Month: <span>January 2018</span>

Whitlark, Jason A. “Resisting Imperial Claims: Jesus’ Defeat of the Devil.” Pages 122-41 in Resisting Empire: Rethinking the Purpose of the Letter to “the Hebrews.” Library of New Testament Studies 484. London: T & T Clark, 2014.

Investigating Jesus’ defeat of the devil in Heb 2:14, Jason A Whitlark argues that “Jesus’ triumphant enthronement following his victory over the devil in Hebrews represents a figured critique of Roman imperial authority” (123). Whitlark suggests that Hebrews’ reference to the defeat of the devil in Heb 2:14 could be understood as a metaphor for conquering Rome and its authoritative grip on humanity (124). Because Rome was understood to carry the power of death—and Hebrews describes the devil as the being holding the power of death—Whitlark infers that the author of Hebrews may have been trying to covertly undercut Roman imperial power (124-25). Whitlark builds his case by investigating NT passages outside of Hebrews, church fathers, and Roman legal precedent.

1. According to Whitlark, Paul’s autobiographical note in 1 Thess 2:18, that Satan prevented him from visiting the Thessalonians, should be read in light of the threats Roman authorities made toward him as an apostle of Christ (125). Similarly, Paul’s promise to the Romans that God would soon crush Satan under their feet (Rom 16:20), “Might be a cryptic reference to Roman imperial authorities or the imperial culture that acclaimed Rome’s authority and afflicted the Christian communities in Rome” (126).
2. Whitlark offers martyrdom texts of the Church Fathers, like the Martyrdom of Polycarp 2.4-3.1 and Justin’s first and second apologies, as evidence that the early church attributed Rome’s authoritarian rule to the devil (129). Applying his paradigm of imperial Criticism to Hebrews, Whtilark states that “The audience of Hebrews would likely have heard in the mention of the devil in Heb 2:14 a reference to Roman imperial authority at whose hands they were suffering” (130).
3. Surveying Roman law, Whitlark finds in Patria potestas—the statute providing a Roman father the authority of life and death in his family in order to maintain the honor of Rome via the fidelity of his own household—a framework that applied even outside of the family unit (132-33). Whitlark argues that emperors like Vespasian enjoyed the highest rung on a scaffolding of Patria potestas-like authority in Rome, wielding absolute sway over all families and peoples in the empire (132-33). Since Christians were thought to compromise Rome’s honor by their worship practices, the Roman authorites held Christians in fear of death all their lives—the exact characteristic Hebrews attributes to the devil (138). “The audience of Hebrews living in or around Rome would have been reminded daily of the fearsome messages of Roman power that were supremely embodied in the emperor” (138).

Whitlark infers that Jesus’ victory over death would have emboldened Christians hearing Hebrews to resist imperial threats to conform to Roman paganism (139). Because Jesus was faithful in His suffering (Heb 5:5-10; 12:1-2) at the hand of Roman authorities, He is able to aid Christians as they endure the results of their resistance to Roman threats (139). Whitlark argues that the threat of Rome was so strong that Christians, including the author of Hebrews, cast it in apocalyptic language: “The goal of Christians in identifying imperial culture and power with the devil or Satan was to portray their conflict as an apocalyptic one” (139). This paradigm in place, Christians would understand that their ultimate battle was not with Roman authorities—who were simply the devil’s tool for suffocating Christian testimony and eternal hope (140). Jesus’ victorious death, Whitlark maintains, provides Hebrews’ audience a rationale for resisting Rome without insurrection: by faithfully maintaining their allegiance even unto death they would obtain their hope in eternity (Heb 11:35, 13:20) (140).

