JožeKrašovec
PublishingCompany GrandRapids,Michigan
God’sRighteousnessandJusticeintheOld Testament
WilliamB.Eerdmans
Contents
AntonymFormsoftheRoot ṣdq intheHebrewBible
GrammaticalandSemanticFormsoftheRoot ṣdq intheHebrew Bible
SynonymousFormsoftheRoot ṣdq intheHebrew Bible
Conclusion 2.SemanticsofRighteousnessofGodintheHebrewBible
Conclusion 3.RighteousnessofGodintheBookofIsaiahandinItsMajorTranslations
CanonicalApproach LawandLiterature
LiteraryWaysofExpressingGod’sRighteousnessandJustice
IntroductiontoPartOne 1.ComparativeScrutinyoftheConceptofJusticeinAntiquity
PersonificationsorMetaphorsofJusticeinAncientMesopotamiaandEgypt
ForewordbyCraigG.Bartholomew
FieldofGod’sRighteousnessintheHebrewBible
PersonificationsorMetaphorsofJusticeinAncientGreeceandRome
PartOne:DimensionsofGod’sRighteousnessinActsofCreationandRedemption
IntroductionAbbreviationsPrefaceTheSemantic
God’sJusticebetweenPunishmentandForgivenessintheHebrewBible
PersonificationsorMetaphorsofJusticeinSemiticLanguages
RighteousnessofGodinthePentateuch RighteousnessofGodintheHistoricalBooks RighteousnessofGodinthePropheticBooks
VocabularyofGod’sRighteousnessintheFirstDivisionofDeutero-Isaiah:Chapters40–48
VocabularyofGod’sRighteousnessinTrito-Isaiah:Chapters56–66
InterpretationinTranslationsoftheBookofIsaiah Conclusion 4.RighteousnessofGodintheBookofPsalmsandinItsAncientTranslations
SynonymsandAntonymsintheEntireBookofIsaiah
RighteousnessofGodinBookTwoofPsalms:Psalms42–72 RighteousnessofGodinBookThreeofPsalms:Psalms73–89
RighteousnessofGodintheMiscellaneousCollectionof“Hagiographa”
RighteousnessofGodinBookFourofPsalms:Psalms90–106 RighteousnessofGodinBookFiveofPsalms:Psalms107–150
GrammaticalFormsoftheRoot ṣdq Conclusion 6.JustificationofGodandHisWordinPsalm51:6andRomans3:4 ConfessionofSininPsalm51:5–7
VocabularyofGod’sRighteousnessintheBookofIsaiah:Chapters1–39
TheSemanticFieldofRighteousnessintheOriginalandinAncientTranslations
RighteousnessofGodinBookOneofPsalms:Psalms1–41
Conclusion 5.RighteousnessofGodinOtherBooksoftheHebrewBible
VocabularyofGod’sRighteousnessintheSecondDivisionofDeutero-Isaiah:Chapters49–55
AnalogyandExtensionsoftheWordintoMetaphor,Symbol,andPersonification
IntroductiontotheManifestationofGod’sJusticeintheHebrewBible
9.DimensionsofJusticebetweenCosmicOrderandPersonalRelations
UtilitarianandRetributiveTheoriesofPunishment
TheChiefAimofRetributivePunishment:SubjugationoftheOffender NaturalProcessesofRetributionintheLightofInterpersonalRelationships
DimensionsofGod’sRighteousnessandJustificationbyFaith Conclusion PartTwo:DimensionsofGod’sRighteousnessandJusticebetweenPunishmentand Forgiveness
TheBiblicalFoundations andHolisticInterpretationofJusticeinLiterature
FoundationalReligiousSymbolsandEcumenicalTheology
8.ThePlaceoftheConceptsofJustice,Reward,Punishment,andForgivenessintheHebrew Justice,BibleReward,Punishment,andForgivenessinthePentateuch FormerProphets TheLatter
DimensionsoftheConceptoftheWordintheBibleandinHermeneuticDirections
DirectionsofInterpretationofPsalm51:6 DirectionsofInterpretationofRomans3:4 Conclusion
7.ThePlaceoftheWordintheBibleandTheologyofJustification
IntroductiontoPartTwo SummaryofFindingsonDimensionsofGod’sRighteousness
HagiographaProphets
Conclusion 11.FromaCosmicandaJudicialConceptofJusticetoActionsbeyondJustice
TheRoleofTraditionandInnerExperienceofRighteousnessandJustice
TheInterrelationofPersonalRighteousnesswithNatural,Social,andCosmicJustice
TheInclinationsofHumanNatureandTheirRecognition
God’sIndirectandDirectRetributionintheLightofHisAbsoluteness
TheoriesofPunishmentandtheConceptofJustice PunishmentintheBible PunishmentandtheTheoryofNaturalLaw
DimensionsofRighteousnessandJusticeandDirectionsofItsReception
Conclusion 10.TheoriesonJustificationofPunishment PunishmentandItsEthicalImplications
TheRelationshipbetweenCreation,Election,and Covenant
TheUnwritten(orNatural)LawandtheWrittenLaw
LiteraryRepresentationsofRighteousnessandJusticeintheBible
LimitsofJudicialSymbolismandPolyphonicRepresentationofRighteousnessandJustice inLiterature JusticebeyondJudicialSymbolismandbeyondTragicHeroism
ReasonsfortheRevelationofaPersonalGodandoftheLaw
TheRationalandIrrationalinaTeleologicalUniverse
SemanticsoftheConceptofRighteousnessandJusticeinItsCross-CulturalRelations
TheAnalogyBetweenCosmic(Dis)Orderand(Dis)HarmonyintheSoul
BiblicalBeliefinGod’sRighteousnessandJusticeandNaturalLaw
Conclusion 12.OntologicalandMoralFoundationsofCompassion,Mercy,andForgiveness DefinitionsofForgivenessandRelatedTerms ModernViewsontheRelationshipbetweenJusticeandForgiveness ForgivenessandMercyinRelationtoPersonalRighteousnessandJustice PrincipledReasonsfor ForgivenessandMercy MoralReasonsforForgivenessandMercy IndexIndexIndexBibliographyConclusionsConclusionofAuthorsofSubjectsofScriptureReferences
