Power In His Presence

TITLE OF THE ARTICLE: THE COVENANT OF CIRCUMCISION (GENESIS 17:9-14) AND THE SITUATIONAL ANTITHESES IN GALATIANS 3:28

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: TROY W. MARTYNS

martin@sxu.edu

Saint Xavier University, Chicago, IL 60655

TROY W. MARTYNS got his Ph.D. in the University of Chicago. He Teaches courses in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures and Biblical Interpretation, and publishes widely in the area of Biblical Studies.

The following are the articles and reviews TROY T. MARTYNS spearheaded. They are as follows:

Articles

“The Brother Body: Addressing and Describing the Galatians and the Agitators as ‘Adelphoi’,” Biblical Research (forthcoming).

“Veiled Exhortations Regarding the Veil: Ethos as the Controlling Factor in Moral Persuasion (1 Cor 11:2-16),” in Rhetoric, Ethic and Moral Persuasion in Biblical Texts. Emory Studies in Early Christianity. Edited by Thomas H. Olbricht and Anders Eriksson. Trinity Press International (forthcoming).

“Covenant of Circumcision (Gen 17:9-14) and the Situational Antitheses in Gal 3:28,” Journal of Biblical Literature (forthcoming).

“The Good as God (Rom 5.7),” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25.1(2002): 55-70.

“Watch during the Watches (Mk 13:35),” Journal of Biblical Literature 120(2001): 685-701.

“The Voice of Emotion: Paul’s Pathetic Persuasion (Gal 4:12-20).” Pages 181-202 in Paul and Pathos. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 16. Edited by Thomas H. Olbricht and Jerry L. Sumney. .Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001.

“Sorting the Syntax of Aristotle’s Anger (Rh. 2.2.1 1387a30-32).” Hermes: Zeitschrift für die klassische Philologie 129(2001): 474-478.

“Effecting Change in the Translation of Epicurus’ Argument for the Immutability of the All (Her. 39.4-8).” Hermes: Zeitschrift für die klassische Philologie 129(2001): 353-361.

“Live Unnoticed: An Epicurean Maxim and the Social Dimension of Col 3:3-4.” Pages 227-244 in Antiquity and Humanity: Essays on Ancient Religion and Philosophy Presented to Hans Dieter Betz on His 70th Birthday. Edited by Adela Yarbro Collins and Margaret M. Mitchell. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr/Paul Siebeck, 2001.

“Entextualized and Implied Rhetorical Situations: The Case of 1 Timothy and Titus.” Biblical Research 45(2000): 5-24.

“The Ambiguities of a ‘Baffling Expression’ (Gal 4: 12).” Filologia Neotestamentaria 12(1999): 123-138.

“Scythian Perspective or Elusive Chiasm: A Reply to Douglas A. .Campbell.” Novum Testamentum 41(1999):.256-264.

“The TestAbr and the Background of 1Pet 3,6.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 90(1999): 139-146.

“Whose Flesh? What Temptation? (Gal 4.13-14).” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 74(1999): 65-91.

“A Biblical Perspective on the Forgiveness Debate.” Pages 84-89 in Judgment Day at the White House: A Critical Declaration Exploring Moral Issues and the Political Use and Abuse of Religion. Edited by Gabriel Fackre. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999.

“Assessing the Johannine Epithet ‘The Mother of Jesus.’” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 60(1998): 63-73.

“The Chronos Myth in Cynic Philosophy.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 38(1997): 85-108.

“The Christian’s Obligation Not to Forgive.” Expository Times 108(1997): 360-362.

“Pagan and Judeo-Christian Time-keeping Schemes in Gal 4:10 and Col 2: 16.” New Testament Studies 42(1996) 105-119.

“Scripture Speaks about Itself.” Illustrated Bible Life (June-August, 1996): 4-6.

“The Requirements of Paul’s Gospel.” Illustrated Bible Life (June-August, .1996): 9-11.

“A Call to Preserve Unity.” Illustrated Bible Life (June-August, 1996): 14- 16.

“Justice or Judgment” Illustrated Bible Life (June-August, 1996): 19-21

“Money: Hindrance or Help to the Message of Christ?” Illustrated Bible Life (June-August, 1996): 24-26.

