The Four Assumptions of Ancient Interpreters

The reason there is even a question regarding how we should read the Bible has to do with the rise, in the last 150 years, of modern biblical scholarship. Taking a historical critical approach, their findings and conclusions challenge many of the traditional understandings of key biblical texts and foundational Christian doctrines. Yet, what most readers of the Bible don't know is that much of what Christian denominations have taught was determined long ago, in dramatically different cultures by, those James L. Kugel calls, "ancient interpreters." These interpreters were teachers or professional sages from the latter half of the Second Temple period (ca. 538 BCE – 70 CE), as well as early Christian evangelists/teachers and rabbis of the first three centuries CE.

Whether one is reading Philo of Alexandria, authors of the New Testament texts or the writings of the earliest rabbis in the Mishnah and Tosefta, many of their interpretations of the Hebrew Bible passages strike modern students and scholars alike as strange but, at the same time, as oddly familiar. These ancient interpreters "discovered" meanings for their own people to virtually every portion of the Old Testament. Yet, often, these interpretations seem to have little or nothing to do with historical or literary context.

Kugel details the example of the binding of Isaac (Gen 22:1–13). He notes that the ancient Jewish interpreters ran into two "problems" with the text: (1) Why did God have to test Abraham's faith? Didn't he know what the outcome would be? Why would God ask anyone to prove his/her faith by sacrificing their own child (or any human being)? and (2) When Isaac asked where the sacrifice was, Abraham lied to his son, for he obviously didn't know that God would stop him from sacrificing Isaac. Yet through some clearly reworking of the text, these interpreters ignore the plain reading of the text and came up with an interpretation that God had words with Satan (much like in Job 1 and 2) and thus he had to prove Abraham's faith. In addition, they provided some creative punctuation and determined that Abraham had been completely honest with Isaac and that Isaac had agreed to be sacrificed! To someone raised in the era of modern biblical scholarship, those interpretations seem quite stretched, if not completely inconsistent with a straight-forward reading of the text.

Noting how these ancient interpreters found meaning, Kugel lists what must have been their assumptions about the biblical texts: (1) "...the Bible was a fundamentally cryptic text, so that when it said A, it really meant B;" (2) "...the Bible was a book of lessons directed to readers in their own day. It may seem to talk about the past, but it is not fundamentally history. It is instruction, telling us what to do.."; (3) "...the Bible contained no contradictions or mistakes. It was perfectly harmonious, despite its being an anthology"; and, (4) "...the entire Bible is essentially a divinely given text, a book in which God speaks directly or through His prophets."

As Kugel then claims, and my experience and observation would support, these assumptions are accepted, even if not consciously, by many modern day Jews and Christians. That is...

• The Bible is a guidebook for every aspect of daily life 
• Its prophecies are being fulfilled in today's world, regardless of historical context
• It does not contradict itself or contain any mistakes, inaccuracies or inconsistencies 
• Its meaning is not always obvious and thus interpretation requires much more than just a straight-forward historical approach
• In its parts, and as a whole, it is the inspired and inerrant word of God. 

Thus, Kugel concludes, "That is why, even today, trampling on these assumptions can get people's hackles up..."

But surely, Christians today would deny that this was true of early Christian interpreters. In reality, early Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Bible was very similar to ancient Jewish interpretation, especially in their tendency to read the Bible allegorically. For that is exactly how early Christians "uncovered" the hidden references to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus in the Old Testament texts–that is, the Messianic prophecies.

More to come...

Note: All quotations in this blog post are from chapter 1 of How to Read the Bible: A Guide for Scripture, Then and Now by James L. Kugel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007). 

How Should We Read the Bible?

