A Jewish Perspective of the Bible

My Bible – A Jew’s Perspective (RJS)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/11/29/my-bible-a-jews-perspective-rjs/

 

by RJS

November 29, 2012

Comments

 

The first essay in the new book by Marc Zvi Brettler (Brandeis University), Peter Enns (Eastern University) and Daniel J. Harrington (Boston College), The Bible and the Believer: How to Read the Bible Critically & Religiously, is by Brettler. In this essay he reflects on the development and diversity of Jewish engagement with the Scripture and what this means for the believing Jewish scholar.

 

The picture to the right is of a fourth or fifth century synagogue at Bar’am National Park in Israel. It was long thought to date a couple hundred years earlier, but new investigations have demonstrated that it was built later using the remains of an earlier second or third century (probably pagan Roman) structure.

 

I found Brettler’s essay fascinating for several reasons: the sketch of the history of Jewish thought, the similarities and differences in the approach to scripture, and the insight it provides into modern Jewish thinking. Many, perhaps 20%-25%, of my colleagues are Jewish ranging from orthodox through the variations to thoroughly secular. About the only group not represented to the best of my knowledge are the ultra-orthodox.

 

Rather than try to summarize the whole of Brettler’s essay, I will instead point to two of the themes he develops. The first relates to torah or Torah, and the second to the Bible as history and science (a topic of concern in many of my posts).

 

 

[The Bible as] Torah

 

In looking to the Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures Brettler chooses to focus on the Torah or Law because this is the central document for the Jewish faith. Brettler builds a case that there was a development through the biblical texts from torah as teachings and laws, lower case, plural (torot), including parts of the Pentateuch, to the view of single divine Torah. The view of a single divine Torah was accepted in the late books of the Old Testament, especially Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles.

The absence of this term [the torah of Moses] in earlier prophetic material bolsters the idea that the notion of a Mosaic Torah, identical with the Pentateuch, only developed in the Second Temple period.

 

Once this idea of a Mosaic Torah arose, it stuck. Thus, over a dozen times the Dead Sea Scrolls (second century BCE-first CE) refer to “the Torah of Moses,” alongside less frequent references to “the Torah of God/the LORD.” … The New Testament, written in the same period, also likely assumes in places that the Torah is Mosaic (see, for example, Matt 19:8; Mark 12:26) (p. 30-31)

The notion that parts of the Pentateuch are divine revelations to Moses dates from the earliest documents – the idea of the Torah as a single document of divine revelation developed later.

The knowledge that the Torah was composite in its origin was likely lost shortly after its redaction or compilation into a single document, and, thereafter, there was no prevarication involved in speaking of the Torah, or God’s [Torah], or Moses’ Torah, as a unified document. This belief, developed in the Second Temple period, reached the classical rabbis and through them Maimonides and other theologians. Yet I will suggest that it is constructive to return to this “lost” knowledge about the Torah’s complex composition. (p. 31)

Maimonides (1135-1205) took this general belief in a single unified Mosaic Torah and enshrined it for years to come. His shortened eighth and ninth principles read (p. 25):

 

I believe with perfect faith that the entire Torah we now possess is the one given to Moses our teacher – may he rest in peace.

 

I believe in perfect faith that this Torah will never be changed …

 

The long forms are even clearer stating that the whole Torah was given from God “through Moses who acted like a secretary taking dictation” and “this Torah was precisely transcribed from God.” (p. 34)

 

Brettler suggests however, that tradition aside, a more complex view of the origin of the Torah is warranted both by the internal evidence of the text itself and the external evidence in the earlier rabbis and teachers. This is not to deny either revelation or inspiration. A revelation through a variety of sources complied into a unified document is still a revelation from God. The Torah can be better appreciated, even by the faithful, when it is viewed through the lens of critical study. An alternative view is that “the sanctity of the text derives from the redactor, or from the community as a whole.” (p. 39)

 

That the inspiration of scripture derives, at least in part, from the work of the Spirit in the redaction of the text we have received is one that should resonate with Christians. Although the Jewish believer, of course, does not attach the Spirit to the process the way the Christian does.

