postmodernbible

Merry and Liberated Wives

Theresa and I took some time out this weekend to go down to Stratford to the RSC to see their production of Merry Wives of Windsor.  I had read Harold Bloom's dismissal in "The Invention of the Human" and was a little bit wary of the play before I went.  But Judi Dench and Simon Callow would surely make it entertaining!  Then I heard it was a musical version a few weeks ago and even heard Judi Dench singing on BBC4 - not something I needed at 7am in the morning!  I was dreading it.

We arrived in Stratford, found the hotel, had a fantastic meal at our favourite restaurant there, The Oppo in Sheep Street/Lane/Road whatever it is called, and then headed down to the theatre.  The programme looked interesting as did the CD's with the soundtrack - CDs for a Shakespeare?  What was going to happen?

Well the show was fantastic.  A mix between Shakespeare, musical and pantomime.  I have to say that it was thoroughly enjoyable.  I can see what Bloom means by Falstaff being a pale shadow of the proper Shakespearean Falstaff, and the rest of the characters were a little bland.  But the production, the music, the humour, the choreography and scenery and the actors really made it a very enjoyable night.

I loved the contemporary edge - with issues relating to ethnic minorities and arranged marriages right to the fore, as well as the whole issue of what life was like in Windsor among the nouveau riche and the not to rich!

I am trying to work out some kind of text/source criticism thing on what was Shakespeare and what was the new lyric writer and adapter...I'd like to see what they thought they needed to add...I was also amazed at some of the theological issues of forgiveness and repentance that came across and the way in which these are folded into a Christmas play...and then the old line at the end about people putting up with their lot...

One thing I would love more time for is to explore the theology and biblical background and intertextuality with these theatre/TV/artistic things I get to see - there is so much there to explore...one day perhaps...

One thing, Alistair McGowan, impressionist, played Mr Ford/Mr Brooke.  He was very good.  But in the talkback after the performance he said that Shakespeare's humour needed updating..."after all, I write some gags and they don't last four years, never mind four hundred".  Now I thought Alistair played Mr Ford very well, and for his debut at the RSC, he was very good.  But I am not so sure that he was right here - part of the wonder of Shakespeare is the timeless quality of his work (do you really need to update Romeo and Juliet - ah yes, West Side Story, High School Musical...Teen Shakespeare?) and his humour certainly stands the test of time.  I am not sure Alistair's will...but then, surely he isn't saying he is as good as Shakespeare yet?

The piece de resistance was Judi Dench as Mistress Quickly.  A strange part, but one that allowed her to to do her Queen Bess bit at the end, some marvellous comic moments, and even to break the heart with a wonderful soliloquy on the 'honeysuckle villain' Falstaff.  Wonderful performance that was one of those moments which you will remember the rest of your life.

Pete

SBL Forum and the Teen Bible

In the latest edition of SBL Forum, James Crossley (from Sheffield Uni – see blog entries below!) has written an article on the Teen Bible.  It’s an interesting article making links to Teen magazines and gently (???) poking fun at the no-sex-before-marriage, rather prudish way in which James thinks the Teen Bible manifestations are peddled.  I wonder whether it is worth pushing the game a little further…

Firstly, you may have seen ‘Saved’, the MGM movie which explores sexuality and unwanted pregnancy within a North American Christian school.  It’s an interesting film, not only for its images of Jesus, but also of its satire on just the kind of Christianity which James seems to be making fun of.  If you haven’t seen it, it is worth the look.  But you might be shocked!

Secondly, this kind of marketing of Bibles was explored in a couple of articles in the recent book “New Paradigms of Bible Reading” (Continuum 2005) – one by Sugirtharajah on the Canongate Editions and also one by Mary Hess on Bible Reading and Popular Culture.  I'll add some details tomorrow...

I am not very keen on either article but if you want to explore the branding of the Word, then these are good places to have a look at how some scholars explore this.

