Research DigestPage 3 |
||
|
It is very easy to let our own
presuppositions and expectations cloud our reading of a
text. Ellen White’s article in the Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament. 31 (4). 2007. 451-464.,
exposes this danger in our reading of the wife of King David, Michal.
Ellen observes that although Queen Michal is often seen critically and
negatively, the light in which she is actually presented is not wholly
hostile. In fact, she notes that, within the rabbinic tradition, Michal is
praised more than rebuked. By examining key incidents which refer
to Michel alongside commentator’s analyses, Ellen demonstrates that,
often, the way Michal is depicted (which is generally negative) is not
substantiated in the actual text. She argues that much of our
interpretation of Michal stems from our unwillingness to attribute moral
failings to David; failings which are overt, as well as alluded to, within
the text itself (sexual impropriety). Instead, Ellen presents are far more
rounded picture of both Michal and David, suggesting that Michal is not
the “idol-worshipping shrew” that she is so often presented as, nor is
David the “ideal man;” both are human who exhibit “human failings
and inadequacies”. Consequently, this wholly negative reading of Michal
is ironic particularly, as Ellen concludes, as she is described as loving
David and as protecting him (his life and reputation) on at least two
occasions.
Have you noticed a curious feature in the book of Revelation (5:5-6) where John is instructed by one of the elders to see a lion, but in fact sees a lamb? Revelation 5:5-6 Moreover,
it is the image of the lamb, rather than lion that is subsequently
retained in reference to the Messiah/Christ. Brent Strawn argues that this switch in imagery (from lion to lamb) is
well known but often “un(der)explained”. His article, in the Journal
for the Study of the
Pseudepigrapha 17
(1). 2007. 37-74., surveys
leonine imagery occurring in early Jewish and Christian literature outside
of, and following, the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible and then sets out to
explain possible reasons for this shift in imagery. Brent
notes that the lamb is a powerful and important image and plays a crucial
role in its message; however, it does not explain why the image of lion
(so quickly dropped in reference to the Christ figure) was introduced in
the first place. Brent’s survey presents bipolarity to the leonine
imagery being used to represent, righteous/evil, human/supernatural, the
divine/demonic. It also has been used to portray the Jewish nation as well
as individual tribes, but also Israel's enemies; demonic attacks as well as
divine judgements. The sheer range of associative meanings can create ambiguity
when attempting to convey precise meaning. Brent
concludes that, although there are many instances of the lion being
presented as a positive image (which is how it functions in Rev 5:5), its associated meanings were simply too ambivalent for it to be
able to be used it in a consistent manner without the fear of
misinterpretation. The author safeguards his message from this danger by
switching to the lamb motif and image which did not possess the range of
negative connotations.
Over the years familiar images can sometimes lose their potency with the result that their meaning can be obscured. The depiction in Daniel 4:33 of king Nebuchadnezzar is a case in point, often being presented in terms of the comic figure of Bottom in Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream. However, Christopher Hays' article in the Journal of Biblical Literature 126 (2) 305-325., provides a healthy corrective to this type of reading. Daniel 4:33 Countering the idea that Nebuchadnezzar is depicted in tragi-comic terms or suffering from some kind of madness, his article places this account within the literary context of the Ancient Near East. Although, in the past various attempts have tried to explain Nebuchadnezzar's affliction (including Lycanthropy), Christopher notes that recently all, but the most technical, commentaries tend to skip over this feature. Nevertheless, this passage suggests parallels with those found in Akkadian literature. Christopher argues that the animal images in Daniel 4 (bull, eagle and song-bird) were closely linked to, and were often used to, portray figures (gods, demons, spirits of the dead) of the Mesopotamian Underworld. Here, like Nebuchadnezzar, the victims would begin to take on the (animal-like) characteristics of their afflicters. Christopher concludes that rather than referring to a kind of madness, this imagery presents Nebuchadnezzar suffering from demonic assault at the hand of God. Christopher then asserts that the use of the first person indicates that the setting of Daniel reflects the genre of prayer, lament and thanksgiving - particularly as found in the Psalms. In this way, Daniel 'co-opts' this set of images and places them within a 'hymnic' genre. Christopher acknowledges that the portrait of Nebuchdnezzar may appear strange to the modern reader, however, the "movement from affliction to salvation to thanksgiving would have been familiar to a people shaped by praying the psalms." As in the above case of Nebuchadnezzar's affliction, the raw and unsettling language used by Paul (and other Biblical writers) can also sometimes be lost to us through translation or over familiarity. V. Henry T. Nguyen's recent examination of 1 Cor 4:9, in New Testament Studies 53 (4). 2007. 489-501., uncovers the brutal and shocking context behind Paul's imagery of the apostles being exhibited, "as though sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels and to mortals." Existing interpretations of this metaphor of 'spectacle' include (1) Roman triumphal procession, (2) a gladiatorial show or more recently (3) a mime performance. Henry however argues that the spectacle to which Paul refers should be specific kind which includes death and of which his readers would have been aware. 1 Corinthians 4:9-13
Henry notes that Corinth was renowned for its gladiatorial spectacles, being mentioned in the writings of Dio Chrysostom, Philostratus and Lucian, and that such a reference would have resonated with the readers of Paul's letter. Discounting a triumphal procession, which would not have included the immediate death of the paraded captors, Henry suggests that a more discriminating examination of those participating at the gladiatorial events may help to identify Paul's imagery. He points to an important distinction made between trained gladiators (for whom survival was at least a possibility) and condemned criminals (noxii), who were slaves, criminals, captives and deserters and for whom there was no chance of survival from certain butchery in the arena, either at the hands of gladiators or from wild animals. Henry argues that it is to these noxii that Paul likens the lowly status of the apostles; a group who were despised, hated and brutally subjected to prolonged and humiliating death. In this light, we can better understand Paul's catalogue of afflictions (4:10-13) and how, like the noxii, the apostles are naked or nearly naked (4:11). Henry argues that, even Paul's allusion to the apostle's having become like refuse and scum (4:13), could refer to the sites where the decomposing bodies of the noxii were thrown after the spectacles had finished. It also brings into fresh relief the nature of the "low and despised things of the world" through which God has chosen to demonstrate his "foolishness" to the world (1:25-28). Got to Page 4 of the Research Digest |
Back to Page 1
|
|