 

Brettler also notes a bit later when considering the authorship of books in the Hebrew Bible that “canonicity involves authority, not inspiration.” (p. 56) [Consequently,] the Christian view of inspiration, while having roots and parallels in Jewish thought, should not be imposed on the Jewish view of scripture.

 

 

[The Problem of ] Literalism: The Bible as History and as Science.

Jewish tradition is much less concerned with the literal truth and the historical accuracy of the biblical text than is the Protestant tradition. This is true with respect to what would typically be categorized as history and as science. (p. 52)

History proves a somewhat malleable form of truth telling. Chronicles is “a creative revision of Genesis-Kings” and the plague narratives of Exodus are recounted differently in later books. The differences do not discount the work of God in history, but display an attitude that doesn’t assign significance to the precise details.

This is because in ancient Israel, as in other premodern societies, the facts themselves or the historical events were not primary – [but] what could be learned from the stories was primary. (p. 52)

Debates continue about what should and should not be read literally – inside and outside the Torah. But in Jewish thought there is “broad consensus … that the Bible should not always or primarily be read literally.” (p. 53) The book of Genesis was not viewed as “natural history” but as “about morality and our relationship to God.” The primary meaning is not the surface meaning. Within Judaism therefore, even among devout Jews, scientific views of evolution and the age of the earth cause relatively little trouble. The inferences drawn by some (especially those intent on promoting ontological natural or scientific materialism) are at odds with Jewish belief – but the scientific theories themselves are not.

 

Does the history sketched by Brettler surprise you?

 

What authority should we attach to the Second Temple view of the Torah as a unified Mosaic document?

 

Do the references in the New Testament to the books of Moses carry separate authority or could they reflect an (inaccurate) common view of the time?

 

 

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

 

 

 

How the Early Christians Read the Bible

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/11/28/how-the-early-christians-read-the-bible/

 

Scot McKnight

November 28, 2012

Comments

 

It is not unusual for a first-time Bible reader to encounter a New Testament author quoting an Old Testament author, for the reader to wander back to the Old Testament to read that text too, and discover — “Wow, that’s not quite what the Old Testament author had in mind.”

 

One of my favorites is how Matthew sees Jesus’ parents taking him to Egypt and then back to the Land of Israel (to the Galilee in fact) and to see in that move a “fulfillment” of Hosea where it says “out of Egypt I have called my son.” In Hosea “son” means Israel and refers to the Exodus… well, that’s not quite the same as what Matthew was on about.

 

Have you ever explained to a Bible reader how the New uses the Old? What would you tell that person? What are the major ideas? Which text in the NT would you use first?

 

Which is why we need an introductory book to how the earliest Christians read the Old Testament. Greg Beale, in his book Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation (Baker Academic, 2012) provides for advanced college students and seminary students such a book. One does not have to know Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek to make use of this book even if it is rich in detail at times.

 

That problem of “non-contextual” readings of the Old Testament (remember, it was the one and only Bible for the earliest Christians) has a number of arguments in its favor though Beale thinks the arguments are often taken too far.

 

Some Proposed Readings of the OT by the early Christians

 

There is the argument which Beale thinks has been overcooked:

 

• that the earliest Christians were using typical, non-contextual Jewish methods of interpretation,
• that the early Christians were using a “testimony book” which had quotes and not full contexts of the Bible,
• that their “christocentric” or “christotelic” approach permitted them to override the Old Testament context,
• that they were using the OT rhetorically but not contextually,
• and that postmodernity reveals that those authors were reading their ideas into the OT.

 

The Argument of Typology

 

The issue is also over typology, something that gets abused in the church and therefore gets a bad name, but it’s something the NT authors clearly do — do the NT authors see analogies within their theology that would not have been seen in the original OT? We are drawn back into the salvation-history discussion: once one admits that Christ is the fulfillment, the Old begins to be read toward and in light of Christ. In other words, it is “contextual” exegesis.