2 Rad,“TheRighteousnessofJahwehandofIsrael,”370.
Introduction
2 Theimportanceoftheconceptis,however,notmeasuredbythewaysofhumans 1 SeeargumentsbyKelsen, What Is Justice?,1–24.
ThenotionofjusticeisoneofthemostimportantconceptsoftheBible.Thetheocentric foundationoftheBibleindicatesthatthesignificanceofthenotionofjusticeisnotmeasuredby therelationshipofapersontoGodbutbytherelationshipofGodtoIsrael andtheworld.God’s righteousnesshasdifferenttheologicalcriteriathanhumanrighteousness;therefore,itismore difficulttoanswerthespecificquestionofwhatGod’srighteousnessisthanthegeneralquestion ofwhatrighteousnessis.1 Ultimately,thisquestionisaboutGod’sessence,hisauthority,andthe scopeofhisactivities.Ameredictionary approachwouldideallyleadtoavirtualanswer.All availableconceptualabilities,alllevelsofsemanticfields,andalldimensionsofintertextual relationshipsmustbetakenintoaccountinordertogivefulleffecttothewholeofthemental andreligiousworldoftheHebrewScriptures.Ifthebasicmeaningoftherootof ṣdq andits derivationsintherelationshipofGodtoapersonisreminiscentofthegeneralmeaningofthe conceptofthegraceofsalvation,thenwecanunderstandwhythereasonsforretributionand punishmentkeepopenthepossibilitiesforGod’smercyandforgiveness.Thepurposeofthis studyistoshowhow,intheBible,thedimensionsofGod’srighteousness arenotexpressedby abstractconceptsbutbysemanticfieldswithintheliterarystructuresofliterarytypesandgenres. Itisaquestionofhowinterdependentlivingconditionsandliteraryconventionsworkinoriginal literarycreations.Therefore,thethemeofGod’sjusticeinalldimensionsrequiresliterary analysisofexistingtextsandtheirintertextualrelationships. Itappearsthattheconceptsofrighteousnessandjusticeareamongthemostimportant conceptsintheBible.GerhardvonRadstatesinhis Old Testament Theology:“Thereis absolutelynoconceptintheOldTestamentwithsocentralasignificanceforalltherelationships ofhumanlifeasthatofהקדצ.Itisthestandardnotonlyforaperson’srelationshiptoGodbut alsoforhisrelationshipstohisfellows,reachingrightdowntothemostpettywranglings— indeed,itiseventhestandardforman’srelationshiptotheanimalsandtohisnatural environment.”
InordertodojusticetothewholerangeofdimensionsofGod’srighteousnessandjusticeinthe HebrewBible,tocombinesemanticandliteraryapproachesseemsappropriate.Acomparative semanticstudymakesitpossibletoexhaustallthesignificantaspectsthatarecoveredbythe conceptsofrighteousnessandjustice.Thisprocedureopensdimensionsofrighteousnessand justicethatarebeyondthereachofmerevocabulary.Existingstudiesabouttheroot ṣdq,biblical commentaries,andtheologicalandphilosophicalwritingsdonotpermitustoremainsolelywith theresearchingofdivinerighteousnessandjusticewithintheframeworkofthebasicmeaningof thisrootanditsderivativeforms.Theroot ṣdq evidentlydoesnotincludetheretributiveaspect ofdivinejusticethatisanespeciallyvisiblecomponentoftheusualnotionofjustice.Some biblicalcommentariesevincethisdefiningof ṣdq erroneouslyintheretributivesense—namely, whileundertheinfluenceoftheEuropeanretributorymeaningofjustice.Thus,thehistoryofthe
toGodbutbythewaysofGodto Israelandtheworld.Theimportanceofthedimensionsof God’srighteousnessandjusticeisprovedbytheexceptionalinterestoftheexegetesinthis aspectofitsbasicmeaning.Scarcelyanyotherthemehasbeenaccordedasmuchattentionas thisone.Thefactthat,throughouthistory,biblicalscholarshavequiteofteninterpretedtheroot ṣdq inthesenseoftheretributiveprinciplelikewisesuggeststhatweshould researchaccurately allthetextsconnectedwithabeliefindivineretribution—whichsoonerorlateralsoopensthe questionofthepossibilityofmercy andforgiveness.Ifthebasicmeaningoftheroot ṣdq andits derivativeformsinrelationtoGodarereminiscentofthegeneralmeaningoftheconceptof grace,naturaloperationandverdictsofretributionorpunishmentcallforGod’smercyand forgiveness.ThetopicofretributionintheHebrewBiblerequiresliteraryanalysisofextanttexts inabroadercontextandinintertextualrelations.Thiswillbeexaminedinthesecondhalfofthe study.Onlyanalysisoftheplacesandtheversatilemeaningoftheretributiveprinciple,whichin thesamemannerfallsamidstthemaintenetsofHebrewfaith,willassistinultimately recognizingjuncturepointsandthedifferencesbetweentheHebrewandEuropeanconceptsof justice.Anexhaustiveandmethodicallysuitableexpertstudyonbiblicalbeliefindivine retributionisneededonaccountofthequestionitselfinallitsfundamentalaspects.
TheSemanticFieldofGod’sRighteousnessintheHebrewBible
ThemajorityofEuropeanlanguageshaveonlyoneexpressionforthewholerangeof meaningofthenotionof“justice”: iustitia, giustizia, justice, Justicia (Spanish), Gerechtigkeit, gerechtigheid (Dutch), rätvisa (Swedish), pravičnost (Slovenian), pravednost (Croatian),etc.An interestingexceptionisEnglish,whichsuccessfullydifferentiatesbetween“righteousness”and “justice.”InthetranslationsoftheBibleintoEuropeanlanguages,theappropriatetermsinmost placesserveasatranslationoftheHebrewroot ṣdq. Hencethetranslationinevitablymisguides thereaderwhoisunacquaintedwiththespecificHebrewtheologicalbackgroundandisnot sufficientlyattentivetocontextintoanincorrectunderstandingofthetext. Forthesereasonsitseemsurgentlynecessarythat,accordingtothecontextualprinciple, weconsiderandanalyzealltherelevantplacesintheHebrewBiblewhere ṣdq appearsin relationtothedivinesubject,inordertoascertaintheactualmeaningofthisrootinevery individualtext.Onlyinthismannerwillitbepossibletoarriveatasyntheticconclusion regardingtheentirerangeofmeaningsofGod’s ṣdq. Byusingthismethod,wecanascertain whichothernotionsfromourlanguagesexpressinindividualtextstheactualmeaningofthe presentconceptmoreappropriately.Iftheresultsofresearchhadalreadybeentakeninto considerationinthetranslationsoftheBible,semanticconflictinthereadingoftheBibleasin itsexplainingwouldbegreatlyreduced. MyinterestinthesemanticsofGod’srighteousnessledme,decadesago,to undertake extensiveandcomparativestudiesofitssemanticfieldintheBible.Inordertoestablishthe meaningofGod’srighteousnessasexpressedintheHebrewwordsderivedfromtheroot,Ifirst examinedalltheircontextsandthelargersemanticfield,includingtheirsynonymsand antonyms.Inmymonographicstudy La justice (ṣdq) de Dieu dans la Bible hébraïque et l’interprétation juive et chrétienne, 3 Iundertooksemanticanalysisofallpassagescontaining variousgrammaticalformsoftheroot ṣdq toarticulatedimensionsofGod’srighteousness.In ordertocometosureconclusions,Ialsoprepared asurveyofthehistoryofinterpretationof thesewordsinancienttranslations—theSeptuagint,thetargumim,andtheVulgate—aswellas inancientJewish,patristic,andRenaissancecommentaries.Havingcarriedoutadditionalstudies 3 Krašovec, La justice (ṣdq) de Dieu.
interpretationoftheroot ṣdq iswitnesstothehistoryofconflictbetweentwodifferent civilizations,thecivilizationsofSemiticandIndo-Europeanlanguages.