I am in the midst of reading (and listening to) a book written by a Hebrew Bible/Old Testament scholar, James L. Kugel in 2007, that bears the title, How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture Then and Now. Kugel is more than qualified to educate readers on this topic, as per the following blurb from his website (www.jameskugel.com):

• James Kugel was the Starr Professor of Hebrew Literature at Harvard University for twenty-one year. He retired from Harvard to become Professor of Bible at Bar Ilan University in Israel, where he also served as chairman of the Department of Bible ... A specialist in the Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Kugel is the author of more than eighty research articles and fifteen books, including The Idea of Biblical Poetry, In Potiphar's House, On Being a Jew, and The Bible as It Was (this last, the winner of the Grawemeyer Prize in Religion in 2001). His more recent books include The God of Old, The Ladder of Jacob, How to Read the Bible (awarded the Nation Jewish Book Award for the best book of 2007), In the Valley of the Shadow, and A Walk Through Jubilees.

Kugel states that he was hesitant to write this book in which he attempts to share, "for both the specialist and the general reader,"  most of what he knows about the Bible. He overcame his hesitation because he believed that to not express the results of his research would be dishonest and it "ultimately would prove impossible to hide from the central question addressed by this book." That question is simply this:

• Has modern scholarship killed the Bible? Or is there some way to salvage its message despite all that we now know about how the Bible came to be? How to Read the Bible offers nothing less than a whole new way of thinking about sacred Scripture.

This book comes with a warning "because this book deals with modern biblical scholarship, many of the things it discusses contradict the accepted teachings of Judaism and Christianity and may thus be disturbing to people of traditional faith." This book is not for the faint of faith. Yet, neither is it Kugels intention to undermine anyone's faith. In fact, my experience, with taking a long (15 years now) and hard look at the results of modern biblical scholarship, it has honed my faith, by helping me focus on what really matters through jettisoning all those indefensible, traditional interpretations of Scripture. I now understand and fully accept that my personal faith, in terms of what I believe, is a choice that I can explain but that I cannot
prove or defend beyond all doubt. 

I have had the privilege to sit at the feet of numerous biblical, Near Eastern and Classical scholars at UBC (Drs. Sara Milstein, Gregg Gardner, Lisa Cooper, Robert Cousland, Franco DeAngelis, Anthony Keddie, Kurtis Peters, Shelley Reid, Thomas Schneider, and Lyn Rae)* and now biblical and Dead Sea Scrolls scholars at TWU (Drs., Dirk Buchner, Thomas Hatina, Craig Broyles and Andrew Perrin)**. They have all, through our discussions, their teaching and writing and other scholarly works they have directed me to explore, challenged my thinking and my conclusions. All the while they have never tried to undermine my faith choices even though my choices were not theirs. I personally believe that a faith that is not (or cannot) be questioned, investigated, challenged, explored, etc., is not a faith worth holding onto. In other words, for me, "The unexamined faith is not worth believing."

In the next few blog posts, I'm planning to share some things from Kugel's book that have made so much sense to me. He is an excellent writer who explains things in ways that are clear and compelling. So, if you dare, let's go there!

Notes:

* I spent more than 10 years studying, part time and full time, at the University of British Columbia (2005–2017). My undergraduate degree is in Classics (Greek and Latin languages) and my M.A. is in Hebrew Bible and Ancient Judaism. My thesis was titled, Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts: Proponents, Challengers and Judges 5.  I studied in the department of Classical, Near Eastern and Religious Studies (CNERS).

**I am currently working on a second M.A. in Biblical Studies at Trinity Western University (2017–present), with a major focus on the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls, specifically. My proposed thesis has the tentative title, Eschatological Agents in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls. I also have the privilege of being a part time instructor at TWU, teaching mostly first year students, Introduction to the New Testament and Introduction to the Old Testament.

"Every God-breathed writing is also useful..." (Part 2)

I want to further explain why I think that my translation (and that of the ASV) best fits the overall context of 1 Timothy 3:14–17.

In verse 14–15, we read (NRSV), "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."

