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."