“The Wonder of Worship.” Illustrated Bible Life (June-August, 1996): 30- 32

“Balancing the Spiritual and Physical Families.” Illustrated Bible Life (June- August, 1996): 34-36.

“Apostasy to Paganism: The Rhetorical Stasis of the Galatian Controversy.” Journal of Biblical Literature 114(1995): 437-461; Reprinted in The Galatians Debate. Ed. Mark D. Nanos and Neil Elliott Peabody, MA: Hendrickson (forthcoming).

“The Scythian Perspective in Col 3:11.” Novum Testamentum 37(1995): 249-261.

“But Let Everyone Discern the Body of Christ (Co1 2:17).” Journal of Biblical Literature 114(1995): 249-255.

“Time and Money in Translation: A Comparison of the RSV and the NRSV.” Biblical Research 38(1993): 55-73.

“The Present Indicative in the Eschatological Statements of 1 Peter 1:6, 8.” Journal of Biblical Literature 111(1992): 307-312.

“John Wesley’s Exegetical Orientation: East or West.” Wesleyan Theological Journal 26.1(1991): 104-138.

“A Covenant of Bread and Salt” Herald of Holiness 80.3 (March, 1991): 24-27.

“An Examination of New Testament Theology: A Comparison of Rudolf Bultmann and Alan Richardson.” Pneuma and Praxis 2.1 (1990): 15-26.

“John Wesley: Plagiarist or Purveyor of German Critical Scholarship.” Olivet Theological Journal 1.2 (October, 1989): 3-5.

Reviews

Pheme Perkins, Peter: Apostle for the Whole Church (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000). Journal of Religion 82(2002): 107-108.

Jens Herzer, Petrus oderPaulus? Studien über das Verhältnis des Ersten Petrusbriefes zur paulinischen Tradition (WUNT 103; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1998). Journal of Biblical Literature (forthcoming).

Steven Richard Bechtler, Following in His Steps: Suffering, Community, and Christology in 1 Peter (SBLDS 162; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998). Journal of Biblical Literature (forthcoming).

Lauri Thuren, Argument and Theology in 1 Peter: The Origins of Christian Paraenesis (JSNTSup 114; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). Religious Studies Review 23(1997): 304.

Rainer Metzner, Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangeliums im 1. Petrusbrief: Studien zum Traditionsgeschichtlichen und Theologischen Einfluss des 1. Evangeliums auf den 1. Petrusbrief (WUNT 74; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1995). Religious Studies Review 23(1997): 75- 76.

J. Daryl Charles, Literary Strategy in the Epistle of Jude (Scranton: University of Scranton Press, 1993). Journal of Biblical Literature 114(1995): 541-543.

J. M. G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth (Studies of the New Testament and its World; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988). Connections (December, 1994): 5-6.

Dan O. Via, The Ethics of Mark’s Gospel in the Middle of Time (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). The Journal of Religion 68(1988): 476-477.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA: JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE, VOLUME 122/1 (2003) 111-125

URL: NONE

OUTLINE OF THE ARTICLE:

1. THE BAPTISMAL-FORMULA EXPLANATION
2. THE SITUATIONAL EXPLANATION

WHAT THE ARTICLE IS ALL ABOUT

Martin follows the common explanation in his treatment of Galatians 3:28 that Paul cites these antitheses by rigidly adhering to an early Christian baptismal formula. Martin here stipulates that in Paul’s writing to the Galatians, however, he is interested only in the first pair. Martin concludes that the slave/free and the male/female pair have nothing to do with the situation in Galatia but are only vestiges of the formula Paul quotes to remind the Galatians that the Jew/Greek antitheses is abolished by Christian baptism. This baptismal-formula explanation of the three pairs of antitheses in Gal. 3:28 is not entirely satisfactory, however, for at least three reasons.

• This explanation presents Gal 3:28 as the absolute abolition of the distinctions represented by these pairs of antitheses. Martyn comments, “To pronounce the nonexistence of these opposites is to announce nothing less than the end of the cosmos.
• The precise listing of the pairs in Gal 3:28 occurs in none of the other passages that supposedly contain this formula. First Corinthians 12:13 lacks the male/female pair, as does the list in Col 3:11, which nevertheless adds a circumcision/uncircumcision and barbarian/Scythian pair not present in Gal 3:28. even the Jew/Greek antithesis, which Martyn identifies as so important to Galatians, is missing from the Tripartite Tractate’s formulation, which adds an angel/human antitheses to the other antitheses found else where.
• The baptismal-formula explanation presupposes that Gal 3:28 is not adapted to the situation in Galatia whereas the other lists are shaped by the situations and contexts in which they occur. In contrast to the singular formulation of the other lists, the pairs in 1 Cor 12:13 are plural to fit Paul’s emphasis on the singular body’s having various members such as Jews, Greeks, slaves and free persons.

