Now in Paperback! Best Book on Inner-Biblical Exegesis Ever!

About a year and a half ago, I reviewed Bernard Levinson's book Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel. I'm pleased to announce that this thought-provoking volume is now available in an affordable paperback edition. My hope is that it will reach a wider audience in biblical studies, especially graduate students interested in the formation of the Hebrew Bible and inner-biblical exegesis. Here are some of the published reactions highlighted by the publisher.

"This would be an excellent addition to any theological library and it is to be hoped that the publisher will soon release a paperback version so more students can enjoy the fruits of Levinson’s labours. —Theological Book Review 21 (2009)

“With this study Levinson demonstrates again how he masterfully integrates his own exegetical brilliance into larger theoretical frameworks beyond the constraints of biblical studies.” —Journal of Ancient Judaism

“The book deserves a wide readership. It would serve well as a text for advanced undergraduate or graduate courses that deal with inner-biblical exegesis. One can also hope that scholars in other fields will read it and take to heart Levinson’s argument for the reintegration of biblical studies into the core of academic work in the humanities. The book’s research is thorough, its argument forceful, its writing elegant, and it is blessedly short. If books can be placed into tribes, may this one’s increase.”—Review of Biblical Literature

“Perhaps I am biased, but it seems to me to be beyond any reasonable doubt that, behind the final form of the canonical, biblical text lies evidence of a lively, imaginative, and creative use of interpretation, reinterpretation, and reapplication of earlier texts. It is a complex, living, creative achievement which, for just this reason, invites constant, continuing invention, as Levinson maintains. I certainly find this book itself a delightful, informative, and stimulating one to read.” —Journal of Theological Studies

In the Mail: Elijah and the Rabbis

Today I received a review copy from Columbia University Press of Elijah and the Rabbis: Story and Theology by Kristen H. Lindbeck.

From the publisher:

Through an innovative synthesis of narrative critique, oral-formulaic study, folkloric research, and literary analysis, Kristen H. Lindbeck reads all the Elijah narratives in the Babylonian Talmud and details the rise of a distinct, quasi-angelic figure who takes pleasure in ordinary interaction.

During the Talmudic period of 50-500 C.E., Elijah developed into a recognizable character quite different from the Elijah of the Bible. The Elijah of the Talmud dispenses wisdom, advice, and, like the Elijah of Jewish folklore, helps people directly, even with material gifts. Lindbeck highlights particular features of the Elijah stories, allowing them to be grouped into generic categories and considered alongside Rabbinic literary motifs and non-Jewish traditions of late antiquity. She compares Elijah in the Babylonian Talmud to a range of characters—angels, rabbis, wonder-workers, the angel of death, Christian saints, and even the Greek god Hermes. She concludes with a survey of Elijah's diverse roles from medieval times to today, throwing into brilliant relief the complex relationship between ancient Elijah traditions and later folktales and liturgy that show Elijah bringing benefits and blessings, appearing at circumcisions and Passover, and visiting households after the Sabbath.

I find the development of biblical figures in later religious traditions to be a fascinating subject. I look forward to reading it and offering more of a review here in the future.

Beyond the Qumran Community

John J. Collins
Beyond the Qumran Community: The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2010

A few months ago, I was convinced that the Essenes had no clear connection to the Dead Sea Scrolls and that the site of Qumran was most likely not a religious sectarian settlement. (Background here.) Now I’m not totally recanting my earlier skepticism, but after reading John Collins’s latest book, I’ve realized my hard-line denial of the possibility was clouding my objectivity and hindering my understanding of consensus arguments. Yes, many of the consensus positions require a speculative leap at some point to bring evidence and theory together, but the connections are not as completely implausible as I’d thought. Since I value going where the evidence leads more than defending a particular point of view, I have to admit that Collins has done a fine job in presenting the most nuanced and balanced account of the Qumran sect that I have ever read.

The material is organized in 5 chapters:

1. The New Covenant. The community described in the Damascus Document (CD) is discussed in depth. The laws and the distinctive elements about sectarian life are compared with evidence from other sectarian documents like 4QMMT and other Jewish literature from the period such as Enoch and Jubilees.

2. The Yaḥad. The sectarian community described in the Community Rule (1QS) is compared with that in the Damascus Document. The surprising conclusion (that seems obvious once it has been presented) is that they do NOT describe the same group. This is important because most scholarship on the DSS sect takes all sectarian texts together as describing a single sect that dwelled at Qumran.

3. The Historical Context. Here Collins reviews the evidence for the historical setting of the sectarian movement. Consensus had previously placed the origins of the sect in the early 2nd century BCE (i.e., Jonathan Maccabee was the Wicked Priest). I have long found the arguments for a 1st century BCE setting compelling especially as laid out by M.O. Wise (“Dating the Teacher of Righteousness and the Floruit of His Movement,” JBL 122 (2003):53-87). Collins points out how the pillars that had supported a 2nd century dating have eroded as a result of recent research.

4. The Essenes. Much scholarship on Qumran and the sect described in the DSS ignores or minimizes the contributions from scholars such as N. Golb. The fact that Collins will at least mention Golb and cite him when appropriate is surely a sign of his respect for hearing all sides in the debate. The Essene hypothesis identifying the sect described in the scrolls with the Essenes described by Josephus and other ancient writers has been one of the most controversial issues in DSS scholarship. Collins treats all sides fairly and accurately represents the strengths and weaknesses of each argument. His chapter lays out the problem and the possible solutions clearly without overtly favoring one side until all the options and evidence have been discussed. It is typical of Collins in this book to avoid coloring the reader’s perceptions of the issue by giving away his preferred interpretation up front.