 

• Salvation-History
• Christological Focus
• A Contextual Exegesis

 

Some Practical Guidance Then

 

What Beale can do for most any Bible reader is provide some method for anyone wanting know how to begin seeing how the NT appropriates and reads the OT: 

• Identify the OT reference: is it a quotation or an allusion? (He’s got criteria for determining allusions.)
 
• Analyze the broad NT context where the OT reference occurs.
 
• Analyze the OT context both broadly and immediately, esp thoroughly interpreting the paragraph in which the quotation or allusion occurs.
 
• Survey the use of the OT text in early and late Judaism that might be relevant to the NT appropriation. [Requires some texts and some time.]
 
• Compare the texts carefully, including the textual variants: NT, LXX, Hebrew Bible, targums, early Jewish citations of that text, etc.
 
• Analyze the author’s textual use of the OT (which text does this author use?).
 
• Analyze the author’s interpretive (hermeneutical) use of the OT.
 
• Analyze the author’s theological use of the OT.
 
• Analyze the author’s rhetorical use of the OT.

OK, this takes lots of work — for each text analyzed! But some of you are interested in this sort of thing, and this is a great place to start.

 

Conclusion

 

So, then, how does the NT use the OT?

 

• To indicate direct fulfillment of prophecy.
• To indicate indirect fulfillment of typological prophecy.
• To indicate affirmation that a not-yet-fulfilled OT prophecy will assuredly be fulfilled in the future.
• To indicate an analogical or illustrative use of the OT.
• To indicate the symbolic use of the OT.
• To indicate an abiding authority carried over from the OT.
• To indicate a proverbial use of the OT.
• To indicate a rhetorical use of the OT.
• To indicate the use of an OT segment as a blueprint or prototype of a NT segment.
• To indicate an alternate textual use of the OT.
• To indicate an assimilated use of the OT.
• To indicate an ironic or inverted use of the OT.

 

Complex indeed, but here is what is at work under it all:

 

• They believe in corporate solidarity or representativeness.
• Christ is the true Israel and church.
• History is unified

 

 

 

Book Review - Genesis for Normal People, by Author Jard Byas

Why We Wrote Genesis for Normal People

http://jbyas.com/2012/11/30/why-we-wrote-genesis-for-normal-people/

 

Jared Byas

November 30, 2012

 

Today, my book with Peter Enns comes out in paperback. It’s called Genesis for Normal People. Click on the link and buy it, either for yourself or someone else.

 

Not convinced?

 

Well, as we have been anticipating the release, I have been thinking more about why we wrote it and where I feel called to play a role in the Church. And I am even more convinced now that we need bridge-builders in the Christian community. There are so many polarizations, conservative-liberal, Reformed-Arminian, Catholic-Protestant, Clergy-Laypeople. I see so many opportunities for bridge-building, or to use more theological language: RECONCILIATION.

 

My passion in working with Pete to write GFNP was to create a bridge between the world of academic scholarship and the world of the average Christian. Somewhere along the way, a chasm has formed. Sometimes because of a well-meaning pastor who tries to “protect” his/her congregation from “liberal intellectuals,” sometimes because of the insecure over-inflated egos of scholars who think they are too brilliant to meddle with translating their brilliance to the commoners, and sometimes because of a practical failure of imagination and organizational leadership.

 

To be honest, there are probably dozens of reasons why the average person in a congregation is clueless about the collective wisdom and intellect of really smart Christian scholars who want to be faithful to Christ & the Bible by understanding what we should expect the Bible to be and what we shouldn’t, like my friend Pete.

 

But imagine a world where scientists never took the time to explain to people why they get the flu, why you shouldn’t shake your baby. Or imagine a world where well-meaning politicians told their citizens not to listen to the “liberal intellectuals” who now tell us that there are invisible microbes in our drinking water that can kill us or who tell us that smoking is bad for your health.

 

Or imagine a world where we rarely get to effective solutions because people in leadership often lack imagination to break out of oppressively irrelevant bureaucracy . . . oh wait, you don’t have to imagine for that one.