In Martyn’s reconstruction of the Galatian controversy, circumcision plays a central role. He assumes that the Galatians are eager to become circumcised after deserting Paul for the circumcision gospel. Martyn’s reconstruction, however, fails to explain why none of the Galatians has submitted to circumcision at the time of Paul’s writing the letter. Martyn’s reconstruction interprets scheme as a Jewish time-keeping scheme, but the lack of an explanation in Galatians for the incompatibility of this Jewish scheme with Paul’s own Jewish time-keeping scheme renders Martyn’s interpretation improbable.

Genesis 17:9-14—the establishment of the covenant of circumcision provides the rationale for the selection and formulation of the pairs of antithesis in Gal 3:28. The covenant distinguishes between Jews and others such as Greeks, who do not submit to circumcision. Jews who belong to the family of Abraham but uncircumcised is “cut off from his people.”

TITLE OF THE ARTICLE: ISRAEL IN THE BOOK OF ISAIAH

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: REINHARD G. KRATZ (NOT AVAILABLE)

Platz der Gottinger Sieben 2, D-37073 Gottingen, Germany

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA: JOURNAL STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, VOLUME 31.1 (2006): 103-128

URL: http://JOT.sagepub.com

OUTLINE OF THE ARTICLE:

INTRODUCTION

1. THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL
2. JACOB-ISRAEL
3. ISRAEL AND JUDAH
4. RESULTS

WHAT THE ARTICLE IS ALL ABOUT:

The New Testament and Paul referred to the name ‘Israel’ as a name which had become ambiguous. What Israel means and who belongs to Israel is no longer obvious. The only thing that is clear is that descent from the people of Israel no longer suffices for belonging to the people of God. Paul and the early Christians were certainly not the first to differentiate the meaning of the name ‘Israel’. Prior to them, the community at Qumran had set themselves apart from the Israelites in general and the Temple in Jerusalem; they understood themselves as the true Israel and the Temple of God.

‘The Holy One of Israel’ does not quite fit into the schema which scholars have developed for the book of Isaiah. Because this title appears both in Chapters 1-39 and 40-66, it conflicts with the usual partition between First and Second Isaiah. ‘The Holy One of Israel’ is the Redeemer of Israel and Zion who glorifies His people and Zion. Furthermore, He is the Creator and King of Israel who made Israel and Zion from the womb and is also active as Creator in the present work of redemption. As such, He is the ‘God of Israel’ and the whole earth-Yhwh Sabaoth is His name.

the Holy One of Israel is the Creator and King insofar as at the beginning of time He took Israel for His own possession and continues to do the same by presenting Himself as the Redeemer and Savior: Yhwh is the God of Israel, and Israel is the people of Yhwh, as expressed in the so called Covenant Formula and echoed in the title ‘the God of Israel’. In this use of the divine title, the traditional attribute of holiness as well as the name ‘Israel’ assumes a very special importance. The holiness which the heavenly beings, the seraphim in Isaiah 6:3, attribute to Yhwh becomes the criterion by which the sins of the people are measured and appear particularly grave: the more holy God is, the greater the sins are against God. On the other hand, this allows the name ‘Israel’ in the divine title to be qualified in a special way.

This impression with regards to the divine titles comprises almost half of the occurrences of the word ‘Israel’ in the book of Isaiah, one may draw the preliminary conclusion that in this book ‘Israel’ does not represent primarily a historical, but rather a theological entity. This impression is confirmed when we turn to the names ‘Jacob’ and ‘Israel’ themselves, which, just as the divine title appear throughout the whole of Isaiah. We come to the conclusion in examining other evidence. Outside the Patriarchal stories, the name ‘Jacob’ appears quite rarely in the narrative works of the Old Testament. In most cases, it occurs in the patriarchal triad of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and in the reviews of the patriarchal history.

