Joshua 10:12-15 – Did The Sun Stand Still?

We have dealt with the cutting off of the Jordan River.

• We’ve dealt with the appearance of the Divine Warrior.
• We’ve dealt with the collapse of the wall of Jericho.
• And last week we even dealt with God throwing hailstones down on the Amorites.
• But, the claim that the sun stood still “eclipses” them all.

Perhaps this is because such an event would literally be “universal” in scope.

• Maybe because such an event would surely have massive cosmological implications and repercussions.
• “A phenomenon of colossal magnitude” – David Howard.

So how are we to understand this text?

• We are going to look at three views (there are others).
• A literal view advocated by Marten Woudstra.
• The “poetic expressions” view advocated by David Howard.
• The “celestial omen” view advocated by John Walton.

Joshua 10:12–15 (ESV) — 12 At that time Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, “Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.” 13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. 14 There has been no day like it before or since, when the Lord heeded the voice of a man, for the Lord fought for Israel. 15 So Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, to the camp at Gilgal.

1) LITERAL VIEW

Marten Woudstra says “the language that Joshua uses in addressing the sun and moon is the language of ordinary observation”.

• He states that this observational language is the kind “still used today in the scientific age”.

The implication of this “observational language” is straightforward –

• Joshua asks for the sun to “stand still” and the writer of Joshua declares that Joshua observed that, in fact, the sun “stood still” (vs. 13).
• Joshua asks for the moon to “stand still” and the writer of Joshua declares that Joshua observed that the moon “stopped” (vs. 13).

Furthermore, Joshua observed that –

• Looking east, he could see that the sun stood still “at Gibeon” (vs. 12)
• Looking west, he could see that the moon stopped “in the Valley of Aijalon” (vs. 12)
• This bit of detail even lets us know that this event occurred very early in the morning.
• Perhaps as they were about to ambush the Amorites.
• “It is obvious”, says Woudstra, that “there was a halting of the sun and a delay in its going down. This allowed Israel to complete its campaign against the fleeing enemy.”

Therefore, “The long day must be seen as one of several instances of fact…”

• And given a “biblical view of the world” one should take a “rather literal view of the events reported here”.
• Woudstra even recommends that attempts to rationalize this story for “the modern scientific mind should be avoided”.

BTW – If this interpretation is correct, the miracle is way bigger than stated.

• If the sun and moon literally stood still that would mean the earth stopped spinning.
• This would have disastrous consequences - http://www.universetoday.com/66570/what-would-happen-if-the-earth-stopped-spinning/
• God would also have had to protect the earth from these disastrous affects.

Woudstra does leave the door open for other options.

• He says that the text could also be explained “on the basis of proper philological considerations”.
• In other words, explanations derived from study of, and understanding of the text itself.

2) FIGURATIVE POETIC EXPRESSIONS VIEW

David Howard advocates what he calls the “poetic expressions” view.

• A view that is actually based on “philological considerations”.

This view suggests that, given the poetic nature of the text, “that it was never intended to be taken literally”.

• The text actually “describes the battle”.
• But its description is in “cosmic terms”.

This is seen elsewhere in Scripture.

• Judges 5:20 (ESV) — 20 From heaven the stars fought, from their courses they fought against Sisera.
• Habakkuk 3:11 (ESV) — 11 The sun and moon stood still in their place at the light of your arrows as they sped, at the flash of your glittering spear.

Howard says that “no one suggests” these two are literal events.

• They are “figurative expressions in poetic form”.

These “figurative expressions in poetic form” describe –

• “Yahweh’s victory over the Canaanites (in the first case) or the awesomeness of Yahweh’s appearance (in the second case).”

Prose to Poetry:

How does this approach understand Joshua 10:12-15?

• It plays out as follows – “prose account” followed by “poetic expression” account:

The moon –

• We know the march was all-night – “marched up all night from Gilgal” (vs. 9).
• The prose account.
• We know that the terrain between Gilgal and Gibeon is extremely harsh.
• Especially for an entire army to traverse.
• So how were the Israelite soldiers able to quickly navigate the hill country in the middle of the night?
• Their march was made possible because of the moonlight – a full moon as we will see later.