Humanshavebeenpreoccupiedwithethicalquestionsinalltimes.Theissuesofinnocenceor guiltandsin,obedienceasopposedtodisobedience,obstinacy(stubbornness),andrewardor punishment(retribution),aswellasrepentance,atonement,leniency,mercy,pardon,forgiveness, reconciliation,andrenewal(restoration),havebeenwidelystudiedinallcultures.Asmentioned earlier,thesethemesshouldbeexaminedintheirnaturalinterrelationship—especiallywhenit comestothelinkbetweenreward,punishment,andforgiveness.Becausethesethemesare interwovenwithwhatunderliesculturalandreligioustradition,acomplexapproachisrequired, onethataccountsforhistoricalbutalsoliterarydocuments.
focusingonselectedbiblicaltextsexpressingdimensionsofrighteousnessandjustice,Ihadgood reasonsforcompletingmypreviousstudiesbyusingtheprincipleof“totalinterpretation”ofthe structureofbiblicaltextsintheirproperliterarycontextandintheirintertextualrelations.Inthis study,IfocusonliteraryanalysesofpassagesoftheHebrewBiblethatcontainthe ṣdq vocabularyinvariousgrammaticalforms.ThehistoryofinterpretationislimitedtoancientBible translationsthatwereofspecialimportanceforthedevelopmentofEuropeancivilization:the Septuagint,thetargumim,andtheVulgate.4 Inordertogetamorecompletesurveyofthe conceptofGod’srighteousnessintheBible,thisstudyiscomplementedwiththeexaminationof deuterocanonicalliterature(i.e.,Apocrypha)andwithamoredetailedstudyonthedimensionsof God’srighteousnessintheNewTestament.
.
ThequestionofretributionwithintheHebrewBibleissocomplexthatitcannotbe consideredinisolation.Todiscussanyonethemewithoutconsideringitsintertextual connectionswoulddestroytheorganictextureofthetextsanddistorttheresults.Threereasons seemtojustifyacomparativeapproach,drawingontextsfromothermajorcultures.Certain questionsoftenintuitivelyarisewhenwereadbiblicaltexts,forexample,concerning punishment:Doesanoffensenecessarilyentailpunishment?WhatareGod’sreasonsfor showingleniencytothosewhooffendhim?Whatistherelationbetweendivinemercyand forgivenessandtheapparentlycontradictorydemandsofjusticeandequality?Whichmodern theoryofpunishmentcanmakesenseofmercyandforgiveness?
4 JobesandSilva, Invitation to the Septuagint;Schenker, The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible
God’sJusticebetweenPunishmentandForgivenessintheHebrewBible
.
Incontrasttothequestionofpunishment,littleattentionhasbeenpaidtothethemesof mercyandforgivenessinrecenttimes.5 Butthepastthreedecadeshaveseenarevivalofinterest intheseparticularissuesaswellasinhumanattitudesandfeelingsingeneral.Scholarshave consideredaspectsofthesequestionsinfieldsasdiverseasliterature,philosophy,law,and theology.Philosophers,theologians,andothershaveprovidedterminology,aseriesof definitionsandtheories,whichreflectaparticularcultureortradition,aswellasspecificviews heldbyindividualscholars.Theyhaveoftenresortedtotheuseofanalogywithhumanfeelings andattitudestodescribethetranscendentalnatureandactionsofGod.
Therelationshipbetweeninnocenceorvirtue,guiltorsin,rewardorpunishment,and mercyorforgivenesshasbeendiscussedindifferentcontextsthatreflecttheparticularviewsand thecorrespondingunderstandingsoftheconceptofjustice.Authorswholimitthequestionof justicetoreasonandtosocialinstitutionscometotheconclusionthatsocialinstitutions,bound totheprincipleofequality,areobligedtopunishoffenders.Consequently,thereisnoroomfor leniency,mercy,pardon,orforgiveness.Wherejusticeisunderstoodinabroaderandprofounder senseasnaturallaw(ius naturale)ordivinelaw(ius divinum),whichtranscendsandlimitsthe scopeofcivillaw(ius civile),conceptssuchassocialjusticeareseenasexistingalongside conceptssuchascosmicjustice(otherwiseknownasdivinejustice),theoperationofintrinsic justiceandpersonaljustice.Cosmicanddivinejusticeimposesindispensableobligationsand limitationstoanyhumanactionandtoanyinstitution.Awidereadingofhistorical,literary, philosophical,andtheologicaldocumentsfromvariousculturesandperiodsrevealsthatcosmic justicewasalwaysconsideredtobeafundamentalcriterionofhumanperceptionandbehavior. Theconceptionofcosmicjusticeisespeciallycharacteristicofnonbiblicalancientculturesand modernnaturalisticideologies.Withinthisframeworktheawarenessorthetenetarose: what is done cannot be undone. Thiswayofperceivingeventsintheworldleaveslittleroomfor forgiveness.Thehistoryofhumankindrecognizesthreebasicarbitersofreward,punishment,and pardon:humanauthority (individualorinstitutional),naturallaw,andtheauthorityofthegodsor agod.Forgiveness,however,isafunctionsolelyofinterpersonalrelations.TheHebrewBible recognizestwocriteriaforhumanconduct:naturallawandthedivinelawbasedonrevelation.
5 SeethecomprehensivestudybyKrašovec, Reward, Punishment, and Forgiveness
ThisinvolvesexternalregulationsaswellasanintimatepersonalrelationshiptoGod.Wisdom literature,certainhistoricalnarratives,andpropheticstatementsthroughouttheBibletestifyto thebeliefthathumanbeingsmustadjusttheirconducttothenaturalorderoftheworldandto historicalfacts.Accordingtothisview,rewardsandpunishmentsautomaticallyfollow obedienceordisobediencewhentheintrinsic“lawofright”asperceivedbyconscience,reason, andexperienceistrespassed.6 Becausetheworldwascreated,itisnotautonomousbutsubjectto itsCreator’sprovidence.Thisimpliesthateverythinghappensonlywiththeexplicitorimplicit willofGod.ForallthesubtleHebrewperceptionofuniversalcosmicandhistoricaldeterminants,the focusoftheHebrewBibleisonthecovenantbetweenGodandhispeopleasbasedonthe revelationofdivinelaw.Theforemostrequirementhereisthatthecovenantpeopleshouldstand intherightrelationshiptoGodandothermembersofthecommunity.Maritalunionandthe father-sonrelationshiparethemostpopularsymbolsofthepersonaldimensionsofthiscovenant. Consequently,Israel’sconductismeasurednotonlyagainstthebackgroundofahigher(andthe highest)authoritybutalsoagainstagreater(andthegreatest)justice,fidelity,andlove. ObedienceimpliesprofoundknowledgeofthecovenantalGodandtotalfidelitytohim.This explainswhytheHebrewBiblepresentsdisobedienceandinfidelityasthegreatestmisfortuneto befallapeople,aswellaswhyrepentance,asapreconditionofforgivenessandreconciliation,is sourgent.Thecharacteristicbiblicalbeliefincreationandthehistoricalrevelationofapersonal Godimpliesthatcosmicjusticeandpersonaljusticeformaharmoniousandcomplementary relationship.TheconceptofjusticewithintheJewish-Christiantraditionisnotbasedonthe principleofequalitybutonthepolarityoftheorganicrelationshipbetweentheCreatorandhis creation,ontheonehand,andbetweentheRedeemerandhiscovenantpeople,ontheother.The divinefoundationoftheworlditselfformsthebasisfortheimperativeoftotalobedienceofall createdbeingstothelawgiver.AncientIsraeldid notrecognizefromthebeginningapureform 6 SeeargumentsbyKoch,“GibteseinVergeltungsdogmaimAltenTestament?”;Koch, Um das Prinzip der Vergeltung in Religion und Recht des Alten Testaments,30‒181;Koch,“IsThereaDoctrineofRetributionintheOld Testament?”; Barton, “Natural Law and Poetic Justice”; Barton, “Ethics in Isaiah of Jerusalem.” For a broader discussiononnaturallaw,seeespeciallyFinnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights
.
