World Christianity
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 61, No. 2 – Spring 2019
Managing Editor: W. Madison Grace II
Edited by Steven J. Schweitzer and Frauke Uhlenbruch. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016. xii + 211 pages. Hardback, $114.00
This volume of collected essays addresses a growing trend in research concerning the books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah: the concept of utopia. Utopia itself is difficult to define, especially as it relates to Biblical Studies. Thomas More coined the term as the name for a fictional island with a seemingly ideal society; however, the term has expanded considerably as a way of speaking of categories of literature, ideologies embedded in literary works, and sociological movements that produce this type of literature (cf. esp. 82). Admittedly, at first it may seem strange that a term coined in a fictional work from 16th century England would apply to religious documents emerging from the Near Eastern world nearly two millennia earlier. To understand why scholars have used the concept of utopia to study this literature, it is helpful to look specifically at Chronicles.
As is well known, Chronicles presents the history of Israel in ways that differ from Samuel and Kings. As previous generations of scholars tried to explain these differences, they generally relied on historical arguments: either Chronicles used a different historical source or Chronicles retrojected the practices of his present time into Israel’s past. For instance, since pre-exilic documents do not mention the twenty-four priestly courses, some scholars argued that Chronicles retrojected this second temple practice into the time of David in order to authorize the practice for his own time. Utopia provides another explanation for such differences. If one thinks of utopia as expressing the desire for a better alternative reality (see especially Schweitzer’s essay), one can argue that Chronicles may not attempt to authorize a current practice but change it. In this case, Chronicles was not intended to be an instrument to reinforce the status quo but an instrument of reform.
The essays in the volume address the questions of utopia and biblical literature from different points of view and different emphases. Some essays deal more directly with the texts. Others take on the feel of thought experiments, probing the possible historical, ideological, or literary assumptions and intentions behind a text and through modern approaches. Despite the diversity, some themes recur consistently. First, the essays admit that care is required to speak of biblical literature through the lens of utopia, though most find it beneficial in some way (see Uhlenbruch’s comments on 1 Chronicles 1–9 as a “cyborg text,” 76).
Second, many essays address the nature of utopia as a place that is better than the present one, at least viewed from a particular point of view. In light of this theme, Snyman probes the line between utopia and dystopia and considers the circumstances that would likely produce utopia, conditions he does not find easily in the context of Chronicles (38–58). Exploring the particular point of view of the returned community, Cataldo addresses how a sociological look at prejudice may inform the restoration efforts of Ezra and Nehemiah (144–68).
Third, the essays explore how these biblical books address power and authority. For instance, Polaski examines how scribes navigate their position of prestige within the Persian Empire by looking at the way writing functions in Chronicles. He points out that most often the scribes depict writing as inadequate since it requires some type of supplementation. However, he notes that writing in which “empire and Temple align” (e.g. the temple plans) requires no supplementation. This alignment reveals part of the strategy for the scribe to navigate his both his prestigious position as scribe and his subordinate position as subject of the Persian Empire.
Beyond these recurring themes, I would like to point out some individual essays. First, Stordalen’s essay (“Worlds That Could Not Be: Realism and Irrealism in Thomas More’s Utopia”) takes a fascinating look at the world portrayed in More’s Utopia and the way that More’s reading audience mapped out their world. Important to realize is that such maps are “graphics [that] chart geographic, historical, symbolical, and religious matter in one and the same space” (20). Furthermore, these maps often contained Paradise (Garden of Eden), but “the reader of the map would nevertheless not have expected to be able to go there” (23). Stordalen speaks of these features as real and irreal, drawing connections to the early chapters of Genesis to show that these chapters present a world in contrast to the world of experience.
Second, Schweitzer’s essay (“Exile, Empire, and Prophecy: Reframing Utopian Concerns in Chronicles”) lays out his influential utopian approach. He then models the approach by addressing three concerns of Chronicles: exile, empire, and prophecy. By looking at these themes, he emphasizes that Chronicles focuses on cultic concerns rather than political ones as the means for establishing a better world for the community. Prophets plays a role in this world as they “give the impression of continuity between these ancient narratives and the present, as they interpret the past for the present audience to create a different future based on that same past” (101). The essay is a model example for applying this approach.
Third, Jendrek’s essay (“Taking the Reader into Utopia”) looks at the role of prayer in Chronicles to promote a hope for a future restoration of Israel. He works closely with a number of texts, pointing out textual connections between prayers. He points to Schweitzer’s argument that Chronicles presents Israel in an atemporal way. Then, he argues that these connections function within that atemporality to “bridge the times texts tell about and any reader’s present by transporting the motifs and the summons to worship YHWH to any time a reader reads them” (181). The essay illustrates how the shape of historical narratives themselves may help bridge the gap between text and reader.
I conclude with two remarks. First, the volume concludes with an essay by a specialist in utopian studies. Due to the nature of the essay, I have not addressed it above; however, I hope that other scholars working in a cross-disciplinary manner will follow the same example. Second, although I still wonder about the validity of a utopian reading of biblical literature and although I disagreed with a number of specific interpretations, the volume stimulated a number of questions that I hope to pursue and placed several observations in a new context for me to consider. This stimulating volume suites especially well anyone wanting to explore the growing academic trend of reading utopia in biblical literature.