How do we know?

• Because the “poetic expression” of this historical fact is given in verse 13.
• “…and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.”
• The “poetic expression” of the prose account

The sun –

• The battle, which took place during the day, is described succinctly in verses 10-11.
• The Amorites were thrown “into a panic”.
• The Amorites were struck with “a great blow at Gibeon”.
• The Amorites were chased some distance after the battle at Gibeon.
• The text says there were chased to the “ascent of Beth-horon”.
• And chased even “as far as Azekah and Makkedah”.
• This is the prose account of the battle.

But a battle that took just two verses to describe actually took all day.

• How do we know?
• Because the “poetic expression” of the prose text says –
• “And the sun stood still…until the nation took vengeance on their enemies”.

John Howard puts it like this:

• “The entire battle, which was a lengthy one and which concluded ‘at sunset’ (v. 27), is described in the poetic text as the sun’s stopping in the middle of the sky and delaying setting for a full day.”
• He understands all of Joshua 10 to take place on the same day, but this is not necessary.
• That would put verse 15 “out of place chronologically” – Howard.
• We will deal with that next week.

This argument continues by showing that this pattern – “prose account” followed by “poetic expression” account – is found elsewhere in Scripture.

• For example, Howard says Exodus 15:1-18 is the poetic expression “of the events that are told in a prose narrative in Exodus 14”.
• And that Judges 5 is the poetic expression of “the prose text in Judges 4”.

David Howard’s summary:

• “The suggestion of a figurative interpretation is not a denial that God could perform such a miracle, and one does not need to accept the figurative view because of any concern over scientific problems. God rules over all natural laws and can do whatever he chooses to do. The figurative view is suggested because of the literary features mentioned above, not because of any concern over God’s sovereignty over nature.”

3) CELESTIAL OMEN VIEW

John Walton advocates the “celestial omen” view (Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the OT).

• This view finds its support not necessarily in the Bible but from an understanding of the context in which the Bible was written – ancient Near Eastern culture.
• This view cautions us to be aware when we “are reading the biblical text through our own modern (and therefore anachronistic) grid”.

Given its ANE context, Walton says, “I propose that Joshua 10 operates in the world of omens, not physics”.

• The question to ask is not “what it would mean to us for the sun and moon to stop”.
• But rather ask what it would mean to the ancients.
• He argues that this language is the language of ancient “celestial omens”.

Walton begins his explanation by first explaining the ancient Near East view of a month.

• They didn’t look at the duration of a month as we do.
• The “months were not standardized in length, but varied according to the phases of the moon.”
• A new month began with the “first appearance of the new moon” – different from a full moon.
• A full moon was in the middle of a month.
• It was “identified by the fact that the moon set just minutes after the sun rose”.
• The day a full moon occurred indicated “how many days the month would have”.

He then explains how the ANE interpreted the moon cycles and their relationship with the sun.

• “The Mesopotamian celestial omens use verbs like ‘wait,’ ‘stand,’ and ‘stop’ to record the relative movements and positions of the celestial bodies”.

One such movement was known as “opposition”.

• “Opposition” occurred with the appearance of the “moon and sun simultaneously on opposite horizons”.

The ANE way of describing opposition –

• “When the moon and/or sun do not wait, the moon sinks over the horizon before the sun rises and no opposition occurs.”
• “When the moon and sun wait or stand, it indicates that the opposition occurs for the determination of the full moon day.”

Importantly, when “opposition” occurred it was seen as a “celestial omen”.

• “Opposition” on the 14^th day was a good omen.
• It meant the month would be a “full-length” month “made up of full-length days”.
• Under these conditions “all would be in harmony”.
• “Opposition” on the wrong day “was believed to be an omen of all sorts of disaster, including military defeat and overthrow of cities”.

Walton cites specific examples of the omens assigned to “opposition”.