ofmonotheism,andtheGodofIsrael’scharismaticwriterswasnotfixedinformandcontent.
Historywasopentosurprises.ThelimitsinhumanknowledgemaymeanthatGodcondemns wherehumans condone,andviceversa.
FromthepersonalistbackgroundoftheHebrewconceptionofGodandhumanbeings,it followsthatthenotionofjusticeisassociatednotonlywiththeideaofdeservedpunishmentand equalitybutalsowithbenevolence.Inthelightofcosmicjusticeandpersonaljustice,thereisno absoluteobligationtopunishoffenders.Theright topunish,andespeciallythepositiveaimof punishment,alsoincludestheright,eventheobligation,tobelenientwithoffenders.While socialjusticeinvolvesanabsoluteobligationtopunish,theconceptofpersonaljustice encompassesthesentimentofbenevolence,mercy,andforgiveness.Mercy andforgiveness, however,haveaclearprecondition.WritersoftheJewish-Christiantraditiongenerallyagreethat genuinerepentanceisanimportantreasonforbeinglenientwithanoffenderandforforgiving. Toforgivesomeoneintheabsenceofrepentancewouldmeantobetrayalackofself-respect 7 Hampton,“RetributiveIdea.”
Thispointprovidesavitalkeytotheinterpretationofbiblicaltexts.Theunderlying conceptsofcosmicjusticeandpersonaljusticecomplicatethediscussionbecausetheycallinto questioneverykindofhumanabsolutismoremptyrationalismandopenperspectivesintothe infinitedepthsandheightsofthekingdomofGod.Biblicaltextsareconcernednotonlywith moralprinciplesandactionsbutalsowithwhatkindofpersonamemberofthecovenantpeople shouldbe.Incontrasttoourmodernsociety,inwhichjusticeisfrequentlydiscussedonlyasa virtueofsocialinstitutions,biblicalwritersperceivedjusticeasavirtueofhumanbeingsandof thepeopleofIsraelinthecovenantalrelationshipwithGod.Theideathat“Godcreatedmanin hisownimage”(Gen1:27)founditstruefulfilmentinindividualpersonalitiesandinIsraelasa whole.Forthisreason,itwasbelievedthat,howevermuchhispeopleoffendedhim,Godwould notabandonthem.Itwasalsobelievedthattheyhadenoughnaturaldecencyorintrinsicvalueto justifyarenewaloftherelationshipwithGod,despitetheirconstantinfidelity.AsJeanHampton argues,divinepunishmentisconceivedprimarily asameansofeducatingthepeople,andit impliesoneimportantgoal:theexperienceofsubmission—thatis,thedefeatofthewrongdoer andofhisfalseclaimtodominationorsuperiority.7
and/ortocondonewrongdoing.Thereare,however,otherreasonsforforgiveness,forinstance, theuniversalityofsin,solidarityinsuffering,andtheremedialeffectofforgiveness. Thecomplexityoftheconceptofjusticeinallitsramificationsimpliesacorrespondingly complexmethodofanalysis.WithintheHebrewBible,reward,punishment,andforgivenessare expressedinvariousgenresandinagreatvarietyofliterarymodes.Toacquireanadequate understandingofthesethemes,alltherelevantmajortextsmustbeinvestigated.Ofprimary importanceistheexaminationofauthority,justification,andthepurposesofpunishmentand forgivenessinindividualbooksorpassages.Hebrewtheologicaluniversalismandlife’s dynamismpresentachallengetoallotherviewsonthesethemes.Itseems,therefore,appropriate tocomparethefindingswhichcomefromananalysisoftheHebrewBiblewiththehighly influentialcultureandreligionofancientGreece,ontheonehand,andwithcontemporary philosophicalandtheologicalinterpretationsoftheissue,ontheother.Becauseofthe predominantlycosmologicalbackgroundoftheancientGreeks’beliefsandvalues,therewas littleroomfortheoperationofdivineforgivenessinitstruesenseintheancientGreekworld. Forgivenesswassimplyamatterofcommonsenseinelementaryhumanrelations.Inrecent times,however,philosophershaveincreasinglytakentheissueofforgivenessintoaccount, althoughpunishmentremainsthemainobjectofrationalinquiry.Reward,ontheotherhand,is normallyconsideredwithintheframeworkofthegeneral conceptofjusticeorindiscussionson punishment.NoindividualwordsinHebrewcorrespondentirelytothemodernconceptsofjustice, reward,retribution,punishment,andforgivenessastheyaregenerallyused.Thewordsderived fromtheroot ṣdq,forinstance,onlypartiallycovertherangeofmeaninginvolvedinthemodern conceptof“righteousness,justice.”Apredominantlylexicographicalorconceptualapproachis, therefore,problematic.Adiscussionbasedonconceptualschemesthataresharedbyspeakersof differentlanguageswouldbemorehelpful,providedthattheseconceptualschemesinclude stylistic,rhetorical,andliteraryschemeswithinanunlimitedhorizon.Thebasicprincipleof semanticsisthatthemeaningofwordsisdeterminednotonlybyconcepts (etymology)butmore importantlyalsobythestructureofsentences.Semanticscannot,however,copewithall dimensionsofaliterarywork,whichiscomposedofsymbols,metaphors,rhetoric,andstylistic features,aswellaslargerstructuralcomponentssuchasliterarygenres.Biblicalandcognate religioustextsareparticularlycomplex,offeringastheydoprofoundpsychologicalinsightinto
charactersandintothetranscendentalacts,andthepromisesanddemandsofGod.Analogyor mimesis,therefore,playsanessentialroleinthesetexts.Butametaphoricalinterpretationof theseanalogiesisneededtounlockthedeeperandtruermeanings.