 

We cannot protect people from the truth as we see it today. But the reality is that much damage has already been done for many in the Christian faith. The gap has widened. Hopefully, through small projects like Genesis for Normal People, we can begin to close that gap, to unify the church in our little, perhaps insignificant way, that is, to be a voice for reconciliation.

 

 

About the Book

 

Given the fever-pitched controversies about evolution, Adam and Eve, and scientific evidence for the Flood, the average person might feel intimidated by the book of Genesis. But behind the heady debates is a terrific story-one that anyone can understand, and one that has gripped people for ages. If you are not a Bible scholar but want to be able to read Genesis and understand its big picture, this brief, witty book is the guide you've been waiting for. Clear summaries and thought-provoking questions provide direction for personal reflection and group discussion. Peter Enns, a Biblical Studies professor, and Jared Byas, an Old Testament professor, summarize the book's key themes and help us see Genesis as an ancient story, one with continued relevance for human experience today. Genesis for Normal People illuminates the characters that fill the book of Genesis, causing us to resonate with their choices and struggles even as we marvel at their distant world. And that's what you'll find here-not scientific proof texts or simple moral tales, but a distant world made available, and a story that is often strange, sometimes dangerous, and always filled with rich possibilities.

 

To Buy

 

http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Normal-People-Controversial-Misunderstood/dp/193922103X/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

 

 

 

 

The 5 Biggest Changes for Pastors in the Last 50 Years

http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2012/11/26/5-biggest-changes-for-pastors-in-the-last-50-years/

Bo Sanders
November 26, 2012
Comments

I’m preparing to facilitate a conversation with some colleagues in the new year about ministry and honoring tradition. I want to begin – and thus frame – the conversation with the changing culture that we are products of, interact with and attempt to minister to.

It is a different way to approach the topic of tradition, admittedly, but my thought is that we start where we are and then trace threads into the past to uncover their significance. I almost always find it unhelpful to start in the past – say at the Protest Reformation – and then slowly work our way up. It is simply too limiting (in scope) and cumbersome (in process) for the contemporary expectations of ministry.

I have been reading a little Gordon Kaufman. He has me thinking about the ‘nuclear age’ and how deeply that shift, from the end of WWII, has impacted us sociologically, psychologically, and spiritually. I take this as my launching off point.

So here are my Big 5 – in no particular order. I wanted to throw them out here and see what others who are older, or wiser, or more insightful might add to the list or modify.


Pervasive Pop Psychology - My dad tells a story about interviewing retired pastors 30 years ago. He asked them when things seemed to change. All of them, without exception, pointed to the window from 1968-1970. They talked about Woodstock, Vietnam, and Nixon among other things.

Many of them also talked about people’s awareness and pop psychology. I will always remember the story of a son who came home from college to visit his folks on the farm. He tried to talk to his dad about his feelings, motivations, childhood memories, his subconscious, etc. His dad responded, ‘Son, what the hell are going on about?’ He just had no frame of reference for it. Similar stories were repeated, in differing configurations, over and over by the ministers.

Pop psychology has permeated every facet of society. From Oprah on daytime TV to Self-Help books – it impacts what people expect from a pastor and what they want from things like premarital counseling.

In my first 10 years of ministry, I often said that I would have more prepared for the actual way I spent my week if I had gotten a degree in psychology rather than in Bible.


Biblical Scholarship - speaking of the Bible, I am shocked as to how much different those conversations go than they did 20 years ago when I was trained in Apologetics/Evangelism. Between the Jesus Seminar, the Da Vinci Code and Bart Ehrman popularizing the stuff many pastors knew from seminary but were not allowed to say in the pulpit, it is a very different playing field.

It is an odd split: people often know little of the Bible – because they know so much stuff about the Bible. We can’t assume even a Sunday School understanding or a surface devotional reading. But at the same time, the culture wide awareness of critical Biblical scholarship is shocking. That was not true 50 years ago.


