'FACTION" as a factor in HOW TO READ THE BIBLE -- a Sunday school class of 50-some middle-agers -- I appended a glossary to my "Joshua..." text.

[Willis Elliott]

FACT, FICTION, FACTION:

a vague disquietude about something in Sunday School this a.m., 10.14.07

 

Using my 9.16.07 “JOSHUA as a people-flow story,” we’ve been working on the four principles that guide us Christians in HOW TO READ THE BIBLE.

 

“A” was the CANONICAL principle.  God wants to speak his Word to us through the whole Bible, not just some parts we cherry-pick out of it for “proof-texts.”  We open the Bible & discover that it is talking to itself, & we would like to hear everything it’s saying about whatever concerns us.  Some voices are faint, & we must turn up the volume so we can hear them: in this class we have spent several months on Joshua, so we can hear him (& the book bearing his name) louder & clearer than we could before.  The older we get in living with the Bible, the better our hearing gets!  And of course the whole point of Bible study is to hear, with the ears of our heart as well as our head, God’s Word to us here & now through the words of the Bible.

 

“B” was the LITERARY-HISTORICAL principle.  We say the Bible has 66 “books,” but they’re not what we today mean by a book: a piece of literature written by somebody at a particular time.  The Bible is an archive of writing/rewriting/collecting spread over more than a millennium of time.  Of course some pieces—e.g., the shortest “books,” Obadiah & Philemon-- were written by one person, & we have them as they were written.  But much of the Bible is stories sitting around the campfire of the blazing Story to God’s creating and restoring the world—stories written over & over to make them more luminous of the Story.  Reading the Bible with awareness of God, & of the Story, & of how the stories were shaped to serve the Story & help God’s people live for his glory—well,  that’s how to read the bible as literature-emerging-from-&-illumining-history

(in short, the “literary-historical” principle).  We call it the “holy  Bible” because we believe that above all other literature, it reveals God the Holy One to the world.  And we believe that the whole process of the Bible’s production & our exposing ourselves to the Bible is “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3.16).  Section B ends with these words: “God wants us to read the past (especially Scripture), through which he can guide us to live aright in the present toward the future.”

 

As I said this morning, we get a shock when we pass from the Bible’s 6^th book, Joshua, to its 7^th: Judges begins by telling us that Joshua, who at the end of “Joshua” is a huge success, was himself a failure, dying before he got done the job of conquering Canaan—so God replaces him with Judah (Judges 1.2).  Next, various leader-“judges” take their turns—including Deborah & Barak, Gideon, Jephthah, SAMSON (Judges 13-16—the Samson saga, which concludes that he “had judged Israel twenty years”).....

 

....which brings us to my “disquietude” after class this morning.  I’d not intended to use the Samson saga as an example of story-retelling  (or “redacting”), but I did (& even mentioned that my seeing Judges 13-16 as a saga rather than literal history was a factor, one, in my being fired).  The saga, as a literary genre, has an historical core + rhetorical embellishments (as parents through centuries taught their children, by personal-name stories of virtues & vices, what to believe and how to behave).

.  The historical core: For 20 years, Samson—a man remembered for physical strength & long hair—was “judge” (i.e., leader before the days of the kings) in Israel.  Probable embellishments:  (1) Angelic annunciation of Samson’s (& Jesus’!) birth; (2) All strength is God-given to serve God’s purposes, a truth luminous in Samson’s loss of strength when his hair (associated with the nazirite vow of separation as dedication to God: no cutting of head-hair [Numbers 6.5]); (3) Samson’s strength to destroy was prodigious (tearing a lion apart, slaughtering 1,000 Philistines with a donkey’s jawbone, ripped up the city gate, disastrously, Samson blabs the secret of his strength; (3) The sex angle: inwardly weak Samson let’s a woman render him outwardly weak (16.20: “the  LORD had left him”—chap.16 [prostitute / city gates / Delilah / blindness / temple of Dagon] is entirely in [!] Gaza).  A larger-than-life statue is said to be of “heroic” size, heroes being (in heroic sagas) out-size, over-the-top, outside-the-box / wow!  Everything about Samson is hyperbolic, exaggerated.  At the hearing of the Samson Saga, children (of all ages!) are wide-eyed.  Such story-telling is serious business: people live by what they are wide-eyes about.

 

FACT is Latin for something “done” & generally agreed on at out-there real, “so.”

CORE + EMBELLISHMENTS  =  FACT + FICTION = FACTION.  Saga is one form of communal faction.

FANTASY + FACT = FICTION

FANTASY + HISTORICAL FACT = HISTORICAL FICTION

FANTASY + HISTORICAL FICTION = FICTIONAL HISTORY

FICTION is a writer’s fantasy-fabrication, a personal construction.  The good reader pays the price of imaginatively entering the world the writer has created; the price is the suspension of disbelief.

SAGA is a community’s historical-cumulative construction of the community’s TRUTH IN STORY-FORM.  The good hearer pays the price of rightly experiencing the saga; the price is living in the saga’s community, seeing the world as the community (here, the community of Bible-believers) sees it.

We learn FACTS, we live TRUTHS.  The Samson Saga is true!

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

You wrote "the saga, as a literary genre, has an historical core +
rhetorical embellishments." But isn't it the other way around? "The
saga, as a literary genre, has a rhetorical core with historical
embellishments"? For example, a great deal of care is taken in the
narrative concerning "the man of God" who turns out to be "the angel
of the Lord" and with the care with which his mother is to anticipate
his birth, yet you call this "an embellishment."

At "Career Day" a couple of years ago at my children's school I told a
couple of classes that I get to tell riddles for a living, and I told
one of the oldest of all: "Out of the eater came something to eat, out
of the strong came something sweet!" So, was that a rhetorical
embellishment of what you consider the historically strong Samson, or
was that the core of a historically embellished Samson.

God bless!

