I just finished reading a compilation of articles on New Insights and Scholarship in Hebrew Bible. This was an interesting experience as I found some interesting and thought provoking material as well as much that I could not agree with or found contentious and inaccurate in sensibility or approach. The first article was why I bought the book. Gary A. Rendsburg in "Israel without Bible" presented a novel approach of asking the question: "How would Biblical history look if we attemtped to reconstruct it solely from archeological evidence, without a reference to the Biblical accounts?" His response is: "Very similar to the Biblical account".
Other articles contain some nuggets of insight but are otherwise dissapointing or of marginal interest. I liked David P. Wright's response to the proposal that Temple sacrifice represent a sublimation of human sacrifice. He points out that the actual killing of the animal (shechita) is performed by a non-cohen, thus placing the main meaning of the sacrifice not in the killing but in the offering (p.125). He derives it from Yechzkel 40:38-43,which is of course not how Talmud derives it, but this derivation is notable as a supportive, if somewhat arguable source. I also thought that Ziony Zevit was onto something in chapter 8 when he pursued the parallels between Biblical examples of outside- the- Temple- prayer and Rabbinic prayer. In this way, he contested that argument that Rabbinic Judaism is discontinuous with Biblical religion because the former has prayer while the latter had only sacrifices. I wonder whether the disagreement about the three rabbinic prayers being derived from the Avos or from the sacrifices (Brochos 17) may not be precisely about this point - about whether they are formatted after Biblical order of sacrifices or Biblical examples of out of the Temple prayer. There is, parentetically, another view, brought only in Yerushalmi, of Rabbon Gamliel, that the three daily prayers correspond to the three natural division of the day. See fascinating comments of Oruch Hashulchan about this in O"C:1.
The epilogue, however, is what I found most interesting. In it, E. Greensplan compares and contrasts the three modern ways of interpeting BIble: historico-critical methods, as sacred literature ( with the interpretation determined by a particular body of believers) and literary interpretation. I will now do the same thing but from a personal perspective, commennting on what is positive and negative in each approach.
The historical-critical approach sees each book of the Bible, and sometimes even each chapter or sentence, as presenting different points of view that come out of different religious groups with disparate theologies and perspectives. Somehow, at some time, someone cobbled all these different perspectives and documents together. Why didn't the Redactor eliminate contradictions? Because the culture of the times did not see anything wrong in contradictatons since the goal was to preserve a record of different communities and views ( I know that this is weak and I know that you recognize it too). This approach has a great deal of explanatory power because of the way we think nowadays. The reductionist scientific approach makes this thought pattern appealing to those who are educated in it, and it frees one from the burden of having to reconcile contradictions. This is why it is not questioned beyond the traditionalist circles.
On the other hand, it does not explain the most remakable and obvious truth about the BIble - its unparalleled power of ideas, its ability over and over again to change societies and redirect human history, its ability to claim allegience of millions and millions in generation after generation. In short, it misses exactly what is unique and central to the Bible - its religious potency. It is like looking at the Last Supper and seeing only what is on the plates. In short, it misses THE point.
Traditional interpretations are focused precisely on the sacredness of Scripture, not only on its text. Certain kinds of interpretation, the ones that are not consistent with the message that a particular religious community subscribes to, cannot possibly be true, because it is not about the Bible ' as we know it". On the other hand, they cannot be "proven" by one community to another. Most believers, however, do not look for proof, they are in pursuit of meaning.
Literary approaches are compatible with the either method. On one hand, they are not interested in the source of the text or in how a text came together. On the other hand, they are not interested in the message of the text but in what it says. They shortchange everyone equally. To understand Bible as literature, they approach Bible as a literary text, trying to understand what techniques are being employed, what the effect on the reader may be and how it is accomplished. There are many types of literary approaches and while they can results in unexpectedly enlightening insights, even some that have unintentional Meaning to a traditionalsit, they are ultimately sterile because they are also not interested in the Truth but only in literality. They also, miss the big picture of Biblical Religious Meaning.
What is the take home message? Do not draw after them (Psalms 37). The sources of religious meaning are: Personal experience and longing, Tradition and Text. If literary methods add to your sophistication as in intepreter who can uncover Meaning - fine. But it is Meaning and only Meaning after which you must draw.
Excellent post, this was very interesting.
Posted by: Amazing Bible Verses | May 16, 2012 at 01:37 PM