John H. Elliott

Household and Meals Vs. Temple Purity Replication Patterns in Luke-Acts

In Luke-Acts the social codes and concepts associated with food and meals replicate and support the contrasting social codes, interests, and ideologies associated with the Jerusalem Temple, on the one hand, and the Christian household, on the other. In this study the thesis is advanced that in contrast to the Temple and the exclusivist purity and legal system it represents, Luke has used occasions of domestic dining and hospitality to depict an inclusive form of social relations which transcends previous Jewish purity regulations and which gives concrete social expression to the inclusive character of the gospel, the kingdom of God, and the Christian community.

Matthew 20:1-15: a Parable of Invidious Comparison and Evil Eye Accusation

The parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-15) contains one of numerous biblical references to the Evil Eye. Belief in the Evil Eye, its expression of envy, and its destructive power pervaded the ancient world of the Circum-Mediterranean. The frequent references to the Evil Eye in the Bible—modern translations and commentaries notwithstanding-indicate the extent to which the biblical communities also shared this belief. The present study reviews salient features of Evil Eye belief and behavior, typical aspects of the environment in which the belief has flourished, and references to the Evil Eye in the biblical writings. This information clarifies the cultural script latent in the Evil Eye parable of Matthew. The thesis advanced is that Matt 20:1-15 is a parable in which a typical Evil Eye accusation is employed to denounce envy as incompatible with life in the kingdom of heaven and detrimental to the communitys well-being.

Disgraced Yet Graced. The Gospel according to 1 Peter in the Key of Honor and Shame

Honor and shame constituted pivotal values of ancient Circum-Mediterranean societies, including the biblical communities. After summarizing relevant research on this phenomenon by both anthropologists and exegetes, this study focuses attention on the honor/shame vocabulary of 1 Peter and its broader semantic field. The thesis is advanced that the author of this letter perceived and interpreted this conflict between the Christians of Asia Minor and their detractors as one over honor denied and honor claimed, and in so doing also transposed the issue of honor and shame, grace and disgrace, into a theological key.

From Social Description to Social-Scientific Criticism. The History of a Society of Biblical Literature Section 1973—2005:

The thirty year history of an SBL Section reveals an essential component of the exegetical enterprise coming of age. Focused from the beginning on the social and cultural dimensions of New Testament writings and their social settings, the Section has undergone notable permutations and cleavages while also reflecting the development, refinement, and academic influence of a now standard sub-discipline of the historical critical method.

The Epistle of James in Rhetorical and Social Scientific Perspective Holiness-Wholeness and Patterns of Replication

The Epistle of James, for too long the object of negative exegetical assessment, deserves a fresh appraisal. This study challenges the prevailing view that the document consists merely of seemingly disjointed hortatory topoi and lacks literary and thematic integrity. It is argued that a rhetorical and social-scientific analysis reveals a complex and coherent argument in which purity and pollution concerns figure prominently. Addressing issues of fragmentation and conflict on correlated personal, social, and cosmic levels of existence, James invokes traditional distinctions of purity and pollution to encourage a restoration of holiness and wholeness and a vigorous enforcement of social boundaries.

The Evil Eye and the Sermon On the Mount

Belief in the malignant force of the Evil Eye and strategies to ward off its destructive power pervaded the cultures of the ancient Near East and Circum-Mediterranean basin. This belief was shared by the biblical communities who in their writings refer frequently to the Evil Eye, its associated dispositions, and means of protection from its injurious effects. This paper situates one such biblical Evil Eye text within its cultural context. Following a summary of salient features of Evil Eye belief and practices and a review of biblical Evil Eye texts, the focus is on one reference to this belief in the teaching of Jesus: Matt: 6:22-23 in the Sermon on the Mount. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate how reference to the Evil Eye was culturally and conceptually appropriate in this segment of teaching, how the Evil Eye here and generally was associated with the vice of envy, and how this Evil Eye allusion functions in both its literary and cultural contexts. A related aim is to use this topic to demonstrate the utility and procedure of social scientific criticism as a necessary supplementation of conventional historical-critical exegesis.

1 Enoch, 1 Peter, and Social—Scientific Criticism. A Review Article on a Major 1 Enoch Commentary

This first volume of George Nickelsburgs commentary on 1 Enoch is a masterful commentary on a major text of Second Temple Israel. Its attention to the relation of 1 Enoch and 1 Peter and its openness to analysis through Social—Scientific Criticism invite further discussion.

Book Review: Dictionary of Daily Life in Biblical and Post-Biblical Antiquity:

181 displeasure with this designation, as this “name-calling” places them at one end of the history-of-ancient-Israel spectrum. (They have no problem calling the work of other scholars “revisionist,” however, a term which contains more negative connotations than any of the others.) The “maximalist” nomenclature is nevertheless appropriate and helpful, as at virtually every turn BHI2 affirms the plausibility of the biblical witness. Until someone offers a better way of distinguishing Provan et al from other “non-minimalists,” one hopes that they will graciously accept the designation “maximalist.” Finally, I’ve never seen a scholarly text that includes thirty pages of appendix material attacking critics of an earlier edition, and I can think of few second additions that need this less. Constructive scholars engage important opposing arguments in their text, listing reference information about their opponents’ views in the footnotes. BHI2 already has plenty of this, with more invective for opposing viewpoints than warranted. The appendix only detracts from a useful volume. One hopes that BHI3 will eliminate this section, using the saved space to further describe the authors’ picture of ancient Israel. John W. Herbst Regent University Virginia Beach, VA 23464

