Thursday, April 29, 2010

Wisdom as Relational Justice in Proverbs 22:1-16

Yesterday I turned in my exegesis paper for the second semester of Intro to Old Testament Interpretation with Dr. Stephen Chapman. I actually experienced something like postpartum depression because I had so enjoyed working on this paper all semester. It's 18 pages long with lots of footnotes, so I'll limit this post to a few key excerpts. If you decide you want to read my whole paper (which includes the passage itself), you can link to the PDF on my Duke webspace here.


Introduction/Thesis:
"Proverbs 22:1—16 includes sayings on various subjects, all of which inform an understanding of wisdom not as an intellectual inclination but as a commitment to living out discerning and just relationships in light of Israel’s status as God’s chosen people. Statements on poverty and wealth begin and end the passage, framing a sustained call to interpersonal, relational justice. Although the aphorisms on poverty, wealth, discipline and generosity may on the surface appear to be aimed at reinforcing an unequal status quo, when understood in its cultural and canonical context, this passage carries an ethical imperative that shapes a definition of justice as relational, personal and distributive."

A Killer Quote:
From J. K. Nyerere's Man and Development on Proverbs 22:2 ("The rich and the poor have this in common: the LORD is the maker of them all."): "At this time in man’s history, it must imply a divine discontent and a determination for change. For the present condition of men must be unacceptable to all who think of an individual person as a unique creation of a living God. We say man was created in the image of God. I refuse to imagine a God who is poor, ignorant, superstitious, fearful, oppressed, wretched—which is the lot of the majority of those He created in his own image. Men are creators of themselves and their conditions, but under present conditions we are creatures, not of God, but of our fellow men."

Theological Reflection (Paragraph on Charity and Justice):
"There are two words in Hebrew that can be translated as 'justice,' משפט (mishpat) and צדקה (tzedakah). Neither is found in 22:1—16, but the ideas embedded in the language inform the theology of this passage nonetheless. In his book The Dignity of Difference, Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks meditates on the distinction between these two terms: 'Mishpat means retributive justice or the rule of law. ...Tzedakah, by contrast, refers to distributive justice.' Tzedakah does not have a direct synonym in English; Sacks explains that this word contains the ideas of both charity and justice—two terms that are translated separately and therefore perceived as being mutually exclusive in both Latin (iustitia and caritas) and English. When [David J.] Pleins claims [in The Social Visions of the Hebrew Bible], 'Proverbs rarely moves beyond charity,' he is interpreting through a lens that is tempered by his temporal and linguistic location, a lens that is incongruous with ancient Israelite ideas of justice."

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Reese's Pieces: Irrefutable Proof of the Existence of God

My grandfather is awesome. He's a retired bishop in the United Methodist Church, and he's just the jam. Today he told me something that just upped his awesome factor:

Bart Ehrman's official title is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. Gray endowed the chair specifically for the purpose of keeping a Christian presence in the faculty of UNC's Religious Studies department. Ehrman is a self-professing agnostic (formerly Christian).

Now, it turns out that James A. Gray is my grandfather's cousin. My grandfather commented today that if Gray knew that an agnostic occupied his namesake chair, he would roll over in his grave. This is funny enough coming from a 70-something-year-old man, but it gets better. My grandfather once met Ehrman and actually told him this. Ehrman didn't seem perturbed.

This story just makes me giggle. And I'm not going to debate Ehrman here--Richard Hays, Stephen Colbert, my dad and many others have done a far better job than I could. I just want to clarify one thing: my problem with Ehrman is not that he's agnostic. It's his reasons for leaving the faith.

Ehrman is making gobs of money off books where the thesis is basically "OH MY GOSH THERE ARE INCONSISTENCIES IN THE BIBLE AND IT MIGHT NOT ALL BE 100% HISTORICALLY ACCURATE AAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!" I *might* be mocking, but I can't help it if I'm snarky and sarcastic by nature. Anyway, the thing is, Ehrman presents his problems as if he's the first person to notice them. But if no one had ever realized that not all 4 Gospels were exactly the same...why would we have 4 Gospels in the first place? The point is that Ehrman is wrestling with legitimate questions in a way that ignores the fact that the church has been dealing with them for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Since I have papers to write and don't feel like going into this anyway, I'm just going to leave you with this gem:

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Bart Ehrman
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical HumorFox News

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Praise Bands Annoy God

View my provocatively titled entry in Duke Divinity School's Confessio here.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Wisdom as Relational Justice in Proverbs 22:1-16

Yesterday I turned in my exegesis paper for the second semester of Intro to Old Testament Interpretation with Dr. Stephen Chapman. I actually experienced something like postpartum depression because I had so enjoyed working on this paper all semester. It's 18 pages long with lots of footnotes, so I'll limit this post to a few key excerpts. If you decide you want to read my whole paper (which includes the passage itself), you can link to the PDF on my Duke webspace here.


