Seminary Week 6

Well, I forgot to do my ‘Week –in-Review’ post over the weekend. So here it is now. I don’t really have much to say about last week. But here goes:

Class is going well. I still really like my ‘Faith & Hope in the Interbiblical Period’ class. This week I am scheduled to do my oral presentation. I’ve chosen “Herod’s Attempts to De-politicize the Temple” as my topic. After I do the presentation, I have to turn it into a 10 page paper. I’m a little nervous about that.

A few weeks ago we did a book review for this class. We reviewed Revolt of the Scribes by Richard Horsley. Earlier this week I got my grade back. I made a 97! A freaking 97! I don’t think I ever made an A on a paper during my entire undergraduate work. I was shocked to get an A on this one. I think I’ll share it later in the post.

‘Formation for Ministry’ is still going swimmingly. I really enjoy the class. I find it pretty helpful and meaningful. I’ll spare you my Formation paper this week (I’ve shared them in previous weeks). This week our topic was, “How do you feel about being God’s beloved?” We are reading a book called Life of the Beloved, hence the theme. Here’s a one word summary of my paper: Humbling.

‘Intro to Pastoral Care’ is neither great nor terrible. I do like the readings for this class, though. Well, most of the reading. I will say this, of all of the classes I’m taking this semester; this one most makes me want to be a pastor. Weird, huh?

My last class of the day is ‘Intro to Interpreting the New Testament.’ I like this class. Dr. Niang, my professor for ‘Faith & Hope’ also teaches this class. We have a test this week, and it has completely freaked out about half of the class. I’m not sure why…

Speaking of Dr. Niang, he called me today. I sent him an email last night with a question about my oral presentation. Today he called with an answer. Then we talked for about 10 minutes. We talked about the presentation, the follow-up paper, the NT test coming up this week, and a few other things related to one class or the other. Most importantly, he complimented me, again, on my book review. Then he told me I wrote another good review for the NT class. (We had a book review due in that class last week.) I really like that guy.

I learned something very important this week. Every restroom at Memphis Theological Seminary has foamy soap! If you’ve been reading this blog for a while, you know that is important. Last week, I even made up a foamy soap song. And, yes, I did sing it out loud in the restroom. Luckily it was a one-seater and I remembered to lock the door. A couple of you asked to hear the song. Sorry, I can’t figure out how to share audio. I will give you the lyrics, though. Remember, it is sung with an Italian accent.

Foamy soap-ah, da foamy soap-ah.

How I love-ah da foamy soap-ah.

I love-ah da foam. I love-ah da soap.

Oh how I love-ah da foamy soap-ah

OK, there it is: the foamy soap song.

Now, here is my critical review of The Revolt of the Scribes. (If you bore easily you may want to stop reading now. Just sayin’)

Faith & Hope in the Interbiblical Period

February 10, 2011

In Revolt of the Scribes: Resistance and Apocalyptic Origins, author Richard A. Horsley gives a comprehensive examination of texts from Second Temple Judaism typically classified as apocalyptic. Through this thorough assessment Mr. Horsley seeks to demonstrate that the scribes responsible for recording these texts did so as active resistance to the imperial powers that controlled Judea for most of the Second Temple period as well as their Jewish collaborators. While Mr. Horsley often gives compelling evidence, he sometimes drowns out the crux of his argument with an exhaustive recounting of the details of the text and what seems to be an over-zealous focus on what he sees as misinterpretations from past scholars.

The book is broken down into two distinct sections. Part 1 focuses on Hellenistic rule (the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Empires) over Judea, while Part 2 centers on Roman Imperial rule. Each of the two parts is similar in that Mr. Horsley gives a detailed look at the texts from those two periods typically classified as apocalyptic. Both sections are similar, though, in their purpose. Mr. Horsley argues that the principal intention of the scribes in each period was to ensure their audience that despite the tyrannical forces in power in Judea at the time, whether it was Hellenistic or Roman rule, God still controlled the future and “to resist Hellenistic or Roman rule that had become overly oppressive” (4).

Mr. Horsley uses in depth analysis of the book of Daniel, the four books of 1 Enoch, the Psalms of Solomon, and the Testament of Moses as his source material. Each section (Hellenistic period and Roman period) focuses on at least part of Daniel and 1 Enoch to demonstrate the scribes’ reaction to the horrors faithful Jews faced under each regime.

