Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Lloyd Barre" <barre AT c-zone.net>]

On 10/31/98, "Irene Riegner <iriegner AT concentric.net>" wrote:
> --------------78BD9D3A0F4C9345FE7C64EF
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 
>   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.

I would say that is rather standard.  Of  the choices I've seen, only 
Gottwald's Intro seems competent.  But I agree again, it is too difficult 
to an Intro course.

  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.

It is easy to spot this inadequacy.  But positively speaking, how would you 
get at Israelite history, methodologically that is, and how would your 
organize your presentation of both history and of the traditions?


 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.

So here.  How would you assess the historicity of these traditions and can 
you derive any historical information from them and how?

   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.

So how would you account for the genesis of these traditions?
> 
> 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.

So, how was Israel formed?
> 
> 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?

Do you think those traditions are pure fiction?  Why?
> 
> 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). 

Now "we" say Hebrew Bible to remove the bias.

 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).

I know.  Like many biblical scholars, his piety shows through.
> 
> 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. 

What is your understanding of Yahwism and 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.

I agree.  Projection of modern Christian thought onto ancient Israel.
> 
> 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.

The dichotomy is fed by the Christian notion that God's people a chosen out 
from the world.  They are reborn, different, in conflict with a spiritual 
dead world.  It reflects New Testament apocalypticism.
> 
> 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?

He believes that he is interpreting material and literary remains.  He is 
just bad at it.
> 
> 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?

No discussion of law?  He had to have  said something about the 10 
commandments.  I cannot recall.  Your concern for law strikes me as Jewish. 
 Are you Jewish?

  And its implications for
> the biblical idea of an orderly cosmos? 

Central to P.

 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.

That's Barney for you.

> 
> 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.

I agree whole heartedly.  But from my observations, it is very hard to find 
an introduction that reflects many rather silly ideas.  Biblical scholars 
are mostly religious, and that perspective always comes through in some way 
in the Introductory texts.  Even adopting a canonical arrangement of 
exposition blurs the connection between the traditions and their historical 
matrices.  So the question is, how to write a good introductory text.  What 
do you think?
> 
> Has anyone used Gottwald, "The Hebrew Bible?"  I think it's too
> difficult for an introductory text.
> 
> irene riegner
> 
> 
> --------------78BD9D3A0F4C9345FE7C64EF
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 
> <HTML>
> &nbsp; I would like to respond to Tony Prete's comment:
> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
> <PRE>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.</PRE>
> </BLOCKQUOTE>
> I used Anderson when I taught bible and was very unhappy with it.&nbsp;
> 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.&nbsp; Anderson does very little---if any---of 
> either.&nbsp;
> 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).&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;&nbsp;
> He talks about the "Mosaic faith."&nbsp; What does this mean?&nbsp; Is
> it faith in Moses?&nbsp; 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.
> 
> <P>And he refers to the "tribal confederacy" based on allegiance to Yahweh,
> which formed at Shechem---a political organization whose existence is 
> considered
> dubious.&nbsp; More importantly, there is no discussion of how an 
> elaboration
> of a&nbsp; "confederacy" might serve the Deuteronomic editors of Joshua.
> 
> <P>And where is discussion of whether the Davidic and Solomonic empire
> actually existed.&nbsp; It's assumed to be factual.&nbsp; More importantly,
> how and why did the idea of an empire become so important?
> 
> <P>He is subtly Christian---and not so subtly Christian.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp;
> 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"&nbsp; is basically 
> Christian
> religious talk (see page 102).&nbsp;
> 
> <P>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?).&nbsp; 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.
> 
> <P>He considers the great conflict of Israelite history is the 
> conflict&nbsp;
> between faith and culture (p. 244).&nbsp; How can they be separated?&nbsp;
> Belief is revealed through cultural artifacts---literary or material.&nbsp;
> This dichotomy seems to mirror the spirit / body split and the mind / body
> split that plague Western religions and Western thought.&nbsp; Is this
> dichotomy accurate for ancient Israel and Judah?&nbsp; The conflict could
> be understood as one between the popular religion of the people and the
> esoteric religion of the prophets.
> 
> <P>And the text book is basically old style history---political 
> history.&nbsp;
> Where does he have a reconstruction of Israelite&nbsp; and Judahite society
> based on the textual and archeological evidence?&nbsp; And what about the
> sometimes abusive references in the bible to women.&nbsp; And the violence?
> 
> <P>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?&nbsp; And its implications for the 
> biblical
> idea of an orderly cosmos?&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; The neglect of
> this aspect of Israelite culture reflects a Christian theological bias.
> 
> <P>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.&nbsp; It is even more 
> disconcerting
> when the author of the text does not realize his biases.
> 
> <P>Has anyone used Gottwald, "The Hebrew Bible?"&nbsp; I think it's too
> difficult for an introductory text.
> 
> <P>irene riegner
> <BR>&nbsp;</HTML>
> 
> --------------78BD9D3A0F4C9345FE7C64EF--