Thirdly, I was interested to be at a research seminar a year or so ago where Hugh Pyper, (also of Sheff Uni) did a similar hatchet job on populist readings/uses of the Bible, particularly the Children’s Bible.  Hugh explored the way in which the Bible is actually a very hazardous text and perhaps should be reserved for Adults Only – real topshelf material.

What just irks me a little about these critiques of populist bible reading is that we scholars sometimes think that it is our right not only to deconstruct the text but also to stop anyone else getting any form of useful use out of the text.  In other words, how dare these right wing Americans and gay bashing evangelicals actually find religious sustenance from the very text which we own/grasp/dissect – like a priesthood craving its sacred artefacts or its sacrificial victims.

In the end, the Bible is not the preserve of us scholars.  The Bible is a text out there in the big wide world and many more people have found inspiration from it than have ever thought of tackling it as a scholarly pastime.  Devotional reading of scripture has sustained millions through persecution, through darkness, through internal and external turmoil.  The number of people who have devoted themselves to the reading of scripture will in the end outnumber the scholars several times over.  In the end, the Bible is their text and if we really do believe in reader reception theories, it is their reading which is just as important as those readings delivered by those of us with PhDs for we need to acknowledge the authenticity of their reading if we are to have any authority to claim the importance of ours.

I agree the Teen Bible phenomenon, the whole gamut of trendy niche market bibles is a consumerist ploy to sell the sacred text – I agree it is almost like prostitution of the Word.  But let’s not pretend that we are priests with rights over the sacred text – it isn’t ours to hold!

Pete

Torchwood...

It's been good to have some feedback over the Torchwood post.  I think that what I would like to do is to go through each episode and give a little feedback over what I thought and what the theological/biblical aspects of each week and the series as a whole has been.  Mark has talked of it being a 'visceral' experience - for me Torchwood has been important - one of the few TV series, apart from West Wing, which has kept me watching throughout and trying to catch the reruns as well if I have missed something.  It has given me nightmares on occassions as well as a sense of deep deep peace.  It has sparked off biblical allusions and frustrated me about the way that our culture is going...so I think it might be good to get some of this of my chest/head and to do some theological reflection/NT thinking on it.  After all, Mark is right - is it biblical allusion or just some other form of allusion.  Certainly Ianto's recitation of scripture suggests that they were going for biblical allusions in the last episode.  Can I see others elsewhere???

Pete

Atheism's Faith!

Having blogged the other day on the implausible distinction between faith approaches and non-faith approaches to the Bible - i.e. that the best scholars are secular scholars - I found this interesting discussion on Matt Wiebe's Blog...not sure how I got there...must have been divine guidance or chance depending on your faith stance.

He links to the original LA Times article which is here.

Pete

Biblical Studies Carnival XIII

There is a new selection of 70 of the best biblical blog posts from December over here.  Well worth the read...and a very helpful summary for those of us without the time to read all 70 entries...I am going to go and read the discussion of Bauckham's new book right now...

Pete

Balance...

Hi,

I didn't mention the evangelical scholarship centred around Tyndale House and Fellowship the other day when I blogged and I should have - and especially so since Peter Williams, former Senior Lecturer in NT in Aberdeen, has just been appointed the new Warden of Tyndale House. 

Peter scared us all with a paper entitled "The End of the Prologue" or something like that at the BNTC conference.  It was a good paper but didn't really signal the end of Prologue studies, thank goodness.

Interestingly, a fellow Man Utd supporter and blogger, James Crossley  has just given an interview to Jim West on Biblioblogs. It's a good read and I don't find much to disagree with. 

James and I are probably from very different sides of the NT coin - he talks of not being conservative, I've just blogged about being more conservative - he talks about being secular, I am toying with what it would mean to be far more open about faith issues.  But in the end, how different are we - my faith is in Christ, James isn't but he still brings a whole host of preconceptions and beliefs to the historical text...as we all do.  What is the difference????????

By the way, I've sent an email to Jim Davila to see whether I can prompt some response to the Torchwood questions...