5. The Site of Qumran. In this final chapter, Collins discusses the archaeology of Qumran and the possible connection between the site and the scrolls. He gives a full account of the major interpretations of the site and concludes that at least in the final period of settlement before the First Revolt in 66-68 CE, the site likely housed a sectarian settlement. However, he believes the group at Qumran was small and one of many settlements of the sect described in the scrolls. This theory explains the data much better than claiming a single large sect lived at or near Qumran and composed all the scrolls. It allows for many of the scrolls to be brought from elsewhere during the upheaval of the First Revolt. It also explains the multiplicity of sectarian documents such as different copies of the Community Rule that differ slightly. Other theories such as Golb’s idea that the collection of scrolls came from a Jerusalem Temple archive hidden in the area have trouble with the fact that the library lacks the diversity often attributed to Second Temple Judaism. Where are the Sadducean texts if this was a temple archive? Where are the scrolls written by the Pharisees?  The theory that these scrolls were brought together by members of one larger group makes better sense. It explains the fact that most of the sectarian literature has an overarching unity (i.e., calendrical and purity issues) that fits with the larger parent group and a diversity (i.e., celibate or married) that can be explained by the subgroups.

I am still not convinced that the scrolls found in 11 caves near the Dead Sea are necessarily connected to anyone who inhabited Qumran or to the Essenes. However, Collins has convinced me that the consensus is not totally implausible. The straightforward way that he engages and deconstructs consensus and non-consensus scholars alike shows me that he is more concerned with giving an honest interpretation of the evidence than defending any theory in particular. His careful method of debunking mistaken assumptions and conclusions on all sides is a quality I admire, not least because I felt that I would have approached the problem in much the same way.

The book is well worth reading and quite affordable at $25 paperback. If/when I teach an introductory class on the Dead Sea Scrolls, this will be required reading. The bibliography is substantial and Collins’s familiarity with the immense secondary literature on the DSS is a model of good scholarship.

To close, as required in book review posts now, I must disclose that I have NO material connection to the publisher. Yes, that’s right. I did not receive a free review copy for saying nice things about the book. I actually bought this book for myself and found his treatment of the issues so compelling that I was compelled to recommend the book to all of you.

RBL Review of Fox’s Proverbs vol. 2

The latest commentary by my professor Michael V. Fox has been reviewed in the Review of Biblical Literature by Bruce Waltke.

I have not finished reading either the commentary or the review, but early on, Waltke comments that his volume published in 2007 was not interacted with. He rightly surmises that Fox had ended interaction with commentaries before 2007. The truth is that this volume was all but ready for publication in 2006 and was delayed due to the transitionin publisher for the Anchor series from Doubleday to Yale.

I am very glad that it has finely been published. As I interact with it more, I will post my own review. In the meantime, it would be worth your time to read Waltke’s take on the volume.

Michael Fox
Proverbs 10-31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7219
Reviewed by Bruce K. Waltke

Review: Original Sinners by John R. Coats

I just finished reading Original Sinners: A New Interpretation of Genesis by John R. Coats. (I received a review copy in mid-December from Free Press--see full disclosure text below).

I have to admit that I had low expectations when I started. It's a popular book on the Bible written by a non-scholar claiming a "new interpretation." We all know "there is nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9). What could I have to learn about the Bible from a former Episcopalian priest?

You might be surprised. I know I was. While Coats hasn't really offered a wholly new interpretation, he's provided a refreshingly relevant reading of Genesis that brings the ancient characters alive, emphasizing their humanity - their flaws and feelings - in the midst of the extraordinary circumstances of their lives.

For the faithful, Coats's perspective on Genesis as story and metaphor over history and fact may at first seem sacrilegious and threatening. However, it allows him to read Genesis in a fresh way, putting himself in the character's shoes and attempting to understand their motivation, their decisions, and their actions. His perspective helped me to see the very familiar stories of Genesis in an entirely new way as I attempted to follow the human side of the story instead of reading solely for the theological significance of divine revelation.

One of the most original features of the book is the way Coats weaves together his discussion of Genesis with stories from his own life that illustrate the attitudes and interactions he's finding in the biblical text. Coats is a masterful storyteller and I enjoyed learning more about the author through his account of his life experience.

The insights he brings to Genesis emphasize the flawed humanity of the characters using his knowledge of biblical studies, psychology, and ministry. While some might characterize his interpretation as heavily "reader-response", he is aware of the danger of reading too much of his own "conditioning" into his interpretation. His seminary training exposed him to the perspectives of critical scholarship on the Bible, and he makes use of that with frequent reference to some of the more accessible popular Bible interpreters such as Robert Alter and James Kugel.

If Coats set out to write a book challenging the ways the average reader approaches Genesis, then he succeeded. If he intended to challenge their assumptions and push them to read Genesis in a new way, inserting themselves into the story and finding new levels of contemporary relevance for these ancient texts, then he succeeded there as well. I thoroughly enjoyed the book, and I recommend it for anyone looking for a fresh perspective on the Book of Genesis.

