1 note &
Book Reviews Becoming Obselete?
This is an interesting discussion about the relevance of book reviews in academic journals and the economic costs in maintaining them.
1 note &
This is an interesting discussion about the relevance of book reviews in academic journals and the economic costs in maintaining them.
0 notes &
The above link is to a compact unit I wrote for the African American Lectionary (www.theafricanamericanlectionary.org). The focus is on Celebrating Associate Clergy. The format of the compact unit provides information to assist preachers and others planning worship. Let me know what you think!
Kind regards,
RRB
0 notes &
Yesterday as I was surfing the net, I came across a series of video lectures on Ancient Israel. The lecturer is Dr. Daniel Fleming, Professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University. Dr. Fleming, as you may know, is a first-rate scholar working in the areas of the ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible along with his colleague Dr. Mark S. Smith (good Lord what a team!). This is one of the American schools I considered for Ph.D. work before deciding on Durham. Having watched this particular lecture, I have concluded not only that Dr. Fleming is a first-rate scholar but also a first-rate teacher.
Click on the link above and enjoy!
RRB
0 notes &
On March 1, Fortress Press will release a new book entitled, “The Old Testament: A Literary History” written by Konrad Schmid. As you may remember, Konrad Schmid is one of the editors of the book, “Farewell to the Yahwist?” (Thomas Dozeman is the other editor) It is exciting to have another OT Introduction within the field. But, I wonder about the main difference between Schmid’s work and Michael Coogan’s “The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures.” There is no doubt that both of these gentleman are very fine scholars. I guess I will wait until it is released in order to do a comparison.
Equally, I wonder how effective OT introductions are in introducing students not only to the latest scholarship with respect to authorship, composition, epigraphic, and archaeological material in the study of the Hebrew Bible, but particularly to the latest ways in which texts are read using a combination of historical-critical and contemporary/postmodern reading strategies. In other words, how insights from gender analysis, ecological interpretation, theological interpretation, feminist/womanist, and postmodern reading strategies (just to name only a few without respect to order or preference) inform the historical-critical views about ways in which ancient texts originated, developed, and were transmitted through time.
Otto Eissfeldt, in “The Old Testament: An Introduction,” describes the task of “an introduction” as providing the necessary background information one needs in understanding individual books or “blocks of tradition.” In this regard, one could write a complete volume on ONE individual book/block of tradition alone. But students and scholars alike who use the Hebrew Bible in confessional settings are left in the dark. Now please understand, I am NOT advocating that all OT introductions lean toward a confessional perspective. (That would drive me crazy!) What I am advocating, however, is that OT introductions include the latest research produced by scholars using both traditional and non-traditional approaches that inform historical-critical questions and the relevance of the Hebrew Bible as an intellectual document with which current society engages to think about life.
Clicking on the link above will take you to Konrad Schmid’s new book, Old Testament: A Literary History.
Shalom!
RRB
0 notes &
A few months ago, I gave a quick overview about the book, “Religious Diversity and Ancient Israel and Judah,” edited by Francesca Stavrakopoulou and John Barton. This work aims to present the latest research within the last 10 years on Israelite Religion. There are 12 essays presented by an international team of specialists, which represents the best of European and North American scholarship.
Today, I present a summary of one of those essays, “’Israelite’ Religion and ‘Canaanite’ Religion (pp. 23-36), by Herbert Niehr who is a Professor of Biblical Introduction and History of the Biblical Period at the University of Tübingen, and a Professor in the Department of Ancient Studies at the University of Stellenbosch.”
Herbert Niehr argues that there is no major distinction between ‘Israelite’ and ‘Canaanite’ Religion. He notes that Israelite religious practice is a product of Canaanite religious practice. Also, he argues that the term “West Semitic Religion” is a more appropriate description of what is commonly referred to as Israelite and Canaanite religion.