Pete

Torchwood's Abaddon

SPOILER WARNING!  IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE LAST EPISODE(S) OF TORCHWOOD YET, YOU MIGHT WANT TO READ THIS AFTER YOU HAVE!  IF YOU READ THIS FIRST, YOU ARE GOING TO MISS OUT ON ALL THAT LOVELY SUSPENSE!

As I said in the last post, Abaddon made a guest appearance ('cameo' sounds a bit tame for the destroyer of the world!) in last night's final episode of Torchwood - one of the spin offs from the hugely successful BBC 'resurrection' of Doctor Who which has been screening this autumn/winter on BBC3 (digital/satellite/cable) and BBC2 (terrestrial) here in the UK.  The series has focussed heavily not on aliens and sci-fi but on the inadequacies, and metrosexual tendencies, of the team of people which Captain Jack Harkness (John Barrowman) has gathered around himself.

The last (double) episode features Bilis Manger - a slimy looking character - tricking/ pressurizing/ persuading the Torchwood team to open up the time/space rift which is centred on Cardiff where they and the rift are based.  The result is that Abaddon is released from his imprisonment underneath the rift in order to wreak havoc and destruction on the city and people of Cardiff (and from there, presumably, the world).  If you haven't heard of Cardiff - it is the capital of Wales - I am not overly surprised!  We are not told why Abaddon happens to be imprisoned under Cardiff!

Abaddon appears in Job 26.6 and Proverbs 15:5 - although in both places Abaddon is a place rather than a being and is identified with Sheol. (also in Hodayot and Philo)  In other words, like Sheol, Abaddon is the place of waiting after death - a place of shadows.  This actually ties in very well with Torchwood's concept of postmortem existence - as shown by the episodes where the resurrection glove is used - the programme suggests that postmortem existence is either 'nothing', or just darkness with something moving around within the dark.  What is not present in the OT references to Abaddon or in Torchwood is the possibility of Elysium - the Greek concept that alongside the place of shadows or the waiting room (Hades) there is also a place reserved for heroes, saints and those favoured by the gods in some way or other.  All is a little dark and sinister.

Abaddon also appears somewhat differently in Revelation 9:11.  There he is the king of the locust army and is called the angel of the abyss, known in Greek as Apollyon, the destroyer (see also Acts of Thomas and demonology texts).  This presumably gives Torchwood the concept of idea of Abaddon being imprisoned underneath the rift - at the bottom of some some form of chasm.   It also ties in with the episode in Doctor Who Series 2, Episodes 8 and 9 (The Impossible Planet and The Satan Pit) where the doctor discovers a fiery monster (Satan - surprise, surprise!) who is imprisoned on a planet held suspended over a black hole(!). 

This rather horrible, sinister and convincingly bad demonic entity is supposed to be the reality behind the various personifications of evil around the universe(s).  The Good Doctor eventually dispatches the demon into the black hole...while he and his friends beat a hasty retreat.  So, the doctor is able to rid the world of the devil - not even God was able to do that! 

Torchwood's Abaddon is actually a pale reflection of Doctor Who's Satan and was apparently given the nickname Bob by the design team!  Gone is the fire and the insidious mind games, and along with it most of the horror.  Instead this goat-footed, horned beast tramples over Cardiff and his shadow destroys anything which gets in his way.  However, just like his mentor/hero/heartthrob (?), the Doctor, Jack is also able to destroy the Destroyer.  Abaddon is killed when Jack, the enigmatic man who cannot die, comes face to face with walking death.  The resulting paradox is too much - light bursts from Jack's body and Abaddon disappears.  Jack is left lying with his arms outstretched, apparently lifeless, in the middle of some wasteland outside the city.  Are you getting the echoes yet - or are they a bit too subtle for you?  Jack's body is taken back to Torchwood HQ and laid out in the mortuary attended by Gwen for several hours/days - eventually she decides to leave him and gives him a farewell kiss.  Jack is revived and they all live happily ever after into Series 2!   The rather obvious echoes to the Passion are all there - dying to save the planet on a slight hill outside the city, lying dead in a tomblike context, a woman waiting with you (Mary Magdalene???), giving you a kiss (or is this Sleeping Beauty or the MAtrix perhaps?) and resurrection...death cannot hold Jack!  Lo and behold all is well.  I have to say that in the context of Torchwood, with all the Jesus echoes on loudspeaker mode, it was all a bit gruesome!  No subtlety here!  Although, Mark Goodacre asks a good question (see comments below) - are these Jesus allusions or just 'standard dying rising saviour' allusions.  Dunno...same could go for Matrix but there the allusions are much more overt and literally in the scenery!