Disclosure Text : I have a material connection because I received a review copy (book, CD, software, etc.), or an item of nominal value that I can keep for consideration in preparing to write this content. http://cmp.ly/1/vqq5qw

Enns on the Erosion of Inerrancy

Peter Enns has reviewed Greg Beale's The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism in the latest Bulletin of Biblical Research. Art Boulet has reproduced the entire review at his blog (with permission). A wise blogger once pointed out that Beale "purports to be defending the Bible, but he is of course defending his doctrine of Scripture, and at times it becomes clear that he is determined to defend his doctrine of Scripture even from Scripture itself." Enns notes that very same approach as the greatest weakness of the book.

The most serious problem with Erosion, which is the source of every difficulty that burdens the book, is likely from Beale’s point of view the book’s great strength. Beale assumes the very point that many evangelicals call into question, namely, that one particular evangelical understanding of inerrancy, promulgated in CSBI, is the non-negotiable standard by which any differing assessments should be judged. Beale does not countenance the possibility that the current level of unrest among evangelicals, leading to its doctrinal formulations being so widely scrutinized, suggests that perhaps a re-evaluation of these commitments is in order through patient listening and scholarly dialogue.

By assuming the inviolability of his position, Beale’s argument is like that of a defense attorney out to defend his client at any and all costs, rather than a scholar weighing evidence.

If you are interested in the issue of inerrancy and the authorship of Isaiah (among other issues), I recommend you click through to read the entire review. It's quite thought-provoking, and, in my opinion, Enns has provided a dead-on accurate assessment of Beale's book.

Review: NLT Mosaic Bible

I originally considered categorizing this review of NLT Mosaic according to the "Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" cliche, but I couldn't think of anything Bad or Ugly to say. So, I'm going with something a bit weaker: what I like and what I like less.

What I Like:

1. The Concept. The Mosaic Bible leads off with 53 short meditations/devotional readings, one for each week of the year. The sequence follows the church year from Advent to Pentecost. Each reading is interspersed with brief quotations and artwork that span the entirety of Christendom, both globally and chronologically. It's a mosaic piecing together little bits and pieces of traditional and contemporary Christianity. This is a great way for Christians in the United States to be introduced to the great breadth of the Church around the world. Too often our view of church is limited only to the hundred people or so we may see on any given Sunday in our own small corner of the planet.

2. The Artwork. The color pictures capture well the essence of each week's topic. Biblical scenes are depicted frequently in art from Africa or Asia, and I'm reminded that it was more than just Flemish painters in the Renaissance who read their world back into their biblical scenes. The art is also an effective reminder of media translation. Think about it. We've transferred the biblical text from the original languages into native tongues around the world, carrying a foreign ancient text into a new culture. Is it any different to translate the world of the Bible into visual images that are meaningful in that same culture?

3. The Book. The book itself is an attractive hardcover. It appears to be sturdy and durable, but I'm too gentle with my Bibles to ever have one fall apart anyway. The binding is glued and the paper is noticeably different between the meditations and the Bible itself.

What I Like Less:

Since this is really a devotional Bible, I don't have anything to critique content-wise. The meditations that I've read are meaningful and thought-provoking. My only criticism is that by picking and choosing bits and pieces from various lectionaries they've created a set of readings that doesn't actually align with any denomination's regular reading cycle. I'm not even sure this is necessary or important since the goal was to share segments from the breadth of Christianity.

The Bottom Line:

The Mosaic Bible is still effective in raising awareness that a church calendar exists and that some denominations structure their year around these seasons. The audience for this Bible appears to be evangelicals anyway who are often blissfully unaware of what is going on in most mainline denominations. (I know I'm always surprised when the fish sandwich returns to prominence at McDonalds every year, strangely corresponding to Ash Wednesday. This Bible may not help you with that culture shock per se.)

If you're looking for a new Bible to read through in 2010, I recommend the NLT Mosaic. The translation is fresh and clear and the weekly devotions will expose you to a whole wide world of Christian thought and art that you never knew existed.

The Fine Print:
In accord with FTC guidelines regarding endorsements, it is my duty to disclose that I received a complimentary copy of the Holy Bible Mosaic from Sean Harrison at Tyndale House Publishers in exchange for this review. The FTC apparently considers this a paid endorsement and treats the review copy as compensation. Their guidelines require that any such material connection between the reviewer and the publisher be disclosed. However, unlike paid endorsements, there is no agreement, express or implied, between me and the publisher requiring a positive, glowing endorsement.

New Book: Original Sinners

Since I'm kind of collecting books on Genesis lately (Walton's Lost World of Genesis One, Smith's Priestly Vision of Genesis 1 to name a couple), I was pleased to receive a review copy of this new book from Free Press--Original Sinners: A New Interpretation of Genesis by John R. Coats. The overall thrust of the book is attempting to show readers how reading Genesis is valuable for the depth and breadth of human experience that it reflects. It's geared toward a popular audience and will likely connect with the average person interested in the book of Genesis much more than the typical scholarly work on Genesis because the author is directly concerned with making the book relevant for contemporary life. As I read more of the book, I'll post further reflections, but for now, I want to share this quote from p. 11:

The text that is actually there in Genesis, and what readers assume is there, are often quite different. Indeed, among its other functions, Genesis challenges assumptions, a role made necessary by thousands of years of attempts at interpreting its contents, itself a role to which any interpreter, being human, will bring a point of view. Moreover, people tend to defend their assumptions regarding Genesis -- or, for that matter, any part of the Bible -- with the tenacity of a lioness guarding her cubs. While proponents of this or that assumption, however outrageous, might truly believe theirs to be the product of divine inspiration, some, for their own reasons, likely made it up. Or someone else did, and they believed it. (emphasis original)

SBL: Legal Revision and Religious Renewal

Nearly a week ago now, I had the opportunity to attend an SBL session devoted to the discussion of Bernard Levinson's book Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel (reviewed on this blog here).