Niehr’s establishes his argument as a reaction to the problematic conclusions of older scholarship such as W.F. Albright’s famous yet biased work, “Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths,” which has had an abiding effect on the way scholarship interprets the relationship between ‘Israelite’ and ‘Canaanite’ religion (p. 23). To support his main conclusion, Herbert Niehr explores recent epigraphic finds in order to revisit the issues of ‘Israelite’ and ‘Canaanite’ religion. The evidence offered is based on historical (pp. 24-25) and literary (pp. 25-27) commonalities between ‘Israelite’ and ‘Canaanite’ religious practices (pp. 27-30), and the distinctive traits of Judahite and Israelite religious practice (pp. 30-32).
Here are Niehr’s main points he offers to support his conclusion:
1. Older scholarship (i.e., William Albright, Albrecht Alt, et. al.) uncritically adopted [italics mine] the Hebrew Bible’s distinction between ‘Israelite’ and ‘Canaanite’ Religion (p. 23).
2. The older assumptions and arguments about the relationship between ‘Israelite’ and ‘Canaanite’ need to be rejected in light of recent epigraphic evidence. In other words, the biblical description is not consistent with historical realities, which has caused “a real paradigm shift” (pp. 23-24).
3. There are “two important changes” which have caused the reconstruction of the religion of Judah and Israel: Inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (1975/76) and Khirbet el-Qom (p. 24)
4. The origins of Israel in Canaan are best described not by way of immigration but by way of ethnogenesis (p. 25). This concept argues that “Israel came into existence within [italics is mine] Canaan” (p. 25).
5. There are several biblical descriptions of Israel’s origins that “serve to separate Israel from the Canaanites” (i.e. Genesis 12-36; Exodus; Joshua and Judges) [pp. 25-26].
6. In light of the sharp distinction between Israelite and Canaanite in the Hebrew Bible, some scholars argue that the terms “Canaanite” and “Israelite” are ideological constructs. Israel is a portrait of the ideal and Canaan is a portrait of the non-ideal. This is a literary device used by other nations in antiquity (pp. 26-27)
7. “…The biblical claim that a pure “Israelite” religion was imported from outside Canaan is a fiction without religio-historical reality, just as the biblical claim that a Canaanite religion in opposition to the religion of Israel and Judah once existed is also fictional” (p. 27).
8. Since Israel’s religious practice is situated in the context of the Ancient Near East and shares many characteristics with Semitic religions, it is best described not as “Israelite Religion” but more appropriately as “West Semitic Religion” (p. 28).
9. “Extra-biblical evidence shows that there were different manifestations of the god YHWH” (p. 31). For example, the Inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud refer to YHWH from Shomron and YHWH from Teiman. Further, the Inscriptions from Khirbet Beit Lei refer to God of Jerusalem
10. The biblical portrait of Yahweh not having interaction or not being associated with other gods is not accurate based on epigraphic evidence (p. 30-31). Niehr uses the term “Poly-Yahwism” to describe “the different manifestations of Yahweh” (p. 30). This is supported by the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom inscriptions which portray YHWH and Asherah and also the Elephantine Papyri which portrays YHWH and the goddess Anat-Yahu
Here are my reactions:
Niehr’s argument is cogent as well as the evidence he presents; he handles the epigraphic material very well. I resonate with his quest to describe “Israelite” religion within its own context. From a confessional prospective, I must admit that it is often awkward to reject some of the teachings I have held dear, such as the “us” (Israelite) and the “them” (Canaanite) dichotomy. But, this is the exact issue to which Niehr is reacting in light of the faulty assumptions of older scholarship, such as Albright and Alt. As Niehr has shown, there is quite a bit of continuity between the two religious practices. Situating Israelite religion as a subset of West Semitic Religion makes it more understandable. It allows one to further comparative explorations in understanding the similarities and differences between the two. Lastly, I appreciated his observation about the different traditions about Israel’s origins. Although I have wrestled with the inconsistencies in Judges about Canaanite presence and opposition to Israel, I had not thought through the different descriptions in Genesis and Exodus.
Shalom!
RRB
