Читать книгу The Hebrew Prophets after the Shoah - Hemchand Gossai - Страница 8

Arguably it is the case that biblical scholarship over the last 400 years or so has been shaped principally by the Reformation/Counter-Reformation and the Enlightenment. In large part what this has done is to emphasize the centrality of rationalistic thinking and somewhat later, historical criticism. Indeed for a prolonged time these methods have been granted a privileged status in biblical scholarship, and in all of this time, while surrounded by the presence and influence of imperialism and colonialism, biblical scholars have been remarkably reluctant to employ other methods in shaping the trajectories of biblical hermeneutics.

There are two greater dangers within the field. One is an uncritical acceptance of the principal tenets of the discipline, and the other, its failure to relate it to the society in which its work is done. Biblical Studies is still seduced by the modernistic notion of using the rational as a key to open the text and fails to accept intuition, sentiment and emotion as a way into the text. By and large the world of biblical interpretation is detached from the problems of the contemporary world and has become ineffectual because it has failed to challenge the status quo or work for any sort of social change.36

It is sometimes quite difficult for us to understand the encounters between the Hebrew prophets and the communities and peoples with whom they related, and the relationship between God and these prophets. For the most part these kinds of divine and prophetic encounters are absent, or at best sparese in today’s world. Invariably when I speak to groups about the Hebrew Prophets, I ask the question, “who are the prophets in our generation or who have been the prophets in the last century or so?” Without providing too many details, I have suggested to the various audiences that they use the Hebrew Prophet as something of a model. In posing this question I typically have not had any preconceived names that I am seeking to elicit in particular, but the responses that I have received have been quite revealing. There was often a challenge to generate names and while Gandhi and Martin Luther King invariably made the list, it was typically not long before names of popular preachers or even celebrities were cited. It is not to suggest in any way that many of those named did not have merit in terms of who they were and what they did, but to speak of a prophet is distinctive. Occasionally one confuses a minister or priest with a prophet. And while it is true that a member of the clergy might be prophetic in his or her message from time to time, it should never be the case that the roles are seen to be interchangeable. Certainly within the Hebrew Bible there is no confusion between the prophet and the priest. Why might there be confusion between the roles of clergy and prophet today? And indeed why is it that many find it difficult to embrace the role of prophet today, along the lines of the manner of the Hebrew prophet?

First, we live in a world where the technological and scientific developments have generated a healthy element of cynicism for most people in terms of that which might be prophetic. In part because of the quest to have empirical proof for practically everything, there has developed a kind of division between what can be believed and what must be proven. We witness from the various topics on which the Hebrew prophets spoke that all of life was rooted in God and therefore one could not proceed with arguments that separated one section of life from the other. This was an intensely important issue as the people of ancient Israel sought to remove the practice of worship from the ethical elements of life. In effect they sought to separate the care of the neighbor (understood to be a secular matter) from the worship of YHWH (a sacred matter). This division was to trigger sharp invectives from Israelite prophets. Certainly this unity of the sacred and the secular was not unique to Israel, for it was also present in other Near Eastern societies and it continues to be an essential aspect of the spiritual and biblical inheritance of both Jews and Christians.

Second, in today’s society, there are some who have laid claims to have had private revelations from God. While there are loyal groups of believers who are willing to subscribe to and follow such religious figures and the revelations they claim to have received, it is often through their monetary support that they sustain such persons. Many others view such “private revelations” available to the public for a price with a certain degree of justifiable suspicion. The “private line to God” is not a saleable feature of religious experience in contemporary society. Recent experiences of this sort have only served to intensify the suspicion about the nature and role of prophecy. This however was not the atmosphere under which the Hebrew prophets delivered their message. While there were questions regarding the motives of some prophets and indeed there were questions about the essence of their message, nevertheless the religious experiences of the Hebrew prophets have not only survived, but their message have maintained a remarkable and striking relevance and resonance. The prophets of ancient Israel had the deep rooted conviction that God was actively involved in the affairs of the people, and because of the covenant with Israel, God would communicate his will to the prophets to ensure that the relationship was kept intact not only in a vertical way with God but in a seamless horizontal way with each other.