• “If on the 14th day the moon and sun are seen together: the speech of the land will become reliable; the land will become happy (517: 6– 7).”
• “If on the 15th day the moon and sun are seen together: a strong enemy will raise his weapons against the land; the enemy will tear down the city gate (173: 1– 4).”
• “If the moon does not wait for the sun but sets: raging of lions and wolves (91: 1– 2; see also 174: 4; 295: 1; and 481: 4).”
• “If the moon is fast (= stands) in its course: business will diminish— on the 15th day it will be seen with the sun (295: 7– 8; see also 252: r. 3).”
• “If the moon is hasty in its movements: business will diminish (173: 7).”

How does this relate to our text?

We know that the sun was “at Gibeon” – in the east.

• We know that the moon was “in the Valley of Aijalon” – in the west.
• This, as we saw earlier, would put the event in the early morning.
• Because of this we have an occurrence of “opposition”.

And given the ANE context, Walton argues that the language used to describe this “opposition” is “celestial omen” language.

• “sun, stand still”
• “and moon” stand still (implied)
• “the sun stood still”
• “the moon stopped”

So what we have in Joshua 10:12-15 is God using “celestial omens” to declare doom to the Amorites.

• He is, after all, Israel’s Divine Warrior and sovereign creator of the universe.
• And He had already told Joshua, “Do not fear them, for I have given them into your hands” (vs. 8).
• Could He not also used the heavens to declare to the Amorites their pending defeat?
• He told Joshua, why not “tell” the Amorites to His glory.

BTW – Don’t the Psalms speak of “celestial omens”?

• Psalm 19:1 (ESV) — 1 The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
• Psalm 76:7–8 (ESV) — 7 But you, you are to be feared! Who can stand before you when once your anger is roused? 8 From the heavens you uttered judgment; the earth feared and was still,
• Psalm 97:6 (ESV) — 6 The heavens proclaim his righteousness, and all the peoples see his glory.

We have more than that.

• We also have Joshua (and the Israelites) looking back and reflecting on the “celestial omen” and it’s meaning.
• Our text’s poetic description of the “celestial omen” is Israelite praise to God.
• It indicates that the Israelites saw the “celestial omen” as a sign of favor from God.
• From the heavens to the earth (hailstones), God was declaring for Israel.

But wait there is more.

• Walton suggests that Joshua was familiar with these “celestial omens” before the omen appeared.
• We know this, because under Walton’s view, Joshua asked for it.
• Joshua’s “knowledge of the Amorites’ dependence on omens may have led him to ask the Lord for one that he knew would deflate their morale” – Walton.
• “At that time Joshua spoke to the Lord…” (vs. 12).

And isn’t this really the focus of our text?

• Joshua’s asking and God’s answer.

Focus on the Focus:

Joshua 10:14 (ESV) — 14 There has been no day like it before or since, when the Lord heeded the voice of a man, for the Lord fought for Israel.

David Howard picks up on the focus of this story:

• “There was never a day like this one before or since, not because of some extraordinary astronomical phenomenon, but because the Lord listened to the voice of a man and fought for Israel.”
• “This is an excellent example of the power of one person’s influence and of the power of prayer.”

Ralph Davis says of this focus:

• “Astounding! Isn’t it still amazing that God listens to the voice of a man or woman who comes to him? Doesn’t this view of prayer both rebuke both the flippancy and tedium with which we often approach the Great King? Ought we not catch our breath to think that the God who is seated on high (Ps. 113:5) stoops down and bends his ear to lips of dust and ashes? ‘When he calls to me, I will answer him’ (Ps. 91:15); who ever heard of a God like that?”

Another angle entails understanding why Joshua would even ask God for this “event” when he had already been assured of victory by God?

• As much as Joshua knew, He was still seeking assurance from God.
• Who can’t relate to that?
• Maybe it was to encourage the Israelite soldiers.
• Maybe he wanted God to declare His favor for the Israelites at the Amorites expense.

