Textual Criticism and the Ontology of Literature in Early Judaism: An Analysis of the Serekh ha-yaḥad by James Nati

Abstract

Mariottini discerns an underlying, unifying narrative in the Christian Bible (OT and NT). In his view, God seeks to reconnect with humans after the Garden, trying first with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and then through Israel as a nation. Each of those efforts failed. Then, by means of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, God finally achieved that reconciliation. According to M., it is the crucifixion of Jesus, the warrior God, who became a human being, that explains OT violent events (p. 37). I do not see, however, how the incarnation and crucifixion explain the violent incidents in the Hebrew Bible. Nor do I understand how the two aspects of his argument relate to each other. For most of the book, he makes a point-by-point defense of divine actions. He concludes by asserting that God’s crucifixion explains divine violence. Mariottini also insists that this schema is not supersessionist. Supersessionism is the repudiated teaching whereby the church replaces Israel and Judaism. Christianity accomplishes through inner transformation what the Jews could not achieve through outward ritual. According to M., the view that Jesus was forming a new Israel does not mean this view represents supersessionism (p. 347). M. therefore denies that he is supersessionist because he allows a continuing role for Israel/Judaism in God’s plan. However, M. claims that what God failed to do in Israel, God achieves through the “crucified warrior God.” Yet this is supersessionism, where the Christian covenant replaces a failed Mosaic covenant. To conclude, M. stresses the importance of attending to divine violence because it contributes to the portrait of the biblical God, even when discomforting. However, I question M’s attempts to justify or mitigate some of the most disturbing passages in the Hebrew Bible. Why must God’s violence be consistent with God’s great love and mercy? These two ways of looking at God (vengeful and loving) do not cohere, and M.’s efforts to “contextualize” them ring hollow and unconvincing. He resolves the tension between these two aspects of God through logical and moral contortions that justify the unjustifiable. In two places M. acknowledges the multivocal nature of the biblical text, but overall he views the Bible as having all its parts consistent, speaking with a single voice. This determines how he will answer for these troublesome texts. Why not accept the obvious, that the Hebrew Bible presents conflicting understandings of God, and leave it up to pious readers and biblical scholars to navigate the various portrayals? Although I disagree with M.’s conclusions, he is a thorough scholar. His bibliography is voluminous. He has consulted nearly everything. He engages with many of the best minds in the field. By this work he has become a significant participant in the discourse of theodicy.