Brueggemann is certainly on point when he says that there is an element of urgency to disconnect “the academic community away from self-preoccupied triviality that is such a waste, the ecclesial communities away from excessive certitude that is idolatry and the civic community away from brutality rooted in autonomy.”37 An unmistakable and deeply rooted feature of the Hebrew prophets that cannot be negotiated away is the fact that what they have to say will happen within the context of history. The prophets in this regard are not appealing to an apocalyptic vision for the practice of justice. While there are instances when there is a vision of the next life, when there will be no more tears and the old life will pass away, the prophets for the most part are preaching for transformation and justice in this world. What this means for the prophets is that punishment, destruction, exile, scattering will all happen in this world and in the concreteness of societal settings. It might seem to some that what the prophets proclaimed will be fulfilled in the afterlife, and others who are too entrenched in places of comfort and security might in fact dismiss the prophetic call as utopian. But one is reminded that utopia carries the meaning of nowhere, and indeed the call for justice will in fact take place, and it is somewhere, and it is in our time and will be in other times as well. But most assuredly it is not nowhere. The prophets experienced God in a variety of ways, some of which are shocking to us. Despite those who today say that they take the Bible literally and follow it as in a textbook, hardly would they consider walking around naked as Isaiah did or others who exhibited ecstatic behaviors. But there is more to this sacred experience. Some today have intimated as much that God not only identifies with us as a people, as perhaps the “new chosen,” but also with our system of government. But in fact as it is, God is not tethered to one political system; God’s working is not tied to one worldview and indeed the message of the prophets is directed to every source of injustice regardless of the political system. “Like the God who appeared to Moses in the burning bush, such a God subverts rather than legitimates the social order.”38

The prophets are so deeply entrenched in the system that they cannot begin to envision extricating themselves, assuming that there is even an impulse to do so. Martin Luther King Jr. in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” where he speaks forcefully about what I would deem the “urgency of now,” emphasized the significance of immediacy and urgency. In matters of injustice, justice delayed is justice denied and waiting is the equivalent of never, according to king. In the message of the prophets, there is no waiting. Tomorrow is now. While there are many similarities in the message of the prophets, nev­ertheless their different foci point to the spontaneous and contextual nature of their message. While we have inherited their message as part of scripture, it was first delivered within a particular time in history to a particular peo­ple. Further, a basic presupposition among scholars today is that not all the words that we find in the text can be ascribed to the prophets. This natu­rally only serves to compound the problem, because the system of redaction and refinement not only creates textual and redactional speculation, but adds an element of incoherency to the already complicated interpretive issue.

It is therefore impossible to place the prophets in well rounded categories. Depending on the emphasis which is placed, the prophets have been called “ethicists,” “revolutionaries,” “reformers,” “tra­ditionalists,” “Yahwists,” “poets,” and “messengers” among others. This wide range of possibili­ties in itself underlines the difficulty which exists. Clearly to posit the prophets as exclusively or even primarily one of th ese is to run the risk of overlooking significant textual evidence which might indi­cate differing no­tions. While the message of the prophets includes all of the elements listed above, I have suggested elsewhere that the prophets were fundamentally “witnesses,” as Abraham Heschel has convincingly argued.39 There is also one other aspect of the role of the prophet that merits mentioning. The Hebrew prophets were not all from the same socio-economic situation, or from the same locations, or of the same status or station in life. In fact they are from North and South, urban and rural, politically connected and without political ties or intimate connection with social and political institutions. The prophets do however have one essential factor in common and that is their core message. Moreover, they do not have structural and institutional ties and are not beholden to anyone, including those on whose behalf they speak. And of course they are not beholden to “special interest groups” who wield their power to influence their message. As witnesses they spoke the words of God without diluting it. They were challenged, they were rebuked, they were ostracized, and they were excommunicated. Being a prophet was not a position with great job security, but there was no escaping the call.

The Hebrew prophets were more than predictors of the future. Rather than simply making pronouncements in which they were somehow not personally invested, the prophets embraced and invested themselves in issues that they spoke about. Heschel suggests that they were some place between human and divine.40 One should not conclude as some are wont to do that the call and role of the prophet was an easy and sought after position. Indeed, there is no instance where a prophet sought such a calling. Moreover, there were many moments of resistance and reluctance to make such devastating announcements to the people. But there is also another factor. The words of the prophet is often so dramatic that at first glance one is sure to conclude that the prophet must be exaggerating, that surely his words cannot possibly be true. The prophetic words invite a vision that is so far reaching and dramatic, spoken to a people who are often deeply rooted in the present and the manner they imagine life will be, that such dramatic words might strike them as wholly untrue and impossible.