The panelists included David Wright, Christophe Nihan, and Beth Berkowitz with a response by Levinson himself. Wright and Nihan offered more traditional, straightforward reviews of the book with an overview of the content and some discussion of its strengths and weaknesses. Their reviews were generally positive - so much so that their minor criticisms and disagreements were not particularly memorable. Most disagreement seemed to stem from fundamental differences in perspective regarding the relationship between ancient Near Eastern texts, their authors, and their audiences.

The presentation by Beth Berkowitz was more creative and less traditional as a review. She demonstrated, convincingly in my opinion, how the later rabbinic exegetes further transformed the biblical text with similar goals of religious renewal, but she raised an important issue regarding whether the mode of textual transformation itself would not have also been transformed over time. I enjoyed her presentation the most as it gave me a chance to practice my rabbinic Hebrew (a Mischsprache par excellence, if there ever was one), and it reminded me of something that had jumped out at me on first reading Levinson's book. I find it completely plausible that the mode of textual transformation would have remained very similar over time. The same processes that worked to transform the Hebrew Bible in the Second Temple period and late antiquity in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the New Testament, and rabbinic literature were also at work among the tradents who transmitted the biblical text and shaped its canonical form. Even today, interpretation of sacred Scripture is a vital part of religious life; it is the essential work of making an ancient, out-of-date text relevant for contemporary life. The mode has not substantially changed, but the decisions on what is and is not Scripture have been made - differently by different groups all over the world.

Overall, the reaction to Levinson's book was positive and responses were generous in recognizing the important contribution he has made. The discussion time at the end, however, seemed dominated by some who seemed to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the central tenet of this book. This point could have been made more explicity--earlier texts were preserved because they had a measure of canonical authority. Later texts had to be subtly subversive to recast the reader's understanding of the earlier texts because they couldn't just make the earlier texts go away. I think Levinson's book demonstrates perfectly how that process was at work in the Hebrew Bible. Anyone involved in a living religious community will be able to see that the process is still at work today.

Reflections on The Bible Unearthed

I just finished reading The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. This isn't a full review, just a few reflections on the book overall.

Provocative thesis. Engaging narrative that carries the reader along, convincingly arguing that provocative thesis must be correct. Strangely absent, evidence. Broad generalizations interspersed with standard textbook facts about the archaeology of Palestine propel the narrative to its controversial conclusion.

The book is at the same time thought-provoking and frustrating. The former because some of their interpretations make a lot of sense. The latter because of the lack of interaction with other interpretations and the general lack of hard data for the most controversial parts of their thesis.

As far as the thesis goes, it appears they want to locate most of the production of the Hebrew Scriptures - at least, the main historical narrative of Genesis-2 Kings - in the time of Josiah and connect the history and geography of the Exodus and Conquest to an idealistic retrojection of Josiah's hopes for an expanded territory and a purer Yahwistic cult back into the hoary past. The glory days of David and Solomon are no more real and just as legendary as King Arthur and Camelot.

The composition of the Hebrew Bible can then be understood in a quasi-messianic trajectory - some passages reflecting the hopes and dreams for the nation pinned on a special Davidic king (Josiah) and later passages responding to the theological crisis of failure (Josiah's death at the hands of Neco in 605). [This messianic pattern is well-established in millenarian movements. See Wise 1999 for background.]

I find elements of this thesis compelling. I think Josiah and the late 7th century was a pivotal time for the composition of the Hebrew Bible. In fact, it makes sense that a lot of literary activity was going on from 722-586 BCE as Judah saw the cultural destruction of Israel and absorbed many of her refugees. However, I think Finkelstein and Silberman have overplayed the evidence with their thesis. Unfortunately, it's hard to tell for sure unless one has a thorough command of the evidence apart from reading their book. The main weakness of the book is that they prefer to assert their conclusions rather than demonstrate their evidence. You have to take their word for it because they're not going to give you any help in retracing their steps with the evidence.

Further, I know that many of their conclusions based on archaeology are hotly contested, especially concerning the dating of possible 10th century structures and the identity of the early Israelites. But they don't acknowledge any doubt or alternative opinions in their narrative. Since they don't use footnotes or endnotes, they couldn't engage the scholarly literature there either. The only semblance that they are even aware of the scholarship on the subject is a detailed bibliography at the very end listed according to chapter. Ironically, the present alternative interpretations for some subjects in the back in a series of appendices, but their rebuttal of the evidence sometimes seems to undermine the argument they were trying to make in the rest of the book - about Josiah's program of expansion, for example.

In the main, I think it's well worth reading if only because it raises important questions about who wrote the Bible, when did they write it, and why? At every turn, the authors challenge the simplistic traditional answers to these questions. I'll end here with a quote from the last page (p. 318) about the issue of the Bible's historicity.