InordertoinvestigatetheprincipalthemesintheBible,wemustfirstofallconfrontsecondorderproblemsconcerningmethods,concepts,andform.Thisisespeciallytrueifwewantto undertakeasystematicexaminationofthethemesofreward,punishment,andforgiveness, preciselybecausethesethemesaresodeeplyembeddedinthefundamentalmeaningoftheBible andsocloselylinkedwithrelatedthemes.Theycanbeunderstoodinmanydifferentways,allof whicharejustifiablein relationtotheirseveralcontexts.Consequently,asemanticexamination ofthewordsusedtodenotetheconceptsisthereforeoflimitedvaluefordiscerningtheir essentialcharacter.Nonconceptual—thatis,literaryandrhetorical—modesofexpressingideas andfeelingsalsomustbetakenintoaccount.Itisclearthatallgreatworksofliteraturecontain severallayers.Hiddenbehindtheexplicitframeworkofstatementscanbeother,moreenigmatic levelsofmeaning.Theaimofanyanalysisofindividualtextsistoallowthesubjectmatterto speakforitself.Athematicinvestigationshouldforthisreasonbecomplementedbyananalysis oftheintertextualbackground. ErichAuerbachandMeirSternberghavemadetwoofthemostimportantcontributions tothediscussionontherelationshipbetweenformandideologyintheHebrewBible.
Auerbach’s Mimesis,inparticular,hashadanextraordinaryimpactoncontemporarymethodsof biblicalliterarycriticism.AuerbachcomparedthewaytheHomericpoemsandthenarrativesof theHebrewBiblerepresentreality.HeconcludedthatthespeechesofHomerandthewhole
LiteraryWaysofExpressingGod’sRighteousnessandJustice
Thevarietyofliterary andrhetoricalformsofindividualbiblicaltexts,thebackground perspectivesoftheirmessage,andthefrequentgapsnecessitateaholisticapproach.Asourceorientedinquiry,however,remainsimportant.Thisstudyincludesphilologicalanalysis, semantics,literarycriticism,formcriticism,structuralanalysis,rhetoricalcriticism,andother methodscurrentlyinuse:sourcecriticism,redactioncriticism,andthehistorical-criticalmethod. Itisclearthatanypoeticvaluationofthetextmusttakeintoaccount externalevidence,suchas thecommonancientNearEasternliterarytradition,textualprehistory,thegenesisofthetext,the developmentofIsrael’smonotheistictheology,thedatingofthecanon,etc.
presentationofthematerialtendstoexpresseverything,leavingnogapsandnohinterland.The Homericstylewasonly“oftheforeground,”thatis,ofauniformlyilluminatedpresentwithout perspective:“TheHomericpoemsconcealnothing,theycontainnoteachingandnosecret secondmeaning.Homercanbeanalyzed,aswehaveessayedtodohere,buthecannotbe interpreted.”
Auerbach’sviewsonthespecialcharacteristicsofbiblicalnarrativesinfluencedMeir Sternberg,whoexpandedandelaboratedtheminhisclosereadingofseveralfamiliarnarratives. Intheprefacetohisbook The Poetics of Biblical Narrative,heremarks,“Contrarytowhatsome recentattemptsat‘literary’analysisseemtoassume,formhasnovalueormeaningapartfrom communicative(historical,ideological,aesthetic)function.”10 Sternbergoutlinesthebasic principlesofhisformofliterarycriticisminhisfirstchapter.
8 ToillustratethecharacteristicsoftheOldTestamentontheotherhand,Auerbach highlightedthecontrastingelementstobefoundinthestoryofthesacrificeofIsaac(Gen22:1–19).Inthechapterof Mimesis entitled“Odysseus’Scar,”heassertsthatthecontentofbiblical narrativescanonlybeinterpretedinthelightofabsolutedivineauthority.Auerbachidentifies themaincharacteristicsofbiblicalnarrativesasbeing,firstofall,anextensionintothedepths— thatis,anorientationtothebackgroundasopposedtotheforegroundperspective.Asecond featureisconcealedmeaning,whichrequiresinterpretationonmanydifferentlevels.Frequent gapscanalsobefound.Characteristictooofbiblicalnarratorsisthattheysuggestthe psychologicalprocessesofcharactersratherthandescribingthemexplicitly.Theyalsoclaimto possessabsoluteauthorityandareorientatedfirstandforemosttothetruth.Thecomplexnature oftheiraccounts,incorporatingdoctrine,promises,anddemands,requiresasubtleinvestigation andinterpretation.
MeirSternbergquestionstheapproachofliterarycriticswhoconsidertheauthor’s intentiontobethemostimportantbutwhoalsotakeananti-historicalline.Inhisview,an interpretationmustbeconcernedwith“embodied”or“objectifiedintention.”Anexaminationof theinterrelationbetweentextandcontextmustthereforetakeextrinsichistorical-linguisticdata 8 Auerbach, Mimesis,13. 9 Auerbach, Mimesis,3‒23. 10 Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative,xii.
9
15 MeirSternbergalsoexaminesthethreeprincipleswhichheseesasregulatingthe multifunctionalcompositionofbiblicalnarratives:ideological,historiographic,andaesthetic. Surelytherewouldbenopointtoexegesisatallunlessthehumanmindandheartwere responsivetothewords,metaphors,symbols,andtextualstructuresofnarrativesandpoems.Isit notthecaseafterallthatScriptureitselfstatesthatGodmadehumankindinhisownimage(Gen 1:27)?Doesthisnotimplythathumanbeingshavethecapacitytograsptranscendentaltruths andvalueswhichlie,intheiressence,outsidehistorical,sociological,andliterarycategories?
14 Altercontendsthat“prosefictionisthebestgeneralrubricfordescribingbiblicalnarrative.”
Historyandfictionasmodesofdiscoursecanonlybedistinguishedfromoneanotherbytheir overallpurposes.Historiansare committedtofactualitywhilewritersoffictionarenot.Itis exactlythiscommitmentthatmadeHebrewhistoriographywhatitis:religioushistorical memory.Sternbergexplainsthatbiblicalnarrative“claimsnotjustthestatusofhistorybut,as ErichAuerbachrightlymaintains,of the history—theoneandonlytruththat,likeGodhimself, brooksnorival.”
JohnM.Ristobservesthefollowing:“Theclaimofanysacredtraditionmustbethatitis pointingnotmerelyinabetterdirection,butinthedirectionofthebest:anotherexampleof Aristotle’sdictumthatonemuststopsomewhere.Yetthatsomewhere,forAristotleaswellas forourselves,isnotwith us.Ifthereisasomewhere,ifthereisafterallthepossibilityofasingle
12
13 Thisviewis reminiscentoftheterminologyofRobertAlterusedespeciallyinthesecondchapterofhisbook The Art of Biblical Narrative,entitled“SacredHistoryandtheBeginningsofProseFiction.”
14 Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative,23‒46.
12 Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative,32.
andtextualprehistoryintoaccount.SternbergalsocriticizesproponentsoftheBible’s fictionality:“Assooften,thehistoricalapproachisnotnearlyhistoricalenoughandtheliterary notliteraryenough,foroneseesfictiononlywhenonelosessightofhistoryandconvention.”
11
15 Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative,24.
Sternbergcomestothisconclusion:“Theproductisneitherfictionnorhistoricizedfiction norfictionalizedhistory,buthistoriographypureanduncompromising.”