It is embarrassing to be a prophet. There are so many pretenders, predicting peace and prosperity, offering cheerful words, adding strength to self-reliance, while the prophet predicts disaster, pestilence, agony, and destruction. People need exhortations to courage, endurance, confidence, fighting spirit, but Jeremiah proclaims: You are about to die if you do not have a change of heart and cease being callous to the world of God.41

For you shall go to all to whom I send you,

and you shall speak whatever I command you . . .

Now I have put my words in your mouth.

see, today I appoint you over nations and over kingdoms,

to pluck up and to pull down,

to destroy and to overthrow,

to build and to plant.42

Despite the somewhat common notion today of some who would willingly and casually take on the mantle of prophet and under this guise make pronouncements, often reflecting their personal ideologies, the Hebrew prophet was not one to flaunt being a prophet; not one to seek the role of prophet, not one who seemed enamored with the very idea of being a prophet. Rather, the Hebrew prophet is something of a solitary figure without the structural support that others might have, and we have no indication that the prophet returns to a family, to a place of belonging. Instead, solitude is his companion, as he seems to alienate all others. Heschel underlines the drama and pain of such calling in his rendering and commentary on Jeremiah’s encapsulation of his call:

Oh, LORD, you have seduced me,

and I am seduced;

you have raped me

and I am overcome.43

Typically, this verse is translated in a way that seeks to capture more of a “PG” rating while the text itself is graphic and more of an “R” rating. In diluting the drama and radicalism of the prophet’s confession, most modern translations have in fact done a terrible disservice under the guise of propriety.

The words used by Jeremiah to describe the impact of God upon his life are identical with the terms for seduction and rape in the legal terminology of the Bible. The call to be a prophet is more than an invitation. It is first of all a feeling of being enticed, or acquiescence or willing surrender. But this winsome feeling is only one aspect of the experience. The other aspect is a sense of being ravished or carried away by violence, or yielding to overpowering force against one’s own will. The prophet feels both the attraction and the coercion of God, the appeal and the pressure, the charm and the stress. He is conscious of both voluntary identification and forced capitulation.44

Facing the Text

The prophets’ message must not be relegated to a place of historical reminiscence, but instead must be deeply embedded into the fabric of what is pronounced and preached today. In many respects those who dare to proclaim the prophetic word today, and it is daring in the deepest sense, must know that what they are doing is in fact walking in the already challenging steps of the ancient prophets. If anything, the choice is as stark today as it was in ancient Israel. Even as wealth, power, and social and judicial inequities abound in our society and those who embody these realities as the dominant reality cast them as hegemonic, the prophetic world establishes a different hegemony. A creational hegemony reiterates and confirms that all persons are created equal, and it is the way that relationships are to be lived out. As with the Hebrew prophets, this kind of message comes with tangible risks. Yet it cannot be relegated to a mere option among many. It is the alternative. We are reminded that carrying the mantle of prophet does not mean that one escapes the vagaries and dangers of those with power to cause harm and use violence. No prophet is beyond such; Elijah being a prime example. The very interpretation of the biblical text suffers from a kind of division between those who have had for a long period of time unchallenged positions of privileged power of interpretation that seek to distance oneself or even disconnect from the text, and the circumstances and challenges, and those persons who have made a point of employing new methods of interpretations that bring a personal engagement where the text is not viewed merely as a historical artifact. With the emergence of a number of voices in the latter category, no longer is it possible to simply conclude that what lies behind the text is of principal value. Historical criticism thus has for a long time served to obscure, perhaps even conceal, the radicalism of the prophetic text.45