Jim Link

On Oct 15, 5:14 pm, "Willis Elliott" <elliot...@charter.net> wrote:
> FACT, FICTION, FACTION:
> a vague disquietude about something in Sunday School this a.m., 10.14.07
>
> Using my 9.16.07 "JOSHUA as a people-flow story," we've been working on the four principles that guide us Christians in HOW TO READ THE BIBLE.
>
> "A" was the CANONICAL principle. God wants to speak his Word to us through the whole Bible, not just some parts we cherry-pick out of it for "proof-texts." We open the Bible & discover that it is talking to itself, & we would like to hear everything it's saying about whatever concerns us. Some voices are faint, & we must turn up the volume so we can hear them: in this class we have spent several months on Joshua, so we can hear him (& the book bearing his name) louder & clearer than we could before. The older we get in living with the Bible, the better our hearing gets! And of course the whole point of Bible study is to hear, with the ears of our heart as well as our head, God's Word to us here & now through the words of the Bible.
>

> "B" was the LITERARY-HISTORICAL principle. We say the Bible has 66 "books," but they're not what we today mean by a book: a piece of literature written by somebody at a particular time. The Bible is an archive of writing/rewriting/collecting spread over more than a millennium of time. Of course some pieces-e.g., the shortest "books," Obadiah & Philemon-- were written by one person, & we have them as they were written. But much of the Bible is stories sitting around the campfire of the blazing Story to God's creating and restoring the world-stories written over & over to make them more luminous of the Story. Reading the Bible with awareness of God, & of the Story, & of how the stories were shaped to serve the Story & help God's people live for his glory-well, that's how to read the bible as literature-emerging-from-&-illumining-history

> (in short, the "literary-historical" principle). We call it the "holy Bible" because we believe that above all other literature, it reveals God the Holy One to the world. And we believe that the whole process of the Bible's production & our exposing ourselves to the Bible is "God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3.16). Section B ends with these words: "God wants us to read the past (especially Scripture), through which he can guide us to live aright in the present toward the future."
>

> As I said this morning, we get a shock when we pass from the Bible's 6th book, Joshua, to its 7th: Judges begins by telling us that Joshua, who at the end of "Joshua" is a huge success, was himself a failure, dying before he got done the job of conquering Canaan-so God replaces him with Judah (Judges 1.2). Next, various leader-"judges" take their turns-including Deborah & Barak, Gideon, Jephthah, SAMSON (Judges 13-16-the Samson saga, which concludes that he "had judged Israel twenty years").....

>
> ....which brings us to my "disquietude" after class this morning. I'd not intended to use the Samson saga as an example of story-retelling (or "redacting"), but I did (& even mentioned that my seeing Judges 13-16 as a saga rather than literal history was a factor, one, in my being fired). The saga, as a literary genre, has an historical core + rhetorical embellishments (as parents through centuries taught their children, by personal-name stories of virtues & vices, what to believe and how to behave).

> . The historical core: For 20 years, Samson-a man remembered for physical strength & long hair-was "judge" (i.e., leader before the days of the kings) in Israel. Probable embellishments: (1) Angelic annunciation of Samson's (& Jesus'!) birth; (2) All strength is God-given to serve God's purposes, a truth luminous in Samson's loss of strength when his hair (associated with the nazirite vow of separation as dedication to God: no cutting of head-hair [Numbers 6.5]); (3) Samson's strength to destroy was prodigious (tearing a lion apart, slaughtering 1,000 Philistines with a donkey's jawbone, ripped up the city gate, disastrously, Samson blabs the secret of his strength; (3) The sex angle: inwardly weak Samson let's a woman render him outwardly weak (16.20: "the LORD had left him"-chap.16 [prostitute / city gates / Delilah / blindness / temple of Dagon] is entirely in [!] Gaza). A larger-than-life statue is said to be of "heroic" size, heroes being (in heroic sagas) out-size, over-the-top, outside-the-box / wow! Everything about Samson is hyperbolic, exaggerated. At the hearing of the Samson Saga, children (of all ages!) are wide-eyed. Such story-telling is serious business: people live by what they are wide-eyes about.

[Willis Elliott]

A pushmapullya, Jim: view from either end. But I prefer core (the people's
primordial experiencings) + mythopoetic garnishings. A heroic person is a
core around which etiological narratives gather (without prejudgment of
possible historical realities in these narratives, such as the annuciations
of Samson's & Jesus' births). The hero is seen as having been needed (as
Samson was needed to throw off his people's Philistine yoke) & therefore as
eagerly anticipated.

Good for you for your creative-intriguing use of a Bible story with
children! The core is Judge Sampson's physical strength, & it's made vivid
by wow! narratives (the first being not only bare-handedly killing a lion,
but then tearing the corpse to pieces! wow!). The storyteller's legitimate
hyperbolic embellishment--in this case with honey (literally!) poured over
it.

Grace and peace--
Willis

Dear Willis,

God bless!

Jim Link

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.11/1071 - Release Date: 10/15/2007
6:48 AM

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

And I prefer poetic/prophetic core within primordial experiences. The
core of Samson as "a hero" was not his historical strength, or the
insightful ways he was able to destroy Philistines, (both these are
secondary, and he cannot rely on them!) it was his calling to be "a
Nazirite to God from the day of his birth to the day of his
death," (Jds 13.7), a calling which is revealed to his parents before
his conception, in the annunciation of the angel, so that they
themselves might mark his calling by their own sanctification. As he
told dear Delilah, this was the secret of his strength, i.e. the
riddle of the presence of Holy Spirit upon him and his obedience or
disobedience in calling upon the Lord who had granted to Him this
calling.

God bless!