Whitlark’s case may suffer from being too persuasive. His analysis so intertwines the work of the devil and the power of Rome that I wonder if—in the condition that the latter would have been suspended for a time—Hebrews’ audience would have understood the former to also have no hold on them? My concern is that Whitlark describes a spiritual archenemy void of some of the characteristics and practices of the devil in scripture—motifs that explain the author’s matrix for Jesus’ defeat of the devil in Heb 2:14. In scripture, the devil makes humanity fear death not only by external powers like the Roman imperium but also through the internal power of unforgiven sin. I argue that at the cross Jesus acts as a faithful high priest to atone for the sins of those who believe in Him (Heb 2:16-17; cf. Job 2:1-10; Zech 3:1-5; Col 2:13-15), rendering the devil impotent in his scheme to condemn humanity to eternal punishment. Humanity is not threatened only in this life by national forces that come and go but by the enduring human condition of propensity to sin. Sin—not national or geopolitical threats—incur guilt before God. And in the author’s frame of thought, God’s wrath is of greater consequence than that of any Roman emperor (Heb 10:31). The author thus describes Jesus’ death as, yes, defeating the devil, but also the means by which Jesus forgives sin as mediating high priest of the new covenant. In Hebrews’ logic, Jesus’ victorious death necessitates the devil’s demise because it robs the devil of his power to condemn sinners before God—the result of which would be eternal death (Heb 2:14-17).

The Craft of Research, Third Edition. By Wayne C. Booth (deceased), Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008, v-xvii + 317 pp.

The authors propose two aims for their work: “This book will help you create and execute a plan for doing your research and another for reporting it in ways that not only encourage your best thinking, but help your readers see its value” (6).  They believe that The Craft of Research differs from other research manuals in that they have attempted to synthesize the research process, pointing up the way various phases of the work influence not only each other, but especially the reader.  In some ways the argument of this volume is that researchers should work backward—considering the reader/target audience early and regularly in the research process and then pursue their work with this in mind; they write, “Central in every chapter is our advice to side with your readers, to imagine how they will judge what you have written” (xii).  The authors have arranged this volume in four main parts: “Research, Researchers, and Readers” (1-27), “Asking Questions, Finding Answers” (29-101), “Making a Claim and Supporting It” (103-170), and “Planning, Drafting, and Revising” (171-269).

In Part 1, “Research, Researchers, and Readers” (1-27), the authors use chapter 2, “Connecting with Your Reader: (Re-)Creating Yourself and Your Readers” (16-25), to argue that research only matters if it is read.  Thus, they propose that one should write his research, even formal research, in ‘story’ form.  This does not mean creating narrative literature, but recognizing that the reader has a role to play, and writing in such a way that the reader is engaged in conversation over the subject matter at hand.  Further, the relevance of this subject matter must be expressed clearly; the authors write: “When you do research, you learn something that others don’t know.  So when you report it, you must think of your reader as someone who doesn’t know it but needs to and yourself as someone who will give her reasons to want to know it.  You must imagine a relationship that goes beyond Here are some facts…” (18-19, italics original).  They note that in reporting information a researcher mush offer the reader some practical measure of help, either in attempting to solve a problem, or in understanding an issue.  By offering these, the reader naturally assumes an active, personal role in the research process.

While it is the case that throughout The Craft of Research the authors maintain their thesis that researchers must write with a view to the reader, in Part 2, “Asking Questions, Finding Answers” (29-101), they deal with the means which will help the researcher attain that end. In chapter 3, “From Topics to Questions” (35-50), the authors write: “The best way to begin working on your specific topic is not to find all the data you can on your general topic, but to formulate questions that point you to just those data that you need to answer them” (41).  One can discover these questions by considering: the history of the issue (e.g., “What have been significant points of development over the last___years?”), its structure and category within academia (e.g., “Is this issue a subset of another bigger issue? Related directly to something more well-known?”), its significance to daily life in his culture, (e.g., “How would things be different if your topic never existed, disappeared, or were put into a new context?” [42]), and finally finding points of disagreement within the issue (e.g, “If ‘x’ disagrees with ‘y’ concerning this matter, why?”).

In chapter 4, “From Questions to a Problem” (51-65), the authors provide an effective schema for the research process, urging the researcher to move through three stages of thought. First the researcher needs to choose an issue/topic for investigation, stating in a phrase: “I am studying_______” (51). Next researchers need to state their rationale: “…because I want to find out what/why/how ___________” (51). Third, researchers should set out the significance of their work, stating: “…in order to help my reader understand _________” (51). To this tripartite formula of topic-question-significance the authors add a fourth element, which they name “potential practical application” (61), stated in the phrase, “…so that readers might _________” (61). Here one finds again the emphasis of The Craft of Research, namely, that researchers must seek to engage the reader in reporting their findings; the authors write: “you create a stronger relationship with readers because you promise something in return for their interest in your report—deeper understanding of something that matters to them” (51-52).

