"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.
No comments:
Post a Comment