Jim

On Oct 15, 10:57 pm, "Willis Elliott" <elliot...@charter.net> wrote:
> A pushmapullya, Jim: view from either end. But I prefer core (the people's
> primordial experiencings) + mythopoetic garnishings. A heroic person is a
> core around which etiological narratives gather (without prejudgment of
> possible historical realities in these narratives, such as the annuciations
> of Samson's & Jesus' births). The hero is seen as having been needed (as
> Samson was needed to throw off his people's Philistine yoke) & therefore as
> eagerly anticipated.
>
> Good for you for your creative-intriguing use of a Bible story with
> children! The core is Judge Sampson's physical strength, & it's made vivid
> by wow! narratives (the first being not only bare-handedly killing a lion,
> but then tearing the corpse to pieces! wow!). The storyteller's legitimate
> hyperbolic embellishment--in this case with honey (literally!) poured over
> it.
>
> Grace and peace--
> Willis----- Original Message -----

> From: <linkc...@aol.com>

[Willis Elliott]

1    Exactly, Jim!  You have well stated the message of the Samson Saga, which we have in its canonical-revelational form.  All human strength is God-given & is to be used for his glory & human good.  Since Gunkel,"literary-historical" criticism includes "form" (or genre) criticism.  The "inductive Bible study" I learned in seminary in '37 (& which was the founding view of both U.Chicago & NYTSeminary) had/has, as one of its structures, "CONTENT-FORM-MEANING."  We discover the meaning of the Samson materials by examining their content minutely (the scientific-"inductive" aspect of IBS) in light of their literary form-genre.

 

2    So, Jim, what in your opinion is the genre of the OT Samson materials? If you agree it's saga, we have common ground for advancing our conversation.

(One evidence of saga: [1] The saga hero has a weakness; [2] In Homer's Achilles Saga, A.'s weakness is his heal; [3] In Judges' Samson Saga, S.'s weakness is his hair.  Another evidence: Saga heroes perform feats of astouding, eye-popping power-violence free from moral considerations.)

 

3    In moving from content through form to meaning, Christian have always had to deal with the difference between exegesis (What did it mean?) & exposition (What does it mean?).  But we of the (post-)Enlightenment West have been & are confronted with a prior distinction in content: What here is historical fact ("historisch") & what is illumining-directional fiction (the two intertwined--as faction [fac[t]-[fic]tion, "geschichtlich")?  TECHNICAL LEXICAL NOTES: (1) The German distinction doesn't occur in small German dictionaries; (2) The Latin root "fac" means done or made: what exists because done or made is a "fact": the Latin root "fic" means shaped: what's shaped is "fiction" regardless of its factual content; (3) I've not yet found an English dictionary up-to-date on the above meaning of "faction," though the meaning has been around for several decades.

 

4    Pedagogical stories are "shaped" ("fic") for teaching, thus intentionally "spun" (in the current political sense--possibly relatd to the earlier to "spin out a story").  With our modern consciousness, we'd like to be able to satisfy, in reading ancient literature, Joe Friday's flat-voiced "Just the facts, ma'm."  (The only biblical author who comes close to this distinction is Paul, who gives us a few asides as to what happened / what he heard / what he thinks.)

 

5    We are together, Jim, if you accept that the Samson materials are in the saga literary-category.  From there, we could discuss the proportion of (literal) fact & (literary) shaping in the fac-tion we call the Samson Saga.

 

6    At wider angle, we should see the judges (Judges) as rulers between the tribal war-lord stage (where Afghanistan still is today) & the royal-prophetic stage (Judges 17.6; repeated as the book's last verse).  Note the progression: warlord/priest, "judge"/priest, king-priest-prophet (the prophet story beginning with the book immediately after Judges, namely 1 Samuel)--the tradition leading to the One who fulfils KING, PRIEST, AND PROPHET [the title of Robert Sherman's T&TClark/04 excellent book subtitled "A Trinitarian Theology of Atonement"]).

 

7    Today, three "Bibles" are at war in the public sphere:

THE LITERAL BIBLE of fundamentalists, which is

THE LAUGHABLE BIBLE of our secularistic enemies.  And, our Bible,

THE DEFENSIBLE BIBLE, with the textual Bible's indefensibilites jettisoned "for purposes of discussion."  The apologetic-polemic question concerns the line over which the baby would be thrown out with the bathwater.  At the Marcus Borg extreme, we still have the Christian baby if we jettison Jesus' resurrection-as-fact: at the opposite (fundamentalist) extreme, nothing is thrown overboard, & "the world" increasingly loudens its laughter at the Bible.

 

8    After 1755 (the Lisbon tsunami-fire), believing that God is good got harder.

After 9/11, believing that religion is dangerous & ought to be eliminated got easier.  The works of agnostics/atheists/humanists/witches(Goddess-worshippers) got easier to sell.  "Skeptics Clubs" on campuses grew rapidly in number.  Young adults have decreasing interest in "organized religion"  (as Robt.Wuthnow's shows in his latest book).  And the Bible has become far harder to defend against charges of nonsense & violence.

 

9    If my description of our post-9/11 religious situation is accurate, ought we not to be giving more attention to HOW WE TEACH (& DEFEND) THE BIBLE?

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

----- Original Message -----

From: <link...@aol.com>

To: "Confessing Christ Open Forum" <Confessi...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 6:48 AM

Subject: Re: 'FACTION" as a factor in HOW TO READ THE BIBLE -- a Sunday school class of 50-some middle-agers -- I appended a glossary to my "Joshua..." text.

>
> Dear Willis,
>

elliot...@charter.net> wrote:

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

Your original post caught my attention because I have been reading
Barth's CD III 1 in which he writes about "saga" in relationship to
the creation stories of Genesis One and Two and because I, with you,
am very interested in issues of the authority of the Bible.