Yet the Bible's integrity and, in fact, its historicity, do not depend on dutiful historical "proof" of any of its particular events or personalities, such as the parting of the Red Sea, the trumpet blasts that toppled the walls of Jericho, or David's slaying of Goliath with a single shot of his sling. The power of the biblical saga stems from its being a compelling and coherent narrative expression of the timeless themes of a people's liberation, continuing resistance to oppression, and quest for social equality. It eloquently expresses the deeply rooted sense of shared origins, experiences, and destiny that every human community needs in order to survive.

References:

Finkelstein, Israel and Neil Asher Silberman. 2001. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. New York: Free Press.

Wise, M. O. 1999. The First Messiah: Investigating the Savior before Christ. HarperCollins.

Review: Robert Alter, The Book of Psalms

Robert Alter’s recent commentary on the Psalms provides a fresh translation and an accessible introduction to the Psalms for the non-specialist. He effectively summarizes his earlier work on biblical poetry and describes the difficulties of translating Psalms.

As a literary critic, Alter’s readings are nuanced and insightful; however when his insights hang on observations from the grammar of biblical Hebrew, some care is needed. His observations about the Hebrew language, particularly dealing with semantics, are overly simplistic and amount to little more than etymologizing – simplifying the meaning of a term down to the basic concrete element of the root. He justifies the use of concrete language by relegating abstract spiritual concepts to the dustbin as “not within the purview of these Hebrew poets” (xxxiv). The notion that “primitive” peoples cannot think abstractly because their language is rooted in concrete terms has largely been abandoned as a relic of 19th century Rationalism.

Alter’s translation provides a fresh alternative to mainstream English versions, and his attention to preserving Hebrew poetic rhythm and balance in English translation is commendable though awkward at times (e.g., Alter's Psa. 30:6 – “But a moment in His wrath, / life in his pleasure.” vs. NRSV Psa. 30:5 – “For his anger is but for a moment; his favor is for a lifetime.”)

His bibliography is slim, and his notes do not often refer to specific secondary literature, leaving unclear who exactly is being invoked when he explains a verse with an appeal to the “scholarly consensus” (as in the note for Psa. 24:7, p. 82). The bibliography is actually just suggestions “For Further Reading”, and while I was pleased to see S. E. Gillingham made Alter’s short list of recommended readings, I was disappointed to see that her name was misspelled as “Gillingham, C. E.” (p. 517). Even so, Alter’s Psalms commentary would be an excellent choice for an undergrad textbook for a course on Psalms.

For a more in-depth review from back in 2007, read Christopher Tayler.

The book is available from Amazon, along with almost anything else you could possibly think of buying.

John & Acts: Life Application Bible Studies

Some time ago I received for review two of the Bible studies in Tyndale's Life Application Bible Studies series. Now I've finally had a chance to look at the one for Acts and the one on the Gospel of John enough to have a few things to say about them.

First of all, I should point out that they live up to their name as a study primarily devoted to application of the text to the life of the reader. In other words, they don't really fit with the academic approach that I usually take on this blog because the series is more theological and devotional.

In terms of format, the first half of the book contains the full NLT text of the biblical book with the articles and notes of the Life Application Study Bible. This is a nice feature because everyone doing the study (if you were to use it in say a Sunday School class or small group Bible study) can have the exact same text in front of them. It's also an affordable way to introduce people to the NLT.

The book introductions and the notes contain a basic but adequate coverage of issues that might come up when reading John or Acts. For more in-depth treatment of background issues, I recommend using them alongside the NLT Study Bible. I will say, however, that this study's application-oriented approach did enrich my understanding of a few verses by offering in the note a way of thinking about the verse that wouldn't have occurred to me otherwise.

The second half of the study consists of 13 Lessons. Each lesson is divided into 5 segments: Reflect on your life, Read the passage, Realize the principle, Respond to the message, and Resolve to take action. I found the questions difficult to answer, probably because I spend most of my time reading the Bible academically and answering a completely different set of questions about the text.  For a church group, however, they've proven to stimulate discussion and reflection in a positive way. I think that is, after all, the point of the series.

For that reason, I would recommend this series of Bible studies for anyone looking for a good application-oriented Bible study for a Sunday School or group Bible study. The questions and notes are widely accessible to most lay people and encourage them to talk about the Bible in thoughtful way.

Review: Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel

Levinson, Bernard M. Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel. Cambridge University Press, 2008. For sale by Amazon.

This just might be the best book I've read in a long time. It's challenged my assumptions about the development of the Hebrew Bible and the role of innovation alongside preservation. I don't think I really understood inner-biblical exegesis before reading this book. The larger issue addressed by the book is the interplay between continuity and change within the biblical text itself. This was a familiar issue to me from the vantage point of classical rabbinic Judaism's innovative re-creation of Judaism post-70 CE, but I had never considered it's role in the development of the text I study primarily - the Hebrew Bible. Basically, later texts subtly undermine the plain sense of earlier texts and adapt the community's thinking in such a way that the new innovative meaning is presented as the meaning that was there all along. Their exegesis changes the text, but they claim to have made no change. On this issue, Levinson says:

Although it is a profound instrument of cultural renewal, exegesis is often also profoundly a study in the false consciousness of the interpreter, who disclaims the very historical agency that . . . makes exegesis worthy of study! (p. 17)

Previous models (including my own thinking) have focused on the idea that a closed canon was the catalyst for innovative and covert reworkings of an authoritative text. Levinson engages with the concept of canon throughout the book. Of the six chapters, three focus on issues surrounding the canon - Ch. 2 "Rethinking the Relation between 'Canon' and 'Exegesis"; Ch. 3 "The Problem of Innovation within the Formative Canon"; Ch. 5 "The Canon as Sponsor of Innovation."