Eric Hirsch has argued, “Valid interpretation is always governed by a valid inference about genre . . . Every disagreement about an interpretation is usually a disagreement about genre.”46 While there is truth to Hirsch’s perspective, it is of a particular truth and may very well apply more to the area of scholarship, where it more likely reflects the differences between scholars and those who pursue the historical, cultural and Sitz im Leben of texts. However, by and large, the differences in interpretation lie more often in what readers bring to the texts and the ideologies that are either defended or promoted. One must be aware of three constant realities: the voice of the text, the methods used to interpret the text, and the voice of the one who reads the text. Each interpreter/reader is shaped by what he/she hears and the trajectories of the text. Moreover not all of the voices will form a kind of synchronicity—in fact there is likely to be dissonance and much of this has to do with who we are and what we bring to the text. What this tells us in part is that the message of the text is not monolithic and unilateral. Each of us brings a particular truth to the text that we read and we hear. When someone says, as some do, that they read the text “objectively” and they simply speak to what the text says, they are being either disingenuous, and aware of it, or unaware that they bring a point of view. The most basic truth in the interpretive endeavor is that we bring who we are to the text. This is neither an unwelcome nor a naïve thing; it is simply the way it is. The challenge is not to refrain and seek to refrain from bringing who we are to the text, but rather to be self aware and ensure that neither our voice nor the voice of the text is silenced. That is the challenge we face and it is one that is often dismissed ironically by those who do use their voices to shape the message of the text.

Stephen Fowl argues that one only has to observe the many and varied ways in which texts are read to elicit particular perspectives to conclude that texts in and of themselves do not have ideologies, but those who read them do.47 Fowl’s argument does have merit to the degree that often it is the case that one is able to dominate a text with one’s ideological voice to the point that the text itself is forced to fit what the interpreter intends. This is neither new nor unique, for everyone who reads a text brings who he or she is to the text. Yet, this is not the entire truth for the text also has a voice, and within the text lies a worldview, and perspective that were brought into the text itself.

When we think of the various methodologies, including the well established archaeological and literary methods that are used in biblical studies, we are reminded that all, each in its own way, begin with certain presuppositions and assumptions. In the case of social scientific methods, the role is somewhat more challenging in arriving at conclusions, and one of the challenges is not to draw conclusions as if they are historically based. The social scientific criticism invites an examination of the socio-cultural aspects of the text or texts under exegesis, and in so doing provides insights into the world of the writers and the intended audience. Perhaps under ideal circumstances one would be able to discover such contexts and environments in some detail, but even if one is not able to do so fully, the method should serve to widen the angle, and add to the already well established methodologies that are used. Social scientific approach like other approaches is an important guide in the navigation of the sometimes murky and difficult waters of interpretation though in itself it does not establish indisputable evidence of a historical nature. It could be that cultural-evolutionary theory will also provide insight in the lingering and important question of identity. While we may not know the identity of the oppressors that the Hebrew prophets addressed, one should not necessarily conclude that the criticisms are generic, perhaps anonymous. In a way unanimity makes it applicable to everyone. Though not always an easy line to walk, it still remains the case that implications and meaning for today’s society are not wholly shaped by historical contexts. Moreover, we do have some sense of the effects that oppression and injustices have had on the people and from these effects one is able to draw conclusions and implications. “A greater understanding of the contexts behind prophetic complaints against injustice might not only lead to a greater understanding of the world of those that wrote these texts, it could also reveal connections between ancient and modern cases of economic oppression.”48

The insistence on prophetic justice carries with it a passion that is predicated on the partiality of God with regard to the care of the oppressed. It is not a dispassionate approach or as some would argue, sticking to objectivity and the established legal procedures. This kind of prophetic justice does force us to step away from the more secure space of doing what is narrowly construed as objective, knowing that objectivity in this regard is practically impossible, and not indeed a virtue for which to strive.

Justice represented as a blindfolded virgin, while conveying the essential thought of the rightful caution of the mind against illusions and partiality of the heart, conceives of the process of justice as mechanical process, as if the life of man was devoid of individuality and uniqueness and could be adequately understood in terms of inexorable generalizations. There is a point at which strict justice is unjust.49