As I have already pointed out at the beginning, the name ‘Israel’ appears in the book of Isaiah with many different meanings and functions, and for the sake of clarity I have arranged them in larger categories and touched upon them briefly. However, one should not be content simply to reduce the differences into such categories. In addition to the use of this name in the divine title ‘The Holy One of Israel’ and the designation of the all the people as a whole as ‘Jacob-Israel’, there is also the political meaning: Israel as the Northern Kingdom alongside the Southern Kingdom of Judah.

The results of our investigation of the name ‘Israel’ in the book of Isaiah may be summarized as follows: the oldest oracles of the Prophet Isaiah of Jerusalem, instead of speaking of Israel, employ the geographical and political designations ‘Ephraim’ and ‘Samaria’. Not only do they therefore refer to the Northern Kingdom of Israel; they also present this nation as the enemy.

TITLE OF THE ARTICLE: THE MADNESS OF THE KING JESUS: WHY WAS JESUS PUT TO DEATH, BUT HIS FOLLOWERS WERE NOT?

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: JUSTIN J. MEGGITT (THESE ARE ALL THE INFORMATION I GOT ABOUT JUSTIN J. MEGGITT)

University Senior Lecturer in the Study of Religion and the Origins of Christianity, Institute of Continuing Education, University of Cambridge, and Fellow and Director of Studies in Theology and Religious Studies, Hughes Hall.

Justin has been a great and a famous publisher of Christian books. Among these are:

Paul, Poverty and Survival. Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1998.

The First Christians. Oxford: One world (forthcoming early 2008)

The New Testament and Ancient Popular Culture: Rethinking the Origins of Christianity (late 2008)

Christ and the Universe of Disease (early 2009).

Justin J. Meggitt has diversified talents also in writing splendid correspondence with regards to Journal Articles and chapters in books. Among these are:

“The Psycho-Social Context of Jesus’ Miracles.” Jesus and Healing. Ed. Fraser Watts. (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, forthcoming)

“Psychology and the Historical Jesus.” Jesus and Psychology. Ed. Fraser Watts. (forthcoming)

(with Melanie Wright) “Interdisciplinarity in Learning and Teaching in Religious Studies” in B.Chandramohan and S. Fallows (eds), Interdisciplinary Learning and Teaching: Theory and Practice in Contemporary Higher Education. (London: Routledge Falmer). Forthcoming.

“The Madness of King Jesus: Why was Jesus Put to Death, but his Followers were not?” Journal for the Study of the New Testament. 29.4 (2007) 379-413.

“Magic and Early Christianity: Consumption and Competition.” The Meanings of Magic: From the Bible to Buffalo Bill. Ed. A. Wygrant. New York: Berghahn Books, 2006, pp. 89- 116.

“Sources: Use, Abuse and Neglect” in Christianity at Corinth: The Scholarly Quest for the Corinthian Church . Ed. D. Horrell and E. Adams. London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004, pp. 241-253

“Jesus and John the Baptist” Jesus in History, Culture and Thought. Ed. L. Houlden. Oxford: ABC Clio, 2003.

“Taking the Emperor’s Clothes Seriously: The New Testament and The Roman Emperor.” The Quest for Wisdom: Essays in Honour of Philip Budd. Ed. C. Joynes. Cambridge: Orchard Academic, 2002, pp. 143-170.

“The First Churches: Social Life.” The Biblical World. Ed. John Barton, London: Routledge, 2002, pp. 137-156

“The First Churches: Religious Practice.” The Biblical World. Ed. John Barton, London: Routledge, 2002, pp. 157-172

“Eigentum: III. NT (Property in the New Testament).” Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Fourth Edition. Ed. H. D. Betz et al. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 2002.

“Response to Martin and Theissen” Journal for the Study of the New Testament. 84 (2001) 85-94.

“Armenfürsorge: V. NT (Care of the Poor in the New Testament).” Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Fourth Edition. Ed. H. D. Betz et al. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1999.

“Artemidorus and the Johannine Crucifixion.” Journal of Higher Criticism. 5 (1998) 203-208

“The Social Status of Erastus (Ro. 16:23)” Novum Testamentum 38.3 (1996) 1-6.

