the ancestral land. The theme of the recovery of land is given an especially pointed twist in chapter 1. Clearly, we have an exodus pattern: Elimelech and Naomi leave the land and Naomi returns with Ruth. But it is in many ways an unusual exodus. Instead of multiplying in the land of sojourning, as Jacob did in Haran and as Israel did in Egypt, Elimelech and his sons die, leaving Naomi with no seed. Instead of becoming enriched, as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Israel did, Elimelech and Naomi are impoverished. Jacob flees from Esau with only a staff, and comes back with two companies; he goes out empty and comes back full. Naomi goes out full and comes back empty (1:21). Though Naomi is back in the land, there has really been no exodus, no redemption. These contrasts with the patriarchal exoduses support the traditional rabbinic notion that Elimelech sinned in leaving the land. Ruth 1 also makes it clear that physical residence in the land is not the same as rest in the land.
As the beginning of the story sets the stage, Elimelech and his two sons die. Moab, east of the land of promise, is a place of death. But after returning to the land, and after the intervention of the redeemer, Ruth gives birth to a son. This death-resurrection pattern is related to a transition from barrenness to fertility. Naomi is literally past childbearing years; Ruth is not barren, but she has no husband. By the end of the book, the seed is born. Obed is described as Naomi’s redeemer (4:14); barren Naomi is made a mother of children. All this reflects the patriarchal stories where there is a threat to the birth of the seed. As in Genesis, God intervenes to provide a seed in a miraculous way. God provides the "redeemer," the seed who will eventually produce the Seed who will crush the serpent’s head. Barren Israel will, by the power of the Spirit, come alive, and bear a son.
As the beginning of the story concludes, we find three widows. As suggested above, widowhood symbolizes of the condition of Israel during the time of the judges. By the end of the book, however, Ruth the widow has become Ruth the bride. And she has given birth to the grandfather of David, who would become a husband and protector of God’s bride.
These broad structures and themes are reinforced by the writer’s repetitive use of key words. Several important words are used only twice, but at such key points in the story that they highlight some of the themes mentioned. (For further discussion of the repetition of key words, see Edward F. Campbell, Ruth, The Anchor Bible [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975]).
The word "lads," for example, is used first in 1:5, where it is said that Naomi was bereft of her two sons. The use of the word "lads" stands out here because it is the only place in the OT where this word is used of grown and married men. The other use of the word comes in 4:16-17, where Naomi takes the "lad" and becomes his guardian or nurse, and his adoptive mother. The lads that Naomi lost are now restored in Obed.
The word "empty" likewise occurs only twice. Naomi’s bitter complaint against the Lord is that she has been emptied (1:21). She is an empty vessel in every sense: she will no longer bear children, she has lost her husband, sons, and land. But this is not the final word. After his midnight covenant-making with Ruth, Boaz measures out barley, telling Ruth that she ought not return to Naomi empty-handed (3:17). Naomi complains of her emptiness, but Boaz makes sure that she gets filled.
Finally, the word "wings" occurs twice. In 2:12, Boaz expresses a wish that the Lord would reward Ruth, who has come under the wings of Yahweh. This means that Ruth has come under the protection of the Lord’s covenant and become a sojourner in the Lord’s land among the Lord’s people. Similarly, Ruth’s request of Boaz is that he spread his wing over her (3:19). This is a request that Boaz cover her with the protective covering of a marriage covenant. Married men and women are covered with a single garment because they are one flesh. The linguistic connection of 2:12 and 3:19 suggests that Lord is providing His protection and refuge through Boaz. Ruth comes under the Lord’s wings practically by coming under the wing of Boaz.
Once these patterns are made clear, the book of Ruth emerges as a proclamation of the gospel. The Lord, by His sheer mercy (2:20) intervenes in a world full of death, emptiness, chaos, and sorrow, and, through a near Kinsman, a Greater Boaz, brings life, fullness, peace, and joy.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 45
January, 1993
Copyright 1993, Biblical Horizons
Luke’s gospel begins and ends in the temple. It opens with Gabriel’s annunciation to the priest Zacharias (whose name, appropriately, means "Yahweh remembers") of the coming of a forerunner. Zacharias is performing priestly service at the time. The book ends with the joyful worship of a new priesthood in the same temple. In between, toward the end of His ministry, after His arrival in Jerusalem and His cleansing of the temple, Jesus taught there daily to eager crowds (19:47; 20:1; 21:37-38; 22:53).