The Samson cycle is a sort of saga or, perhaps more precisely, a sort
of legend. And yet I don't think it is a pure saga, in the sense that
Achilles is a pure saga, or maybe even a myth, mythic in the sense
that it shows the timeless truth that we all have our "Achilles'
heel." To use one of Barth's phrases regarding some of what we see in
the Bible, it is "saga [or perhaps legend] wrapped in history." Things
accessible only to our human imagination (the visitation of an angel,
fire ascending to heaven, the filling of an Israelite with the Holy
Spirit, wonderful strength and wit, divine intervention) encountered
the Israelites during the time of Philistine domination, including a
"certain man of Zorah, of the tribe of the Danites, whose name was
Manoah. And his wife was barren..." This stange historical/ahistorical
Samson, called by God, buried with his father, had a weakness, and it
wasn't as you said, his hair! It was women, just like the many of the
kings of Israel to follow him. But, of course, "this was from the
Lord; for he was seeking a pretext to act against the
Philistines." (Judges 14.4) This is not a timeless truth, it is the
truth of Israel: thus the Messiah to the nations would come to be born
of Israel.

God bless!

Jim

Jim Link

> Willis----- Original Message -----

[Willis Elliott]

OK, Jim, so it was women. Let's slot that into the "historical" box of
saga: it's so believable!
But Delilah was only the Philistine's tool for discovering Samson's physical
weak-point....comparable, as I said, to Achilles' heel.

Now, sir, are you at all bothered by God's using Delilah to "access"
Samson's weak-spot, then using Samson to access Dagon's weak-spot (those
temple-pillars)
(Judg.14.4)? God wants to do a number on the Philistines, & for this uses
Delilah (Samson's wife, who gets off scot-free) & Samson (who is done dead)
as TOOLS. The whole set-up was staged so God could have a "pretext" for
socking it to the Philistines.

Jim! What is your opinion of a guy who uses people as fronts for his
dirtywork? Or do you think we shouldn't be judgmental of the deity's
behavior in biblical sagas (i.e., is God untouchable, "beyond good and
evil"?)? (Is the amoral saga-God free to say to us "Do as I say, not as I
do?" Is he free to let the end justify the means?) Most seriously, how
does this deity look in christological light?

Grace and peace--
Willis

----- Original Message -----
From: <link...@aol.com>

To: "Confessing Christ Open Forum" <Confessi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: 'FACTION" as a factor in HOW TO READ THE BIBLE -- a Sunday
school class of 50-some middle-agers -- I appended a glossary to my
"Joshua..." text.

>
> Dear Willis,
>

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

Right you are! Samson is clearly a prophet of Jesus Christ, for in his
death, he puts us Philistines to death along with our false gods,
makes an end of the old humanity and its gods.

Jim

Jim Link

On Oct 17, 4:49 pm, "Willis Elliott" <elliot...@charter.net> wrote:
> OK, Jim, so it was women. Let's slot that into the "historical" box of
> saga: it's so believable!
> But Delilah was only the Philistine's tool for discovering Samson's physical
> weak-point....comparable, as I said, to Achilles' heel.
>
> Now, sir, are you at all bothered by God's using Delilah to "access"
> Samson's weak-spot, then using Samson to access Dagon's weak-spot (those
> temple-pillars)
> (Judg.14.4)? God wants to do a number on the Philistines, & for this uses
> Delilah (Samson's wife, who gets off scot-free) & Samson (who is done dead)
> as TOOLS. The whole set-up was staged so God could have a "pretext" for
> socking it to the Philistines.
>
> Jim! What is your opinion of a guy who uses people as fronts for his
> dirtywork? Or do you think we shouldn't be judgmental of the deity's
> behavior in biblical sagas (i.e., is God untouchable, "beyond good and
> evil"?)? (Is the amoral saga-God free to say to us "Do as I say, not as I
> do?" Is he free to let the end justify the means?) Most seriously, how
> does this deity look in christological light?
>
> Grace and peace--

> Willis----- Original Message -----
> From: <linkc...@aol.com>

[Willis Elliott]

But, Jim, I repeat my question:
"What is your opinion....?"

Grace and peace--
Willis

----- Original Message -----
From: <link...@aol.com>

> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.

> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.13/1074 - Release Date:
> 10/16/2007 2:14 PM
>
>

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

I'm sorry, I thought I answered your question. Samson was not a pawn.
He was a courageous and troubled servant of the patient and wise LORD,
the LORD ever merciful and righteous, gracious and holy. He was a
Nazirite according to the LORD's own redeeming call, the LORD,
glorious and eternal. He was a man of faith, elected by the LORD who
is faithful! As one who judged Israel for twenty years, he was a
prophet of our Lord Jesus Christ, the judge of Israel and all nations.
"And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon,
Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets--who
through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, received
promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched raging fire, escaped
the edge of the sword, won strength out of weakness, became mighty in
war, put foreign armies to flight. "(Hebrews 11:32-35)

God bless!

Jim

Jim Link

On Oct 17, 8:18 pm, "Willis Elliott" <elliot...@charter.net> wrote:
> But, Jim, I repeat my question:
> "What is your opinion....?"
>
> Grace and peace--

[Willis Elliott]

Jim:

 

I've no problem with your giving a "spiritual" (Alexandrine let's call it, in light of Cris' brief on his ThD thesis) reading to the Samson Saga.  (Let's call it the higher or sky reading.)  My question to you concerned the deity-picture in the lower, on-the-ground, Antiochian reading.

 

1     I congratulate you on your canonical reference to the Heb.ll, which--for cumulative-evidential effect--lumps into one ball of the faith-motivated the big names of the Hebrew-Jewish heritage (excluding a woman "judge" [Deborah--though including her male partner] but including a woman prostitute [Rahab]).  They are said to have seen & greeted "from a distance" God's "promises" of "a better country, that is a heavenly one"--not the physical "land," but "a city" God has "prepared...for them" (13-16).  How Alexandrine!  The promised land is spiritualized into a heavenly city (as at the end of the Bible's last book, which has the heaven-city descending to earth--an apocalyptic enactment of the Lord's Prayer's "your kingdom come on earth").

