Monthly Archives: April 2012

Charles Halton

The Power of Physical Books

by

I’m quite an enthusiastic supporter of electronic books in all their iterations. I think that long form writing has a wonderful future ahead of itself and that we’ve only seen the beginning of the benefits (and also destruction) of converting dead trees to atoms. And yet, for the student of ancient texts there is something lost in this migration. Ancient peoples had a deep association with the physicality of the mediums on which they wrote which in turn greatly affected their approach to them and even their thought processes involved in reading and writing.

One of the most striking portrayals of the immense significance of the physicality of a text is seen in the Smithsonian’s edition of The Jefferson Bible. They tried to reproduce as exactly as they could the edition of the Bible Jefferson made by literally cutting texts out of the New Testament, discarding some and rearranging others. They even produce Jefferson’s marginalia and chapter divisions written in his own hand. However, the most intriguing thing to me was that the publisher took pains (read expense) to represent a place where Jefferson glued a piece of a text in the margin. Here is a picture:

Writing is present on both sides of the flap and there appear to be pen marks in which Jefferson crossed out portions and such. All of this contributes to give a picture of editorial lengths Jefferson went toward creating this version of the New Testament. I wonder if this sense would be as strong if one were reading from a newly typeset edition in either print or electronic form? Personally, I doubt it.

What I really want now is for someone to publish an edition of the Qumran documents that arrive rolled up in a pot and riddled with holes and ragged edges. 

Charles Halton

Pay Attention, Because It’s Really, Really Simple: Writing is a Gift

by

Pay attention, because it’s really, really simple:

If in January, you sit there contemplating what you should report and write in order to win a Pulitzer Prize during the coming year — or if you harbor such thoughts at any point during the year – you are hack and a whore and part of the problem.

–David Simon

I’m a huge fan of The Wire and Treme so naturally I was ecstatic when David Simon started putting stuff up on his blog. In the quote above he discusses the Awards-Industrial-Complex and how it distorts journalism. However, I think there is a significant application to be made to those of us who do academic writing. To be sure, there aren’t many awards for us to win but there is favor to curry with administrators and there are pats on the back to win from colleagues.

I’ll admit it. A few years ago I was a hack and a whore. I thought up an entire book project to pitch to a specific publisher because I thought it would help me win the graces of a former employer. Thankfully, after writing the first few chapters I threw it in the bin. The problem wasn’t the writing per se but the motivation that produced it which in turn tainted the writing. I knew it was poisoned at the time I started but it took a while to sink in and when it did I’m thankful that I had the wherewithal to cut my losses and start on something new.

I might be going out on a limb here but I think this is something we all struggle with, especially those of us who are young in our careers. There is a game to academics that can be played if you know how. One of the elements is getting some publications under your belt, preferably more than your colleagues or fellow job applicants and placed in more prestigious places. It may seem hard but actually it’s quite easy. Need to generate a few quick and easy articles? No problem. Find an obscure word or phrase, gin up a new interpretation on something, or, if all else fails, troll ancillary disciplines for methodologies that have yet to be applied to your field and, presto, “An X Reading of the Book of Whatever.” You just triangulate something novel enough that it has the luster of newness but make is familiar enough so you’re not dismissed as a loon. Easy peasy. But is it really what we need?

A year or so after my aborted attempt at academic whoredom I read Alan Jacobs’s book–A Theology of Reading: The Hermeneutics of Love. It gave definition to my unformed, intuitive perspective of what writing was, or better, what it should be. Instead of viewing writing as something to better the writer–whether that be monetary compensation (in our fields? yeah, right), fame, or what have you–he framed writing as a gift. It’s a gift you give the world. If they embrace it, great. If they reject it, so be it. But the real key to this paradigm is that it frames writing as something you do to serve and better others instead of yourself–an externally oriented act.

We are awash in words. It’s just too much. Of the many problems associated with higher education, a major one is the impetus, either explicit or implicit, that you’ve got to constantly produce. There are too many monographs, too many journals, too much stuff to keep up with. You think I’m kidding? Harvard–the richest university in the world–can’t even afford their journal subscriptions. Even in really niche sub-sub-disciplines we can’t keep up. Something has to stop. We don’t need anyone to write anything more unless they further the conversation, reveal something new, put material into a more accessible package, or cause us to ponder something again from a different angle.

I know the pressures of trying to pad resumes and gain a following, to “build a brand” or “gain a platform” within the academic world. Resist it. Save your words for stuff that really counts and in the long run it will benefit you because people will actually listen to what you say because they will regard it as valuable. And if you happen to say things that people don’t want to hear but they desperately need? You many not see a reward but you’ve given us a gift. You served us and in return we ignored you or maybe a few angry folks threw sand in your face. But you kept your integrity; the egg is on our face.

So, if you’re a good scholar whose sold out to slinging books by selling sensationalism or if you’re playing the game of ginning up empty articles or rehashing books then David Simon has a few words for you: “you are hack and a whore and part of the problem.” In the words of Alan Jacobs: “You’re welcome.”

