Abstract
The title of this book in a way misleads, because it suggests a systematic treatment of a whole subject, when what we get is very largely a discussion of one short passage, Genesis 22, the akedah or ‘binding of Isaac’. But this is approached in such a way as to illustrate the general problem of the use of the Hebrew Bible by ethicists, and by the end of the book the reader is likely to feel that the title is indeed justified. This is a wide-ranging book despite its apparently narrow focus. It is a doctoral thesis completed at the University of Notre Dame under Jean Porter, but far exceeds most dissertations in its reach and its sophistication. Sadly it is a posthumous publication, as the author died in 2007, and Porter has seen it through the press and commissioned a tribute from Yvonne Sherwood; both of them confirm what is apparent at once from the book, that in Emily Arndt scholarship has lost a rising talent. The book should be fascinating to all interested in either the Hebrew Bible or Christian ethics, and is essential reading for anyone trying to combine the two.
Arndt’s principal thesis is that modern ethicists do not listen to the biblical text itself but use it to illustrate their own concerns, whereas we can find in the past thinkers who allowed themselves to be challenged and confronted by the text even though they had (of course) their own preconceptions about ethical matters. The point is illustrated from an unusual range of writers. In the modern camp are Ronald Green, Philip Quinn and Timothy Jackson, who discuss the akedah in the context of modern ethics. All, in Arndt’s view, start with a number of givens that do not really map on to the biblical text: the idea of God as a morally perfect being, for example, as conceived in modern analytical theology. This produces anachronism and, more important, contorted readings of the text:
[A]ll three avoid granting any morally relevant authority or revelatory status to the Hebrew Bible, sacrificing its authoritative and revelatory role in Christian moral reflection to their theoretical categories. Ronald Green treats both the biblical text and interpretations of it as historical artifacts that illustrate a deep structure of religious reasoning. Philip Quinn ‘solves’ the challenge of Genesis 22 by suggesting that we merely need to give up scriptural literalism and see the akedah as only an illustration of a terrible situation that is not actually possible if God is morally perfect (as we rationally conceive such perfection). Timothy Jackson makes sense of the narrative by conforming it to Christian theological categories and thoroughly removing it from its immediate narrative and theological contexts as part of the story of Abraham and the larger story of Israel’s relationship with God. (pp. 72-73)
Illumination can be found, however, by going further back in time, to readers who were willing to practise ‘engagement without domestication’ (p. 136), not suppressing their own ethical concerns so as to produce a merely ‘historical’ reading, yet open to being challenged and addressed by the text as an ‘other’, much as by another person (Wayne Booth and Martha Nussbaum make an appearance to help account for this way of thinking about texts). The three readers Arndt selects are an eclectic group: Kierkegaard (whose treatment also plays a major role in the interpretations of the three moderns); Philip the Chancellor, a Parisian contemporary of Thomas Aquinas; and the rabbis who produced Genesis Rabbah. It is safe to say that no other scholar would have chosen just these three writers. Kierkegaard’s discussion of the akedah is a classic, so much so that, as Arndt shows, many writers in effect treat it as though it were Genesis 22. But the other two sources are much less known to modern scholars. In all three cases the text is interpreted intertextually, and the consequence is a much richer reading than can be attained through modern philosophical analysis.
The result is that these readings from the past illuminate the text by refusing to treat it as though it were contemporary, while still maintaining their own ethical agenda, so that there is a genuine dialogue between then and now:
Genesis Rabbah, produced during the Christianization of Rome, presents a deep sense of the interconnectedness of events and relationships, the relevance of actions in the (biblical) past to present and future identity. Philip the Chancellor’s treatment participates in the medieval project of (re)accumulating human knowledge and understanding, knowledge that may not be identical to the content of Scripture but must be in accord with it. And Kierkegaard’s work reflects the context of both his personal situation (his broken engagement to Regine Olsen) and his intellectual one (his dissatisfaction with contemporary philosophy). (p. 135)
All three manage to maintain their own ethical concerns yet do not ‘absorb’ the text into those concerns, as moderns tend to do.
Arndt goes on, in the final chapter, to present her own reading of the akedah. She argues that it must be seen within its context in Genesis, not as though it existed in a vacuum. Like all the patriarchal narratives, it is concerned with the deferment of God’s promise, but it is the limiting case of this—Abraham’s tenth and final trial, in which all possible fulfilment of the divine promise of progeny and possession of the land seems terminally threatened. If such a text is to function for Christian ethics, it will be primarily because we recognise ourselves in Abraham, and indeed in Isaac, and say to God hinneni, ‘here I am’, as they did—rather than because we try to puzzle out whether and how the terrible command to sacrifice one’s only child can be reconciled with Christian ethics. This existential dimension of engaging with the text tends to get lost in modern philosophical discussions of it, but is richly present in the three great commentators singled out for special attention.
At the beginning of the book Arndt briefly surveys the current scene in ‘Old Testament ethics’, noting that most work on this has been done by exegetes rather than by ethicists; the latter tend either to ignore the Hebrew Bible or to force it into a predetermined mould. Arndt herself avoids both mistakes, and in the process provides a model for future discussion of this elusive book. Readers will be sad that we shall see no more studies such as this from her pen.