Joshua 10:1-11 – God of the Gaps

Joshua 10:1–2 (ESV) — 1 As soon as Adoni-zedek, king of Jerusalem, heard how Joshua had captured Ai and had devoted it to destruction, doing to Ai and its king as he had done to Jericho and its king, and how the inhabitants of Gibeon had made peace with Israel and were among them, 2 he feared greatly, because Gibeon was a great city, like one of the royal cities, and because it was greater than Ai, and all its men were warriors.

Chapter 10 picks up from Joshua 9:1-2.

• Joshua 9:1–2 (ESV) — 1 As soon as all the kings who were beyond the Jordan in the hill country and in the lowland all along the coast of the Great Sea toward Lebanon, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, heard of this, 2 they gathered together as one to fight against Joshua and Israel.

In our text, we see once again the significance of hearing about the work of Yahweh on Israel’s behalf.

• King Adoni-zedek (lord of justice) “heard” of Joshua’s capture of Ai.
• He heard how Joshua had “devoted it to destruction”.
• The cherem/ban language of God.
• He heard about the fate of the kings of Ai and Jericho.
• He heard about the covenant the Gibeonites made with Israel.
• And how they now “were among them”.

The king, understanding the nature of covenant, understood the Canaanites now had a new problem.

• Not only was Israel advancing through the hill country with Yahweh’s help.
• But now the Israelites had joined up with the Gibeonites.
• The problem with this was that “all its men were warriors”.
• So for these reasons King Adoni-zedek “feared greatly”.

Joshua 10:3–5 (ESV) — 3 So Adoni-zedek king of Jerusalem sent to Hoham king of Hebron, to Piram king of Jarmuth, to Japhia king of Lachish, and to Debir king of Eglon, saying, 4 “Come up to me and help me, and let us strike Gibeon. For it has made peace with Joshua and with the people of Israel.” 5 Then the five kings of the Amorites, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, and the king of Eglon, gathered their forces and went up with all their armies and encamped against Gibeon and made war against it.

Influenced by what he had “heard”, and the fear it induced, Adoni-zedek responded.

• He allied with other Canaanite kings and conspired to “strike Gibeon”.
• Together they “went up” to Gibeon and “made war against it”.

The contrast is hard to ignore.

• The Gibeonites responded to their fear of Yahweh and Israel with a desire to covenant.
• The king and his allies responded to their fear of Yahweh and Israel with a desire to make war.
• All we can say for sure is that the presence of God demands a response – there is no neutral ground.

Joshua 10:6 (ESV) — 6 And the men of Gibeon sent to Joshua at the camp in Gilgal, saying, “Do not relax your hand from your servants. Come up to us quickly and save us and help us, for all the kings of the Amorites who dwell in the hill country are gathered against us.”

The Gibeonites take advantage of their covenant relationship with Israel.

• They remind Joshua that they are Israel’s “servants”.
• And then make the point that the Amorites “are gathered against us”.
• Because, to say this is to say they are gathered against the Israelites.

Joshua 10:7–9 (ESV) — 7 So Joshua went up from Gilgal, he and all the people of war with him, and all the mighty men of valor. 8 And the Lord said to Joshua, “Do not fear them, for I have given them into your hands. Not a man of them shall stand before you.” 9 So Joshua came upon them suddenly, having marched up all night from Gilgal.

Given the consequences of breaking a covenant made in Yahweh’s name (we discussed last week) –

• Joshua mustered his troops and “went up” from Gilgal to aid the Gibeonites.
• Yahweh makes clear to Joshua that, unlike the Amorites, Joshua is not to “fear”.
• The outcome of the battle is already determined – none of them “shall stand before you”.
• In fact, it appears a reason for this victory is another ambush-type surprise – “came upon them suddenly”.

God’s reassurance was a repetition of the promise he made to Joshua in Joshua 1:5.

• “Such is the usual way God has of reassuring his children: not by unveiling to them some new truth previously unknown, but by reaffirming promises already given, which somehow take on special power because of the present pressing need. That is what God’s people usually need—not new truth but old truth freshly applied to their current need” – Dale Davis.