Luke’s account of Jesus’ infancy and boyhood is also bracketed by references to the temple. The series of stories begins with Zacharias and ends with the twelve-year-old Jesus learning and teaching in His father’s house. This event foreshadows Jesus later teaching ministry at the temple; the astonishment of the teachers at the understanding of young Jesus foreshadows the astonishment of His later hearers. In between these events, three other incidents take place in the temple: the purification of Mary, Simeon’s encounter with Jesus, and Anna’s thanksgiving.
The emphasis on the temple is linked with an underlying Samuel typology that pervades the early chapters of Luke’s gospel. These chapters, in short, present Jesus as a Second Samuel. Let’s examine some of the evidence for this claim.
First, Luke alone among the evangelists records the annunciation to Mary and Mary’s song to Elizabeth. This links her closely to Hannah (and other barren women of the Old Testament), who also gave birth to a miracle baby who was destined to be a ruler in Israel. The themes of the Magnificat are heavily drawn from Hannah’s song: exultation in the Lord (1 Sam 2:1; Lk 1:46), the salvation of the Lord (1 Sam 2:1; Lk 1:47), the revolutionary reversal of fortunes (1 Sam 2:4, 7-8; Lk 1:51-53), the holiness of the Lord (1 Sam 2:2; Lk 1:49), and so on. Mary is a new and greater Hannah.
Second, the prophetess Anna fits the Samuel typology in several ways. Her very name evokes that of Samuel’s mother. She is also a prophetess. Only five other prophetesses are named in the Scriptures: Miriam (Ex 15:20), Deborah (Judg 4:4), Huldah (2 Ki 22:14-20; 2 Chron 34:22-28), Noadiah (Neh 6:14), and "Jezebel" (Rev 2:20). Of these, only Huldah is associated with Jerusalem’s temple. Following the rediscovery of the book of the law, a delegation from Josiah met with Huldah, who confirmed that the Lord was going to bring disaster on Jerusalem.
The judgment on the temple that Huldah predicted, in turn, was similar to the judgment on the tabernacle and the Elide priesthood in 1 Samuel. Both events marked major transitions in the history of Israel; the capture of the ark and the death of Eli marked the end of the Mosaic order, and the judgment on the temple and the exile of which Huldah prophesied marked the end of the independent kingdom of Judah. Both events ended an old age and an old covenant, while promising a new. Anna the prophetess appears in Luke 1 to call attention to the impending judgment on Jerusalem and its temple.
In her widowhood, moreover, Anna represents the nation of Israel. She had been widowed for 84 years, or 12 X 7 years, a sevenfold widowhood for the twelve tribes. Like the widow Naomi in the time of the judges, the widow Anna represents the condition of the nation. Judges 17-21 makes clear that the fundamental problem in the time of the judges was the failure of the Levitical priests to husband Israel. In providing the details of Anna’s widowhood, Luke alerted his readers to the fact that Israel was in a similar position when the Messiah came. Zacharias is a faithful man, but when we first meet him he is struck mute for his unbelief. Later, other priests come into the picture, but they are worse than mute; they are murderous. As in 1 Samuel, the priesthood is either weak or corrupt, and a new husband is needed for the widowed Anna-Israel.
(The fact that Luke includes details of Anna’s genealogy is striking; no similar descent is recorded for Simeon, and her ancestry is remarkably commonplace. Her father, Phanuel, is mentioned only here, and the tribe of Asher played no outstanding role in the Biblical history. Perhaps Luke includes Anna’s ancestry because of the connotations of the names themselves. Phanuel is perhaps related to Penuel ["face of God"], and Asher means "fortunate" or "happy" [Gen 30:13].)
Finally, Luke’s narrative of Jesus’ infancy and boyhood ends with the story of Jesus in the temple. Here, the Samuel typology becomes obvious. Just as Samuel lived at Shiloh as an apprentice to Eli, so Jesus visits the temple to listen to and speak with the teachers. Just as none of the words of Samuel fell to the ground, so Jesus astonished His hearers with the words from His mouth. In case we’ve missed these hints, Luke 1:52 is a virtual quotation of 1 Samuel 2:26.