Timothy is reminded that he was taught the "sacred writings" from his childhood and that they instructed him for salvation. Now the author goes on to point out an additional use of these sacred writings. These very same writings (now called "God-breathed") not only instruct people for salvation but they are "also useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

In the even larger context (3:10–17) Timothy is being charged to not waver in the face of persecution by giving into the deceitful teachings of the imposters. Instead, he is to continue in what he has learned and firmly believed. Not only will he enjoy salvation but he will be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

********
"Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness: that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work." (2 Tim 3:16–17, ASV)

See: https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/kai

"Every God-breathed scripture is useful..."

The question arose with regard to whether or not the NT texts claim to be inspired and, if so, what does that mean anyway? The standard passage that is used to defend inspiration is 2 Timothy 3:16–17, which reads (NRSV) as follows:

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work."

The Greek reads: "πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἐλεγμόν, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, ἵνα ἄρτιος ᾖ ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος, πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἐξηρτισμένος."

The key phrase in terms of so-called "inspiration" is "All scripture is inspired by God," that is, "πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος." The Greek, literally translated is "all (every) writing (scripture) God-breathed (inspired).

Here is how various versions translate this phrase:

All Scripture is breathed out by God (ESV)

All Scripture is inspired by God (HCSB)

Every scripture is inspired by God (NET)

Every scripture inspired of God (ASV)

All scripture is given by inspiration of God (KJV)

Every writing [is] God-breathed (YLT)

The YLT (Young's Literal Translation) lives up to its name here. Note that "is" is written as [is] which means that form of the verb "to be" is not actually in the Greek. It is supplied by the translators, necessarily, but not necessarily does it need to be supplied there. Quite legitimately, the translation could read: "Every God-breathed scripture is useful..."

Thus the focus of this passage is not on all scripture being God-breathed but rather every God-breathed scripture is useful. The latter translation better fits the context, as the rest of the passage makes clear – i.e., that God-breathed writings are useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, etc.

Regardless of how one chooses to translate this phrase one must wrestle with how best to translate he most important word in this phrase "θεόπνευστος." In the entire Bible, this word is found only ONCE; right here in 2 Tim 3:16. And it is not found anywhere in the Greek version of the OT (i.e., the Septuagint). Also, I have been unable to find it used in any Greek writing outside the Bible, prior to its use here in 2 Tim 3:16. It is used by a few of the early Church Fathers.

That is why I choose the more "literal" translation of "God-breathed" as it is a compound word from θεος (God) + πνευστος ("a presumed derivative of πνέω, meaning "to breathe or blow").

The following quotation is from the United Bible Society's Handbook on the New Testament, a support for translators and is quite informative.

"Inspired by God translates a term that occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Its literal translation is "God-breathed," which means that Scripture is produced by God's breath (or spirit, which is also his power) and is therefore of divine origin. Another possibility is to understand the Scriptures as written by people but as breathed into by God (as in the case of the first man Adam), so that these writings are "alive" and can confront people in a way that accomplishes specific functions for which these writings were produced. This single term has perhaps produced more varieties of interpretation and generated more controversy among Christians than any other term...Suffice it to say that the mention of this term is not primarily to define the nature of Scripture but to give a reason why Scripture is useful and effective for the functions that are mentioned."

This fully supports the idea that the use of this word here is to emphasize the usefulness of scripture not its origin, whether it be "human" or "divine."

The Deconstructing of My Theology

There are a lot people talking, writing and podcasting about "deconstructing one's faith." And most of what I am hearing and reading has been helpful, and in a "I'm not alone or going crazy" way, to hear others' stories was, and is, encouraging.

However, for me it wasn't my faith that needed to be deconstructed, it was my theology. I had faith, but it was a faith that was being built on a faulty foundation. My faith was based on my denomination's doctrine (or "creed"), in my own ability to "properly interpret scripture" and in the so-called "inerrancy" of the Bible.

What I had to come back to was why I became a Christian in the first place. It was because I chose to believe in the Gospels' testimony about Jesus. It's not that I believed (or was required to believe) that every single word in the Gospel accounts (or in the Bible at large) was 100% accurate. It was that the testimony about Jesus was compelling and his teaching was so needed, that I was willing to risk being wrong and thus chose to follow him. That is the rock upon which I decided to build a life of faith.