Davis goes on to point out that God’s truth, used rightly, “energizes human response” and “stimulates human ingenuity”.

• Joshua marched all night through the hill country.
• He was rewarded with the opportunity to make a devastating surprise attack.

Interestingly, in spite of the deception in which the Gibeonite covenant was formed –

• In spite of God’s displeasure with Israel for violating his command to not covenant with Canaanites.
• Yahweh, by His grace, blessed Israel (and the Gibeonites) with victory.
• Grace in the OT strikes again.

Joshua 10:10–11 (ESV) — 10 And the Lord threw them into a panic before Israel, who struck them with a great blow at Gibeon and chased them by the way of the ascent of Beth-horon and struck them as far as Azekah and Makkedah. 11 And as they fled before Israel, while they were going down the ascent of Beth-horon, the Lord threw down large stones from heaven on them as far as Azekah, and they died. There were more who died because of the hailstones than the sons of Israel killed with the sword.

The author of Joshua pins most of the credit for this victory on “the Lord”.

• “The Lord threw them into a panic” and Israel took advantage of it and “chased them”
• Some scholars say the grammar means that Yahweh “chased them”.
• “The Lord threw down large stones [hailstones] from heaven” which killed more soldiers than “Israel killed with the sword”.

David Howard says –

• “It may have been that the fighting force with Joshua (v. 7) was actually involved in this—indeed, this probably was the case, in light of the reference in v. 11 to the Israelites’ swords killing people. But, here, the author has chosen to ignore this fact and to focus instead on Yahweh’s direct involvement as Israel’s warrior” – David Howard.
• In other words, the author is giving credit to the Divine Warrior.

1) GOD OF THE GAPS

Verses like these are where so many critics and skeptics of the God of the Bible go astray.

• They see these verses and think this is precisely why God is no longer needed.

First, it wasn’t “the Lord” who threw them into a panic, but the surprise attack that did so.

• The author simply attributed their good fortune to the work of their God.

Second, it wasn’t “the Lord” that threw down hailstones.

• Because science has shown us that –
• “Hail starts out as little chips of ice in large cumulonimbus (thunderstorm) clouds. These ice chips are kept aloft by updrafts or upward movements of air within a thunderstorm. As they are blown through freezing thunderstorm clouds, the ice chips grow larger and freeze solid into hailstones. The updrafts keep the hailstones aloft until they become too heavy to remain in the clouds. The stronger the updraft, the larger the hailstone can grow before falling to Earth” – NOAA.

In fact, there are numerous examples of this very thing happening around the world (source Wikipedia).

• “9^th Century – India – Several hundred pilgrims were killed by a massive hailstorm in Roopkund”.
• “1888 – India – One of the deadliest hailstorms of all time killed at least 230 people, and over 1600 sheep and goats, in Uttar Pradesh. The hailstones were reportedly as big as oranges, and in some places were as high as 2 feet (60 centimetres.) No warning system existed in 1888 and therefore the death toll of this event was exceptionally high”.
• “1986 – Bangladesh – At least 92 people were killed in Gopalganj by some of the heaviest hailstones ever recorded, which were the size of grapefruits and weighed around one kilogram (2.2 lbs) each”.
• “February 1936 – South Africa – Devastating hailstorm with hailstones the size of coconuts, killed ten people and several head of cattle, in addition to nine people killed in flooding. 380 mm of rain fell in 15 minutes. Some reports claim more than 26 killed”.

The conclusion they make, then, is this:

• Because Israel didn’t know science (where hail comes from).
• And because they were inclined to attribute to their God things like military victories/failures, famine, etc.
• They were the victims of their ANE cultural/religious baggage.
• They thought God was in a control room “pulling levers” and pushing buttons, etc.

Now we know better (or we should, they say).

• So their conclusion is this –
• This God is a “God of the Gaps” merely used to fill in the gaps of our knowledge about how nature works.
• This God is no longer needed.
• Science has killed him.

In fact, the skeptic says that to think “God did it” is “an incredible copout” and “intellectual laziness” – Lawrence Krauss (24:00).

• Play Krauss from Unbelievable - 1.01.11 – 1.02.10

What is our response to this line of reasoning and its conclusion?

The “God of the Gaps” is not the God of the Bible.

• This is a straw man caricature of Yahweh.
• Of course the Amorites went running because they were surprised.
• Of course the hailstones came from a bad thunderstorm.
• Of course God is not in a room pushing buttons – He is Spirit.

The skeptic’s problem is that they have completely ripped the God of the Bible out of context.

• Yahweh is not a God that Israel happened to choose to explain the world around it.
• He was not their choice for the chief “button pusher”.
• They could have kept the god’s from Abram’s native Ur for that.
• They could have kept the god’s from Egypt for that.

Yahweh did not function as Israel’s “explanation” of nature, as their “gap-filler”.

• Yahweh was their Sovereign, Creator God who chose them.
• He chose Abram and called him out of Ur.
• He chose Israel to be the people through whom He would bless the nations of the world.
• He chose to provide a means to enter into covenant with Him.
• He chose to punish with exile.
• He chose to restore the remnant.
• He chose to send the Messiah to inaugurate the Kingdom of God and begin the “breaking in” of new creation.

 

Hailstones, earthquakes, military strategy, invasion, pride, hate, etc., were merely a means for God.

• His purpose was to work out His covenant faithfulness in His redemptive history, which culminated with Jesus (and ultimately with His 2^nd coming).
• The means are, in many ways, incidental.

So we also reject the one-dimensional, “lever-puller” “God of the Gaps”.

• The “God of the Gaps” fails to account for the trajectory of 1500+ years of Israelite history.
• The “God of the Gaps” does not account for the profound differences between Israel’s Yahweh and the god’s of its neighbors.
• The similarities are insignificant.
• It is the differences that are mind-blowing (see anything by John Walton).
• The “God of the Gaps” can’t account for fulfilled prophecy – like Isaiah 53.
• The “God of the Gaps” can’t account for the massive mutations in Judaism that occurred in first century Palestine.
• The “God of the Gaps” can’t account for resurrection.
• The “God of the Gaps” can’t account for the Church.
• The “God of the Gaps” can’t account for the martyred apostles.
• And neither can science!

Yahweh, however, is big enough to create a universe that is rationally intelligible (science – laws of nature), and yet at the same time can be sovereignly directed by Him to accomplish His supernatural purposes.

• And in the case of our the book of Joshua, He did this with:
• Hailstones and thunderstorms
• Military strategy
• An occasional special revelation – Divine Warrior
• Or by transforming hearts

Oral Tradition and the New Testament - Rafael Rodriguez - a Review

In the Preface, Rodriguez introduces what will likely be a new concept for you (it was for me) - “NT media criticism”. It is “the analysis of the function and dynamics of various media of communication (speech, writing, ritual, etc.), and especially of the significance of shifts from one medium to another (e.g., from oral to written expression).”

The book is intended to be both “an introduction to NT media criticism” and to be his “proposal for the future agenda of NT media criticism”. His handling of “oral tradition” is within these contexts.

In fact, in what came as something as a shock, Rodriguez says in Chapter One, “We simply do not know anything concrete or specific about early Christian oral tradition”. And then says, “For all the talk of oral tradition among NT scholars, we must remember that we are only ever studying and explaining written— not oral— tradition”.

The obvious question to ask is, “So why name the book Oral Tradition and the New Testament?” To make sense of this, one has to know that he is working with two definitions of oral tradition. “We should not think of oral tradition as a source lying behind oral-derived texts [the first definition]. Instead, oral tradition…provides the context in which the oral-derived texts developed and were experienced by their readers and/ or audiences” [second definition].

He elaborates on the second definition as follows – oral tradition “describes the multisensory, multilayered, totalizing social context that enabled the early Christians to interpret and respond to their written texts”. It is “the context that enables an oral-derived text to convey its meaning…”

So when he says we “do not know anything…about early Christian oral tradition” he is referring to the first definition. He is not denying the oral culture of Christianity’s origins.