“Strict justice” as Heschel observes invariably upholds the status quo and a pronounced sense of order, and in a sense is an official conduit for injustice. What we have in the Hebrew prophet as spokesperson for YHWH is that injustice cannot be taken as a normal part of the human landscape, and cannot be accepted as simply the way things are. “Progressive justice activists frame their understanding inclusively, while conservatives frame it exclusively . . . Progressive prophetic activism is characterized by its concern for the other, for those who are marginalized. In the midst of the chaos and pain of the present, prophetic politics envisions an altered future in which human relationship to one another and their natural order are repaired.”50 One of the issues in the exploration of socio-political and economic injustices and exploitation in Hebrew prophets is the fact that it is not always clear as to who the perpetrators and the victims are. In particular a number of texts in the Eighth-Century prophets that have become standards for speaking to the injustices in ancient Israel are without identities of subjects and objects. While this may be true in general, it is the case in some instances that one is able to extrapolate from the text the identity of the perpetrators. Both Isaiah (5:22–23) and Amos (4:4–6) indict those whose heroics and bravery are in drinking wine and mixing drinks. This kind of courage and heroics stand in sharp contrast to the taking of bribes, acquitting the guilty, and depriving the innocent of their rights. In this instance the focus is on the Judges who have the responsibility and power to ensure that the innocent are not deprived of their rights. This is where the courage and the heroics should be, but the bribes taken by the judges crush the poor and innocent and provide the necessary lifestyle of the powerful. So who are the people responsible—the nobility, the haughty, those entrusted with the execution of justice, those who are deceitful, those who have replaced divine wisdom with their own, indeed all the people, the throngs. Not only will those in power, but everyone will be held responsible.51

The prophet knows that he must deliver the message, but he also wants to know the degree and the length of the devastation; and there is no taking joy in the suffering of the people and the devastation of the land, despite the ruinous behavior of the people, is not part of the prophet’s constitution. To place an exclamation to the level of devastation, even a hint of life that might be left will be destroyed. It is noteworthy that the punishment is not only focused on the people and the lack of healing that will not be afforded to them, but the ravishing of the land, and every sign of hope. For the land itself, it will be a long time before healing will come; the devastation will be complete. The land, and the houses and the cities will be no waiting for the people to inhabit them again. Instead, everything will be crushed and there will not be joy and enjoyment of the wealth and power that had been gained at the expense of those members whose very lives have been crushed for their personal gain. It is tempting to take this text as something of an anomaly, and thus view it more as an exception, but in fact it is no exception. Indeed seven centuries after the prophet spoke these words that hearken to a punishment of unprecedented proportions, such words would again be voiced, in connection with Jesus. When society arrives at a point where the very elements of our ancient counterparts that invariably defined life then for many, and life today for others are cast aside or made irrelevant and understand self-determination in the narrowest way regardless of God, while simultaneously immersing in the liturgy of self indulgence, then the devastation meted out will be equally severe. It was difficult to comprehend then, in the time of Jesus, and equally today, but the truth of the prophetic words has, and will continue to stand the test of time.

Some who see the role of the prophet as a matter of moral superiority, and who believe that they are there to proclaim an ideological message to uphold certain personal agenda, or a particular project, do so at their own peril: they do so at the expense of the text and the core of the prophetic inheritance. The task of the prophet today is not to re-create contemporary society to fit the biblical world, and so erroneously conclude that if it does not fit, then the word is not relevant. The manner in which the message of the Hebrew prophets are appropriated and applied today does not necessarily depend on the manner in which the message was applied in the days of ancient Israel. Indeed the meaning of the message is not inextricably tethered to the circumstances of ancient Israel. Of course, having said this, it is incumbent upon modern interpreters to be acutely cognizant of the history of the prophetic words and as much as possible the broad landscape of the issues of the prophets’ time. Rather, the contemporary prophetic voice is called upon to do something even more challenging, namely re-imagine the world. The relevancy of the prophetic message does not depend on the world of the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, as were the prophets of ancient times, those who speak the prophetic word today cannot, and indeed must not be beholden to any group or person, ideology or institution. Does this perhaps make for a difficult life? Invariably so. Yet, such an enticing temptation must be resisted.

It is not possible to have a prophetic voice without causing a measure of offense. Even those who may benefit from the pronouncements of the prophet might be suspect and fearful about what change may come, and what pain they may experience as a consequence. It is more than likely that the prophet will bear a great burden precisely because she/he will be the only one upon whom scorn and ridicule might be cast. Ultimately, this might not be much of a comfort to the one who speaks with a prophetic voice.