“Laughing and Dreaming at the Foot of the Cross: Context and Reception of a Religious Symbol.” Journal for the Critical Study of Religion, Ethics and Society. 1 (1996) 9-14. (Reprinted in Modern Spiritualities, ed. L. Brown et al., Amherst: Prometheus Books, 1997, pp. 63-70).

“Meat Consumption and Social Conflict in Corinth.” Journal of Theological Studies 45 (1994) 137-141.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA: JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, VOLUME 29. 4. JUNE 2007

URL: http://JSNT.sagepub.com

OUTLINE OF THE ARTICLE:

1. STATING THE CONUNDRUM
2. THE MADNESS OF JESUS
3. MAKING SENSE OF MADNESS
4. A SLIGHT BUT IMPORTANT DIGRESSION: WAS JESUS ACTUALLY MAD?
5. PERCEPTIONS AND RESPONSES TO MADNESS
6. TWO CASES OF MADNESS:CARABAS AND JESUS BEN ANANIAS
7. JUDGING JESUS MAD: CONCLUDING REMARKS

WHAT THE ARTICLE IS ALL ABOUT:

Jesus being put to death by the Romans on the cross is one of those rare pieces of biographical data that is almost entirely uncontested. Crucifixion was an ignoble and unappealing end, and one that is hard to imagine anyone in the early church would have wanted to fabricate about their founder. The reason why Jesus was put to death is very hard to comprehend and savvy. Nonetheless, most commentators have maintained THAT Jesus was put to death by the Romans for a reason of some kind: He either thought of Himself; or was thought of by others, to be King of the Jews. And there are, on the face of it, good grounds for holding this opinion.

The paradox here is that, if Jesus was put to death by the Romans as a Royal Pretender, why were none of His disciples or followers killed or pursued? From everything we know of the Roman policy concerning the treatment of royal pretenders or leaders of seditious movements, this failure to kill Jesus’ followers, or even pursue them, is perplexing to say the least. As Josephus says, the Romans were engaged in killing those who were considered as threats to the Roman government and having already killed a number of prophet’s supporters in an attack, “many prisoners were taken, `and of whom Pilate put to death the principal leaders and those who were most influential among the fugitives”. The determination of the Romans to destroy followers as well as those who led them is hardly surprising, particularly given the characteristic importance of deterrence in explanations and justifications of punishment in Roman law more generally.

The accusation that Jesus was mad is hardly new. Mark’s gospel provides us with the early tradition that Jesus’ own family thought Him so and even went so far as to try to restrain Him (Mk 3:19b-21). They had good reason to think as much. All the gospels contain the accusation that Jesus was possessed (Mk 3:22; Mt 12:24; Lk 11:14; Jn 8:48), a judgment that could be taken as amounting to more or less the same thing.

It is very important to clarify what this article is not about. It is not about whether the historical Jesus actually suffered from mental illness of some kind in an objective sense. Odd though it might appear to many in the field, New Testament scholars have, from time to time, ventured to make judgments on Jesus’ sanity. Also, saying that this article is not about whether Jesus actually was mad, by any objective criteria (if such things exist). Meggitt here says that it is illegitimate to try to investigate the psychology of the historical Jesus. Josephus wrote that he was not sure if the behavior of the Sicarii under torture, in refusing to admit that Caesar was their Lord, should be called courage or madness. Before we can look more directly at the details of Jesus’ treatment by the Romans, it is necessary to examine the range of understandings and responses to madness within first-century pagan cultures, and more specifically the culture of Pilate, a minor aristocrat of equestrian rank, probably from Italy, and the cultures of those involved directly in the crucifixion of Jesus.

Justin Meggitt had hitherto stressed on the conundrum that lies as the heart of our understanding of the fate of the historical Jesus has to be satisfactorily solved: why was Jesus of Nazareth put to death by the Roman authorities but His followers left untroubled by them? From Pilate’s perspective, Jesus would have demonstrated the symptoms of a madman by his behavior.

To solve the conundrum with which Meggitt started, he needed to discover a historical who was not just ‘crucifiable’, but one who alone was ‘crucifiable’, something that is actually much harder to explain than has hitherto been recognized.