11 Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative,24.
13 Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative,34‒35.
conceptualscheme,itcanonlyexistinthemindofGod.”
TheHebrewBibleisacompositionandcompilationdrawingontraditionswithvery differentroots.TheserangefromtheancientIsraelofthetimeofthepatriarchstotheGrecoRomanperiod.Astheteacherstriedtoarticulate,makeexplicit,anddefendtherevelationofthe divinewillinthehistoryofworld,theyadaptedthefragmentaryoralandwrittentraditions,both nativeandforeign,whichtheyhadinherited.Byintegratingsmallerfragmentsintolargerunits, theyaimedtocreateunifiedwholesthatshedlightontheparticularproblemsoftheirownday andthespecifictheologicalconcernsoftheirowncommunities.TheHebrewBibleprovides evidenceofasustainedefforttoreinterpretthenatureandwillofGod,theessenceofhumanlife, andtheessenceofinterpersonalrelationships.Thisprocessofadaptationandactualization,orof transmutationalinterpretation,tookplacewithinlivingcommunitiesofbelieverswhoeach 16 Rist,“OntheVeryIdeaofTranslatingSacredScripture,”1499‒511.
16 Thebiblicalandthesacredtraditions ofJudaismandChristianityarebasedonthebeliefthattheprincipalpurposeofGod’smindand activityinthehistoryoftheworldandofIsraelistopreservetheharmoniousdivineorderandto establishaperfectcovenantcommunity.ByinterveningintheactivitiesofnationsandinIsrael, Godaimstohealtheeffectsofsinandsocreatetheconditionsforareconciliation.Thegoalof humankind,andespeciallyIsrael,istoimitatethedivinemindsoperfectlythatunionwithGod himselfis Butpossible.howdoesthisapplytotheessentialquestion,whetherthebiblicalviewofjusticeis correctornot?Thebiblicaltextschallengethereadertodecide,althoughitistruethatthis decisioninturndependsonthereader’sfundamentalhorizonofunderstanding,onhistheisticor atheisticattitudes.Thisstudypaysparticularattentiontotheperceptionoftheoperationof intrinsicjusticeasreflectedinproverbialandotherwisdomstatements—statementswhich, however,rarelytouchonthethemeofforgiveness.Anattemptismadetoexplorethe psychologicaldepthsofthosepropheticspeechesandnarrativesthattreat acentralaspectof justice.Characteristicofthesetextsisthedramatictensionbetweenthereasonsforpunishingthe unfaithfulindividualsorcovenantpeopleandtheevenprofounderreasonformercyand forgiveness.Thebiblicalwriters’orientationtothehighestspiritualdimensionresultsingaps appearingintheirnarrativesorspeeches,whichneedtobeinterpretedfromawiderperspective.
18 Itisstrikingthatthebasictheologicalmaximsdidnotchangewiththetransmutationof traditions.Asavarietyofmaterialrangingfromancientmyths,folktales,legends,history,and propheticoraclestohymnsandlaments—tomentionjustafewgenres—wasincorporatedinto biblicaldocuments,thetheologicalmaximsbecameevenmoreunified.Itistrue,however,that textualformulationsoftenremainedambiguous,problematic,orincomplete.Asaresultofbeing incorporatedintobiblicaltexts,ancientmaterialbecamedepolytheizedandmonotheizedand underwentaradicalchangeofmeaning.Despitethevariedexegeticaltraditions,thethemesand formsoftheHebrewBiblethereforeshowacleartendencytouniversalism.Thecentralaxisof theHebrewBibleisthepersonalrelationshipwithGod.Itisthisrelationshipwhichallowsthe Bible’suniversalismtotranscendallothercosmologicalkindsofuniversalism.Thecentral focus oftheBiblebecamepersonalistexperience,andthegeneraldomainofhumanethicalrelationship toGodwasextendedtoincludeallthebasictheologicalquestionsconcerningguilt,punishment, andforgiveness—extended,infact,tocoveralltheconcernsoflifeitself.
17 Seemajorcommentariestoindividualbooks.
broughttheirownintellectualfacultiesandexperiencestobearonanexaminationofthereceived traditions.Manyexamplesofthekindofsynthetictransmutationoftraditioncanbefoundinthe HebrewBible.ThePentateuchisperhapsthemoststrikingexampleofinnerbiblicalexegesis, sinceitiscomposedofawholerangeofdiverse,sometimesevencontradictory,elements.The bookofDeuteronomytoocontainsmodificationsofExodusthroughNumbers.Theprophetic literaturewasreworkedfollowingasimilarpattern.ThebookofIsaiahcontainsaseriesof smalleroraclesandlargersequencessuchasthe“GreatApocalypse”(Isa24–27)andthe“Little Apocalypse”(Isa34–35).AnexaminationoftheoraclesofDeutero-Isaiah(Isa40–55)andof Trito-Isaiah(Isa56–66)showlinguisticandideologicalsimilaritiestoIsaiah.FirstandSecond ChroniclesrevealahomileticalreworkingofSamuelthroughKings.17 Theattitudesofmajor translatorstotheoriginalbiblicaltextalsoshowthedynamismofinnerbiblicalexegesis.The Septuagint,targumim,andSamaritanrecensionsarenottranslationsinthenormalsense;allof themrevealchangesdesignedtomaketheBible’scontentmorecomprehensibletotheir contemporaries.
18 SeethecomprehensivestudybyKrašovec, Prevajanje med teorijo in prakso,58‒102.
ThewaytheBiblereacheditsfinalshape,thewayitwasformedmuchlikeapuzzleout ofvariouspieces,confrontsuswiththequestionofitsauthority.Howisthisapparently haphazardaccumulationofbiblicaldocumentstobereconciledwiththeBible’sclaimtoreveal thefinaltruth?Toanswerthisproblem,wemustconsidertheroleofcharismaticprophetsand otherauthoritieswhosestatementswereconsideredintrinsicallycompellingandwise.Evidence suggeststhatthesecentralfiguresalteredandadaptedthereceivedtraditionsinthelightoftheir ownknowledgeandexperience.Thewritersandeditorschosetoremainanonymous,orelsethey attributedtheirexegesistoauthoritativenamessuchasMoses,David,Solomon,andIsaiah. It mayseemstrangetoustodaythatthesewriterspreferredtoremainunknown,butinfactsuch writersconsideredanonymitytobeavalueinitself:theimportantthingwasthemessage. Theguaranteeofmoralreliabilitythroughoutthewholeprocessoftransmissionis obedience.Obedience,generatedbyanunderstandingofthenatureofGod,isthekeyto understandinghowtheproductsofexegesiscouldbeincorporatedintotheBibleinthesenseof transformativerevelations.Theincentiveforstudyingtheimplicitandexplicitmeaningsofthe receivedtraditionswasthebeliefthatallthatexistsdependsonGod,whocreatedeverysingle thing.Thisbeliefensuredthatalltheambiguities,conflicts,andapparentcontradictionsinthe biblicaldocumentswerenotoverlooked.Onthecontrary,sensitivitytothesecontradictions,and tothegreatvarietyofliteraryformsandstylesinwhichthedivinemessagewasexpressed, increasedaspeople attemptedtorecognizeandrealizethewillofGodasperfectlyastheycould. HumanexegeticalactivitywasthussubordinatedtothewordofGod,andtheBiblecould thereforebecomeasymboloflifeparexcellence.