Charles Halton

When is an Allusion an Allusion?

by

In the previous post many people have proposed instances in which they think other parts of the Old Testament allude to or cite from Genesis. However, I thought it would be worthwhile to think through some criteria for separating a true allusion or citation from the use of a general trope or when an author draws from the general cultural repertoire of traditions and bundles of stories that floated around and not necessarily a specific text or one story in particular. To state it more bluntly, you can’t just assume that a similar word, phrase, or idea that you find in one place in the Bible is an intentional allusion or citation of another–you have to demonstrate that there is a real link between the two passages and it didn’t arise from happenstance, a common use of a third text, or a trope.

A helpful article in this regard (apart from my article which analyzed allusions within Neo-Assyrian oracles) is by Christopher Hays titled “Echoes of the Ancient Near East?: Intertextuality and the Comparative Study of the Old Testament” in which he adapts a list of seven criteria that his father, Richard Hays of Duke Divinity School, came up with. I will repeat his list (in bold) followed by my own very short reflection:

  1. Availability: Was the proposed source of the echo available to the author and/or his original readers? This is obvious but really important and easily forgotten–you can’t cite what doesn’t exist. Yet, this is also rather complicated for ANE texts and the OT. For instance, there were many flood stories that circulated so when a writer refers to a flood are they necessarily referring to the flood mentioned in Genesis? Furthermore, even if the Genesis flood story was written at that time did the author have access to it or know of it? How widely did the biblical texts circulate before they were canonized and translated, etc? There are a whole host of other questions in this regard but we’ll leave it there for now.
  2. Volume: How “loud” is the echo; that is, how explicit and overt is it? In other words, is an instance an “echo” or an “allusion.” Is an author wanting to recall a specific text or passage or maybe more of an idea or emotion embedded within it?
  3. Recurrence or Clustering: How often does the author cite or allude to the same text? If an author has alluded to a text several times it lends support to an identification of another instance of allusion.
  4. Thematic Coherence: How well does the alleged echo fit into the line of argument of the passage in question? Does the proposed precursor text fit together with the point the author is making? In other words, is the writer competent? If you think so then he or she will use a citation or allusion that makes sense–according to ancient conventions–with the context.
  5. Historical Plausibility: Could an author in fact have intended the alleged meaning effect of any proposed allusion, and could contemporaneous readers have understood it? This is key; especially in my mind the latter part.
  6. History of Interpretation: Have other readers in the tradition heard thesame echoes that we now think we hear? In other words, how likely is it that we will identify a brand new allusion after a couple thousand years of people smarter that us have been studying this stuff? Not likely but still possible–proceed confidently in humility.
  7. Satisfaction: Does the proposed intertextual reading illuminate the sur-rounding discourse and make some larger sense of the author’s argument as awhole? Do we find ourselves saying, “Oh, so that’s what the author meant”? Subjective? Yes. But since when is that a bad thing–we are subjective beings after all and aesthetics is a large factor in adjudicating theories in theoretical physics so why not for biblical and ANE studies?
Charles Halton

How Important Is Genesis for the OT?

by

My friend Pete Enns has a new book out, Genesis for Normal People (it definitely isn’t for Duane Smith) and in commenting on the book RJS observes (Jesus Creed blog):

Genesis is a defining story without which it is hard to make sense of the rest of the Old Testament.

Now, as far as I understand it RJS is a scientist of some kind and not a biblical scholar so I’ll cut her(?) some slack, yet, I think RJS represents a dominant assumption that Genesis is essential to the rest of the OT, a foundational book, the sine qua non without which the OT would be lost and rudderless. On one hand, Genesis is important if you build a metanarrative of Scripture or employ a so-called canonical reading of the Bible. And, New Testament authors occasionally quote or allude to certain passages within Genesis. Yet, if we are talking about making sense of a book in relation to the Old Testament then I think it is important to note how the biblical authors themselves viewed portions of Scripture before saying that it is hard to make sense of the rest of the Old Testament without X passage or book. For instance,  with respect to Genesis how do we deal with the facts that:

  • The seven days of creation are not referred to outside of Genesis 1 except for in one of the decalogues (Exod 20:8-9)1
  • Adam shows up nowhere else outside of the first handful of chapters in Genesis apart from the genealogy in Chronicles 1.
  • The Fall isn’t brought up again outside of Genesis until Paul.
  • Noah is absent throughout the entire OT apart from the Genesis account and genealogy in 1 Chronicles 1
  • The Tower of Babel is never alluded to or cited within the OT

Not every figure within Genesis is absent within subsequent OT literature though.

