The Monotheizing Process

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam claim to be monotheistic, but none of them actually is; none of the three has yet arrived at the true monotheism the Bible and the Qur'an mandate: that is, belief in there being but One God of All. Each often claims its concept of God is the One God despite the fact that the Bible and the Qur'an insist that the true God is indefinable and incomprehensible. Many passages of the Bible are polytheistic, and yet the Judaism that emerged out of the exile claimed to believe in One God. Critically moving from the older passages through to the later, careful readers are able to trace a process that is best called monotheizing. In effect the first commandment of the Decalogue, the first of Jesus's two great commandments, and the Qur'an's clear mandate fashion an imperative to continue the monotheizing process that is not yet complete but that enjoins adherents of each to live life in the belief that there is but One God of All.

In this new study, James Brenneman confronts the issue of conflicting canons with full force, incorporating insights gained from both literary and biblical disciplines on the question of canon. He begins with an illuminating tour through contemporary literary theory from Hans Robert Jauss to Stanley Fish, and current discussions in theology about the canon. He goes on to a consideration of true and false prophesy, with a detailed examination of the three apparently conflicting versions of the Old Testament "swords into plowshares" prophesy, as found in Isaiah 2:2-4,5; Joel 4:9-12 (Eng. 3:9-12); and Micah 4:1-5. Suggesting that the dynamics controlling the process for negotiating between contradictory readings of prophetic texts are the same as those at work in adjudicating between canons in conflict, Brenneman concludes by pointing the way towards an integrative approach appropriate to the question of canon and authority in a "post-modern" pluralistic context.

Biblical theology attempts to explore the theological coherence of the canonical witnesses; no serious Christian theology can overlook this issue. The essays in the present volume illustrate the complexity and richness of the conversation that results from attentive consideration of the question. In a time when some voices are calling for a moratorium on biblical theology or pronouncing its concerns obsolete, this collection of meaty essays demonstrates the continuing vitality and necessity of the enterprise. Richard B. Hays, George Washington Ivey Professor of New Testament, The Divinity School, Duke University, USA This volume on biblical theology jumps into the fray and poses the right kind of questions. It does not offer a single way forward. Several of the essays are quite fresh and provocative, breaking new ground (Bray, Reno); others set out the issues with clarity and grace (Bartholomew); others offer programmatic analysis (Webster; Bauckham); others offer a fresh angle of view (Chapman, Martin). The success of this series is in facing the challenge of disarray in biblical studies head-on and then modeling a variety of approaches to stimulate our reflection. Christopher Seitz, Professor of Old Testament and Theological Studies, St. Andrews University, UK

This book is a greatly revised and expanded edition of Richard Bauckham's acclaimed God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (1999), which helped redirect scholarly discussion of early Christology.

This wide-ranging collection of essays provides the reader with a critical introduction to the New Testament as the church's canon. The authors' conviction is that the Bible belongs first of all to the community of believers rather than to the guild of biblical scholars. But that does not make the tools and tasks of modern biblical criticism unimportant. Rather, they are the constructive means by which the scholar discerns the nature of the ongoing conversation between the church and its biblical canon and helps form the church into a community of worship and witness. Whether from a particular composition's point of origin, or from the various properties added to it during the canonizing process, or from its location within the final canonical product, the scholars recover multiple clues from the ancient church's dialogue with its scriptures that help delimit the boundaries and establish the aims of the same dialogue between today's faith community and its biblical canon.

In this important collection of essays James A. Sanders offers his most significant work on the text and canon of the Hebrew Bible, along with his seminal studies of the Qumran Scrolls. He has been at the forefront of the study of canon formation, history of interpretation, and textual criticism, with specialty in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the use of the Old Testament in the New. These studies document the variety of textual traditions, as well as the diversity and unsettled, incipient state of the collection of sacred literature that was regarded as authoritative or canonical in the late Second Temple period. They laid the foundation on which today's scholarly discussion is focused.

The radical interdependency of justice, compassion, and solidarity of community working for the common good are ideals celebrated in the religious Ways of humanity. Human beings at all times and in all places have known what is good, but for reasons too numerous to count have failed to act justly and compassionately in communal harmony with one other and with the sentient beings with whom we share life on planet Earth. Today the major justice issue confronting us is human-caused environmental destruction running amok on this planet, the only place in the universe where our species is alive. Accordingly, this book offers socially engaged dialogue between persons representing the world's religious Ways. (The natural sciences are included as a third partner.) The dialogue presented in this book is a powerful resource for confronting and stopping the causes of climate change. But we must do so before it's too late.

Growing out of a conference entitled Literary Theory volume reveal, among other more particularistic points, a fundamental overt disagreement regarding the question of coherence in narrative point of view, i.e. between the assumption or discovery of coherent and unitary narratives and narrators, the critique of this assumption, and the assumption or discovery of its opposite. No index. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR