A review of a review
I am reviewing a book review by Hector Avalos, on the book Jonah, Jesus, and Other Good Coyotes: Speaking Peace to Power in the Bible, by Daniel L. Smith-Christopher. The link to the PDF form of the book review can be found on this page, along with a summary of the book.
Let me start by saying that I have zero knowledge about the book being reviewed; in fact, the reason I decided to look at it was because I didn't know what it meant in comparing Jonah and Jesus to "coyotes." A closer look at the review showed that the intent of this book was to show biblical examples of "peacemaker[s] who transgresses borders," in ways similar to coyotes, who are (apparently) people on the American border who help Mexican immigrants cross over without being found by American immigration authorities. Normally at this point I would move on because, nice-sounding as this book may be, this is not a part of biblical studies that interests me outside of a spiritual/devotional level.
However, Avalos himself interested me, so I read on. He makes good criticisms of the book's methodology, first challenging the role of the coyote as not so much a peacemaker, but an "ethically ambivalent figure" who might terrorize those he is "helping," or may just be doing so to receive financial gain. He also questions the passages chosen--citing examples like Rahab that would be much closer analogies.
He goes on to make what I believe is a good and very important criticism of the method of looking to pick and choose passages from the Bible as exemplifying the spirit and tone of Scripture, while those that are not supportive, or even contradictory "are relegated to secondary or unrepresentative categories." Though I find some of his examples less than great, an excellent example he gives is of Jesus as a peacemaker, despite the fact that the book of Matthew tells us he said the opposite of himself in 10:34-37. It is for precisely this reason that books using the methodology that Jonah, Jesus and Other Good Coyotes does (based on this review) that I have little interest in areas of Biblical Studies that approach the Bible with a pet cause in mind. I won't say that it can't be done, but it seems to me that it in the end the person using this method is doing eisegesis.
However, as I kept reading, his very good criticism gave way to something I disagree with much more. He began to seem a bit out there when he criticized Smith-Christopher of not being aware of "postcolonial and postscripturalist critiques of Christian pacifism." Well, a quick google search of the word "postscripturalist" will show you that the word occurs nowhere on the web (that is, until now that I am posting it on LJ.) Adding a dash (post-scripturalist) brought up three hits: each about Avalos. Not to say that Google is the ultimate source on "postscripturalism," but I think it's safe to say that if it only occurs in connection with his name, it isn't something he can expect other scholars to be familiar with if he doesn't want to sound awfully pretentious.
Then, rather than detailing the methodology Smith-Christopher could or ought to use, or move on to explain some of the book's merits, Avalos decided to conclude his review by leaving the scope of the book and moving on to the supposed-superiority of his own particular answer to the question of violence in the Bible--decanonizing any biblical text of any form that endorses violence. First of all, using a book review to further his own pet cause is definitely not classy. Secondly, while I disagree with the methodology of Smith-Christopher and others, the fact that we both study the same canon of Scripture gives us a basis for dialogue and disagreement. I can't say that the same is true for Avalos, and I have to admit that I hardly know what to say in response except that I strongly disagree with the idea of decanonizing Scripture, and especially using portrayal of violence, rather than the book's or passage's legitimacy as the basis of this decision.
So...thoughts? What do you think about this type of methodology, and also, how would you respond to those arguing to decanonize sections of Scripture?
EDIT: One last thought...Avalos is a secular humanist biblical scholar. Do you think this is an acceptable type of biblical scholar, or not?
Let me start by saying that I have zero knowledge about the book being reviewed; in fact, the reason I decided to look at it was because I didn't know what it meant in comparing Jonah and Jesus to "coyotes." A closer look at the review showed that the intent of this book was to show biblical examples of "peacemaker[s] who transgresses borders," in ways similar to coyotes, who are (apparently) people on the American border who help Mexican immigrants cross over without being found by American immigration authorities. Normally at this point I would move on because, nice-sounding as this book may be, this is not a part of biblical studies that interests me outside of a spiritual/devotional level.
However, Avalos himself interested me, so I read on. He makes good criticisms of the book's methodology, first challenging the role of the coyote as not so much a peacemaker, but an "ethically ambivalent figure" who might terrorize those he is "helping," or may just be doing so to receive financial gain. He also questions the passages chosen--citing examples like Rahab that would be much closer analogies.
He goes on to make what I believe is a good and very important criticism of the method of looking to pick and choose passages from the Bible as exemplifying the spirit and tone of Scripture, while those that are not supportive, or even contradictory "are relegated to secondary or unrepresentative categories." Though I find some of his examples less than great, an excellent example he gives is of Jesus as a peacemaker, despite the fact that the book of Matthew tells us he said the opposite of himself in 10:34-37. It is for precisely this reason that books using the methodology that Jonah, Jesus and Other Good Coyotes does (based on this review) that I have little interest in areas of Biblical Studies that approach the Bible with a pet cause in mind. I won't say that it can't be done, but it seems to me that it in the end the person using this method is doing eisegesis.
However, as I kept reading, his very good criticism gave way to something I disagree with much more. He began to seem a bit out there when he criticized Smith-Christopher of not being aware of "postcolonial and postscripturalist critiques of Christian pacifism." Well, a quick google search of the word "postscripturalist" will show you that the word occurs nowhere on the web (that is, until now that I am posting it on LJ.) Adding a dash (post-scripturalist) brought up three hits: each about Avalos. Not to say that Google is the ultimate source on "postscripturalism," but I think it's safe to say that if it only occurs in connection with his name, it isn't something he can expect other scholars to be familiar with if he doesn't want to sound awfully pretentious.
Then, rather than detailing the methodology Smith-Christopher could or ought to use, or move on to explain some of the book's merits, Avalos decided to conclude his review by leaving the scope of the book and moving on to the supposed-superiority of his own particular answer to the question of violence in the Bible--decanonizing any biblical text of any form that endorses violence. First of all, using a book review to further his own pet cause is definitely not classy. Secondly, while I disagree with the methodology of Smith-Christopher and others, the fact that we both study the same canon of Scripture gives us a basis for dialogue and disagreement. I can't say that the same is true for Avalos, and I have to admit that I hardly know what to say in response except that I strongly disagree with the idea of decanonizing Scripture, and especially using portrayal of violence, rather than the book's or passage's legitimacy as the basis of this decision.
So...thoughts? What do you think about this type of methodology, and also, how would you respond to those arguing to decanonize sections of Scripture?
EDIT: One last thought...Avalos is a secular humanist biblical scholar. Do you think this is an acceptable type of biblical scholar, or not?