  • Abraham has a decent showing in the OT and, in fact, this is where Stephen begins his history of Israel in Acts 7
  • Jacob figures more prominently–a lot more prominently–than Abraham within the Old Testament outside of the Pentateuch
  • Joseph appears about as many times outside of the Pentateuch as does Abraham
So, what are we to make of this? Interestingly, the authors of the OT do not seem to think that much of Genesis is as important as many modern commentators make it out to be; at least if we take their lack of engagement with Gen 1-11 as a sign of their view of its importance. Yet, other accounts, such as those involving Abraham, Joseph, and particularly Jacob were more influential. So, when it comes to asking questions such as: “How important is Genesis for understanding the Old Testament?” I think we’ve got to say, like with many things in life: it’s complicated.

  1. Jon Levenson sees a connection, however slight, between Gen 1 and Ps 104 yet I wonder whether the similarities he outlines are best explained as stemming from an organic connection or a conversion of tropes; Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 53-65. [back]
Charles Halton

A Danger of Reading the Bible Theologically

by

It seems that univocal descriptions of God’s character and action were not sufficient for the biblical writers. Instead, they represent God as a complex being who responds in different ways even to similar circumstances. This requires a mature reflection from those who wish to follow him. Instead of perceiving God through the lens of static theological formulations or philosophically consistent principles, we should learn from prophets like Zechariah who picture God as a relational being who brings a level of complexity to the life of discipleship. A danger of reading the bible theologically instead of exegetically is that it can easily take us down a path in which we derive a sense of peace from a theological scheme or philosophical abstraction instead of the person of God himself.1

At the same time that Zechariah urges his audience to turn to God so that God might dwell in their midst he also relays the message that God will again return to Jerusalem which will ensure that his house is built once more. A synthetic picture of the two oracles in Zech 1 reveals that God is present even in his absence and is working for the sake of his people even when he tells them that they must repent in order to receive his benevolence.

–A snippet from the draft of my forthcoming commentary on Zechariah. Whatcha think?


  1. Mark A. Seifrid, “Story-Lines of Scripture and Footsteps in the Sea,” SBJT 12.4 (Winter 2008): 88ff [back]
Charles Halton

Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel

by

Many people are glowingly describing the new journal, Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel (HeBAI) and rightly so since it has a stellar editorial board and an impressive list of scholars contributing to the first issue. Furthermore, it fills an interesting niche in which an entire journal is devoted to looking at the history of Israel in relation to biblical and cognate texts. However, what I don’t hear anyone asking is: why is this new journal using a business model from the early 1900′s? Library budgets are already under the gun at most every institution and adding a new journal with an institutional subscription price of 200 euros per year is, in my opinion, not the best idea (but, it is not the worst; at least it is not $667 like the Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha or Vetus Testamentum which is 355 euros for an electronic only subscription).

Why is it that it must cost this much? There are many other new, peer-reviewed outlets that have free dissemination such as the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures and SBL’s Ancient Near East Monograph series. These ventures are underwritten by institutions so I understand that a self-standing journal must pay for things such as typesetting and the like. But should it really cost 200 euros to do this? There are other journals, such as the Bulletin for Biblical Research, (full disclosure: I am on the editorial board) which have a cost of $65 dollars for institutional subscriptions. I don’t know what kind of editorial services HeBAI will offer but BBR does the peer-review process, type-setting, even close proof-reading and checking citations to make sure they are accurate (which many other journals with far higher subscription prices don’t do), and dissemination all for $65.

Lastly, do we really need another journal? Is the space in other journals already packed cheek and jowl with indispensable articles that desperately deserve to see the light of day? Every scholar I talk with laments the fact that secondary literature in every speciality has exploded to almost unwieldy levels. Do we really need another journal to add to this existing problem or would tighter scrutiny of submissions and greater selectivity be better in the long run?

On one level I join many others in warmly welcoming this new journal yet on the other I think it may illustrate and contribute to some of the problems of the educational-industrial complex.

What do you think?

Charles Halton

The Hebrew Scriptures in Judaism and Christianity

by

A free course taught by Shaye Cohen. Here’s the description:

In 70CE the Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem. Second Temple Judaism, whose worship consisted of animal sacrifice permitted by biblical command only at the Temple, would have to reinvent itself as Rabbinic Judaism.  Contemporaneously, the authors of the New Testament Gospels were writing about the Jewish apocalyptic prophet whom they believed was the awaited messiah.  For both the rabbis and the gospel writers, for both ancient Jews and ancient Christians, the central authoritative text was the Torah and the other books we now call the Hebrew Scriptures.  This course surveys how the interpretation and reinterpretation of these books spawned two rival cultural systems, Judaism and Christianity.  The issues addressed are: 1 What are the truth claims of Judaism and Christianity?  2 In the first centuries of our era, how did Jewish biblical interpretation differ from Christian?  3 What differences resulted in “the parting of the ways” between Judaism and Christianity?  4 How does each culture deal with the biblical passages concerning: circumcision, the food laws, the Sabbath, Passover, the manifestations of the deity e.g., Logos, the messiah, atonement/redemption, and the concept of Israel as the chosen of God?

via The Hebrew Scriptures in Judaism and Christianity – Download Free Content from Harvard University on iTunes.