Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] theories and standards

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Tory Thorpe <torythrp AT yahoo.com>
  • To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] theories and standards
  • Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 05:58:16 -0700 (PDT)


Karl:

--- On Wed, 5/20/09, K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Tory Thorpe <torythrp AT yahoo.com> wrote:

>> What I'm saying is something along the lines of Robert Alter,
>> The Art of Biblical Narrative, 1981, i.e. that there is here in
>> this LXX tradition a more credible view of the past conveyed by
>> the narrator (= usually the author of the final form of the text).
>> Whether that tradition actually reflects reality is irrelevant to
>> a literary-critical approach: it is enough to recognize that the
>> biblical writers believed in the stories they told. That's why we
>> have them.
>>
>
> By literary-critical approach, do you mean looking at the text
> according to linguistic and literary standards to try to understand
> it, without passing judgments on its origins nor sources?

Yes and no. I see that the primary aim of the literary-critical method is to
discern what is the message being conveyed in a text, the reason for the
message, and the techniques used to convey the message. The literary critic
does not, or should not, remotely concern himself (or herself) with the
validity or accuracy of a message. For example, he does not care if Arthur
really existed and pulled the sword from the stone. Neither does he care if
Ramesses II is lying or telling the truth about what happened in the war with
the Hittites. But in this latter case, the material is prompting such
questions because Ramesses II was giving his version of a past episode. The
biblical texts also prompt similar questions because the authors believed the
stories they told happened in the past and they used techniques that
obviously betray an attempt at historiography in the modern sense (e.g. in
Gen 11, X's age at the birth of Y and the number of years X lived after
the birth of Y is not how myths and legends are written. As far as I know,
this level of detail is unparalleled; it is does not exist in Mesopotamian
texts reporting incredible lifespans of heroes and kings). So I suppose the
biblical literary critic can't be blamed for sometimes putting on the
historian's cap during a critical evaluation of a biblical text, even if he
probably shouldn't.

Tory Thorpe







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page