Chapter 2 provided me with the most food for thought, introducing the four major theses that are developed throughout the book (pp. 20-21).

(1) exegesis provides a strategy for religious renewal;
(2) renewal and innovation are almost always covert rather than explicit in ancient Israel;
(3) in many cases exegesis involves not the passive explication but the radical subversion of prior authoritative texts; and
(4) these phenomena are found in the literature of ancient Israel before the closure of the canon.

Here are some brief quotes from Ch. 2 that I found particularly thought-provoking:

With such fixity and textual sufficiency as its [the canon's] hallmarks, how can a canon be made to address the varying needs of later generations of religious communities? These later generations face the conflicting imperatives of subsuming their lives to the authority of the canon while adapting that unchangeable canon to realities of social, economic, political, and intellectual life never contemplated at the time of its composition. . . . If the closed literary canon as the repository of revelation or insight is the source of stability for a religious tradition, exegesis provides vitality. . . . By means of exegesis, the textually finite canon becomes infinite in its application. One of the chief means, therefore, by which a religious tradition demonstrates its creativity is the variety of ways it finds to accommodate itself to and overcome an authoritative yet textually delimited canon. (pp. 14-15)

It is essential to understand that the ingenuity of the interpreter operates even in the formative period of the canon, while those texts that will subsequently win authoritative status are still being composed and collected. . . . [The] ancient writers sought to explain, respond to, and challenge older texts that had already won cultural prestige. (pp. 18-19)

The centerpiece of Levinson's analysis is his demonstration in Ch. 4 of the reworkings of the principle of transgenerational punishment from in Exod 20:5-6. Lamentations, Ezekiel, and Deuteronomy all present subtle moves toward the idea of individual retribution. He also examines the way the Targum deals with the issue to show how the trajectory begun in the biblical reworking is continued in later exegesis.

Finally, chapter 6 (nearly half the book alone) provides a thorough bibliographic survey of the history of inner-biblical exegesis. The bibliography there is essential for anyone interested in the methodology of inner-biblical exegesis and early biblical interpretation.

All in all, I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the issues of early biblical interpretation and the formation of the biblical canon. Specialists across the board in religious studies and biblical studies would profit from a closer look at Levinson's book. I'm recommending it to everyone I know - NT students, rabbinics experts, early Christian studies people, Hebrew Bible colleagues - you know who you are - read this book!

Kindle 2: More Biblical Studies

Way back in July I posted about Amazon's Kindle device.  My main complaint back then about having a digital library for Kindle was that most of what I read is not available in Kindle format.  I also wondered why there weren't more available what with all the digital versions of biblical studies resources created for Bibleworks and Logos.

I have since discovered that more of the books I'm interested in reading have appeared in Kindle format over the last several months.  Back in July, I think I found 3 or 4.  The prices have also dropped.  David Carr's book was $28 in July but it's $19.25 now.

Here's a list of what I've found for biblical studies (especially Hebrew Bible, Judaism, and religious studies) now available for Kindle (listed alphabetically).  The asterisk * indicates its on one of our reading lists at UW-Madison.

Robert Alter - The Book of Psalms

*Robert Alter - The Art of Biblical Narrative

David Carr - Writing on the Tablet of the Heart

Shai Cherry - Torah Through Time

Brevard Childs - Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture

John Collins - Introduction to the Hebrew Bible

James Crenshaw - Defending God

*William Dever - Who Were the Early Israelites and Where did They Come From?

William Dever - Did God Have a Wife?

*William Dever - What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?

Peter Enns - Inspiration and Incarnation

Hanan Eshel - The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State

Craig Evans and Emanuel Tov - Exploring the Origins of the Bible

*Israel Finkelstein - The Bible Unearthed

Richard Hess - Israelite Religions

*Barry Holtz - Back to the Sources

Jodi Magness - The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Roland Murphy - The Tree of Life

George Nickelsburg - Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah

Susan Niditch - War in the Hebrew Bible

Peter Schaefer - Jesus in the Talmud

William Schniedewind - Primer on Ugaritic

Rodney Stark - Discovering God

Benjamin Wright, ed. - A New English Translation of the Septuagint

There are even more if your interests run more towards NT or theology or Christian history materials.  I think it's quite an impressive increase for the last 7 months. 

Now these books require purchase, but you can get the whole text of the Bible for free in the English Standard Version.  That alone makes it worth it, right?

Battle of the Study Bibles: NLT vs ESV, Part 3

Part 1  Part 2

Now, I'm ready to compare the study notes in the NLTSB with the ESVSB for the Book of Jonah.  I'm not going to give you a side-by-side look at some of the notes since that's already been done well.  This final post on these fine study bibles will focus on how thorough and accurate their notes are.  Notes related to interpretation of the Hebrew text will get more attention.