In Part 3, “Making a Claim and Supporting It” (103-170), the authors propose that reporting one’s research is “a conversation in which you and your imagined readers cooperatively explore an issue that you both think is important to resolve” (106).  In chapter 8, “Making Claims” (120-126), the authors advocate a pragmatic approach to research when it comes to the relationship between one’s research and the reader.  They cite that the most devastating question an audience might put to a researcher is not, “Why should I believe this?” but, “Why should I care?” (126, italics original).  If the researcher’s claim is not significant enough to challenge the reader’s related views, they propose that it may need to be reworked.  The authors do not argue for boldness necessarily, but rather importance—hedged with modesty.

In chapter 9, “Assembling Reasons and Evidence” (130-138), the authors note that this conversation between researcher and reader is not just a personal relationship; rather, it is conceived only by a mutual interest in the topic under consideration, including the specific data of the research and especially its significance.  Thus the researcher needs to present the reader with “a bedrock of uncontested facts” (132); anything less will not arouse the reader’s natural skepticism, nor show that the researcher’s argument is significant enough to be taken seriously.  The authors note: “They (the readers) want evidence to be accurate, precise, sufficient, representative, and authoritative” (136).  Thus researchers need to test their argument as the reader would—and then refine claims, acknowledge shortcomings, and synthesize the argument in light of the data.

In Part 4, “Planning, Drafting, and Revising” (171-269), the authors again emphasize their thesis concerning ‘reader-oriented’ research in chapter 14, “Revising Your Organization and Argument” (203-210).  Here they propose that: “Readers do not read word by word, sentence by sentence…they want to begin with a sense of the whole, its structure, and, most important, why they should read your report in the first place…It thus makes sense to start revising your overall organization, then its parts, then the clarity of your sentences, and last, matters of spelling and punctuation” (204).

The authors titled chapter 17, “Revising Style: Telling Your Story Clearly” (249-267), showing their concern that in every phase of research the reader be kept in mind.  The authors propose that researchers can present their findings to the reader most clearly if they will use the first six to seven words of each sentence to connect the main idea/character of that sentence with what has been said in the previous sentence, and then use the final four to five words to introduce new or more complex information.  This, ‘old-to-new,’ and ‘simple-to-complex,’ format will give the reader a sense of flow and wholeness about the research report.

The argument of The Craft of Research is substantive for students learning to write and speak persuasively.  This is so because of the author’s continual emphasis on how the information reported will impact the reader/listener.

How to Read a Book. By Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1972, v-xiii + 426 pp.

How to Read a Book is a learning manual written to help students see the value of books (or written resources in general) for gaining understanding of themselves and life.  The authors propose that real thinking is the result of reading—as opposed to the assimilation of information through the various media outlets of our day.  Thus, their aim is to assist the reader in the use of books, articles, etc. to acquire knowledge of himself and his world, or stated another way, to “make books teach us well” (p. 15).

In Part I: The Dimensions of Reading, the authors propose that a certain manner of reading must be undertaken for success with books, namely active reading.  The goal of this style of reading is to gain information and understanding.  In this first part, the authors propose the first two of four levels of reading: Elementary (described in ten pages) and Inspectional (given fourteen pages) reading.

In Part II, the authors devote 140 pages to the third level of reading: Analytical reading.  Ultimately the analytic reader is looking to answer the question “What of it?” (pp. 137-38). According to Adler and Van Doren analytical reading allows one to successfully reach for books beyond him—and understand their arguments.  All this is accomplished through examining a book in part and in whole, coming to terms with the author, determining his message, and then criticizing his work.  Finally, Part II contains reading rules one through fifteen—much of the substance of the book.

