Abstract
This book is a collection of essays written by nine scholars who participated in a symposium held in Melbourne in 2015. All participants shared “a passion for peace-making and Earth care” (xiii). The essays deal with ecology as a lens through which several Biblical passages and books can be “engaged,” rather than “interpreted.”
The essays included are as follows: “Introduction: Ecological Aspects of War-Engagements with Biblical Texts” by Elvey and Dyer (1–8); Jeanette Mathews, “ ‘A Bow in the Clouds’ (Genesis 9.13): Y
The Introduction provides an orientation to the whole subject, and asks some important hermeneutical questions on the cause of indifference to war, environmental destruction and its causes, and ends with a summary of the importance of responsible Biblical studies leading to action and activism on both issues.
Jeanette Matthew’s essay (9–23) is a fine study of the symbolism of the bow in the Old Testament, beginning with its appearance in Genesis nine. Her conclusion is that it functions as “a symbol of God’s destructive action and God’s creative and restorative action” (17). From this conclusion she offers a survey of the Rainbow Serpent mythology of Australian indigenous peoples. Similarities exist, but there is a strong element of domestication of the Bow in modern understandings of it, turning it into “an attractive and sentimental symbol” (23). Deeper appreciation of the destructive element of the symbol is called for.
Carolyn Alsen’s study (24–44) on the incidents at Sodom (Gen 18:16–19:29) is read “through a postcolonial feminist imaginary” as “an example of an Israelite response to empire building, security and identity” (25). The audience for this essay is clearly constructed of other academics who share the vocabulary and the concepts involved. The average lay person could well be confused by both the syntax and the meaning of the terms used. However, in using the “themes” of seeing, sight, vision, (i.e. the gathering of intelligence) her interpretation is refreshing. It concludes that the search for absolute security, indicated by the use of sight, seeing, and subsequent control of the intelligence gathered, is futile. Alsen’s conclusion encourages “prophetic traditions of reading biblical narratives for peacemaking.” (44).
Anne Elvey’s study of the Magnificat in Luke 1:46–55 (45–68) is innovative, pulling together elements of an interpretive framework that involved events from Australia’s military history and the treatment of indigenous inhabitants of the continent, coupled with an imaginative use of poetry, commentary and reflection. There is much here to be commended. Yet, conversely, there are some parts to be questioned. Of the latter sort is the insistence on the “empire-people” dichotomy of oppression found in the New Testament. Examination of the trope demonstrates its weaknesses. Daniel Boin’s recent Coming out as Christian in the Roman Empire (2018) unveils a much more complex relationship between the state and the early Christian communities than this essay suggests.
Also dealing with Luke’s Gospel is Trainor’s essay (69–85). This essay is clear, and is based on studies (e.g. Brauer’s War and Nature, 2009) that cover numerous areas of the topic of war and ecology. It avoids anachronisms which identify the ancient with the modern cultural climate. It argues instead for the critical and counterbalancing of an alternative voice against war and destruction. This voice is to be found in Luke’s Gospel, and Trainor offers ways in which the overlooked vision of Luke’s Gospel, as Trainor understands it, can be rediscovered and acted upon by his followers.
Marie Turner (86–96) offers a study of the death of Absalom (2 Sam 18:1–18). Her ecological focus is found in the role of the Forest in the narrative, as location/setting, witness, and finally judge of the events described. It is an innovative study. One small criticism is the assertion that forests are most unsuitable for warfare and therefore avoided. This might be true for regulated royal armies of the ancient Near East, but forests and deserts and other inhospitable places were the abodes of rebels, and their irregular armies. Forests were used very creatively by armies and generals who thought forests were incompatible with fighting, and were surprised every time. In warfare, ancient and modern, forests tend to favor the killers, and Turner’s romantic vision of the hypostasized forest as an ecological force and judge of events has avoided this fact.
Boase’s essay (97–115) is both interesting and challenging. It argues for an obvious link between the desolation of a homeland in wartime and the psychological state created by this desolation. That psychological state is captured in the neologism “solastalgia” conjured up by Australian psychiatrist Glenn Albrecht. Albrecht’s study was originally applicable to environmental damage. But ancient “world systems” such as empires drew resources to the center, requiring a thriving and surviving local society and culture to do that. The cities were the targets of invasion. Boase’s trust in Kelle’s assertion of wholesale, and crippling, desolation of the land through war as a means of submission and control (111) must be examined in the light of ancient Near Eastern imperial practices of war. Archaeological research of the regions outside Jerusalem and other main administrative centers suggests that the farmland, grain, grape and olive growing areas were left relatively unscathed and were the source of vassal tribute.
Anne Gardner’s contribution (116–31) is more of a meditation on the themes of violence, destruction and judgment and righteousness. It follows a rather conventional treatment of the concepts, and concludes with the inevitable comment that
violence and destruction stand in opposition to judgement and righteousness…. Wrongdoing violates others, it violates the land, it violates the Torah. This is as true today as it was in the time of the Hebrew Bible [131].
Added to this is the promise that the perpetrators of such violence will be punished after death. “For the believers, this is still a comfort today” (131); a conclusion that seems more like pulpit rhetoric than anything else.
The target reader of the collection is not clear. Apart from the presenters, those attending the original conference in 2015 are not described. The general methodology of the volume reflects common current approaches to the Old Testament. Each contributor offers her or his personal interests and method, thus illustrating a key word in the title, “engagements.” Interested students of biblical studies would benefit from reading this collection, if only to gain a variety of perspectives on familiar passages of the Bible.