Introduction/Thesis:
"Proverbs 22:1—16 includes sayings on various subjects, all of which inform an understanding of wisdom not as an intellectual inclination but as a commitment to living out discerning and just relationships in light of Israel’s status as God’s chosen people. Statements on poverty and wealth begin and end the passage, framing a sustained call to interpersonal, relational justice. Although the aphorisms on poverty, wealth, discipline and generosity may on the surface appear to be aimed at reinforcing an unequal status quo, when understood in its cultural and canonical context, this passage carries an ethical imperative that shapes a definition of justice as relational, personal and distributive."

A Killer Quote:
From J. K. Nyerere's Man and Development on Proverbs 22:2 ("The rich and the poor have this in common: the LORD is the maker of them all."): "At this time in man’s history, it must imply a divine discontent and a determination for change. For the present condition of men must be unacceptable to all who think of an individual person as a unique creation of a living God. We say man was created in the image of God. I refuse to imagine a God who is poor, ignorant, superstitious, fearful, oppressed, wretched—which is the lot of the majority of those He created in his own image. Men are creators of themselves and their conditions, but under present conditions we are creatures, not of God, but of our fellow men."

Theological Reflection (Paragraph on Charity and Justice):
"There are two words in Hebrew that can be translated as 'justice,' משפט (mishpat) and צדקה (tzedakah). Neither is found in 22:1—16, but the ideas embedded in the language inform the theology of this passage nonetheless. In his book The Dignity of Difference, Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks meditates on the distinction between these two terms: 'Mishpat means retributive justice or the rule of law. ...Tzedakah, by contrast, refers to distributive justice.' Tzedakah does not have a direct synonym in English; Sacks explains that this word contains the ideas of both charity and justice—two terms that are translated separately and therefore perceived as being mutually exclusive in both Latin (iustitia and caritas) and English. When [David J.] Pleins claims [in The Social Visions of the Hebrew Bible], 'Proverbs rarely moves beyond charity,' he is interpreting through a lens that is tempered by his temporal and linguistic location, a lens that is incongruous with ancient Israelite ideas of justice."

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Reese's Pieces: Irrefutable Proof of the Existence of God

My grandfather is awesome. He's a retired bishop in the United Methodist Church, and he's just the jam. Today he told me something that just upped his awesome factor:

Bart Ehrman's official title is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. Gray endowed the chair specifically for the purpose of keeping a Christian presence in the faculty of UNC's Religious Studies department. Ehrman is a self-professing agnostic (formerly Christian).

Now, it turns out that James A. Gray is my grandfather's cousin. My grandfather commented today that if Gray knew that an agnostic occupied his namesake chair, he would roll over in his grave. This is funny enough coming from a 70-something-year-old man, but it gets better. My grandfather once met Ehrman and actually told him this. Ehrman didn't seem perturbed.

This story just makes me giggle. And I'm not going to debate Ehrman here--Richard Hays, Stephen Colbert, my dad and many others have done a far better job than I could. I just want to clarify one thing: my problem with Ehrman is not that he's agnostic. It's his reasons for leaving the faith.

Ehrman is making gobs of money off books where the thesis is basically "OH MY GOSH THERE ARE INCONSISTENCIES IN THE BIBLE AND IT MIGHT NOT ALL BE 100% HISTORICALLY ACCURATE AAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!" I *might* be mocking, but I can't help it if I'm snarky and sarcastic by nature. Anyway, the thing is, Ehrman presents his problems as if he's the first person to notice them. But if no one had ever realized that not all 4 Gospels were exactly the same...why would we have 4 Gospels in the first place? The point is that Ehrman is wrestling with legitimate questions in a way that ignores the fact that the church has been dealing with them for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Since I have papers to write and don't feel like going into this anyway, I'm just going to leave you with this gem:

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Bart Ehrman
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical HumorFox News

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Praise Bands Annoy God

View my provocatively titled entry in Duke Divinity School's Confessio here.

 

Designed by Simply Fabulous Blogger Templates, Modified by Sarah Howell