scholarly journals Butler's Bible WorkThe Bible Work: The Old Testament Vol. III. Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 Chronicles XI., 1 Kings I-XI., 2 Chronicles I-IX. J. Glentworth Butler

1889 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 316-316
Keyword(s):  
Samuel 1 ◽  
1 Kings ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara M. Koenig

The biblical texts about Bathsheba have notorious gaps, even by the laconic standards of Hebrew narrative. Post-biblical receptions of the story flesh out the terse chapters of 2 Samuel 11–12 and 1 Kings 1–2, ascribing feelings and motives to Bathsheba and David that are not contained in the Hebrew text. This essay examines the intersection of reception history and feminist biblical scholarship by considering eleven novels about Bathsheba from the twentieth and twenty-first century. These novels expand Bathsheba’s character beyond the text, but in fairly gender stereotypical ways, such that feminist readers of the novels may be left wanting more.


2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Solomon O. Ademiluka

The Hannah narrative bears close affinities to the African context with respect to the problem of barrenness. Hence, employing the exegetical approach and contextual analysis, this article examines the narrative in relation to the attitude of the church in Nigeria towards the problem of barrenness among its members. The suffering of Hannah resonates with the travails of childless African women; yet, beyond the weekly or monthly prayer services for them, the church has not exploited these similarities enough to assist its barren members. This article states that the church can organise regular programmes to address issues such as causes of barrenness as well as the role of male and female cells in the conception process. It also needs to teach the right attitude of friends and relatives towards childless couples so as to reduce the psychological effects of childlessness particularly on the women. The church can also identify with childless couples by introducing them to the practices of child adoption and surrogacy when all efforts to have children by the natural process fail. As there will always be childless persons in spite of all efforts to have children, the church has the responsibility to make its members accept the fact that children are a gift from God, and that matrimony must not necessarily end in parenthood. Finally, the church in Nigeria needs to assure childless members that they can live happy and fulfilled lives despite their situation of childlessness.Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: This research involves the disciplines of the Old Testament and Christian Ethics. It examines 1 Samuel 1:1–20 in relation to the attitude of the church in Nigeria towards its childless members, stressing that the church can do more in identifying with them.


Author(s):  
John R. Spencer

Within the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament there is a provision for six cities of refuge (“cities of intaking” [ערי מקלט]), where someone who has unintentionally committed murder can go and not be subject to blood revenge (Exodus 20:12–14; Numbers 35:9–28; Deuteronomy 4:41–43, 19:1–13; Joshua 20; 1 Chronicles 6). This practice has been described as refuge, asylum, and sanctuary, and the cities have been given all three of these labels, which has resulted in differing understandings of the intention of these cities. The basic legal issue is the distinction between intentional and unintentional killing. For most societies in the ancient Near East, including ancient Israel, the idea of “blood revenge” (an “eye for an eye”; lex talionis) was the way in which the killing of a member of your clan or family was avenged (Exodus 21:23). The distinction made in association with the cities of refuge/asylum was how to deal with an individual who accidentally, without intention, killed another (Exodus 21:12–14; Number 35:16–28). Also associated with this idea is the nature of sanctuary or asylum that one can obtain when one reaches a cultic center with an altar (1 Kings 1:50–53; 2:23–24). One should also note that all the cities of refuge are also Levitical Cities (1 Chronicles 6), but it is not clear what the role of the Levites was in such a city of refuge. Among the issues associated with these cities are the following: Did they actually exist, or were they simply a fiction created at a later period of time? If they were real, what was their historical context? Was it premonarchic, the time of David and Solomon, related to the centralization of Josiah, or postexilic? When were the texts composed (a question associated with the previous issue and raising wonderings about different hands in the composition of the texts associated with the idea of asylum cities)? What is the connection between altars of sanctuary and the cities of refuge, and why the apparent replacement of altars with cities? Who and how was the validity of the claim of unintentional killing (Numbers 35:24–25; Joshua 20:4) decided, even if the killer was a “sojourner” (gēr) (Joshua 20:9)? What was the consequence of the death of the high priest (Numbers 35:27; Joshua 20:6), and how it was related to some concept of atonement? What was the relationship between the different biblical presentations of refuge or asylum? What was the connection with the Levites (See Oxford Bibliographies in Biblical Studies articles Levi/Levites) and Levitical Cities? Finally, what is the relevance to today’s society with its issues of sanctuary for immigrants and sojourners?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document