Many so-called study bibles are pretty stingy when it comes to study notes.  For Jonah ch. 1 (17 verses), ESVSB has 14 notes including 3 summary sections and a chart about the key word "evil, disaster."  NLTSB has 12 notes for the same section.  I compared this to my ESV Scofield III Study Bible - only 5 very brief notes and a barebones introduction.  So on the count of thoroughness, I think both ESVSB and NLTSB have done quite well.  I didn't count, but it looks like the majority of verses are covered by both study bibles.  It's annoying to have a question on a verse only to look down and find nothing in the notes.  That happens to me a lot using the ESV Scofield III, but it looks like I won't need to worry about that with these new study bibles.

The question of the accuracy of the notes is somewhat subjective.  Generally, I think both provide good information and nothing jumped out at me as unforgivably inaccurate.  However, both have tendencies that I felt detracted from the overall interpretation.  The NLTSB (at least for the notes on Jonah) has a tendency to offer irrelevant speculation about the text.  For example, the note on 1:5-6 reads:

"Jonah's ongoing sleep was perhaps induced by God to advance the crisis to a point where it was clear that the sailors' gods could not help (1:6)."

Objection! Irrelevant and speculative. Granted they couched it with "perhaps," but there's nothing in the text to suggest God induced Jonah's sleep.  They do something similar on 2:1-9 trying to explain how a well-structured literary poem such as ch. 2 could have been composed ad hoc by a man inside a fish: "it may have been composed after the event, as Jonah recalled his emotions and concerns."

The NLTSB for Jonah offers little in the way of notes based on an interpretation of the Hebrew.  The only notes I found discussing Hebrew words were "arranged for" in 1:17 and "the pit" in 2:6.  I find that it's always best to hang as little of your interpretation as possible on the grammar or lexicon of the original language.  This is where the ESVSB has gone wrong for Jonah. 

After stressing in the intro that Jonah was a historical narrative, not a parable or allegory, the note on 1:1 says that "Jonah will be true to his name. Son of Amittai means 'son of my faithfulness'; Jonah will remain the object of God's faithful love."  The historical main character has a thematically relevant surname.  You may as well call him "Pilgrim." (see Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan, an allegory).

I get annoyed with attempts to overly theologize the grammar of the original languages.  For myriad examples of this in practice, see Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek.  The ESVSB does this a lot in Jonah.  For 1:2, the Hebrew word ra'ah which can mean "evil" OR "calamity, disaster" leads to the statement that the "Ninevites were evil, and they were in line for disaster." This is technically true, but we learn it from context in the book of Jonah, not from knowing that ra'ah can mean both "evil" and "disaster." 

Then for 1:3, the repetition of "Tarshish" is used "to underscore that Jonah is not going to Nineveh."  Repetition doesn't necessarily indicate "emphasis."  Emphasis is kind of a catch-all category that has become meaningless because it's used too often to explain things that don't need to be explained.  It's possible the note was intended simply to indicate that Tarshish was explicitly identified in each clause to avoid ambiguity and confusion over where he was going.  However, it's not clear that was what was intended.

In 3:3b, the ESVSB note takes "an exceedingly great city" (which literally is "a great city to/for God/gods") and concludes that "Nineveh is important to God and will be the recipient of his great compassion."  Again, that's technically true looking at the story from the perspective of the end, but the implication of italicizing great in that statement is that the Heb word used for "great city" is also used in Jonah for the "great compassion" that God will have.  But out of the 14 times it is used, it never refers to God as having great mercy or great compassion.  It's not used related to God at all.  (For more on the size of Nineveh based on Jonah 3:3, go here.)

What I found to be the worst misuse of Hebrew in ESVSB Jonah was in the note for 3:5 - "Believed is the first word of the Hebrew text of the sentence, and the grammar underscores the immediacy of Nineveh's repentance."  Believed is the first word because the verb form is waw-consecutive, the usual narrative past.  I was unaware that the use of waw-consecutive implied any sort of immediacy.  It is simply the verb form that carries the story along from one action to the next.  It always leads off the sentence and while the waw-consecutive can imply sequence, I think it's too much to read in immediacy.

The NLTSB got off easy on this point by simply not basing interpretations on issues of language and grammar.  I'm sure those of you sympathetic to the approach of the ESVSB who think theology is encoded in grammar will disagree with me, but I think the ESVSB has overdone it on Jonah.

I look forward to the release of the complete ESV Study Bible so that I can get a better feel for the entire project, but what I've seen so far leads me to think it will be a worthwhile addition to the study bible market. 

I'm very pleased with the quality and style of the study notes from the NLT Study Bible. I think it would be a great choice for anyone looking to buy a new study bible right now based on one of the newer translations.

Battle of the Study Bibles: NLT vs ESV, Part 2

This is the next segment in my comparison of the Book of Jonah in the NLT Study Bible (NLTSB) and the ESV Study Bible (ESVSB).  The first segment focused mainly on the NLTSB generally with a few comments about translations.  I ended discussing the way the NLTSB discusses authorship issues.

The ESV Study Bible makes a similar distinction between the main character and the writer for Jonah, but it doesn't comment on what effect anonymity has on the integrity of Scripture as the NLTSB does.  I appreciated that extra comment in the NLTSB and felt it added an important point.

In general, I felt that the study notes for each translation were good but the depth and style of the notes seemed to roughly parallel the translation approach of each.  The NLTSB notes are more dynamic and written in a clear, natural style (giving the sense).  The ESVSB notes are more formal with a more academic tone (essentially literal). 