At the end of the episode all is restored!  All the monsters and plagues and everything are cleared up; the mutiny in the team is apparently resolved and they all look forward to an exciting Second Series!  Although suddenly, with the sound of the Tardis in the background, they find that Jack has gone!  Apparently, it is a link to a future episode of Doctor Who to be released in late 2007.  Shame he didn't stop around to introduce the Doctor to his rather manic and disfunctional team.  But then, when you boss keeps disappearing or being shot or whatever, it doesn't make for good team dynamics, does it?

Back to the Biblical Abaddon: even in Revelation, we are given precious few details about him.  He is clearly on the side of the opponents of God - although traditionally he is sometimes seen to have the same background as other fallen angels - in other words, a being which decided to stand against Yahweh and thus establish an alternative power structure within the divine council - note he is still called the angel of the abyss.  As such, Abaddon and Satan are linked closely - possibly they are alternative names for the same concept/being.  There is a reference in Job 27:22 to the personification of Death and Abaddon - in that they are given speech.  But this sense of personification of attributes is quite common - Satan is personified, as is Wisdom.

I think it is likely that Torchwood is actually using the Biblical texts as a launchpad for an exploration of the demonological discussions about Abaddon.  This would be much more appropriate for today's (Western) culture which enjoys dabbling in demonology (Buffy, Vampires, Van Helsing and so on) but without taking it all that seriously (Shaun of the Dead...).  Instead, the episode picks up on the biblical resonances of apocalypticism (end times, destruction, plagues, strange happenings in the skies) and takes one of the names associated with the end times (Abaddon) and then moves into the demonological texts to portray Abaddon and his qualities or characteristics.  I was intrigued that it was Abaddon's shadow which brought death and wondered whether this was actually a harking back to the Passover and the Angel of Death???

Anyway, enough of Abaddon.  Must get back to work.  I would be intrigued if others add to this...but there are plenty of websites for those who really like the gory details.

Pete 

Happy New Year

That's a ridiculously long time to spend without doing any blogging! 

I've been on sabbatical for the last three months.  Been writing - a chapter for a book, an article which we hope to get published, some book reviews...generally trying to do some scholarship...but amidst some visits to doctors and a couple of hospital appointments(!).  It's been a bizarre few months.

Of course, co-terminal with my sabbatical has been Torchwood.  The last two episodes were on BBC3 tonight.  I have to say that although they were gripping, I think that they were the poorest episodes so far - all a bit obvious and all that...I mean something coming out of the darkness...abbadon the great destroyer imprisoned under the time rift in Cardiff Bay!  Get a life.  I wonder whether Jim Davila (Palaeojudaica) will be blogging about the apocalyptic references for us.  I did wonder where they got the name of the priest of the darkness from - Bilis Manger.  But can't seem to think of any possible apocalyptic links...come back to me if you can!

I like Torchwood although Theresa won't watch it - she is convinced it is too evil.  Well, I think she has something there.  It has focussed a good deal on the darkness - especially the episodes which have looked into what happens after death - quite a few of them actually.  I remember the time when Gwen and Susie were driving in the night and Susie pointed out that after death there was nothing - just something moving in the darkness.  A profoundly dark thing to say!  Why, I wonder, did Russell Davies decide to portray such a dark and sinister world?  I know that he has done the same kind of thing in Doctor Who - and in Second Coming (did you see it?).  Queer as Folk and Doctor Who and now Torchwood promote the kind of world which comes at the end of Second Coming - the end of God.  This a-theist (literally!) agenda doesn't actually promote a warm and friendly world,but rather a dark, sinister and lonely place.  I recall the scene at the end of Second Coming where the people tell their testimonies of when God died...and then the mindless supermarket shopping scene...life goes on but what is the point of it all?