Theprophets’attitudetoobedienceresultedfromGod’sdirectinterventionintheirlives. Buttheinnerconditions,whichneededtobereceptivetosuchintervention,canbeassumedto havebeenpromotedbyprivateprayer.TheirknowledgeofGodwasclearlyderivednotsomuch fromananalysisofthephenomenaintheexternalworldorofhistorybutfromanexistential experienceofpersonalcommunication.ThepersonalisttheologyandthereligionoftheHebrew Bible,therefore,culminatesinthecalltoworshipGodandintheprayerbookofPsalms.Prayer isthepowerfulforcewhichunifieshumanbeingsinwardlywithGod.Thisunityalsoconstitutes thecompellingreasonformonotheism.Whiletheobservationofeventsintheworldandin historymayhaveconfrontedtheIsraeliteswithinsolubleantinomiesandpressuredthemto abandontheirbeliefs,theexperienceofprayerpropelledthemtoconvergencewithGod,toan
CanonicalApproach
Withthegreaterfocusonliterarycriticisminthelate1970sappeared“thecanonicalapproach,” whichalsoshiftedfocusfromanexaminationofthehistorical(diachronic)contextofbiblical textstothestructureofthetextsthemselves.Thecanonicalprogramisexplicitlyconnectedwith thenameofBrevardS.Childs.20 Theoverallaimoftheprogramistoshedlightonthecrucial dilemmawhethermajorbiblicalsectionsshouldbeanalyzedintounderlyingsourcesorshould beinterpretedintheirfinal,canonicalform.Questionsofhistoricalreferentiality,whichare characteristicofthehistorical-criticalapproach,continuetoplayanimportantrole.Buttheyare subordinatedtothesearchforthefinal,canonicalmeaningofthetext.AsChildsexplainsatone point,“Canonicalanalysisfocusesitsattentiononthefinalformofthetextitself....Ittreatsthe literaturewithitsownintegrity.”
experienceofonenesswithhimandotherpeople.Historywasconsequentlynotperceived primarilyasaunityinanexternalsensebutinaninternal,prophetic,hymnic,andmysticalsense. Theactivityofactualizationtookplaceintheliturgy.JonD.Levensonremarks,“Israeldidnot asserttheonenessofherGodwiththedispassionofaphilosopher.ShepraisedGodforbeing unique,incomparable,asourceofembarrassmenttohisrivals,theirmaster.Somethingprecious islostwhenweconvertthislanguageofhymnodyintoamatterofdoctrine.Thattherecomesa momentinthehistoryofreligionwhenphilosophicalreflectionisnecessarycannotbegainsaid. Butwegenerategravemisunderstandingswhenwereadthatmomentback intoanerawhenit hadnotyetoccurred.”
21 Childs’sintentionistoresolvevarioustensionsthatcritical studieshavediscoveredinthebiblicalwritingsandtodemonstratethatcanonicaltextsarenot primarilyproductsofpoliticalandsociologicalforcesbutoftheologicalreflection. Byinvestigatingthecanonicalform,itcanbeshownhowthevariousstagesinthe prehistoryandhistoryofIsrael’sreligioncontributedtothemeaningofthetextinitscanonical form.Thefinalformandthe purpose ofsacredScriptureistheologicallynormative,andthis 19 Levenson, Sinai and Zion,63.
20 Childs,“ExegeticalSignificanceofCanon”;Childs,“CanonicalShapeofthePropheticLiterature”;Childs, Old Testament as Scripture;Childs, Old Testament Theology 21 Childs, Old Testament as Scripture,73.
19
determinesthetaskofitsinterpreters.Theproponentsofthecanonicalapproachconsiderthe originalcontextasthestartingpointforexegesisbutapproachhistorical-criticalandliterary questionswithaheightenedawarenessthattheoriginalmeaningmighthavebeenverydifferent fromthatinthefinalform.AsChildsexplains,“Thereasonforinsistingonthefinalformof scriptureliesinthepeculiarrelationshipbetweenthetextandpeopleofGodwhichis constitutiveofthecanon.Theshapeofthebiblicaltextreflectsahistoryofencounterbetween Godand Israel.Thecanonservestodescribethispeculiarrelationshipandtodefinethescopeof thishistorybyestablishingabeginningandanendtotheprocess....Thesignificanceofthe finalformofthebiblicaltextisthatitalonebearswitnesstothefullhistoryofrevelation.”
Insistenceonadefinitepurposeforthefinalformofindividualtextsimpliesan assumptionofcanonical unitywithinthewholeoftheScriptures.Interpretersunderstandthat biblicaltextsareinterrelatedtoformacoherentandcogentwhole.Thismanifestsanoverall innerbiblicalcongruence.Manywisdomandpropheticstatementsclearlyexpresstimeless propositionaltruths.Likewise,accountsofspecifichistoricaloccurrenceslookbeyondtheirown timeandtemporallyconditionedcircumstances.Interpretationbringsaboutafusionofpartial truthswithinthewholeofcanonicalandreligioustraditions.Inthelightofthisfact,the canonicalprogramcanbedefinedasfollows:
Theformalmodel...isthatthebiblicalcanonbeconstruedasanalogoustothe“collectedworks” ofasingleauthor.This(divine)authorwrotethem(overaconsiderableperiodoftime)byassuming avarietyofauthorial personae,eachwithitsowndistinctivecharacter,historicalsituation,etc.As onemoves,therefore,fromonebooktoanotheroneencountersadiversityof“impliedauthors,” eachofwhommustbeunderstoodontheirownterms;yetbehindthemallisasingle,controlling intelligence,workingtoanoverallplan.Becauseofthis,thesediverseworksthereforecan—andfor afullunderstanding,must—bereadtogetherasaunifiedcanon.23
23 Noble, Canonical Approach,341. 24 Jasper, Readings in the Canon of Scripture.
22
22 Childs, Old Testament as Scripture,75‒76.
Childsandhisfollowersbelievedthatbiblicaltextsderivedtheirvaluefromthesacred natureoftheirunderlyingauthority.Theywereinterestedprimarilyinthereligiousmessage whichthosetextscommunicated.24 Avarietyofmethods—formandredactioncriticism,aswell
25
26 Weisberg, Poethics
LawandLiterature Inthe1970s,thelawandliteraturemovement,whichfocusedontheinterdisciplinaryconnection betweenlawandliteratureinordertobroadenandtodeepenunderstandingofhuman experience,begantoattractattention.Initsearly stages,thelawandliteraturemovement focusedstrictlyonthelaw-in-literatureperspectiveasawayofcritiquingsocialinstitutionsand legalnorms.Theproponentsofthisperspective,suchasWeisberg,focusonenduringissuesof greatliterarytextsandseeanintrinsicvalueintheuseofliteratureasameansofdiscussinglegal topics.26 Theybelievethatliterarytexts,especiallynarratives,offerinsightintothenatureoflaw indealingwiththehumanconditionandwithpoliticalandsocialcontexts.Greaterattentionto thepossiblerelevanceofliterarytextsdealingwithlegalissuesforthestudyoflawattracted attentiontothelaw-as-literatureperspective.Proponentsofthisperspectiveseevalueinthe methodsemployedbyliteraryscholarsinliteraryanalysis,interpretation,andcritiqueofliterary worksandbelievethatcomparinglegalinterpretationwithinterpretationinotherfieldsof knowledge,particularlyliterature,helpsustocometoabetterunderstandingandinterpretation ofthelaw.IanWard,aprofessoroflawatNewcastleUniversityLawSchool,explainsboth perspectivesofthelawandliteraturemovementinmoredetail.27 Indealingwiththelawin 25Seethecriticismofthephilosophicalhermeneuticsof PaulRicœurandhisfollowersbyChilds, Old Testament as Scripture,77.
