David King of Israel and Caleb in Biblical Memory Reviews
Wright, Jacob Fifty. David, Rex of Israel, and Caleb in Biblical Memory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Printing, 2014, pp. 271, $29.99, paperback.
Jacob L. Wright teaches Hebrew Bible and Jewish studies at Emory University. He has too conducted inquiry on war commemoration.
Wright proposes a fascinating thesis, namely that a major influence on the development of the Hebrew Bible was what he terms 'war commemoration'. He argues that this phenomenon can be plant in many cultures, both ancient and modern, and is used to serve a number of distinct purposes. In particular, the style in which central protagonists in a battle are remembered volition shape both the cultural mental attitude towards those individuals, and the extent to which their descendants are viewed as worthy members of the community. David and Caleb are identified as prime number examples of these warriors. Wright subscribes to a grade of the supplementary hypothesis (the electric current course of the biblical text stems from an original base text which was then supplemented by subsequent texts in successive stages), and suggests that at dissimilar stages in the evolution of the Hebrew Bible the authors/editors had differing agendas and used 'war commemoration' to serve the contemporary demand. This accounts for credible unevenness, especially in the characterization of David.
Later introducing his thesis, Wright argues that the earliest stories about David (History of David's Rise) depict him equally 'a cunning warlord who wields his private army' to establish the kingdom of Judah (p. fifty). He was forced into such a career because, as the 8th son, he stood no chance of inheriting country, and and then needed an alternative mode to secure his own future (p.38-9). The HDR was later combined with a separate narrative of Saul's rule over the neighboring kingdom of Israel and a new trunk of material was composed to create a unified narrative explaining how David came to be rightful ruler over both Israel and Judah. Dissimilar war stories were introduced at this stage, presenting various communities as loyal to either Saul or David (chs. four&5). This material would speak into issues of belonging for those communities in the subsequent history of Judah. At a later stage in the composition of the text, the authors were concerned with the interplay between the nation (the people) and the state (the monarchy). This concern was likely post-exilic as the nation wrestled with the question of how it could survive without the monarchy. War commemoration was employed in one case once again, equally stories were introduced into the text, often using individual warriors to exhibit and critique dissimilar approaches to this affair (chs. half-dozen&7).
The book concludes with a consideration of the complexities around Caleb. Wright argues that the Calebites were an aristocracy association within Judah (p. 174) who needed to fight for their survival as a singled-out grouping in the context of various social-demographic forces. They came under pressure offset from the Judahite state, as the Davidic kings moved into their territory, most notably Hebron (p. 209). Much later on, in the Western farsi period, they again needed to assert themselves as the Edomites laid claim to their territory (p. 216). The Calebites maintained their identity past creating memories of their antecedent every bit a Judahite warrior of the finest character.
Wright is to be commended for offering a novel and creative solution to the complication of the David narratives. His thesis, that through the evolution of the text, different editors used state of war commemoration to serve their unlike contemporary agendas, offers a plausible explanation for the variety of attitudes towards David found in the Hebrew Bible. He writes with an engaging mode which draws comfortably on a wide range of unlike disciplines (history, art, literature, archaeology). Even so, there are a number of weaknesses in the argument. First, and foremost, his hypothesis is that war celebration was used in the limerick of the Hebrew Scriptures to serve a variety of sociological agendas. It is unfortunate, therefore, that the examples of known war commemoration which he identifies to back up this claim are not straight equivalent to the writings of the Hebrew Bible. This kind of war commemoration is non an obvious phenomenon in the Aboriginal Near East (p. 26), and its use in other cultures tends to use a different medium (a monument, rather than historiography). Furthermore, Wright does not announced to provide examples of an author creating memories long after the event, then as to serve a contemporary need. Moreover, the Hebrew narrator is known for providing only minimal data nearly the nation's skirmishes. He seems far less interested in detailed military accounts than might exist expected if he was engaged in 'state of war commemoration', and far more concerned to interpret the military history through a theological lens. This fact need not be devastating for Wright'south thesis, merely information technology requires more than attention than he gives it. These multiple gaps in Wright's argument make his hypothesis significantly less compelling than he acknowledges.
A 2nd weakness in Wright'southward argument concerns his diachronic approach. Wright claims to have identified unlike stages in the limerick of the text, through observing awkwardnesses, disharmonies and contradictions. These unlike stages are characterized past unlike priorities and concerns on the role of the writer/editor. This is typical fare for a source-disquisitional approach. This approach, still, is always vulnerable to the criticism of being more subjective than is perhaps best-selling. When Wright identifies different gimmicky pressures which led to the creation of new 'war memories' he would do well to acknowledge that these contexts are by and large hypothetical and the product of his assumptions nigh the evolution of the text. Even when he tries to institute, for instance, that Keilah, as a border boondocks, was 'pulled to and fro' in its loyalties to dissimilar kingdoms (p.54-56), the archaeological evidence he cites is from a unlike fourth dimension catamenia, and peradventure a unlike settlement, than the one in question. Moreover, recent literary approaches take demonstrated that supposed tensions in the text, so frequently the justification for source-disquisitional theories, may really be intentional poetic devices which would non concern an ancient hearer. Information technology would be appropriate, therefore, for Wright to express his assertions about the growth of the text with more circumspection. This is specially the case when Wright writes in a style which would be attainable to the amateurish who may not have the wider knowledge to test his argument.
Despite the weaknesses identified higher up, the student of biblical and theological studies will exist able to do good from this book, particularly if they have some familiarity with source-critical approaches to the Deuteronomistic History. The argument is stimulating in helping the reader consider the various social-demographic pressures affecting the first readers of the text. The reader will engage with some of the more obscure characters in the David narrative, and, whilst they may non accept all the conclusions Wright offers, they will have a richer grasp of the function these individuals and communities would have had in the nation of Israel. That said, information technology is significant that Wright's approach is about entirely sociological rather than theological. This may impact the relevance of the book to some students.
Ben Thompson
Queen's University, Belfast.
Source: https://jbtsonline.org/review-of-david-king-of-israel-and-caleb-in-biblical-memory-by-jacob-l-wright/
0 Response to "David King of Israel and Caleb in Biblical Memory Reviews"
ارسال یک نظر