 

2    Such a motley crew in that Heb.11 faith-ball!  Some of them won't bear close attention as faith-motivated.  E.g., Moses is said (27) to have left Egypt by faith & "unafraid of the king's anger"--whereas the OT shows him fleeing as a murderer from the king's anger--though later he confronted the king, though the text (Ex.6-12) does NOT say Moses was fearless about it or that what gave Moses the courage & power to do it came from "seeing the invisible" (an oxymoron & in contradiction of Ex.33.23 [which limits the vision of God to his visibilized "back"]).

    Now, Jim, note the saga-elevation of Moses (produced intertestamentally) in those non-OT features of his story as told in Hebrews: he's not scared, as he (miraculously) sees God even though the LORD is "invisible."  To flatten out the miraculous latter, NRSV translates the Greek "hos" as "as though he saw him who is invisible" (then, to be honest, the footnote has "because"--in line with the Vulgate, which has not "tamquam si" [as though] but simply "tamquam" [as]).  As I've been saying to you, Jim, saga heightens-intensifies historical-core stories; &, the hyperbole as well as the core is "revelation."  The saga-hero is writ large for improved (1) entertainment & or (2) piety-&-virtue education or (3) public order--or any combination of the three.  On (3), Constantine engaged in literal image-inflation, having erected in the Roman Empire's public squares heroic-sized busts of himself (in several areas of Europe & the Near East, I have seen some of these busts, the head alone as high as five feet).  On (2), Plutarch said he wrote his LIVES OF THE NOBLE GREEKS AND ROMANS so that readers/hearers could "select from their actions all that is noblest and worthiest to know."  On (1), Apuleius in his METAMORPHOSES--the greatest surviving pagan novel from the Early Christian period--is highly entertaining while presenting the sin/repentence/piety of his outsize hero, who winds up as an Isiac priest.

    Back to Heb.11, Jim.  Verses 32-38 present a wide variety of faith-based heroic behavior and experience.  Jephthah has his innocent daughter killed (though that was vow-based, not faith-based).  "Women received their dead by resurrection."  Some were "sawn in two" (in non-biblical legend, only true of Isaiah).

    Samson's is one of the allegedly faith-based lives, though the Saga presents him as living not a faith-based life but a predestined vow-based life (Judg.13.5-7: "a nazirite to God from birth....to the day of his death").  In the Saga, only twice does he evidence faith, both in prayer: (1) for water to drink (15.18) & (2) for strength to averge his Philistine-blinded eyes.  But the vow (taken by his parents on his behalf, as in Christian pedobaptism) gives God access to Samson: (1) "The spirit of the LORD began to stir him" (13.25); (2) "The spirit of the LORD rushed on him" (14.6); (3) "the spirit of the LORD rushed on him" (vs.19); (4) "the spirit of the LORD rushed on him" (15.14).  The wow! characteristic of Samson is super-killer, very like many modern scifi heroes (& closest to "Matrix"). 

 

3    The Bible is supremely the story of God, who uses people without their being conscious of it, against their will, with their passive will, & "by [their active cooperative] faith."  Hebrews is appealing to people for their personal decisions of faith (the fourth way God uses people).  Chapter 11 is written as though all its heroes were class-four God-used; but that flatters some of them, including Samson.  In saying (below) that Samson "was a man of faith," you continue this flattering (& with the same motive as Hebrews).  He was selected by the LORD; but in saying he was "elected by the LORD," you flatter him.  Then you really go Alexandrine-"spiritual" in claiming S. was "a prophet of our Lord Jesus Christ" (a day earlier [below], you spell this out by aligning the deaths of S. & Jesus: in his death, Samson "puts us Philistines to death along with our false gods, makes an end to our old humanity and its gods").  I've no objection to this spiritual spinning as long as its not used to evade the question I put to you (last paragraph of my (10.17.07, below), which indeed you have been evading: "What is your opinion of a guy who uses people as fronts for his dirtywork?...."  We honor the God of Truth by seeing his behavior truly, as it actually is in the Bible's stories and sagas.

 

4    The Bible says God loves his creatures & acts toward our "shalom" (total prosperity of all our needs), though his behavior (including violence in "nature" & "history") is not subject to our moral standards or intellectual norms--e.g., he is not "bound to the law of noncontradiction....God is not bound by anything external to his being, though he is true to himself, to what he has revealed and promised....as Kierkegaard reminds us, he reveals himself as the Absolute Paradox...." (34-5, Donald G. Bloesch, GOD THE ALMIGHTY [InterVarsity/95]).  Then ask, as I suggested, "How does this deity [in this story or saga] look in christological light?"

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

----- Original Message -----

From: <link...@aol.com>

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis

The Lord is the Lord, He is not "an absolute paradox," for in his
Sovereignty is constant and one. He is never not sovereign, he is
never not exercising his claim over humanity, and all things, as the
creator humanity and all things, whom He invites into fellowship with
Himself. Particularly in his prayer, we see that Samson is free before
the Lord, to serve Him according to His declaration that Samson will
be a Nazarite. He calls himself "thy servant" Jd 15.18 and prays for
water. He asks of God "remember me, I pray thee, that I man be avenged
upon the Philistines for my two eyes!" Prayer is "the chief exercise
of faith." (Calvin) That is faith, and that is why Samson is one of
the witnesses concerning Jesus Christ, "the pioneer and perfecter of
our faith: Think of the lectionary text this Sabbath, from Luke
18:1-8. God vindicates the prayers of His elect! He wants nothing
better than that they would indeed call upon Him. As the Creator, he
has absolute right over His creatures, and in exercise of that
absolute right, he invites them to call upon Him, promising that he
will bend an ear and hear, for he promises a covenant of fellowship.
Fellowship is mutual freedom in relationship, here granted and
maintained by the Sovereign Lord.

God bless!

Jim

[Willis Elliott]

Jim:

I couldn't help but notice that your post doesn't even mention the "Subject"
(above) to which it purports to be a response.

Grace and peace--
Willis

----- Original Message -----
From: <link...@aol.com>

> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.

> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.3/1081 - Release Date:
> 10/19/2007 5:41 PM
>
>

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

You changed the "Subject". Even so, God's covenant, a covenant of
Shalom, is a covenant of free fellowship, that he has established and
maintains in His sovereignty, as we see in the legend of Samson, which
foreshadows the fulfilled fellowship of God and humanity in the person
of Jesus Christ. You and I agree that there is a violence without
violation, a violence in which peace is upheld. I just want to make
clear that God does not violate the covenant that he has made with
humanity.

God bless!

Jim Link

On Oct 20, 11:10 pm, "Willis Elliott" <elliot...@charter.net> wrote:
> Jim:
>

> I couldn't help but notice that your post doesn't even mention the "Subject"
> (above) to which it purports to be a response.
>
> Grace and peace--

[Willis Elliott]

Jim:

1 Yes, the wording of the "Subject" changed. You seem not to have
noticed, for you didn't respond to it (in your post, below).

2 I've sharpened up the "Subject" (above) because apparently it was
insufficiently clear to you. Do you agree with me on it? God's
power--creative & destructive--is in the service of his love, which intends
shalom (total properity). Do you agree with me on this?

3 I'm surprised that you use"legend" (a weaker word) as a synonym for
"saga."

4 You seem to hold that the only divine violence in Scripture is such as
that "in which peace is upheld." If by peace you mean not shalom but
non-destruction, non-war, you aren't seeing the problem I'm addressing.

5 I hope you experience the Hitchens/McGrath debate mentioned by three of
our co-Confessors. I'll be doing a post on it here soon.

Grace and peace--
Willis

----- Original Message -----
From: <link...@aol.com>

To: "Confessing Christ Open Forum" <Confessi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 4:53 AM
Subject: Re: God's violence is toward shalom.

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

I don't think that we disagree.

As for your points:

2. God's power IS his love, his loving in freedom, (as you indicated
in another post concerning what Barth said). God's perfection of
omnipotence is none other than his total power to be God, in giving
himself, loving in freedom.

3. Your were interested in appplying form criticism to the Samson
cycle. Perhaps we differ in that you see it as "saga" and I read it as
"legend." I am using the word according to its precise meaning found
the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible definition, (K-Q)
"Legend" (p109) , as a particular literary genre. "It may be defined
as a sagn with edifying, devotional tendency, a story from the life
and works of some religious hero, a saint, a prophet, an ancestor and
culture hero....The wonders and the activity of the deity play an
important role. to the tendency also belong the glorification of the
saint, appealing to admiration, awe, and to imitation of his religious
and moral virtues." Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't think the story is
merely a saga about power.

4. Sorry, I should have said "His peace" (God's peace), which is
Shalom.

God bless!

Jim

Jim Link

On Oct 22, 1:13 pm, "Willis Elliott" <elliot...@charter.net> wrote:
> Jim:
>
> 1 Yes, the wording of the "Subject" changed. You seem not to have
> noticed, for you didn't respond to it (in your post, below).
>
> 2 I've sharpened up the "Subject" (above) because apparently it was
> insufficiently clear to you. Do you agree with me on it? God's
> power--creative & destructive--is in the service of his love, which intends
> shalom (total properity). Do you agree with me on this?
>
> 3 I'm surprised that you use"legend" (a weaker word) as a synonym for
> "saga."
>
> 4 You seem to hold that the only divine violence in Scripture is such as
> that "in which peace is upheld." If by peace you mean not shalom but
> non-destruction, non-war, you aren't seeing the problem I'm addressing.
>
> 5 I hope you experience the Hitchens/McGrath debate mentioned by three of
> our co-Confessors. I'll be doing a post on it here soon.
>
> Grace and peace--

> Willis----- Original Message -----
> From: <linkc...@aol.com>

[Willis Elliott]

Jim:

 

1    I asked (my 2, below) whether you agree with me that "God's power--creative & destructive--is in the service of his love, which intends shalom (total prosperity)."  Instead of saying yes or no, you confused the issue by fusing two attributes of God (your 2, below): "God's power IS his love...."  (Bad theology.)  So, I re-put the question to you.

 

2    On IDB "legend," you skipped down to 4, bypassing "sagn" as (among other topics) "hero             tales" (including Samson).  "The Samson Saga" is the standard scholarly way of referencing this story-collection.  Please goggle Wikipedia for the reason I suggest you avoid "legend": its modern connotation is "undocumented" & "spurious stories"; since 1613, " non-historical narrative or myth."

 

3    On your 4, please note the meaning of shalom in this present post's first sentence.  Then please re-read my 4.  "Peace" is an inadequate translation in a context (such as our discussion) inclusive of violence; the dominant connotation is negative, viz. non-war (more broadly, non-violence).

 

You say "I don't think we disagree."  Since you've not expressed yourself on my concern on this thread, viz. God's violence, I don't know whether or not we disagree.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

----- Original Message -----

From: <link...@aol.com>

> On Oct 22, 1:13 pm, "Willis Elliott" <

elliot...@charter.net> wrote:

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

1. Maybe it is "bad theology" but re-read the Barth whom you cited
just a few days ago. "God lives His perfect life in the abundance of
many individual and distinct perfections. Each of these is perfect in
itself and in combination with all the others. For whether it is a
form of love in which God is free, or a form of freedom in which God
loves, it is nothing else but God Himself, His one, simple,
distinctive being." (Cd II2 p.322) I didn't "fuse" two "attributes."
"God loves as the One who is free. In our first sub-section we have
taken this to mean that as the One he is omnipresent. we now add the
further meaning that as the constant One he is omnipotent." (522)