Why does Luke employ these allusions to the early life of Samuel? The reason is that Jesus plays a role in redemptive history similar to that of Samuel. Samuel concluded the age of the judges and inaugurated the age of the kings. Jesus, the Second Samuel, brought the old covenant to a close and inaugurated the fulfillment of the kingdom of David.
Biblical Chronology
Vol. 5, No. 1
January, 1993
Copyright © James B. Jordan 1993
by James B. Jordan
Last time we arrived at the year A.M. 3960 as the date for the inauguration of the New Creation through the death, resurrection, ascension, and session of Christ, and the sending of the Holy Spirit. We also saw that this is most likely the year of Paul’s conversion.
Fourteen years after Paul’s conversion, in 3974, we find him in Jerusalem at the time of Herod’s death in A.D. 44. At this time we find a kind of death and resurrection of Peter, in Acts 12, a story that deliberately parallels the death and resurrection of Jesus. As Jesus turned the Church over to the disciples, so Apostle Peter turns the Jerusalem Church over to Elder James. (See my essay, "The Resurrection of Peter and the Coming of the Kingdom, in Biblical Horizons No. 34, available for a donation from Biblical Horizons , Box 1096, Niceville, FL 32588).
At this point, I want to raise three difficulties connected with the chronology of the New Testament. The first is the testimony of the "Church Fathers." Some of these indicate that Peter died in Rome, for instance, though the testimony is slim and often clearly untrustworthy. There is no real proof that Peter was ever in Rome at all. In 1 Peter 5:13 Peter says that he writes from "Babylon," and this has almost always been taken as a reference to Rome, but it is far more likely a reference to Jerusalem. Indeed, Paul expressly tells us that Peter captained the ministry to Jewish converts (Galatians 2:8). We do see Peter travelling in Acts, and if he travelled to minister to Jews, it is more likely that he went to the real Babylon than to Rome, because there was a large Jewish community in the Persian empire. But it is still more likely that he was headquartered in Jerusalem. He turned the actual administration of the Church over to James, and continued as an advisor and apostle. James was not an apostle, but the presiding elder of the Jerusalem Church. The only time after Acts 12 that we meet Peter is in Acts 15, at the Jerusalem Council, over which James presided.
Similarly, the story that Peter was crucified upsidedown comes from the highly fictional apocryphal Acts of Peter. John 21:18ff. can be taken as a prediction of this kind of death, but it can also be taken in other ways as well.
We have to remember that we only have a few Church Fathers to draw on. Often Christian scholars have strained mightily to build on evidence from these writings, writings of men clearly not familiar with the facts in other instances. Many of the Fathers were new converts to the faith who wrote apologetics, and who did not know much about Christianity (as can be seen when we compare them with the teachings of the New Testament). What we don’t have are reams of sermons preached by pastors in local churches during the first two centuries, and that is the kind of material that would give us an accurate picture of the early church. Finally, though the Church Fathers are "fathers" in a sense, and are of real value to us, they are also the "Church Babies" in another sense. All this should be born in mind when it comes to their haphazard testimony about the deaths of Peter, Paul, and others.
The second problem with New Testament history is the tendency of scholars to read the Roman persecutions back into the New Testament. Except for the book of Revelation, the New Testament does not picture Rome as the enemy, and even in Revelation, the Roman Beast is clearly secondary to the Babylonian Whore. Rather, it is the Jews who are the enemy. It is the unconverted Jews who repeatedly try to get the apostles arrested in the history recorded in Acts, and repeatedly we see the Roman officials intervene to protect the Church. The theology here is very important: When our ways please God, He will usually cause the state to protect us against heretics who try to destroy us. Again, it is the Jews and Judaizers who are the troublers of the Church in the writings of Paul and the other New Testament authors. Babylon in Revelation is Jerusalem. Once we see this clearly, a somewhat different picture of the history of the earliest Church emerges.
The third problem concerns the dating of New Testament writings. The governing viewpoint is this: "The authors of the New Testament books thought Jesus would come back in their lifetimes. When He didn’t, they finally wrote down their testimonies." Thus, scholars start with the latest possible date for New Testament books, and then work backwards.
This is sheer supposition, based on error. The apostles knew that Jesus was coming back to destroy Jerusalem, but they did not expect Him to come back to judge the quick and the dead in their lifetimes. Because of their concern for the Jews, it stands to reason that they would write their gospels and letters for the Jews at an early time, not at a late one.