JOURNAL ARTICLE

TITLE OF THE ARTICLE: PREHISTORY IN THE CALL TO ABRAHAM

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: LYLE ESLINGER- (Not enough history about him)-Not available

He is part and parcel of the Department of Religious Studies, The University of Calgary Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA: SEMEIA- AN EXPERIMENTAL JOURNAL FOR BIBLICAL CRITICISM, VOLUME 6, 1976

URL: NONE

OUTLINE OF THE ARTICLE:

1. INTRODUCTION
2. ABRAHAM’S CALL AND GRACE
3. ABRAHAM’S ELECTION IN CONTEXT

- Rhetoric of the Call

- Body Language of the Response

4. NARRATIVE CONTEXT OF THE CALL

- Lives of the Patriarchs

- The Genesis Pre-History

5. ABRAHAM IN HYPERCHRONIC CONTEXT

WHAT THE ARTICLE IS ALL ABOUT:

1. INTRODUCTION

The biblical story of Abraham provides an insight into the birth of the gods from the womb of human optimism. Religious optimism is an unexpected answer to environment insufficiency. One way that imagination has met compulsion’s demands was to conceive a plethora of superhuman agents within and eventually behind natural manifestations of power. There is the recurrent mismatch between environmental obstacles and the ineluctable quest for a better life awakens awareness of the need of an agent to overcome the obstacles.

In the so-called Abrahamic traditions the matter of agency is consistently resolved in favor of divine rather than human agency.

2. ABRAHAM’S CALL AND GRACE

The Genesis Pre-history weighs the advantages and liabilities of achieving the goals of biologically based optimism by divine and human agents. The story and Abraham and Sara is not only integral to this narrative mythologizing, it is in the culmination. Abraham’s unmerited election has fed the development of exclusivism and xenophobia among the self-perceived elect, careful consideration of the pre-text to Abraham’s call reveals another aspect in which there are clear pragmatic reasons for God’s choice of Abraham.

3. ABRAHAM’S ELECTION IN CONTEXT

The archetype and folk-historical value of Abraham’s call derives from a restriction to issues of interest in devotional and theological contexts. The promise to Abram points in the direction of Abram becoming a great people the promise can apply to the people of Israel only at the height of its prosperity. Contextual awareness is essential to an appreciation of ancient mythology embedded in literature but historical-critical reading duplicates the traditional predilection to turn too quickly to its own concerns, away from the embedded evidence of literal detail, narrative structure, overarching mythological concern.

- Rhetoric of the Call

Abraham’s Rhetoric call by God is “get yourself from your land, from your kin, from your father’s house to the land that I will show you” (Gen. 12:1). In the ancient social order, as for most humans who have ever lived, family and territory were an individual’s primary hold on life-sustaining resources and bulwark against adversarial encroachments. This is what God asks Abraham to renounce, no less. The power of a god far surpasses the collective might of other humans. But why does God require Abraham’s isolation from other humans?

- Body Language of the Response

Abraham’s response is a model of faith traditionally. The precise phonetic correspondence between the divine command, “go get yourself” and Abram’s response “so he went” is venerated as a most exacting obedience. God’s fancy of an isolated devotee going along with his god are matched by Abram’s and his tribe’s collective presence. Abram’s social bridges are portable, not burnt, setting a course within which faith’s mainstream has since flowed. What drives both the call and the response is singular and human: the need for security.

4. NARRATIVE CONTEXT OF THE CALL

- Lives of the Patriarchs

The story of the issues of the call continues to the shape and pattern of Abraham’s life as a whole. Demands for self resignation are matched by further offers of reward and Abraham’s story is famous for repeated promises of the good that will come from submission to God. The story of Abram and Sarai turns on the matter of security. Promises of the land, wealth and progeny are subsets of this primary concern

- The Genesis Pre-History

God’s motive for calling Abram is perplexing. As God he has the need to ask anything of anyone, hence the traditional belief that the call is unconditioned. The immediate narrative context supplies no obvious information and so has not been scrutinized. But in the light of the parallel between God’s response to the generation before the flood and to the tower builders, one thing stands out about Abraham’s call. In events leading to the tower confrontation humans had rebuilt their population base, the foundation of collective human agency. The tower project demonstrates their potential. The mythology of agency provides the logic of confrontation, explaining why God targets their collective cognitive capacity, not the tower as one might expect.