2. I say legend, speaking to you, the form critic. Let's not ignore
the religious/moral dimension.

3.4. OK. Shalom is fellowship with God.

On Oct 23, 9:25 pm, "Willis Elliott" <elliot...@charter.net> wrote:
> Jim:
>

> 1 I asked (my 2, below) whether you agree with me that "God's

> power--creative & destructive--is in the service of his love, which intends
> shalom (total prosperity)." Instead of saying yes or no, you confused the
> issue by fusing two attributes of God (your 2, below): "God's power IS his
> love...." (Bad theology.) So, I re-put the question to you.
>
> 2 On IDB "legend," you skipped down to 4, bypassing "sagn" as (among
> other topics) "hero tales" (including Samson). "The Samson
> Saga" is the standard scholarly way of referencing this story-collection.
> Please goggle Wikipedia for the reason I suggest you avoid "legend": its
> modern connotation is "undocumented" & "spurious stories"; since 1613, "
> non-historical narrative or myth."
>
> 3 On your 4, please note the meaning of shalom in this present post's
> first sentence. Then please re-read my 4. "Peace" is an inadequate
> translation in a context (such as our discussion) inclusive of violence; the
> dominant connotation is negative, viz. non-war (more broadly, non-violence).
>
> You say "I don't think we disagree." Since you've not expressed yourself on
> my concern on this thread, viz. God's violence, I don't know whether or not
> we disagree.
>
> Grace and peace--

> Willis----- Original Message -----
> From: <linkc...@aol.com>

[Willis Elliott]

Jim, I'm using your numbers.

 

1    You grant that "maybe it is 'bad theology," as I said of your fusing two divine attributes, love & +/- power (i.e., the power to create/destroy).  In your quote, Barth speaks not of a fusing of attributes (so any one can be said to "be" any another) but of a "combination."  God "is" his attributes, but they "are" not each other in a merger of being.

    I know why you want to say "God's power IS his love."  By absorbing his power into his love, you evade facing the issue of "God's violence" (in "Subject," above).

 

2    You referred me to a source--IDB--which you claimed as providing support for your notion that "Samson Legend" is a better fit for the Samson stories than what we biblical academics have long called them, viz. "Samson Saga."  I proved to you that the source identifies the Samson stories as the "Samson Saga."  Your response is to disagree with both your own source and me!  The "ignoring" you mention is not a factor, since neither word ignores what you mention.  But you have evaded confessing abuse of your source and of me.

 

3    Here you ignore the Hebrew meaning of "shalom" (which I suggested as total prosperity) & substitute an implicate: of course total prosperity in the biblical sense includes total relationship, centrally "fellowship with God."  But why have you evaded the central sememe of the Hebrew word?

 

Jim, I'm worried about your evasion-habit.  It may be that you are incapable of clear thinking, but that I doubt.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

----- Original Message -----

From: <link...@aol.com>

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

1. I think Barth is saying that to speak of God's perfection of
omnipotence is one distinct way to speak about his love in freedom.
For Barth, God's love is not an attribute to be distingished from the
attribute of omnipotence, rather, the perfection of omnipotence is the
way we speak of the power of his love in freedom. Maybe that is "bad
theology" but I don't see how it is bad.

2. Ok, use saga as a general category, the Samson Saga. But it is not
merely a "hero tale."

3. Fellowship with God is the essental element that distinguishes
Shalom, "total prosperity" from mere prosperity, or what we generally
mean when we use the word "happiness." Was it Plato in his Republic
that said we were not intended to be merely pigs at the trough?

[Willis Elliott]

Jim, I'm using your numbers.

1 The "Subject" (above) is not about the Greek-idealistic abstraction
"perfection" or the Greek-collective abstraction "omnipotence" but rather
about something observable in nature* & Scripture, viz. "God's violence." I
enjoy Barth's Bach-like improvisations (as impressive as Bach's conversion
of mathematics into music), but so far your referencing of him has been
evasive of the "Subject." We might all be enlightened if you--or anybody
else--could provide us with Barth references on the "Subject," "God's
violence...."

2 Neither IDB nor I said that a hero-tale saga is "merely."

3 Unbiblically, you here have reduced "shalom" down to mere material
well-being--after inflating it (in a former post) to another meaning, viz.
"fellowship with God." I repeat: "why have you evaded the central sememe of
the Hebrew word?"

* In the Greek NT this morning, I happened to be reading about knowing God
by observing his "dynamis" (power) in nature: Ro.1.20. Flowers, tsumanis,
etc.

Grace and peace--
Willis

----- Original Message -----
From: <link...@aol.com>

To: "Confessing Christ Open Forum" <Confessi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 6:32 AM
Subject: Re: God's violence intends & moves toward shalom.

>
> Dear Willis,
>

[link...@aol.com]

Dear Willis,

According to the reading you cited from Romans what are visible
through the things that God has made or done are "his eternal power
and divine nature, invisible though they are." (Romans 1:20) And what
is revealed through the Gospel is the wrath of God against the
rebellion of those who who know God in this way and yet, "claiming to
be wise" have rebelled and "exchanged the glory of the immortal God
for images resembling a moral human being or birds or four-footed
animals or reptiles." (23) [Both NRSV] Paul does not speak about power
per se, but about the power of God, surrounding it by several divine
attributes. And this seems to be part of Paul's point: they have not
rebelled against power per se, rather, they have bowed down to power
per se, in rebellion against the ETERNAL power of God.

I am trying to deal with my problem with the word "violence." It
seems to have several meanings, and appears that you do not want to
exclude the one that I find objectionable, as applied to God: "an
unjust or unwarrented exertion of force or power, as against rights
laws, etc." (The Random House Dictionary of the English Language,
1973). What is the up-to-date primary meaning of "violence"? God's
power is not power per se, it is not mere violence.

We do agree on this: Shalom is not violent, it is not unjust. But I
cannot affirm your statement in any proclamation conderning the legend
of Samson.