John, we are told, wrote his Gospel in his old age. Why should we believe this? Why could he not have written it in the mid-30s A.D.? Supposedly John’s theology is post-Pauline. Why should we believe this? Again, Galatians 2:9 links James and John with Peter as ministers to the Jews. The letter of James is pretty universally regarded as very early and as written to Jews. This would suggest that John also was centered in Jerusalem and wrote fairly early in the period we are considering. Matthew and Mark could also have written fairly early, perhaps in the mid-30s.
Luke, who worked with Paul, wrote his gospel before he wrote Acts, but for the same person, Theophilus. Acts was probably written in the late 50s, after the last event recorded in it. The gospel was written before that time. Remember, though, that Luke wrote with Paul for gentiles, so we should expect his writings to be somewhat later than those written by and for Jewish converts.
1 Peter is written to Jewish converts living in Asia Minor. All of these places had been evangelized well before A.D. 40. Peter writes of suffering and persecution, and the unconverted Jews had been persecuting Jewish converts from the very beginning, in A.D. 30. We need to move the date forward, however, because 2 Peter 3:1 says that 2 Peter was written to the same people, and 2 Peter 1:12-15 says that 2 Peter was written shortly before Peter’s death. 2 Peter 3:15-16 refers to Paul’s epistles. Those who are certain that Peter was put to death by Nero place these letters in the early 60s. Tertullian says Nero put Peter to death in Rome, but are we sure of this? Peter may well have died in Jerusalem at the hands of the Jews. Josephus says that James was put to death in 61 or 62 in Jerusalem, but Josephus does not know much about Christianity, and may have omitted other figures put to death about the same time.
It is interesting that Luke says that Paul continued under house arrest in Rome for two years, until around 59, but does not mention the martyrdom of James. This shows the highly selective and theological character of the book of Acts. Paul passes judgment on the unconverted Jews in Acts 28:26-28, around A.D. 57. This hints to me that at this point God allowed the Jews to begin killing Christians in Jerusalem, committing the abominable acts that would bring about His destruction of the city. If I were going to try and make a guess at the death of Peter from Biblical evidence alone, I would put it at about the same time as the death of James, and in Jerusalem.
(A coin from Nero’s fifth year, A.D. 58, identifies it as the third year of Festus. Festus thus took over in A.D. 56, and Paul was sent to Rome at that time, arriving probably in A.D. 57; from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia 1:691.)
The letters of John, we are told, must be fairly late because they deal with incipient gnosticism in the Church. This is also highly questionable. The "antichrists" in John look suspiciously like some of the Judaizing heretics, especially those dealt with in Colossians. From what Paul writes in Galatians, John is most likely writing to essentially Jewish churches. The beliefs of many Jews, especially the Sadducees, were very similar to those of the later gnostics, and John was familiar with the Temple priesthood, who were Sadducees. John’s letters, then, might be fairly early. True, John calls himself an "elder," and his recipients "children," but the age for eldership in the Bible seems to be 50 (John 8:57; Lev. 8:25). My guess is that Peter was about 50 when he turned the Jerusalem church over to James in A.D. 44. John was younger, of course, but I don’t think Jesus would have called him to preach before the Biblical age of 30, the age of Jesus Himself when He began. Thus, by A.D. 47, John would have been an "elder."
(If James was an elder in A.D. 44, and thus 50 years old, then he was a year older than Jesus, which would indicate that Joseph was married before and that some of Jesus’ brothers and sisters were older than He. If Joseph was an older widower when he married Mary, it would explain why he was apparently already dead by the time Jesus began His ministry.)
I am not writing to settle this or other issues, but to point out that less is known about these matters than many Bible Dictionaries and Encyclopaedias would lead you to believe. There is some need for revisionism in this area, done by people who take the Bible seriously, and who are not overwhelmed by the sparse and often unreliable testimony of Church Fathers who lived 150 or more years after the facts.
Chronological Summary
The book of Acts does not provide a complete chronology, but as we have seen ends in A.D. 59 (A.M. 3689). The book of Revelation was written shortly thereafter, predicting the downfall of Jerusalem as "shortly to come to pass." The date A.D. 70 for that event (A.M. 4000) does not come from the Bible, but as we have seen, the Bible leads to the very brink of it.