While some have seen critical biblical scholarship as a death knell to the Bible’s capacity to inspire Christian faith and worship, Howard shows that this need not be the case. With a vibrant style of writing, she unlocks the possibility of rich theological reflection in critical contexts. I expect her book will be well received in mainline seminaries and among well-educated laypeople in mainline congregations. She offers a well-reasoned articulation of how critical theories of composition can lead to theologically shaped praxis today. Her aim is to “propose three modes of innovation that can be gleaned from the Old Testament: adapting popular culture, rethinking theological assumptions, and developing a new genre” (p. 3).Howard’s introduction and first chapter do for progressive Christians what John Walton and Brent Sandy’s Lost World of Scripture does for conservative evangelicals—it expands the layperson’s vision of how texts were produced and what that means for how to read them well. Howard problematizes the idea of authorial intent, affirming the complexity of oral and scribal traditions. She rejects the idea that there is “one correct meaning or interpretation for any given biblical text” (p. 27). Still, she affirms the Spirit’s role in energizing biblical interpretation, helping readers discern how to read creatively for their contexts.In ch. 2, Howard explores the Bible’s adaptation of other cultures. She uses Proverbs and the flood story as her first examples of the Bible’s literary dependence on other ANE texts. For Howard, the biblical flood account is both similar and different from these accounts, which gives this composite text its own theological appeal. Her second example is court tales, the “deeply entertaining” accounts of Joseph, Esther, and Daniel, which she calls “largely fictional” but which foster consideration of the relationship between the community of faith and worldly power (45, 54).Chapter 3 facilitates a revision of theological assumptions by highlighting distinct voices that interpret history differently. After surveying Zion theology in the OT, she concludes that it predates Ezekiel (p. 73), who offers a stunningly innovative view of God’s presence as portable and available to the exiles. Deuteronomy is her other example in this chapter. Howard accepts a late date for Deuteronomy—an invention during Josiah’s reign. However, she refrains from calling it propaganda, since we cannot discern what motivated its production (p. 65).In ch. 4, Howard considers the emergence of new genres. She explains that apocalypses are written from below, by marginalized peoples, as a way of reframing political tyrants as limited and under God’s ultimate control. For this reason, she cautions against the use of these texts by those in power. Howard notes the specificity and generality of this genre to provide explanatory power to the first generation of listeners as well as productive imagination for subsequent generations. For Howard, the Daniel apocalypses were written after-the-fact to “predict” the past and make sense of suffering. She compares the Bible’s apocalyptic literature with efforts of minority communities today to reframe their experiences of suffering.Howard closes her book with “biblical principles for creative change” drawn from the preceding chapters (pp. 113–21), encouraging readers to use creative storytelling to reimagine each community’s identity, to “recognize and celebrate” the diversity of perspectives in Scripture, center new voices, and “embrace uncertainty” in biblical interpretation and in the life of faith.Conservative readers who do not share Howard’s posture toward critical biblical scholarship may find this book frustrating or simply less helpful for their contexts. In my view, Howard is too pessimistic about human ability to discern literary design (p. 26) and too flippant in her claims that the Bible is dependent on other texts (p. 34). For example, she argues that the biblical flood story is dependent on Mesopotamian accounts simply because surviving Mesopotamian flood texts are much older than surviving biblical manuscripts. Howard fails to acknowledge the possible oral prehistory of the biblical text that complicates attempts to discern the direction of influence. No doubt, if this were a different sort of book, Howard could make a fuller case for her claim. Still, her conclusion is unsatisfying. If a devastating flood really happened (whether local or global), then it is no surprise that multiple cultures would preserve memories of the event. Many conservative readers could accept the possibility that the biblical account is told over against the Mesopotamian version, offering a different rationale, but they may struggle with her presumption of literary dependence on it.However, even those whose starting point differs can benefit from the ways that Howard highlights “creativity amid crisis” in the Bible (p. 83). Her method could fruitfully inform other interpretive communities as well, encouraging us to take a step back and consider how the larger scene of textual production and canon formation in its historical context might lend insights for the role of the church in response to this cultural moment.
Read full abstract
Oct 16, 2024
Maikki Aakko 
Open Access
