Winner of the 2017 Manfred Lautenschlaeger Award for Theological PromiseWinner of the 2017 The George A. and Jean S. DeLong Book History Book Prize The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed a world of early Jewish writing larger than the Bible; from multiple versions of biblical texts to "revealed" books not found in our canon. Despite this diversity; the way we read Second Temple Jewish literature remains constrained by two anachronistic categories: a theological one; "Bible;" and a bibliographic one;"book." The Literary Imagination in Jewish Antiquity suggests ways of thinking about how Jews understood their own literature before these categories had emerged.In many Jewish texts; there is an awareness of a vast tradition of divine writing found in multiple locations that is only partially revealed in available scribal collections. Ancient heroes such as David are imagined not simply as scriptural authors; but as multidimensional characters who come to be known as great writers who are honored as founders of growing textual traditions. Scribes recognize the divine origin of texts such as Enoch literature and other writings revealed to ancient patriarchs; which present themselves not as derivative of the material that we now call biblical; but prior to it. Sacred writing stretches back to the dawn of time; yet new discoveries are always around the corner.Using familiar sources such as the Psalms; Ben Sira; and Jubilees; Eva Mroczek tells an unfamiliar story about sacred writing not bound in a Bible. In listening to the way ancient writers describe their own literature-rife with their own metaphors and narratives about writing-The Literary Imagination in Jewish Antiquity also argues for greater suppleness in our own scholarly imagination; no longer bound by modern canonical and bibliographic assumptions.
#1247534 in Books David Sehat 2015-11-01 2015-11-01Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 6.10 x 1.00 x 9.10l; .0 #File Name: 0190247215382 pagesThe Myth of American Religious Freedom Updated Edition
Review
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful. The demythologizing of American history.By Francis J. CasperReading Dr. Sehat's book one can hear echoes of Howard Zinn's "A Peoples History". Where Dr. Zinn tries to tell the history of the United States from; as he puts it; the perspective of its victims; Dr. Sehat tries to tell it from the perspective of its dissenters. In both cases the result is not the history that most of us grew up with; the history that the government of most any nation tends to tell of itself; as Zinn has it; like that of a family; "a giant web of nationhood pretending to a common interest"; a history that obscures; ignores; or even denies fierce disagreements and conflicts of interest.The reason both authors take this approach is not to condemn the government; or romanticize the virtues of the victims; in Zinn's; case; or the dissenters in Sehats; but to advance the dialogue on who we want to be as a people and why; based on a broader and more accurate grasp of who we have actually been; and why. In Dr. Sehat's case; the polarization of views on the nature and role of religion in American politics over that last 50 or so years is; for the most part; because the debate on both sides has suffered from the perpetuation of three distinct but related myths. The first is the liberal myth of church-state separation. The First Amendment; he says; was itself a bitter compromise that did not create the separation advocated by Madison and Jefferson. The second myth follows from the first; that religious believers fled the persecution in Europe in order to establish religious tolerance in the United States.Quite the contrary had been the case. If anything; the early settlers came here to establish their own theocracy; and much of the book thoroughly documents the development of what the author calls the moral establishment; meaning the close; cooperative; and coordinated relationship between Protestant Christianity and the State toward the regulation and control of public and private behavior. This was not done by persuasive means; but by force of law; beginning; notably; with the legal prohibition of blasphemy. It was argued then that blasphemy undercut religion; and religion; in the view of virtually all the Founders; was critical for the support of morality. Though the First Amendment prohibited the establishment of an official religion of the State; the moral aspects of the gospel were regarded as so important to the preservation of the State that legal enforcement of the moral code of Protestant Christianity became commonplace throughout much of U.S. history. This leads to the demolition of the third myth enjoyed largely by religious conservatives; that American religious liberty is and always has been the cornerstone of American liberty. On the contrary. In many ways; the United States was a de facto Christian nation because Protestant Christians had significant control over law and governance and used it to enforce their morality. This reality also undermines a related and more implied myth of conservatives; that the United States was for the most part religiously homogeneous. If that were true; as Dr. Sehat points out; the force of law would not have been necessary.But the other critical point that Dr. Sehat makes concerns the kind of morality that this moral establishment enforced. The churches overwhelmingly supported slavery and the development of Jim Crow that followed it. They systematically engaged the legal system to deny religious freedom to all but Protestant Christians. They overwhelmingly opposed women’s suffrage; and they overwhelmingly aligned themselves with and theologically rationalized the worst abuses of corporate capitalism during the mid 19th and early 20th Centuries. And though Dr. Sehat does not mention this; he might have added that they supported and engaged in the massacre and displacement of Native Americans.Both sides of this enduring struggle over the meaning and role of religion and the First Amendment tend to at least downplay; if not to ignore or outright deny this history of religious coercion in American politics. Dr. Sehat insists that the reality of this history must be faced if we are to move forward toward the promise of religious freedom for all Americans. Dr. Sehat expresses that promise as the capacity to adjudicate between the diverse constituencies and competing ethical claims of our religiously plural culture; and find a moral framework that is acceptable in law. What I take that to mean is that the measure of our commitment to religious freedom consists in the extent to which we protect the rights of minorities; including those who claim no religious convictions or affiliations; and that the role of religion should be; for the most part; persuasive; and not coercive. This is how I understand Dr. Sehat’s reference to Michael Walzers “moral minimalism†over the “moral maximalism†of our history.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Excellent!By Peter A. ButzinProvides a sweeping history of how Protestantism in America (primarily) shaped the Law; particularly in state legislatures and the U.S. Supreme Court. My own studies in American Religion and social history brought me to the same conclusion as the book's hypothesis; but David Sehat's book has provided the evidence that confirm my own suspicions. Particularly the latter chapters also provide a compelling overview of jurisprudence on the subject in the 20th Century. It also lays the groundwork for better understanding the battle between Evangelical conservatives and liberals who have embraced individual rights over religious-based moralism. It provides a thoughtful case that both sides have had it wrong by embracing different versions of history related to "the myth of American religious freedom.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Only reading this for a class but it was interesting.By FrederickDavid Sehat is an academic badass. It is an interesting read and his take on American religious "freedom" is pretty interesting.