An a-theist agenda can be much more positive than that.  Surely!  At times, Doctor Who has got there - as it did in the rather surreal Christmas Special with Catherine Tate as the Bride.  The concept of human beings doing something, contributing something to the universe which no other life form does, is, I suppose a positive a-theist agenda.  We see the same in Dawkins assertions that humanity has to leave the planet in order to survive - after all we have messed this world up so much, we might as well move on to mess up someone else's backyard as well!   

As I come back to work and come to 2007, its really interesting to think about the huge chasm between the a-theist agenda and the Christian agenda.  Let me link that through to the NT world.  We have some NT scholars (OK - lots!) saying that actually New Testament Studies needs to be conducted in a non-confessional context.  In other words, the Bible, as any text, can be approached/interpreted/studied scientifically and without faith commitment.  We can see through the text to the world of the first century and study that world, even reconstruct that world.  We do not have to believe in order to do this. 

Of course, you do have to believe.  You have to believe in the tools which you use to create this world, and that the act of creation itself is important and effective.  You have to believe that you can stop yourself creating a fantasy world of your own imagination.  We have done a good job of this in NT Studies - creating a kind of Fishian reading community in which we al agree with the basic reconstruction consensus that goes around.  Of course, some people come and throw spanners in the works, but even those spanners get absorbed into the same reconstruction agenda.

What we don't tolerate so well in NT Studies is people of faith - especially evangelical faith. Liberalism, of course, has classically tolerated difference and promotes a kind of god-less approach to the text.  It privileges universalist discourses and marginalises particularist discourses.  As such we tend to see  marrying together, in some form of civil partnership, liberal and academic (a-theist) approaches to the Bible as opposed to evangelical faith-based approaches.

I just wonder whether this is as scientific and objective as we make it out to be.  We all know, of course, that liberal/a-theist scholarship can be as fundementalist as the most right wing evangelical.  I remember dear Maurice Casey asserting that anyone who wanted to counter his reading of Mark, I think it was, or the Son of Man, was at perfect liberty to do so - but only if they knew aramaic as good as he was and could also reconstruct the original aramaic text.  Of course, the issue is whether the original was aramaic and what the reconstruction would be anyway.  Liberalism is tolerant as long as no-one seeks to say someting different.  Then liberalism swings into its totalitarian agenda - like liberal democracy - seeking not promote lots of different ways of being a human being, but rather creating a world of liberal democratic people just like us - conformity is the name of the game not diversity.  Liberalism is fine as long as you conform to the liberal agenda - otherwise, watch out...

Perhaps this year is going to bring into focus a little more the need for a creditable academic evangelicalism.  Tom Wright is doing a good job - but he is sometimes seen to be a maverick rather than one of the Guild...but where are the others?  Do we conform to the story which says that we too, we evangelical scholars, need to deny ourselves in order to get on in academia - that we need to marginalise our evangelical hearts in favour of an a-theist mind?  I don't want to do that.  I think that it denies what it means to be a human being.  Ernesto Grassi, of course, said that it was all Descartes fault - he so puffed up the mind that we lost our souls!  I don't want to lose my soul to be a scholar.  I want to be me.

Better be off to bed.  Torchwood is over for another few months.  It presents an a-theist worldview, that held by lots of people in our world - well, the moribund west at least.  I have to say that at the core of my being, I do not accept that worldview.  I hold to a text which speaks of light and life and fullness - which talks of a relationship with a living God.  My New Year's Resolution has to be an attempt to hold onto that belief while also striving to uphold absolute academic rigour in what I write and teach.

Pete