That refocus led to deconstructing and then reconstructing (which is always a work in progress) my theology. For me, and I'm not saying this is everyone's experience, it wasn't my faith that needed to be deconstructed, it was my view of the nature of God and God's work in this world in and my life that needed a complete overhaul.

Two passages in Matthew (among others) are most helpful in building my life of faith on the foundation of Jesus:

“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell—and great was its fall!” (7:24–27)

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (16:13–19)

And then there's this passage from Paul:

According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building on it. Each builder must choose with care how to build on it. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 3:10–11).

I found that building my life of faith on the foundation of denominational doctrine or creed, and/or on my own ability to properly interpret scripture, and/or on my the so-called "inerrancy" of the Bible, I had built my faith on sand. Indeed, the rains came down, the streams rose and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell like a house of cards! As hard as that was, I'm so glad for those storms. Now I'm striving to build my life of faith on why I became a Christian in the first place--the life, the deeds and the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

My Notes of "Introduction to the Old Testament" by Amy-Jill Levine -- Part 3

2.6 The Novella

The later books of the canon move to the “novella,” i.e., short stories like Ruth and Jonah which explore in an extremely entertaining way how Israel is to relate to its neighbours. Ruth, the hero of her book, is a Moabite, one of the traditional enemies of Israel. And yet Ruth becomes the great grandmother of the famous King David. Jonah, who is probably the only prophet whose audience actually listened to him, is commissioned to go and speak to the people of Nineveh, the capital city of Assyria, Israel’s major enemy. Jonah doesn’t want to go. He doesn’t want the Assyrians to listen to him. Yet he goes and the Assyrians listen to him and God relents!

We also find court tales; stories of Jews, queens, and courtiers, who find themselves in royal courts outside of Israel in the Diaspora, (which simply means “the dispersion”), like the book of Esther. She was the great Jewish queen who managed to save her people from certain genocide. Then there’s the story of Daniel, who finds himself in both Babylonian and Persian courts where he has to fight to retain his identity while pressures were placed on him to assimilate to a Gentile culture, to eat food which is not permitted according to his religious laws, to pray in a manner that is not permitted according to his religious ideals. So, what these court tales do is to provide instructions to Jews on how to live in the Diaspora and how to live when Greek cultures put pressure on them to conform. How do you retain your identity? What do you give into? What makes you, you? These are problems people have in covenant communities today. For Jews and Christians who want to obey the law, how much do we give into secular society, and how much do we attempt to retain our independent and unique identity? The problems that the Bible raises are problems that will always continue.

2.7 Apocalyptic Visions

Finally, there are the apocalyptic visions. The latter part of the book of Daniel asks questions like, “When does righteousness ever show up?  Who is the messiah and when can we tell that he’s arrived? What happens at the end of time? Is there a resurrection of the dead? Does God make everything good again? And if so, how and when?”

And throughout the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh, we encounter story tellers and lawmakers and bureaucrats and priests and prophets and scribes and visionaries and they all wrote for different audiences at different times using different literary genres. They don’t always agree with each other and we may not agree with them either. That’s part of the glory of this text.

My Notes from "Introduction to the Old Testament" by Amy-Jill Levine -- Part 2

2.2 Narrative

The Genesis text moves from etiological myths related to primeval history into stories of some of the cultural heroes we know and love–such as Abraham and his descendants through to Joseph. Then, in Exodus we learn about Moses. Joshua and the Judges follow and then the early kings–Saul, David and Solomon. But, in these, we run into some legitimate historical challenges. When we get up to more historically depicted figures like Abraham or Joshua or Moses or Samson, we have to ask the tough historical questions: Are these real people? Do the biblical texts record what actually happened? E.g., Did the walls really fall down, when Joshua blew the trumpets at Jericho? Did Moses really stand up on a mountain and get a law of some sort? Were there really Israelites who were enslaved in Egypt and who miraculously escaped in the hundreds of thousands?