Book Review: 1 Enoch 2. A Commentary on the Book of Enoch, Chapters 37–821 Enoch 2. A Commentary on the Book of Enoch, Chapters 37–82. By NickelsburgGeorge W. E. & VanderKamJames C.. Edited by BaltzerKlaus. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2012. Pp. xxx + 616. Cloth,

121 that Genesis 1 is a symbolic narrative. I notice that he has little to say about Genesis 1:26–27 with its affirmation of human equality and the equality of the sexes, other than to note that is how things were before the “fall.” In his essay on Psalm 104 he affirms that David is the author of this psalm and that, of course, David then knew the 14th century bce Egyptian Hymn to Aten at such early date. Also, Psalm 104 alludes to the Genesis flood of Noah as a literal, global event. (Thus the beliefs of Creation Science are assumed in this volume, if not discussed.) The arguments of literalists always have a consistent, internal logic throughout. Other essays also reflect similar hermeneutical assumptions. Angel Rodriguez (“Genesis and Creation in the Wisdom Literature”) assumes that since Job and his friends were historical personages, Elihu could have known Mesopotamian thought to shape his argument. Martin Klingbeil (“Creation in the Prophetic Literature of the Old Testament”) assumes Daniel was a historical prophet in the 6th century bce. Rodriguez also wrote an essay (“Biblical Creationism and Ancient Near Eastern Evolutionary Ideas”) to show how ancient Near Eastern myths assume an evolutionary theory for the earth’s origins (he had to choose his ancient texts selectively for this argument), and thus Genesis 1 refutes both ancient and modern evolutionary theories. In further response to the modern evolutionary theory, Jacques Doukham (“When Death Was Not Yet”) affirms that death is not part of the natural scientific order in our world, but it was introduced only with the historical sin of Adam and Eve. If you look beyond these idiosyncratic literalistic interpretations of the authors, you can observe that their theological observations are good Christian theological commentary on the biblical passages discussed. For that they should be praised. (They do hint, however, that maybe Christian worship should occur on the Sabbath! I would be disappointed if they didn’t promote that a little bit.) I was raised a Protestant fundamentalist in my early theological training, so I recognize all of these arguments. I understand them; I no longer respect them. Reading the Bible will destroy your fundamentalist beliefs. This book is testimony to the fact that literalist or fundamentalist scholars are not fools or naïve, as is too often suggested, but they are very intelligent people driven by their extremely conservative theological assumptions to craft logical, turgid, and detailed arguments to bolster their beliefs. Robert Gnuse Loyola University New Orleans, LA 70118

82.99.

47 believed had failed in their responsibility to serve the people as God’s representatives. Chapter 4 explores the perception of kingship in the laws of Deuteronomy (pp. 39–46). The laws were given to people without any need for an earthly king, and enacted legislation intended to limit the power of the king, both of which were revolutionary concepts in the ancient world (p. 40). The fact “that such a law could even exist in the ancient world is amazing,” since “we have to wait until the thirteenth-century ce Magna Charta (or Magna Carta) in England to find a comparable notion that royal power should be limited” (pp. 40–41). Chapter 5 explores the Moses traditions, which contain the conflict between Moses and Pharaoh, significant because it is “perhaps the most dramatic and prolonged interaction between two personages in the entire biblical text” (p. 56)—Moses and the Pharaoh, the classic tyrant. Chapter 6 explores the pre-monarchical history (pp. 66–76), which recounts the origin of the nation of Israel without a king. This is fascinating, since “other ancient cultures spoke of their national origin concurrent with the emergence of the first king” (p. 70). The early leaders of Israel—Moses, Joshua and Samuel— were not kings, and the text stresses that God alone was Israel’s king (p. 71). Chapters 7 and 8 (pp. 77–105) recount the history of the United and Divided Monarchies, which generally portrays kings and their actions negatively. In Chapter 9 (pp. 106–18), Gnuse unveils this critical stance in Genesis 1–11, where commentators and average readers have not noticed it in the past. Chapter 10 (pp. 119–28) focus on the folly and tyrannical behavior of kings in novellas such as Daniel and Esther. Chapter 11 (pp. 129–40) explores the theme in the Second Testament, which is more subtle because of the circumstances of Roman domination. There are, however, numerous characters in the Second Testament who assault the prerogatives of kings, and Gnuse explores these. In a brief conclusion, Gnuse summarizes the thesis of the book and seeks to apply it to contemporary times. He urges that “When we hear the stories we must realize that the burden now falls on us to correct the problems in our society. Too often people complain about why God lets something bad happen. Maybe the real answer is that God is waiting for people to do something to correct situations in which bad things happen” (p. 143). This small volume is immensely readable, and will be of interest to students and general readers alike. It very successfully demonstrates the Bible’s abiding relevance even into the 21 century. Ralph K. Hawkins Sack School of Bible and Ministry Kentucky Christian University Grayson KY 41143