On Oct 24, 5:38 pm, "Willis Elliott" <elliot...@charter.net> wrote:
> Jim, I'm using your numbers.
>

> 1 The "Subject" (above) is not about the Greek-idealistic abstraction
> "perfection" or the Greek-collective abstraction "omnipotence" but rather
> about something observable in nature* & Scripture, viz. "God's violence." I
> enjoy Barth's Bach-like improvisations (as impressive as Bach's conversion
> of mathematics into music), but so far your referencing of him has been
> evasive of the "Subject." We might all be enlightened if you--or anybody
> else--could provide us with Barth references on the "Subject," "God's
> violence...."
>
> 2 Neither IDB nor I said that a hero-tale saga is "merely."
>
> 3 Unbiblically, you here have reduced "shalom" down to mere material
> well-being--after inflating it (in a former post) to another meaning, viz.
> "fellowship with God." I repeat: "why have you evaded the central sememe of
> the Hebrew word?"
>
> * In the Greek NT this morning, I happened to be reading about knowing God
> by observing his "dynamis" (power) in nature: Ro.1.20. Flowers, tsumanis,
> etc.
>
> Grace and peace--

> Willis----- Original Message -----
> From: <linkc...@aol.com>

[Willis Elliott]

Jim, my numbers are those I've added to your paragraphs.

 

1    From "dynamis" (power) in Ro.1.20 you desire to exclude the negative, viz. destructive power (as in the "Subject" of our recent interchanges).  I spoke of flowers & tsunamis: you want people to look at nature & see, as "God's power," only the flowers.  I am (literally) blind in one eye, & you want to be (metaphorically) blind in the eye that sees God's violence (destructive power) in nature.

    I've read the Fathers on Ro.1.19-20 (ANCIENT CHRISTIAN COMMENTARY ON SCRIPTURE: Romans [1998]) & find no such hesitance as you show. 

    Calvin lays this out in 1.5.1-10, "God manifested in his created works."  In 1.5.6, God's destructive power (fire/storms/winds/waves) intends--as I said in "Subject" (above)--"to draw us to his love."  But--1.4.8--"however much the glory of God shines forth, scarcely one man in a hundred is a true spectator of it!"  God's "power" in this section is entirely negative: "vanquished...destroyed...shattered...broken...overturned...fallen...laid low."

    You are correct, Jim, in saying "Paul [in Ro.1.20] does not speak about power per se."  He's saying that constructive/destructive power visible to us "mirrors" (Calvin's image, twice in 1.5.1-10) God's power.  But since a mirror reflects everything, & you want to see God's power as only positive-constructive, to what/whom are you to attribute the destructive devastations of the world you see in the mirror?  You are still avoiding-evading the "Subject" issue, viz. the moral problem involved in considering one's deity to be creator of "ta panta" (the all, the universe).

 

2     Good!  Now you're facing "violence"!

    (1)    You present a false match of what to you are two negatives (but to me are two neutrals): "power per se" & "mere violence." You have subjectively moralized two objectivities, viz. the fact of power as constructive/destructive & the fact of "violence" as the destructive use (tool, means) of power.

    (2)    On violence, you (we all) must distinguish between what the Bible says & what, in light of Christ, we Christians are to believe.  We BELIEVE in God's covenant with Noah, & we READ that it entailed God's drowning of everybody except that one family.  We BELIEVE that God promised Abraham a land, & we READ that in the process of giving it to him God (Hitler-like!) commanded genocide.  You are so right that we find such behavior "objectionable" when "applied to God"!  So what are we to tell the children?  And, facing the world, how are we to defend & promote the Bible?

    (3)    You are correct also in your RHD connotation of "violence" as "unjust or unwarranted exertion of...power."  Precisely the problem: Were the Noah Story & the Conquest Story examples of the just & warranted exertion of power?  But in RHD (p2124), the meaning of "violence" is not limited to the judgmental ("unjust...."); indeed, you quoted only meaning #3; meaning #1 is "swift and intense force," as in a storm; & #2 is "rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment." 

    (4)    Calvin's handling of the problem is BIBLICAL: Between God & humanity, moral judgment is only in (as it were) the down direction: no upward (humanity-to-deity) complaints are appropriate.  From Renaissance to Reformation to New England Unitarianism, this position steadily declined in believability.

(In New England, [Calvin's "Puritan"] double predestination was the first to go.)  Our UCC Statement of Faith affirms God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christi and our Father": is that who drowned almost everybody & commanded the genocide of the Canaanites?

 

3    "Shalom is not violent" is a less biblical statement than (conformable to "Subject," above) "Shalom is post-violent."  Of course I do agree that "Shalom...is not unjust."  As for your last sentence, I don't know what you're saying.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

----- Original Message -----

From: <link...@aol.com>

To: "Confessing Christ Open Forum" <Confessi...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 9:20 AM

Subject: Re: God's violence intends & moves toward shalom.

>
> Dear Willis,
>
1    > According to the reading you cited from Romans what are visible

> through the things that God has made or done are "his eternal power
> and divine nature, invisible though they are." (Romans 1:20) And what
> is revealed through the Gospel is the wrath of God against the
> rebellion of those who who know God in this way and yet, "claiming to
> be wise" have rebelled and "exchanged the glory of the immortal God
> for images resembling a moral human being or birds or four-footed
> animals or reptiles." (23) [Both NRSV] Paul does not speak about power
> per se, but about the power of God, surrounding it by several divine
> attributes. And this seems to be part of Paul's point: they have not
> rebelled against power per se, rather, they have bowed down to power
> per se, in rebellion against the ETERNAL power of God.
>

2    > I am trying to deal with my  problem  with the word "violence." It

> seems to have several meanings, and  appears that you do not want to
> exclude the one that I find objectionable, as applied to God: "an
> unjust or unwarrented exertion of force or power, as against rights
> laws, etc." (The Random House Dictionary of the English Language,
> 1973). What is the up-to-date primary meaning of "violence"? God's
> power is not power per se, it is not mere violence.
>

3    > We do agree on this: Shalom is not violent, it is not unjust. But I

elliot...@charter.net> wrote:

linkc...@aol.com>

Confessi...@googlegroups.com>

elliot...@charter.net> wrote:

> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.

> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.10/1091 - Release Date: 10/24/2007 2:31 PM
>
>