Part III: Approaches to Different Kinds of Reading Matter, takes up these various rules for reading and providing nuances where appropriate.  It is in Part III where we find a further treatment of the authors’ thesis: every book should be read according to its merit (p. 67).

Thus, the authors propose that different books should be read appropriate to, among other things, their genre and aim.

Part IV: The Ultimate Goals of Reading, is an especially helpful section for the student engaged in research.  Here the reader is instructed of how the four levels of reading come together to help readers dialogue with various authors and gain understanding.  Toward the end of this section the authors also provide insight for the difficulties of Syntopical reading.

Adler and Van Doren advance the main thrust of their argument by proposing that authors use their books to try to solve problems.  Thus students are challenged to ask, “What problem is the author trying to solve?”  This may be another way of asking the question, “Why did the author write this book—What were his issues?”  Further still, once we see where the author is at in the larger chain of conversation about which he is writing, then we can begin to enjoy the goal of How to Read a Book—understanding.

Further, How to Read a Book provides the student with a sequence of specific questions to ask of an author’s work (book, article, etc.).  The four questions: “What is the book (article) about as a whole?” “What is being said in detail, and how?” “Is the book true, in whole or part?” and “What of it?” (pp. 46-47) are extremely helpful for one desiring to analyze and synthesize a written discourse.  The first question, “What is the book (article) about as a whole?” is answered by examining the front and back covers of the book (or the resource containing the article), and identifying its date, genre and general aims.  The second question, “What is being said in detail, and how?” may be addressed by investigating the table of contents/structure of the resource, the last chapter or conclusion of the book/article, and the first chapter or introduction of the book/article.  The table of contents reveals the goals of the resource and the structure by which the author(s) attempt to achieve those goals; the conclusion or last chapter provides a basis for evaluating if the author(s) met said goals, and the first chapter or introduction provides a quick analysis of the entire work.  By reading these various sections in the order prescribed here, readers can quickly access the argument of the book and begin to come to terms with the author(s).  This is active reading: knowing the problem the resource is seeking to address and how it goes about offering a solution.  The third question, “Is the book true, in whole or part?” requires readers to engage key chapters of the book, identified already when analyzing the table of contents.  By skimming key chapters, readers are able to identify core components in the author(s)’ argument, and evaluate the author(s)’ solution to the problem the resource is trying to address.  The reader would then need to skim the entire resource, reading more closely the introduction and conclusion sections of each chapter or article section.  The final question, “What of it?” requires comparing the resource with other resources dealing with the same issue.  Here Adler and Van Doren suggest that the reader place himself around a large table, seated beside the authors he has read, and comparing and evaluating their ideas and providing his own thoughts, joining the conversation.   As one answers these four questions, he is then prepared to write and/or speak persuasively on the issue at hand, making his own contribution to the discussion.

To answer these questions as one reads a book, the authors provide some helpful ideas for note taking.  While much of this comes naturally—and is personalized over time—their suggestions provide a framework to be used in reading any number of books.  As one adopts a uniformity in active reading, he is perhaps more able to do Syntopic reading with greater efficiency.

The student gains wisdom from Adler and Van Doren’s reading rule five: Find the important words and through them come to terms with the author (p. 98). Certainly as one masters this discipline, he will be much more effective at Syntopical reading—perhaps this rule could even be considered the foundation upon which Syntopical reading can occur.

Along the same lines, one is challenged by Adler and Van Doren’s command to find propositions of an author’s argument and attempt to state them in his own words.  This proves beneficial in coming to terms with the author and initiating Syntopic reading.  As the authors state, “The reader who cannot see through the language to the terms and propositions will never be able to compare such related works” (p. 127).

How to Read a Book is an extremely helpful resource for the student engaged in the research process.  The principles written by Adler and Van Doren are especially helpful for students completing annotated bibliographies—a fundamental responsibility of one working to read and write persuasively.

In sum, How to Read a Book challenges students toward reading books that can make them better readers.  Adler and Van Doren help the student to discern what books are actually valuable to help their thinking and reading.  As one accepts this challenge, he will reap an improved reading level, and an education about the world and about himself, becoming wiser in the sense that he is more deeply aware of the great and enduring truths of human life (pp. 340-41).