For the introductions, the NLTSB was more concise but still communicated the essential background clearly.  The introduction in the ESVSB was more formal and read more like a commentary.  By contrast, the NLTSB intro was much more satisfying in its clarity.  The NLTSB has a feature where a short paragraph giving the main theological point of the book leads off the introduction.  The intro felt more unified and flowed better.  The intro in the ESVSB has no lead-in and nothing particular unifies the sections besides a matter-of-fact style.  The reader is met first with "The title of the book is the name of the main character, Jonah" in the ESVSB versus the more engaging "Jonah is well-known and loved for the amazing and ironic events it recounts" in the NLTSB.

On the other hand, the more in-depth notes of the ESVSB would be appropriate for someone interested in formal bible study who wanted a mini-commentary.  The ESVSB includes a discussion of salvation history and neatly lays out the key themes of the book.  The discussions on genre and literary features include many useful things left out of the NLTSB introduction. 

So, I would recommend each study bible depending on your interest as a reader.  If you want clear, easy to understand notes that tell everything the average reader wants to know, the NLTSB gives you that.  If you're interested in more serious study, the ESVSB looks like it will provide more information of interest to you.

However, my primary litmus test for any study bible is whether or not it gives answers to the questions I have when I come to the text ... that's not really fair, I have questions that only occur to commentators and even then ... ok, my primary litmus test is whether or not it gives answers to the questions most serious students or average readers would have. 

So, in the third segment, I will discuss the text notes of NLTSB and ESVSB on Jonah - how thorough they are in answering important questions and how accurate the answers are.

[N.B.  I've noticed that Jeff at Scripture Zealot is maintaining a list of all reviews of the NLT Study Bible that appear on blogs, so you can go there to find many many other perspectives.]

Battle of the Study Bibles: NLT vs ESV, Part 1

Back on August 8th, the ESV Study Bible Blog posted a preview of the entire Book of Jonah with study notes from their forthcoming study bible.  Esteban expressed interest in a comparative review of Jonah in both the ESV Study Bible and the new NLT Study Bible.  Since I recently acquired an NLT Study Bible (many thanks to Laura Bartlett at Tyndale), I decided to compare the two.  Since then, I see that the NLT Study Bible Blog has posted a long list of others who have done reviews and TC Robinson has done a good comparison placing some of the notes from both side by side and commenting on them.  My remarks will be more general.

First, let me say that both of these study bibles appear to be excellent choices if you're looking for a new study bible.  In this review, I plan to focus mainly on the study notes of each bible since you can find discussions of the relative merits of each translation elsewhere.  (For the NLT, I recommend Rick Mansfield's lengthy post.  For the ESV, they link to many testimonials at the ESV Bible Blog.) 

The argument over which translation is "better" often comes down to personal preference.  No translation is perfect (except for the KJV 1611), so we can all find individual verses where each gave a rendering that was less readable or slightly inaccurate.  I personally prefer formally equivalent versions like the KJV, ESV, and NASB for my own reading.  Part of that is because I was raised speaking "Biblish" and I like the retained KJV-like phrasings of the ESV.  I also read the biblical languages, so I like the transparency back to my critical Hebrew and Greek texts.

The claim that the ESV is more "readable" depends on the reader.  Yes, it's more readable than the NASB usually, but the NLT uses more natural contemporary language that people who didn't grow up learning Biblical idioms like me find easier to understand.  The NLT also removes the need for some study notes because they already updated things like time and date (i.e., Ezek 1:1 in NLT).  If you're looking for a new translation, check out the ESV or the NLT for yourself.

In comparing the ESV and NLT Study Bibles, I looked over the NLT first.  I have the finished product to examine instead of just a printout of Jonah.  I agree with Jeff's comments at Scripture Zealot about the book itself.  The bleed-thru can be significant and distracting because the pages are very very thin.  However, it has 12 pages of full color maps, a timeline, and a diagram of the Second Temple at the back.  It also has an extensive 118 page Dictionary/Concordance, a 142 page subject index, and an 11 page Hebrew/Greek word study dictionary and index.  The comments about the common mistakes committed with word studies are very helpful, and I may post a longer discussion of that section in the future.

The introduction is thorough, but (like any Study Bible for the masses) they make some uncertain, messy decisions that scholars have made about the text sound like they're clean, clear, and concrete (see "Outline", p. A9).  I liked the Master Timeline (pp. A20-A25) and the Introduction to the Old Testament.  I also liked the fact that the issue of authorship in the Pentateuch is discussed, rather than just dismissed or ignored.  I appreciate that they at least mention the work of critical scholarship, even if they disagree.  A lot of study bibles simply list a book's traditional author (like Proverbs and Solomon) and then move on (i.e., my ESV Scofield III). 

For Jonah, they make the distinction that Jonah is the main character, but he may not have been the author.  "Jonah may have written the book, though whether he wrote it or not does not affect its integrity as Scripture" (p. 1475).  Too often the issue of authorship becomes a controversial issue because people believe that a book's status as Scripture is dependent on having an absolutely correct identification of the author (almost always, we must defend the traditional author against all attacks).  For the most part, biblical books were anonymous.  The Pentateuch may have started with Moses but others had a hand in its composition and transmission.  The same goes for much of the Hebrew Bible.  Many hands make light work.  While tending to support traditional conclusions (such as Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch), the NLT Study Bible at least acknowledges the fact that the OT was written down over a period of at least 1000 years and that we don't know many of the contributors (p. 4).

To be continued...

HT:  The Voice of Stefan