We have to approach our historical inquiry with a lot of openness, curiosity and integrity because the vast majority of these stories are not corroborated by ancient or Near Eastern literary or archeological discoveries. Now we know that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. But, on the other hand, no supporting evidence, means just that. So, if we are going to state categorically that these people were real and what is said about them and what they are reported to have done is historically accurate, then we have to acknowledge we do so, often based entirely and only on what the biblical texts state. So, a few more questions arise and are worthy of our consideration: Do we know who is telling these stories? And to what effect? Are they real stories? Are they legends? Are they a combination of fact and fiction? And why do ancient Israelites tell these particular stories.  I mean, think about some of these characters. Many of them are hardly inspiring or even morally ethical. Samson is frankly “stupid.” Why would they tell a story about hero who is plain dumb? Abraham is a trickster, as are several of his descendants. Jacob, with the help of his mother, is a liar and a cheat. Abraham does things like pass his wife off as his sister and places her in harems of foreign kings and seems to show concern only for himself.  But he’s “the father” of this people, the father of the Hebrews. And what about characters like Jephthah from the book of Judges who apparently offers his daughter as burnt offering to the LORD.[1] Why tell these stories about these characters?

2.3 Law 

Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, along with the book of Genesis, comprise the Pentateuch. “Pentateuch” is a Greek word meaning “five scrolls,” and is often referred to as the book of Moses. The Pentateuch is full of legal material. There are many other laws than just the 10 commandments, which are fairly familiar to most people. But beyond questions like “honour your father and mother” and “don’t commit adultery” and “don’t murder,” the Bible has other law codes: dietary regulations, laws about how to plant your crops, torte law, laws about how to run the temple cult. Why are they there? What effect did they have? And how do those laws in general show how Israel considered itself to be a community in covenant? Israel had a “covenant” with God, and a “covenant” is simply legal contract. How were these laws the terms of that contract?

2.4 Prophetic Literature

Next, there is the prophetic literature. Most people today when they think about prophets, think about people who predict the future. But the biblical prophets, in general, were not predictors of the far-off future. In actuality, there were more like astute political and social critics, who told the people, “If you continue to behave in the way you are behaving, bad things will happen.” The prophets were interested in social justice. But they were also interested in political policy. They advised kings when to make foreign alliances, and when to remain isolationists. They were interested in the temple cult, how to run that cult, how to offer sacrifices, how personal repentance related to behaviour. For example, “Is it sufficient to simply offer up a bull as a sacrifice without being in a right relationship with your neighbour?” The prophets were much more than predictors of the future, more than social critics, more than political analysts. They were fantastic poets. They used arresting images and exquisite phrasing in order to get their message across. Because if one is a prophet, you cannot just say, “Behave yourselves,” because nobody is going to listen. So, you have to do it in a way that is going to gain the attention of the people who are supposed to be listening. And you have to do it in such a way the people will remember what you said and write down what you said. Part of the extraordinary aspect of ancient Israel is that they wrote down material that heavily and consistently criticized what they did. Israel was a community that was very interested in making itself better by recognizing what it did that was wrong to begin with.

2.5 Wisdom Literature

Whereas the prophets talk about how to conduct business, say in the temple cult or in politics, we also have a genre known as “wisdom literature,” which explains how to conduct business in the market place or among the upper classes. This is literature, like Proverbs, which tells you how to behave, but it is also literature that raises those profound questions that philosophers and theologians have yet to resolve. We have, for example the book of Job, which asks, in effect, “If God is a righteous God, why is Job suffering? Why do the wicked prosper? Why do the good endure pain and death and exile?” And whether Job actually resolves that problem or not is something scholars continue to debate. I think, in fact, Job provides an answer, but it may not be the answer most people want to hear.

---

[1] “And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, ‘If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, to be offered up by me as a burnt offering’” (Judges 11:30). It was his daughter who first to come out and meet him after his victory.