Liturgy and Biblical Interpretation: The Sanctus and the Qedushah by Sebastian Selvén

Abstract

Reviewed by: Liturgy and Biblical Interpretation: The Sanctus and the Qedushah by Sebastian Selvén Rhoda Schuler Liturgy and Biblical Interpretation: The Sanctus and the Qedushah. By Sebastian Selvén. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2021. 233 pp. As the title indicates, this book explores how "liturgy influences the way we read biblical texts" (124). As a dissertation revised for publication, it is densely written and argued, heavily annotated, and includes original languages (Hebrew, Latin, and Swedish), all of which are translated into English. As a scholarly work, the intended audience is liturgical and biblical scholars, especially the latter. The introduction makes a case for liturgical texts as performative. Rather than explaining doctrines of divine forgiveness on Yom Kippur or transubstantiation at Sunday Mass, the author asserts that "liturgical language does not describe these moments, it instantiates them" (9, emphasis in original). The liturgical texts (Jewish Qedushah and Christian Sanctus) both use Isaiah 6:1–5. Chapter 1 argues that biblical interpreters distinguish the seraphim of Isaiah 6 from all other uses of the word in the Hebrew Bible, where [End Page 244] the word "always refers to a snake" and "are dangerous to humans" (30), because they have been influenced by liturgical texts and worship practices, especially the Qedushah deYotzer which uses images from Isaiah 6 and Ezekiel 1–3. Biblical interpreters have also been influenced by Jewish and Christian curiosity about heavenly beings from the Second Temple period and beyond. The author extends his argument by offering material evidence that early and medieval art in churches shaped the Christian imagination of a hierarchy of heavenly beings. In chapter 2 the author turns to "The Function of Isaiah 6:3" and asks: "Is Isaiah 6:3 a hymn, a warning, or a statement of doctrine? Does it instill fear, awe, or adoration?" He challenges the traditional interpretation that the verse is a heavenly liturgy (86). To make his case, he analyzes a nineteenth-century introit from a Swedish liturgy which "concatenates" Isaiah 6:3 with Psalm 11:4 and Isaiah 57:13. Written by Swedish church historian Emanuel Linderholm, Selvén argues that this widely used liturgical text introduced Rudolph Otto's concept of holiness into popular church life and that this notion of holiness dominated biblical scholarship through much of the twentieth century. Chapter 3 addresses "the tension between the idea of divine omnipresence and localized presence" (87). The author notes: "we will find . . . God's presence being mystified [Jewish], affirmed [Lutheran], and denied [Anglican], all in the context of standing before God in worship" (88). His analysis of the Jewish Qedushah leads him to conclude that the presence of God must be understood in a mysterious sense (95). Through analysis of Luther's Formula Missae and Swedish Church Order of 1571 (much of which was retained through the mid-twentieth century), Selvén argues that the liturgy reflected a theology of Christ's sacramental presence. In contrast, the 1552 Book of Common Prayer reflects a Reformed "theology of absence." He sees parallels between the Reformed theology of divine absence and the Lutheran accent on divine presence in historical-critical biblical scholarship (117). Selvén is to be commended for his depth of knowledge in not only biblical scholarship but also in Jewish and Christian ritual and [End Page 245] liturgy. Still, I offer these two cautions. First, his perspective is that of continental Europe and its post-Reformation divisions within Christianity. Thus, his thesis does not apply to American biblical scholars from non-liturgical Christian denominations who have no experience of worship with a Sanctus. Second, his thesis that biblical scholars are influenced by liturgical or ritual practices seems to assume that these scholars are practicing adherents of the Jewish or Christian tradition, an assumption one cannot make in the twenty-first century. Nevertheless, I agree with his conclusion: "Like other forms of reception, liturgy is not scales that need to fall from our eyes, rather, it is a lens that brings certain features into focus, while blurring others" (127). Rhoda Schuler Concordia University St. Paul, Minnesota Copyright © 2022 Johns Hopkins University Press and Lutheran Quarterly, Inc.