The meat of the book is Chapters Four and Five. In Chapter Four he describes the “morphological approach to oral tradition and the NT” and the “contextual approach to oral tradition and NT”. The first is the approach to “NT media criticism” with which he disagrees. He sees it as heavily influenced by form criticism.

He describes the morphological approach as having two fatal flaws. The first is its claim that oral transmission produces certain unique “features of linguistic style or certain narrative features” that written transmission does not produce.

The second is its claim that these unique oral “features” survive the process of transformation into written form. In other words, this is the idea that we can tell what parts of the texts are the “oral” parts. And therefore get back to the original “oral” tradition behind the written tradition.

His conclusion, “I do not think the morphological approach to oral tradition and the NT can work”.

He then begins the section on the contextual approach, “If we cannot find oral tradition in the NT, are there other ways that oral traditional research might help us better understand the written texts of the NT?”

Rodriguez says the contextual approach “does not look for the shape of oral tradition in the written texts of the NT. Instead, the contextual approach posits the oral expression of tradition as the context within which the written NT texts developed and were written by authors, recited by lectors (and/ or oral performers), and received by audiences (and/ or readers)”.

To unfold the contextual approach, Rodriguez borrows from scholar John Miles Foley’s concept of “verbal art”. It gets a bit technical at this point – “conferred versus inherent meaning” and “connotative and denotative meaning”, etc. – but he aptly demonstrates their value. He shows how these function as what Foley calls the “silent partner”; the context behind the written text. He also presents Foley’s insightful “model of oral and written traditional verbal art”.

Rodriguez’s contextual approach is put to the test in Chapter Five. Here he offers “some suggestive comments on various texts from the NT to demonstrate the consequence of approaching the NT corpus as a collection of oral-derived texts”. His “various texts” are Mark’s “casting Jesus out into the wilderness”, John’s prologue, Romans 10:5-9, and the throne room scene from Revelation 5.

Throughout his discussion of these texts, he highlights the importance of the “enabling referent” of the written text. He seems to use this phrase as a catchall for the contextual method. It appears to refer to the contextual background (OT, culture, etc.) that informs the reader or hearer’s understanding of the text – perhaps a synonym for “silent partner”.

After his examination of these texts he concludes that his approach “offers us analytical questions and tools” that ultimately serve “to interpret and explain the function of our written texts within their originative contexts, including our texts’ composition, performance, and reception”.

The obvious question here is, “Did he demonstrate this?”

I have two thoughts on this question. The first is that he does introduce “questions” and “tools” that bring a new dimension to our relationship with the Bible. For example, using Foley’s “verbal art” categories, he classifies Paul’s letters as “Voiced Texts”. By this he means, “They were, in a very real sense, ‘incomplete’ until the act of public performance”.

Immediately, one can take such a concept and expand its implications. If this is correct, for example, does this elevate the importance of Phoebe and her role in delivering and presumably reading the text of Romans? If so, how does this add to our understanding of Paul’s view of women? This is just one of the questions that came to my mind as I read his book.

Additionally, his contributions to the texts in Mark, John, Romans and Revelation were very good (I won’t give them away here). And in many cases, I could not find similar views espoused in other resources. This is not definitive evidence of the usefulness of his method, but certainly worth noting.

My second thought is that his “suggestive comments” about Mark, John, Romans and Revelation are supposed to be grounded in his NT media criticism contextual approach. But as I read and re-read them, they seemed to be simply grounded in a thorough and robust use of word studies, OT-NT allusions and parallels, commentaries, and an understanding of 2^nd Temple Judaism.

I can certainly take blame for missing something. However, had he been more methodical and transparent in applying his approach to his sample texts his case would have been more compelling. In other words, he shows the tools to build the house. He shows the materials used to build the house. He shows the finished house. But he doesn’t show how he used the tools to assemble the materials to build the house.