Mr. Horsley begins the book with a new perspective on ‘apocalyptic’ literature, especially as it relates to the works of Second Temple Judea. He asserts that these texts are not ‘apocalyptic’ in the traditional understanding of the genre. He hopes, instead to give the reader a new understanding of this type of ‘apocalyptic’ text. The typical, traditional interpretation of apocalyptic literature ascribes its prophecies and visions to a view of the end of time. Mr. Horsley argues these texts instead focus on the end of the current oppressive imperial rule. This argument is emphasized in the fact that each time the word ‘apocalyptic’ appears in the text it is almost always inside quotation marks. This technique serves to remind the reader that Mr. Horsley’s idea of apocalyptic literature differs from the traditional understanding of the genre.

As it applies to the texts used in support of his main argument, the assertion is sound. The texts used in this book refer to the trials and tribulations associated with living under the oppressive rule of two separate Empires. The scribes responsible for these texts sought to end the rule of these cruel regimes. Therefore they took up the best weapon they knew; pen and papyrus. Mr. Horsley points out that it is surely not coincidental that “no Second Temple Judean text classified as ‘apocalyptic’ has survived that does not focus on imperial rule and the opposition to it.” (3) Once Mr. Horsley establishes a new understanding of apocalyptic literature he can more effectively strengthen his hypothesis portraying these texts as a form of resistance.

Mr. Horsley argues his point well. For example, in chapter 2 he uses an examination of the early chapters of Daniel to support his thesis. Horsley states that many of the stories in these chapters focus on “Daniel’s [and his counterparts’] disobedience of the emperor in steadfast loyalty to [their] divine sovereign” (33). He asserts that God’s vindication of this stance would encourage and embolden the scribes who nurtured these tales to remain steadfast in their loyalty in times of oppression and conflict, thus fostering the hint resistance among those circles.

Mr. Horsley’s portrayal of the conflict the scribes felt as the imperial periods stretched out over longer and longer periods of time bolsters his argument of the scribes’ resistance. He points out that the scribes were “caught in the middle” between the Judean aristocracy and the Judean people. Those in the Jewish aristocracy were, in effect, the benefactors of the scribes. This caused conflict within the scribal circles. Many in the upper classes collaborated with the occupying forces to subjugate the people of Judea. They used their power and position to exploit the poor for their own gain as well as the Empire’s gain. The scribes found themselves caught in a position of relying on this aristocracy as their source of income. The aristocracy, through their actions, stood in stark contrast to the law of the Torah and traditions that the scribes spent generations cultivating and upholding.

Mr. Horsley maintains this premise throughout his work. As the years pass the conflict grows. As the conflict grows the scribes resistance to the aristocracy and the imperial rulers they support grows stronger as well. The conflict finally culminates at the end of the Second Temple period with revolt led by the frustrated scribes.

In later chapters some of Mr. Horsley’s arguments seem to dilute slightly. The author’s focus seems to drift away from scribal revolt and onto the details of the text and the history surrounding their cultivation. The historical context of the works is an important factor in interpreting their meaning for the scribes who recorded them and their intended future audience. Mr. Horsley, though, seems to concentrate so much of his effort on recounting this context that he neglects his primary argument of scribal resistance.

Mr. Horsley’s focus also seems to waiver in regards to the “standard interpretation” of many of the texts included in his study. Several times throughout Revolt of the Scribes this focus became a distraction. Many sections of the work became more about why his “historical approach” to interpreting apocalyptic texts yields the superior interpretation. This may be, and likely is, true, but the focus on who is right and who is wrong distracted from the main argument of the book. In this sense the author comes across as biased. His interpretations are correct and he allows no room for other interpretations, and thus allows no room to disprove his thesis.

Ultimately the work is readable and informative. Despite the few distractions and areas of lost focus Mr. Horsley supports his hypothesis with ample evidence and an abundance of research. The work offers a great deal of insight into the inner workings of the Judean temple-state. Mr. Horsley also offers a new understanding of the ‘apocalyptic’ texts of the Second Temple period as looking not toward the end of time, but to the end of Empire.

Mr. Horsley demonstrates that these texts represent a resistance within the scribal circles to the oppressive rule of the Hellenistic and Roman Empires as well as their Jewish aristocratic collaborators. As resistance that despite the conflict between their livelihood and their duty ultimately led to the scribes rising up in opposition and open revolt against the imperial forces.