The Internet - The Internet changes everything. From the way people spend time to the way that they shop for a church. Facebook has changed how people connect to each other. Google has changed the way people access information. It is impossible to overstate how big of an impact the Internet has had on Western society. If you are still doing church the way you did 50 years ago – and think that it will have the same effect – you are fooling yourself. You may have the same seed, but the soil itself has changed. It will not grow the same crop or produce the same fruit.

Two little examples: When kids who grew up in your church come home from college and sit in on Sunday school (for example). They will assume that they get to share their opinion. They don’t sit quietly and honor the elders by talking last. They will raise their hands and talk first. Is it that they are over empowered? No. It is that they assume that they get to help shape the discussion and their opinion is valid. They don’t sit quietly and try to get up to speed or catch up on what they have missed.

• This is the difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. A church website is 1.0 – the staff puts out the information that it wants people to see. You read it like a newspaper. It is not interactive. Facebook is 2.0 – it creates the environment but does not generate the content. Young people live in 2.0

Doug Paggitt talks of ‘the pastor as Google’. I love this. People don’t go to Google for Google. It is not a destination. It helps people get to their destination. If it does this well, people trust Google and go it often. Pastor used to be like encyclopedias. They were a resource, a destination for information. Now, the pastor’s office is not a destination, the art of pastoring is help people find theirs. If we do that well, they trust us and come back the next time they need direction.

The Pastor as an encyclopedia is a repository of information.

The Pastor as Google is a resource that knows how to find information.

24 Hour News & Christian Media - Cable news and Christian radio probably have a bigger impact on the people who fill the pews that any pastor can be expected to have in a 30 minute sermon once a week. There is no other way to say it, the narrative that is being put out on media outlets like Fox News (Clash of Civilizations) or Christian Radio (the 6 Line Narrative) is so pervasive and so monolithic that it can feel as if your parishioners are being pastored far more by their TV and car radio that you will ever be able to.

This is also part of why our country and culture have become so:

1. polarized
2. adversarial

I am horrified by this trend more than all the others combined. I think that it hurts the heart of God and I know that it hurts our Christian witness.

Fractured Globalism and PostModernity - People have great troubles conceptualizing and articulating how fractured, dislocated, overwhelmed and powerless they feel in the global marketplace. Things are not simple now. Things have never been more complex and overwhelming. Look at the food on your table? Do you know where it comes from? Think about your Thanksgiving dinner last week and imagine how many miles and from how many countries those ingredients were trucked to end up on your table. You might be shocked.

Think about your car. Was it all made and assembled at the same plant? Or even in the same country. The automotive industry was fairly straight forward 50 years ago. Now it is an example of inter-national, multi-corporation conglomerates. We have been de-centered, and people feel it. The way we conceptualize ourselves, our connection to family, the way we picture the world working, the universe and thus God. The best book I have read on the subject is “Identity, Culture, and the Postmodern World” by Madan Sarup.

The PostModern Turn - speaking of PostModern, this may be the biggest of the 5 changes. It is funny to me that some christians still want to debate if the category is real just because it can not be succinctly or universally defined (how very modern!) Look, call it what you want: late-modernity, hyper-modernity, high-modernity, or some other thing – what can not be denied is that something big and deep has shifted. Blame it on the philosophers (Derrida, Lyotard, Foucault, etc) if you want. Make up a new name for it if you must. But please stop pretending that what we are looking at is nothing radical or unexpected. Even the ostrich thinks that it is time to pull your head out of the sand!

One interesting reaction, and this applies to denominations, is the counter-modern responses that want to go back to an imagined past and reclaim a romantic pre-shift relationship between the Christian religion and:

• society
• the economy
• science
• other religions

You can see this in counter-modern responses like Radical Orthodoxy (retreating to the hills of Thomism), Post-Liberal thought, Hyper-Calvinism and the Tea-Party in politics. Even if you pastor with an established denomination (and many don’t) you have to contend with these fractious groups that will impact your congregation.

Those are my 5 Big changes for Pastors over the past 50 years. I would love your thoughts! What would you take out and what would you add?

- Bo