Metaphorically Speaking

I have finally finished Janet Soskice Sisters of Sinai and, despite my earlier misgivings about its initial slow pace, I have really enjoyed reading it. The author has managed to blend together an amazing story of perseverence (a solid Presbyterian virtue) with good, scholarly research that reflects the protagonists' own story of learning, delving and discovery. I only wish that I could pass it on to one of my family or friends, but I fear that the fairly esoteric subject, plus its 'slow-burn' start might put most of them off.

I am also making my way through (practically finished!)David J. Williams very excellent Paul's Metaphors: Their Context and Character. This comprehensive thematic survey of Paul's language is appealing at every level, to both the reader of the Bible in English translation (here the NIV, a good workmanlike, if occasionally nervous version) and to those who (like myself) like to wrestle with Paul's Greek mano a mano. In actual fact, it has been a very good way of revising those hapax legomenon - those one-off terms with which Paul peppers his epistles and which I tend not to always recognise immediately. I've also learned a fair bit about subjects otherwise not high on my agenda. Did you know, for example, that a Roman soldier had as much to fear from his fellow legionaries as from his commanding officers or the enemy? If he failed to keep his place in the battle line, or lost his weapons to the enemy he could be condemned to the fustuarium, to be assailed by his comrades wielding rocks and clubs! Indeed, whole units could be subjected to this treatment: after being paraded in disgrace before the whole legion (10 cohorts of between 480 to 600 men = up to 6000 soldiers) every tenth man was chosen to undergo the ordeal (the origin of the word 'decimation'), the brave alongside the downright cowardly could equally be chosen by lot. A similar punishment was meted out for a sentry losing the wax tablet that had the current 'watchword' inscribed on it, or for being away from his post during a spot-inspection (what if nature called?). Harsh. No wonder the discipline of the Roman army was legendary.

The layout of the book is pleasing, although I think I would have probably preferred the specialist language information to have been contained in footnotes rather than endnotes, but that is just because I (personally) find all the flicking back and forth between the pages mildly irritating. I can understand the decision to keep them all en bloc, so that the non-specialist is not overwhelmed with torrents of Greek.

The book is divided into sections that deal with concepts in the same semantic field, which will no doubt please the linguistics afficionados, but some of the metaphors 'bleed' into one another so information in the endnotes occasionally tends to be, if not repeated, referred on to other endnotes. But this is a problem with which I am all too familiar: how to successfully and comprehensively cross-reference without becoming bogged down. The book has a couple of nice and useful appendices- a chronology of the Roman Empire (in outline, rather than exhaustive) and short biographies of the ancient writers that make an appearance in the book, plus the usual bibliography (extensive) and scripture index. There is also an index of the cited ancient authors. Two very minor observations follow.

i) It would have been interesting to see a 'metaphor map' of each epistle to get an idea (at a glance) of the coherence (or indeed scattershot nature) of Paul's thought.

ii) The author skirts around the problem of Pauline 'authenticity' with the old 'what constitutes an author?' chestnut. He says that he has 'accepted the traditional ascriptions of authorship to Paul', and thus includes not only Ephesians, Colossians ansd 2Thessalonians (..well..OK...I can live with that...at a push), but also the Pastoral Epistles. In addition he ransacks the Pauline speeches of Acts for material which he believes contain a kernel of Pauline authority. Mmmm. Why not add Hebrews too, then? I think the trouble with including the whole kit and Pauline caboodle is that we end up examining language that is actually quite far removed from its 'source', and the valid fields of investigation can flow ever outward, until the whole NT is plundered (and then, why not the apocrypha - someone thought that they had authority). Why not maybe 'NT Metaphors: Their Context and Character'? That would indeed be a μεγα βιβλιον! (και ἰσως μεγα κακον!) But if source limitation really is the name of the game, then play on the side of conservatism (not theological conservatism though!) and limit your sources to those upon which the majority of scholars can agree: Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1Thessalonians and Philemon. The book would indeed be slimmer, but no worse for that.

That having been said, I am enjoying reading this handsome and appealing volume immensely - so much so that I have put my other current reads on hold for the meantime to concentrate on it. I shall no doubt refer to it in my own research, and shall heartily commend it to my fellow scholars.