27 Ward, Law and Literature
asliteraryandrhetoricalcriticism—wereusedtoilluminatethestructureofthetextsintheirfinal form.Theimportanceofhistoricalandsociologicaldatarecededwiththenewemphasisonthe normativestatusofbiblicaltextsaswelltheirroleinthecommunityofbelieversinancient Israel.Importanttocanonicalanalysisisacriticalconsiderationoftheprocessbywhicha particulartextbecamepartofthebiblicalcanon.Nocanonicalauthorityis,however,attributed totheearlierversionsbecauseoftheunreliabilityofhistoricalreconstructions.Theadherentsof thecanonicalapproachalsoquestionedwhethertheelementofrevelationresidesinthetext itself,intheforms,metaphors,andimages,independentlyoftheirsource.
.
35
35 MichaelJ.Meyer, Literature and Law,viii.
34 MichaelJ.Meyereditedthemonographicstudy Literature and Law (2004)containingpapers byfourteenauthorswithsummarizingexplicationsofthecontents: Collectivelytheessaysinthisbookaredesignedtodealwiththemesofguiltandinnocence,right andwrong,moralityandlegality.Theessaysalsosuggestthattheworldasitisdelineatedby lawyersisindeedatextthatlikeitsliterarycounterpartssometimesblursthedistinctionbetween factandfictionasitattemptstodefine“truth”andtoestablishcriteriafor“impartial”justice.By exploringinterdisciplinarycontexts,readerswillsurelybemademoreaware,moresensitive,tothe rolethatstoriesplayinthelegalprofessionandtothedilemmasfacedbylegalsystemsthatoften succeedinmaintainingtherightsandprivilegesofadominantsocietalgroupattheexpenseofaless powerfulone.Whenlawactsarbitrarilyandcapriciously,itisdifficultforittobe“blind”;sadly,it isthenunabletobalanceitsscalessothattheword“law”issynonymouswith“justice.”
literaryterms,hestates,“Theessenceof‘law as literature’isthesuggestionthatthetechniques andmethodsofliterarytheoryandanalysisareappropriatetolegalscholarship....Itisa‘theory ofmeaning’whichdemandsnotonlytheexternalperspectiveofthehistoricistnatureof understanding,butalsotheinternalawarenessofitsownlimitation.”
28 Ward, Law and Literature,16. 29 Seaton,“LawandLiterature.” 30 Weisberg, Poethics.
28 Inhisassessmentofthe relationshipbetweenlawandliterature,JamesSeatongoestothemostuniversalbasisfor recognizingtheroleofliteratureinthefieldoflaw.29 Followingacriticalaccountoftheposition ofauthorssuchasRichardWeisberg,30 MarthaNussbaum,31 andRichardPosner,32 heexpresses amuchmorepositiveappreciationoftheroleofliteratureforin-depthlegalreflections.The importanceoflegalstudiesliterature“followsfromitsimportancetohumanbeingsingeneral.”
33 Literatureis“avehicleformoralreflectionanddiscrimination.”
31 Nussbaum, Poetic Justice. 32 Posner, Law and Literature 33 Seaton,“LawandLiterature,”505. 34 Seaton,“LawandLiterature,”507.
37 Halberstam, Law and Truth 38 Halberstam, Law and Truth,4. 39 Halberstam, Law and Truth,4. 40 Halberstam, Law and Truth,145.
38 Atthesametime,therabbisfacedapersistentquestion:“Dohumans, eventhemostwell-intentioned,competent,andmorallyrighteousamongthem,everhavethe capacitytoadministerdivinecommandments?”
39 LiterarywaysofexpressingGod’spromises andthreatsaboutdivineretributiondonotpermitthatGod’sstandardsofjusticecouldfollowthe dictatesofhumanjurisprudence.It followsthatrabbis“relegatedGod’sinvolvementwith humansandtheworld—divinerewardandpunishment—toaspherebeyondthelawinwhich Godcouldbeencounteredpersonallyandindividually.”
ThepersonalandindividualbasesofrelationshipbetweenGodandhumansgosofar beyondthelaw,guidedbythefaiththatGodtakesresponsibilityanddirectingthecourseof humaneventstoagraciousgoal,thatthemartyrsofthemartyrdomstoriescouldaffirmGod’s providenceandthetruthofdivineloveeveninthemostdramaticoftrials.Thebeliefthatallows Godtooperate emotionallyandpersonallyinhisdealingswithIsrael andwithhumansasa wholeisbased,inthefinalanalysis,onGod’svisionofahighertruththattranscendslegal criteria andhumanlimitationsingeneral.GreatbiblicalnarrativesoftheHebrewBible,suchas theJosephstory(Gen37‒50),thestoriesinthebookofSamuel,etc.,gomuchfartherthanmost interpretersgenerallydoinutterlyundermininghumanevidencefordrawingconclusionsabout guiltandresponsibility.Halberstamstates:“God’sroleinthebiblicalnarrativeisultimatelyto absolveallthecharactersofculpability,asheappearsastheinvisiblehandbehindthehumans’
Morerecently,KieranDolinpublishedanimportantmonographabouttherelationshipbetween lawandliterature.36 Internationalexpertspresentin overtwentychaptersanoverviewofthe manywaysinwhichlaw,justice,andliteratureinteract.Forourpurpose,abookbyChayaT. Halberstamisofgreaterrelevance.37 Theauthordealswiththequestionofhowhumanscan implementdivinelaw,asrevealedintheBible,andrenderperfectjusticeinthisworld.She arguesthatthebiblicallegacy“isarhetoricalcelebrationoftheavailabilityofknowledgeand truththrough‘reverenceforYhwh,’andoftheattainabilityoftruejusticethroughobedienceof God’scommandments.”
36 Dolin, A Critical Introduction to Law and Literature
40
missteps,guidingthemtowardahiddengoal.” ThisperspectiveofGod’srighteousnessand justiceopensthedoortotheprevalenceofgrace,forgiveness,andjustificationinGod’sdealing withhumansintheBible.
41
41 Halberstam, Law and Truth,175.