- Abram in Hyperchronic Context

The anxieties about the mythology of agency are cross-cultural, suggesting an archaic origin (the common antecedent to cultural diversity, expressed in cultural universals) and the need to attend to an archaic chronological frame in order to understand them. Classical literatures like the Bible are rich accumulations of culture’s archaic depths, offering comparatively innocent reflections of this pre-historic past. Like depth psychology, hyperchrony considers classical cultures of the agricultural age in the light of the archaic past, while eschewing the tangle of primal events, psychic layers and archetypal structures that fossilized into depth psychology’s meta-myths.

TITLE OF THE ARTICLE: WHAT IS ‘GENERATIVE POETICS’? THESE AND REFLECTIONS CONCERNING A NEW EXEGETICAL METHOD

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: ERHARDT GUTTGEMANNS-(NOT AVAILABLE)

Erhardt is a German Professor who had greatly affected biblical study in the past years. His knowledge was very profound in matters of criticisms and apologetics.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA: BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION, VOLUME XIV, NO. 3, 2006

URL: www.brill.nl

OUTLINE OF THE ARTICLE:

1. WHAT GENERATIVE POETICS IS ALL ABOUT
2. AXIOMS OF THE METHOD FOR STUDYING BIBLICAL TEXTS
3. FUNDAMENTAL REMARKS AND CONCLUSION

WHAT THE ARTICLE IS ALL ABOUT:

1. Generative Poetics is a new method of linguistic textual analysis that is applicable to all human texts. It is the first method of dealing with texts to feature a controllable connection between biblical texts, which are the object of the analytical grammar, and contemporary speaking in the church which is the object of the synthetic grammar. As a grammar, Generative Poetics not only ties theology to grammar (as in scholastic theology), but it also explicates theology as grammar: Theology thereby becomes the science of the operations and transformations between texts “given” to us in the tradition and texts to be “produced” today; its scientific character is tied to the linguistic reflection that constitutes the metalinguistic status of theology.
2. Generative Poetics has as its epistemological basis specific axioms derived from “common sense” in linguistics and literary criticism.

The first axiom is the option for the fundamental thesis of Ferdinand de Saussure, the founder of modern structural linguistics. This modern formation is a paraphrase of Saussure’s thesis that language must first be regarded synchronically and only afterwards diachronically (which is a sequence of diachronic texts in a language, so that the language is a synchronic system in the diachronic text.

The second axiom emphasizes on the distinction between the actuality of a “given” text and the already mentioned grammatical forces. The actuality of a text is the direct object of linguistic analysis, which must consequently be a text linguistic.

The third axiom is the recognition that between the surface of a text and its linguistic basis there is a hierarchical relationship, not a linear relationship of projection or representation.

The forth axiom is also the form-critical thesis that texts can be differentiated by “genres” or “forms”.

The fifth axiom is the functional character of a text or sign. We can refer here to the speech function model of Karl Buhler, Frederich Kainz, and Roman Jakobson, which exhibits the functional and organic character of a sign and of sentences.

The sixth axiom is the thesis that generative and transformational grammar is a kind of game theory. According to this theory, a concrete text is a performative “match” in which both speaker (author) and hearer (reader) employ a “strategy” of “alternatives.”

The seventh axiom is the option for the lexeme that expresses an action, i.e., the option for Lucien Testniere’s structural syntax, according to which the verbal node expresses a small drama that is expanded into the text by introducing actants and circumstants. This position implies, naturally, modern form of actantial theory as well as agreement with Charles J. Fillmore’s theory of deep case (Fillmore).

The eighth axiom is the distinction between several kinds of transformations. These are not only syntactic transformations (for example the change from active to passive, vice versa), but also semantic and pragmatic transformations.

3.Here, Erhard tries to explicate clearly the aforementioned axioms in order to even to clear the understanding of the unprepared reader who will face difficulties in reading this article. The reader who is accustomed only to traditional theology has difficulties in understanding and this caused by our exegetical tradition. Generative Poetics claim to be a methodologically and scientifically reflective textual theory that can stand up to contemporary standards of scientific theorizing, succeeding “existential interpretation” which is the only earlier text theory that has been consistently thought through.

Traditional exegesis involves an alienation and surprising behavior which is related to a constriction of the sociology of knowledge, according to which only that can be taught and passed along in theology which has already been considered the legitimate content of theology.

Again, another cause of the estrangement now being experienced is that traditional exegesis has shut itself off not only from practical theology, but also from the daily affairs of the schools and from the education of Philologians of religion.