Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Irene Riegner <iriegner AT concentric.net>]

Dear List People,

I can't figure out what was offensive in Lloyd Barre's posts---at most
they were a bit flippant---and I don't recall reading any posts in which
the writer stated that she/he was offended by Barre's statements. Barre
is presenting a valid, scholarly perspective on biblical scholarship.
In addition to the writings of K. Whitlam, mentioned in a previous post
by J. Safren, the work of N. P. Lemche, P. Davies and others represent
critical, very critical use of the biblical texts in historical
reconstructions.  Whitlam' descriptions  of pre-monarchic Israel and
Israelite state formation is a fascinating reconstruction based on
archeological evidence, economic models of pre-industrial societies, and
models of state formation---and all this without recourse to the
biblical texts.  Is this offensive to scholarly pursuits?  It shouldn't
be.  It should, however, provoke questions about the relationship of the
biblical texts---or any text---to the social, economic and political
environment in which they were written.  This is THE critical issue.
They should raise questions about who wrote the text and why?  Who read
the text or listened to it?  And yes, it should challenge the
assumptions of the readers who read these texts.
    The current research---which began with the biblical archeology
movement---expands the research environment.  Where the text once
sufficed as the starting and ending points, as our focal point of
interest, and as almost our only source for information about ancient
Israel and Judah---perhaps supplemented by a few texts and art forms
from Mesopotamia---we now have archeological evidence, material remains
as well as flora, fauna, geological knowledge, etc., from wide areas of
the ANE into which the biblical text as well as the history of Judah and
Israel needs to be integrated.  We also have theories of cultural change
and transformation, which if valid, would have to be applicable to all
cultures including Israel and Judah.  In this web of relaionships, the
biblical text looses its uniqueness and primacy and becomes one artifact
among many.

The questions have changed over, say, the last 25 years or so.  The new
questions are less concerned, for instance, with monotheism in the
biblical text than with the nature of Israelite religion, recognizing
that Israelite religion was far richer and more complex than that
described in the biblical texts.  To put it another way, much of the
scholarly focus in the bible has changed from interest in proving the
factual truth of the bible to that of reconstructing  everyday life in
Syro-Palestine---the economic conditions, the social structure, the
judicial structure and the changes through the centuries.

So, again, I ask:  What was offensive a bout LLoyd Barre's posts?

irene riegner