Firsts in 2022: The Atlanta Braves

  One of my hobbies - 'pastimes' might be a better word - is following baseball, although I usually can't 'watch' much since time zones don't align well. Last night, Tyler Matzek got his first save in his 5th MLB seaso, 3rd as a reliever. Earlier this year, Jackson Stephens had also gotten his first 2 career saves. Below, I collected the other firsts that I could find from this year's Braves, not including debuting (or barely debuted) rookies. (Source: MLB)

 For most of these firsts, the pattern is clearly that they are young players, but one or two players in the list have waited a long time to do these firsts.

Saves:

- Tyler Matzek (5th season)

- Jackson Stephens (3rd season) - first 2 career saves

Balks:

- Jesse Chavez "The Most Traded Player in MLB History" (15 seasons) - 14 seasons with no balks!!!

Stolen Bases:

- Austin Riley (4th season) - first 2 stolen bases; previously, he had been caught stealing 3 times

- William Contrares (3rd season; 2nd with much time)

Walk-off hits:

- William Contrares (3rd)

 - Austin Riley (4th) - first 2 walk-off hits

Reached on an error:

- William Contrares (3rd)

Outfield assists:

- Travis Demeritte (3rd season)- first 2 outfield assists

Caught Stealing (Pitcher):

- Kyle Wright (5th season, 1st with more than 38 IP) - caught 2 stealing

 - Ian Anderson (3rd season) - caught 3 stealing

Pick-offs:

- Kyle Wright (5th season, 1st with more than 38 IP)

Double Play (fielding as a pitcher):

- Kyle Wright (5th)

ROOKIES:

  As for rookies, it appears that Michael Harris II is the Braves only hitting rookie who has made his debut this year. He's having an excellent year and not really leaving himself many firsts for the future; a walk-off hit, an intentional walk, and a sac bunt & fly seem to be about what's left to look forward to.

*The only 'second' that I could find so far this year was Guillermo Heredia's second career triple, excluding categories that also had a first this year.  

**As for rookies who are pitchers, William Woods & Bryce Elder debuted briefly. Dylan Lee and Spencer Strider with only 2 and 2.1 IP last year respectively have checked many new boxes, as have Jesus Cruz, and Tucker Davidson who had about 20 IP before this season. Also, Mike Form (1B) recorded his first pitching appearance allowing 2 runs on a walk and a home run.

God as the narrator in Judges?

"Above all, it is time to recognize that the narrator [of Judges] is aligned to such an extent with YHWH that we are drawn to the inevitable conclusion that they are one and the same." (pg 188) 

 How does the above quote strike you? It seems to resonate with the biblically conservative belief that Judges is the actual words of the God of Israel. And yet, it is in the final paragraph of an article in The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Narrative which draws on a variety of not-conservative theories or sources, (which is certainly not inherently negative). Along with various feminist sources, the author Deryn Guest writes an analysis 'where narrative criticism is also informed by queer theory, psychology, and the study of masculinities.' (186) The above quote is followed by these two sentences which end the article:

"YHWH's agenda is the narrator's agenda. The narrator/YHWH can evade scholarly critics no longer."

 Thus, as I understand it, Guest is not so much suggesting that God condescended to communicate with humans, but rather that humans have identified themselves with God or a god of their own imaginings in Judges. So, while the first quotation caught my attention for the way in which it was expressed, actually the author is suggesting that YHWH may (must?!?) actually be subjected to scrutiny; God may not remain 'inscrutable' in Guest's words. In fact, this perspective was made explicit in the title of the article, "Judging YHWH in the Book of Judges."

  But, what to do with this? Of course, believers in the Bible as God's Word must consider the actions and expressed words of God deeply. Yet, if the Maker of the Universe is actually as the Bible reveals him*, then our capacity for understanding must necessarily be limited. Those who cannot fully understand/grasp even those things of the creation that we know exist (e.g. the extent of the universe, quantum physics, or whatever the future frontiers of knowledge are) may certainly ask questions of the Creator, but can hardly stand as his judges. But, this isn't a new problem, is it? Isaiah talked of how the clay cannot back talk to the potter simply because it doesn't like things as they are. The biblical authors also wrestle frequently with the problems of pain, grief, and (delayed) divine judgment. Such questions seem to be okay, but in the biblical text, a line seems to be crossed if we move towards 'judging' God, when our 'why' turns to a 'how dare you!' 

 Interestingly in comments made about 'commentaries written with a believing audience in mind', the author seems to acknowledge that really the article was not meant to be beneficial for those who believe in the Bible as God's revelation (184). This dovetails with my own thoughts that the primary, though not only, benefit of the article is in a better understanding of those who do not see the Bible as divine revelation.

*If you are bothered by my use of 'his' when referring to the One who made all things, the Bible is quite clear that God does not have gender while also using masculine pronouns to refer to that One. This may seem like a linguistic tic since some languages don't distinguish gender in their pronouns, but in English, the choices are limited as they were in the languages the Bible was written in. This in many ways is a microcosm of the larger issue: we are talking about the infinite and divine in words that are finite and human; there is some necessary ambiguity which is caused by the limits of our knowledge, languages, abilities, and perspectives. So, we are left with what we were given and the call of faith is to be satisfied with it, at least for this life.