Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "John Brand" <jbrand AT gvsd.mb.ca>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant
  • Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:00:43 -0500

From:                        "meta" <meta AT rraz.net>
To:                            "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject:                    Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant
Date sent:                 Wed, 22 Sep 2004 19:42:21 -0700

> Richard:  Since I know nothing about your sources, strange to me, I
> cannot respond, but my sense is that you are bound to your preferences
> rather than open-minded to alternative sources.

John responds:
We'll have to let this point go as is since on the one hand you do not have access to the BDB lexical aid nor the theological discussion of Dumbrell. On the other hand, the only other option would be for me to send you the listing of occurences for you to analyze yourself but you have indicated off-list that this is beyond your interest. I am not sensing that you are familiar with lexicography or are interested in this at all ... not all subjects are of interest but this is essential for a textual analysis of history.

Richard:
The HB is a
> compilation of interrelated stories, marvelously composed by a
> literary genius (or several).

John:
This brings the reliability of the text into question as it now stands. From your perspective, it was created to incite belief. My assumption is that the text is reliable and my approach is tied to the exegetical exposition of the text.

Looking at it as a reliable historical account in a narrative form, it is the story of how Abraham leaves a system that is regarded as a rebellion against the creator in order to renew (normalize) the relationship with the creator. In this sense the unilateral idea fits very well with the narrative since YHWH is seen to be the one with the commitment to his creation and the original covenant with Adam. He renews this covenant with Noah and his descendants and when his children rebel against the creator at Babel they are dispersed. YHWH moves toward redemption by calling Abram from his family and place and promising him descendants and a new land as well as a continuing relationship with the creator that is blessed (i.e. not abnormal as was seen in the various stories of 1-11 where sin had to be dealt with through judgment of some sort). The covenant with Abraham includes all of the families of the earth who are able to find a way back to the creator by looking at what made Abraham blessed. This is why I have insisted that there was obligation in the covenant. If there is no obligation, there is no redemption for the other families of the earth. God is shown to be committed to the other families of the earth according to his righteousness or limited by that righteousness.

Richard:
BTW I do not propose that my remarks
> reflect historical situations, but rather these are the ways,
> interpretations, I read the stories, what they mean.  What I see in
> them is an evolving relationship (as I said before), beginning with a
> god seeking a people and culminating in an established relationship
> with a people greatly needing its very own god.  The covenantal
> relationship developed from merely Yahweh's promise into Moses'
> leading the people into a formal irrevocable obligatory contract.
> This is the way I see the overall covenant story unfolding.

John:
I think you have been clear on this.

Richard:
> Richard:  I try my best not to impose any presuppositions on the
> narrative.

John:
You do not then regard the Documentary Hypothesis as a presupposition?

Richard:
I try to understand what the stories say and understand the
> meaning of the whole.  There is a beginning--all the way back to
> creation, then a relationship to follow established lines, which
> failed ...

John:
This is where I think that your assumption is mistaken and why I am reacting as I have been. God appears to have failed in his original proposition with Abraham. He promised him blessing without any strings attached (the unilateral idea). This failed in your view and so new contracts had to be developed which also failed ... it doesn't look like God knows what he is doing ... he appears to be somewhat peevish.

Richard:
and resulted in eradication and exile of the people and loss of
> their land.  But now they are given another chance due to mercy and
> grace of their god, and here they are--back in Jerusalem in a very
> meager way and looking back through their history to understand how
> they got there now.  The author(s) places history in story form to
> tell the overall story in terms of the meanings (yes, presuppositions)
> he/they want to tell for the people.  For example, we know the Exodus
> never happened ....

John:
Again, an assumption which I realize is shared by folk like Israel Finkelstien.

Richard:
as told, but the meaning is there.  Frankly I think you
> have a lot to learn about how to define ancient terms ...

John:
I'm not clear on what you mean by this and am open to being educated.

Richard:
and I don't
> think your favorite dictionary and most certainly etymology are going
> to do it for you.

John:
I think that what you are saying is that the text based approach is not going to do it for me because that is what lexicography is a part of.

Richard:
> Richard:  Yes, the DH has been revised somewhat, but it still seems to
> be the best theory ....

John:
Note that it is a theory but it undermines the integrity of the text and developed out of a general skepticism of the enlightenment toward the supernatural. It does not need proof because the text contains material that is supra-empirical and, therefore, suspect as it stands. Once you eliminate the miraculous element you have these sources that somehow have been fit together but you lose the story and how it develops. A person must then fall back on the scenario building that you are accustomed to ... I'm not knocking that per se but I do want to be clear on where and how we differ.

Richard:
. And on the life for life thing, where you disagree about the
> Code of Hammurabi, you might want to check it out for various
> applications of the death penalty, life for life specifically in 229,
> 230, as well as the eye for an eye theory.

John:
Let's look at these:

229:

If a builder build a house for some one, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to death.


This is an interesting anomaly in the Code. I don't think that we are seeing the life for life postulate here. The Code makes crimes against property capital offenses. I'd be interested in seeing if there is any commentary on this. My supposition is that the house is designed to protect the owner and because it does not the builder is put to death.

#230:



If it kill the son of the owner the son of that builder shall be put to death.



This is a common situation in the codes that the Biblical Law Codes specifically forbid: A son is not to be put to death for the sins of his father. This is not an example in the Biblical Law Code of a life for life postulate but that of the value of the child and the father being equal as Greenberg points out in his analysis.

John Brand
B.A. Bib Stu (Providence College, Otterburne, MB, Canada, 1980)
M.Min. (Providence Seminary, 1991)
jbrand AT gvsd.mb.ca



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page