Helen K. Bond, The First Biography of Jesus: Genre and Meaning in Mark’s Gospel

IF 0.1 N/A RELIGION Review & Expositor Pub Date : 2021-11-01 DOI:10.1177/00346373221109857c
Brian LePort
{"title":"Helen K. Bond, The First Biography of Jesus: Genre and Meaning in Mark’s Gospel","authors":"Brian LePort","doi":"10.1177/00346373221109857c","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Questions of the early monarchy come to the fore in chapter 5, where Dever says the archeological record fits well with patterns of rural life and family structure behind the stories of Saul. While the stories are largely fictitious, “Saul’s brief reign can be seen as possibly historical in general, but not corroborated in any detail” (p. 77). Evidence for David is more substantial, Dever notes, citing the Tel Dan Stele which speaks of the “House of David,” the appeal of Jerusalem as a capital city, and excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa that provide evidence of royal power and state planning during the time when David would have lived. Large-scale construction projects in cities beyond Jerusalem echo the type of building activities attributed to Solomon. Dismissing the “low chronology” promoted by Israel Finkelstein (pp. 90–91), Dever contends that the kingdoms of Saul, David, and Solomon belong to the late eleventh and tenth centuries. The kingdom was small, with a population that ranged from 75,000 to 100,000. Most people lived in rural areas, but clear signs exist of a centralized administration, ethnic identity, and a national language. Chapter 6 moves to the period of the divided kingdom and the demise of both. While “the archaeological evidence contradicts the biblical stories in some significant ways,” he finds that “more often than not, it tends to undergird the biblical account, sometimes in striking detail” (pp. 103–104). Despite the biblical focus on temple, covenant, and renewal, Dever argues from the material culture that “in fact, Yahwism was largely a literary construct. What the masses of ordinary folks were actually doing instead was the real religion, if numbers count” (p. 117). Chapter 7 turns to a discursus on “Religion and Cult: How Many Gods?” Although the biblical narratives from Joshua through Kings present a theocratic and ideal history about what Israel should have been, Dever says, “The real religion(s) of the ancients consisted of almost everything that the biblical writers condemned” (p. 126), including a major role for Asherah. “Put simply,” Dever writes,","PeriodicalId":21049,"journal":{"name":"Review & Expositor","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review & Expositor","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00346373221109857c","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Questions of the early monarchy come to the fore in chapter 5, where Dever says the archeological record fits well with patterns of rural life and family structure behind the stories of Saul. While the stories are largely fictitious, “Saul’s brief reign can be seen as possibly historical in general, but not corroborated in any detail” (p. 77). Evidence for David is more substantial, Dever notes, citing the Tel Dan Stele which speaks of the “House of David,” the appeal of Jerusalem as a capital city, and excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa that provide evidence of royal power and state planning during the time when David would have lived. Large-scale construction projects in cities beyond Jerusalem echo the type of building activities attributed to Solomon. Dismissing the “low chronology” promoted by Israel Finkelstein (pp. 90–91), Dever contends that the kingdoms of Saul, David, and Solomon belong to the late eleventh and tenth centuries. The kingdom was small, with a population that ranged from 75,000 to 100,000. Most people lived in rural areas, but clear signs exist of a centralized administration, ethnic identity, and a national language. Chapter 6 moves to the period of the divided kingdom and the demise of both. While “the archaeological evidence contradicts the biblical stories in some significant ways,” he finds that “more often than not, it tends to undergird the biblical account, sometimes in striking detail” (pp. 103–104). Despite the biblical focus on temple, covenant, and renewal, Dever argues from the material culture that “in fact, Yahwism was largely a literary construct. What the masses of ordinary folks were actually doing instead was the real religion, if numbers count” (p. 117). Chapter 7 turns to a discursus on “Religion and Cult: How Many Gods?” Although the biblical narratives from Joshua through Kings present a theocratic and ideal history about what Israel should have been, Dever says, “The real religion(s) of the ancients consisted of almost everything that the biblical writers condemned” (p. 126), including a major role for Asherah. “Put simply,” Dever writes,
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
海伦·k·邦德,《耶稣首部传:马可福音的体裁与意义》
关于早期君主制的问题在第5章中出现,Dever说考古记录与扫罗故事背后的农村生活模式和家庭结构非常吻合。虽然这些故事大多是虚构的,“扫罗短暂的统治可以被看作是历史的,但没有任何细节得到证实”(第77页)。大卫的证据更为丰富,Dever指出,他引用了谈到“大卫之家”的泰尔丹石碑,耶路撒冷作为首都的吸引力,以及在Khirbet Qeiyafa的挖掘,这些都提供了大卫生活时期王权和国家计划的证据。耶路撒冷以外城市的大规模建设项目与所罗门的建筑活动类型相呼应。Dever驳斥了Israel Finkelstein提倡的“低年表”(第90-91页),他认为扫罗、大卫和所罗门的王国属于11世纪末和10世纪。这个王国很小,人口在7.5万到10万之间。大多数人生活在农村地区,但明显存在集中管理、民族认同和民族语言的迹象。第六章转到分裂的王国时期以及两者的灭亡。虽然“考古证据在某些重要方面与圣经故事相矛盾,”他发现,“通常情况下,它倾向于支持圣经的叙述,有时在惊人的细节上”(第103-104页)。尽管《圣经》关注圣殿、契约和复兴,但德弗从物质文化的角度认为,“事实上,耶和华主义在很大程度上是一种文学建构。如果人数算的话,普通民众实际上在做的是真正的宗教”(第117页)。第七章讨论“宗教与邪教:有几个神?”尽管《圣经》从《约书亚记》到《列王记》的叙述呈现了一种神权政治和理想的历史,关于以色列应该是什么样子,但德弗说,“古代真正的宗教几乎包含了《圣经》作者所谴责的一切”(第126页),包括亚设拉的主要角色。“简单地说,”德弗写道,
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Review & Expositor
Review & Expositor RELIGION-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
“Put your sword back into its sheath”: A Johannine approach to nonviolent resistance A word about . . . violence in a pluralistic age: Constraints and opportunities for Christians Jesus and violence during Tabernacles: Wit, mercy, and accountability in John 7–8 The significance of the wounds of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel After the pain: A sermon on John 20:19–20
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1