Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Irene Riegner <iriegner AT concentric.net>]

  I would like to respond to Tony Prete's comment:
> I recommend highly the fourth edition of Bernhard W. Anderson's Understanding the Old Testament (Prentice
> Hall). His only mention of "Christianity" is in the opening chapter where he describes the differences between
> the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament. The only reference to Jesus is in the section n the Wisdom literature
> where the last paragraph says that the Christian church sees the wisdom movement coming to fulfillment in
> Jesus, and shows this from Paul and John.
I used Anderson when I taught bible and was very unhappy with it. 
A college level course in the humanities, even on the bible and even an
introductory course, should encourage critical thought, weighing of evidence,
and examination of the assumptions of the writers---the biblical writers
and the interpreter.  Anderson does very little---if any---of either. 
He assumes the basic historicity of the text and writes his text as if
it were a history moving chronologically from the patriarchal period to
the post-exilic period. Concerning Sinai he "...affirm[s] that the sequence
of Exodus and Sinai is historically correct" (p. 103).  Considering
the lack of corroborating evidence of an exodus, this is indeed a faith
statement---acceptable in a setting of faith but not in a college classroom.  
He talks about the "Mosaic faith."  What does this mean?  Is
it faith in Moses?  Not only is this a 20th century, 19th century(?)
retrojection but it assumes an exodus, a Moses who somehow received law,
and a group leaving Egypt.

And he refers to the "tribal confederacy" based on allegiance to Yahweh, which formed at Shechem---a political organization whose existence is considered dubious.  More importantly, there is no discussion of how an elaboration of a  "confederacy" might serve the Deuteronomic editors of Joshua.

And where is discussion of whether the Davidic and Solomonic empire actually existed.  It's assumed to be factual.  More importantly, how and why did the idea of an empire become so important?

He is subtly Christian---and not so subtly Christian.  He calls the text, the Old Testament, which implies there is something new---and better---which supersedes it (in our culture, new is considered better).  He compares the absence of the Sinai covenant from Israelite confessional summaries to the absence of the term Eucharist in Christian confessions---rather than questioning whether the Sinai covenant was a major part of the belief system. Moreover, use of the term "confessional"  is basically Christian religious talk (see page 102). 

The text is dated in its conceptualization of, among many things, Israelite religion, taking the bible and its description of Yahwism as a fairly accurate description of Israelite religion. He talks of "Israel's faith" (a Christian theological perspective?).  Covenant faith---Christian theological terminology? As current archeological and textual research indicates, Israelite religion was certainly not the religion to which the prophets adhered, but the religion they debunked, the religion of the people---like Gomer.

He considers the great conflict of Israelite history is the conflict  between faith and culture (p. 244).  How can they be separated?  Belief is revealed through cultural artifacts---literary or material.  This dichotomy seems to mirror the spirit / body split and the mind / body split that plague Western religions and Western thought.  Is this dichotomy accurate for ancient Israel and Judah?  The conflict could be understood as one between the popular religion of the people and the esoteric religion of the prophets.

And the text book is basically old style history---political history.  Where does he have a reconstruction of Israelite  and Judahite society based on the textual and archeological evidence?  And what about the sometimes abusive references in the bible to women.  And the violence?

Since most of the Pentateuch is concerned with law and law-like codes (and not history)---and the prophets use legal terminology---where in the textbook is there a discussion of the importance of this in the bible and in Israelite and Judahite society?  And its implications for the biblical idea of an orderly cosmos?  If one purpose of a bible course is to understand the Israelite culture and world-view, it is imperative to include a discussion of the implication of law and ritual.  The neglect of this aspect of Israelite culture reflects a Christian theological bias.

In a confessional setting there is nothing wrong with theological terms and perspectives, but in a university, where the emphasis should be, ideally, on critical thinking, these have no place.  It is even more disconcerting when the author of the text does not realize his biases.

Has anyone used Gottwald, "The Hebrew Bible?"  I think it's too difficult for an introductory text.

irene riegner