ReadOTa
Reading the Old Testament
​
​
​
​
As you engage with this material, keep in mind the following question:
​
How is the Old Testament meant to be read?
​
​
​
​
The Value and Relevance of the Old Testament
Religion has come under fire in recent years. Many believe that science has explained so much that religion is now redundant. Humanity has “matured,” and religion is a cultural artifact. The new atheists go even further and aver that the monotheistic religions in particular promote ignorance, bigotry, and violence. Indeed, radical fundamentalism, particularly in the Middle East, has taken that violence to new levels of terror and horror. And, closer to home, evangelical Christianity has become a bargaining chip in American politics.
“Faith is permitting ourselves to be seized by the things we do not see”
​
Martin Luther
Nevertheless, religion maintains a dogged persistence and remains relevant because humans still ask the big questions. Science is the principal tool for answering questions of “How?” and to some extent questions of “What?” But the questions of “Why?” and the “What?” questions pertaining to human identity are fundamentally religious in nature. There remains the nagging suspicion that a mere materialist universe is reductionist—a view that dismisses the possibility of the Transcendent out of hand. Although religion is about God, it also asks questions that are fundamental to our humanity. Am I a remarkable accident: the result of physics, chemistry, and biology? Does my life have meaning, purpose, … a destiny? Is there existence beyond mortality?
​
Believers, agnostics, and atheists must all agree that the Bible has informed Western culture. Much of Western literature cannot be explained apart from it. Biblical idioms have become so much a part of everyday speech that most of us are not even aware that we quote the Bible (e.g., “by the skin of your teeth,” Job 19:20; “a fly in the ointment,” Eccl 10:1; “a drop in a bucket,” Isaiah 40:15; “the writing is on the wall,” Dan 5). Science has thrived in the West largely because the Bible has demythologized the universe, separating God and his creation, thereby making natural law conceivable. Our legal systems are indebted to the Ten Commandments and the Bible’s value of justice. The Bible, rightly or wrongly, has informed the Western conscience: morality, the sense of guilt (as distinct from shame), and the recompense of heaven and hell. To understand ourselves—whether religious or not—we need to evaluate and assess the Bible.
​
Even before the invention of Gutenberg’s printing press, the Bible has long been the world’s best seller. Christians rightly celebrate its success. But familiarity breeds assumptions. For many Christians, our received traditions are like the air we breathe: we take them in and give them out without conscious deliberation. We may give little reflective thought to their continuing validity and to other perspectives. The Bible has become a cultural icon in the West, so it can be difficult to distinguish what is indeed biblical and what has become simply a cultural norm. Are we able to discern the difference between faith and ideology? Christians have invoked the Bible for authoritative statements, whether denominational or political, yet how many have actually read it, let alone studied it?
​
A university course on the Bible is the opportune moment for students to have their horizons opened and to reflect on their prior knowledge and beliefs. The tools of the university have advanced human knowledge, including our knowledge of the Bible. Indeed, the academic field of biblical studies represents the essence of liberal arts education, especially in the humanities. The student of the Bible will be trained as part linguist, literary critic, archaeologist, historian, sociologist, philosopher, and rhetorician—skills that can be transferred to any major or career path.
​
What happens at university, as distinct from Sunday school, is critical research—critical, not in the sense of a faultfinding or disparaging attitude, but in the sense of discernment. This sense can be illustrated from the Hebrew language. The verb translated, “to understand” (בִּין, biÌ‚n), and the noun, “understanding” (×‘Ö¼Ö´×™× Ö¸×”, biÌ‚nah), are etymologically related to the preposition translated, “between” (בֵּין, beÌ‚n). In this respect, the essence of understanding is discernment: being able to distinguish between two objects or actions.
​
At times, this will involve distinguishing between what one was taught in Sunday school from what the Hebrew Bible actually claims. Hence, for those readers who regard the Bible as inspired and authoritative and are thus heavily invested in what they think the Bible says, such an endeavor can be threatening. Courage may be a necessary prerequisite. The journey at times may seem complicated and confusing but by the end of the course it is hoped that the student’s perspective on the Bible will be richer, deeper, and more grounded.
​
One could also mount a cogent argument that the study of the Bible should be a “course requirement” for anyone. As it raises fundamental questions about what it means to be human and especially because it has so imbued Western culture and thinking, the Bible should, at the very least, be one’s familiar conversation partner. The Bible can serve as a mirror for understanding our individual selves (our values and sense of worth, our guilt and our redemption), our neighbors and those who are different from us, and our beliefs about God and eternity.
​
​
​
A Historical Survey of the Old Testament
In the charts below some dates are approximate or rounded off for the student's convenience.
​
Date Period: Events and Figures (Biblical Books)
2000 Ancestral: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel, Joseph (Gen 12–50)
1200s Mosaic: exodus, Sinai, wilderness (Exod, Num)
Conquest//Settlement: Joshua (Josh, Judg 1)
Judges: Deborah, Gideon, Samson, Samuel (Judg–1 Sam 8, Ruth)
​
1000 United Monarchic: Saul, David, Solomon (1 Sam–1 Kgs 11)
922 Divided Monarchic: (northern) Israel and Judah (1 Kgs 12–2 Kgs 17)
738 Israel and then Judah become vassals to the Assyrian empire
​
722 Exile of Israel by Assyria (2 Kgs 17). Judah alone (2 Kgs 18–25)
622 Judah’s independence and Josiah’s Reform: publication
of Deut (2 Kgs 22–23)
597 First deportation of Judah to Babylon (2 Kgs 24)
587 Exilic: fall of Jerusalem and second deportation (2 Kgs 25)
538 Postexilic: Persian Decree: return of Jews to homeland
(2 Chr 36:22-23)
515 Second Temple rebuilt (Ezra 3–6)
458? Returns under Ezra and Nehemiah (445?) (Ezra, Neh)
Ezra reads "the Book of the Law of Moses" (Neh 8:1-3, 8)
Prophetic Books: Northern Kingdom
Century,
Empire Prophet (issues; traditions)
mid-8th Amos (social injustice, religious hypocrisy; exodus)
Assyria Hosea (religious adultery to Baal; exodus, covenant, torah)
722 (Exile of Israel by Assyria)
​
Prophetic Books: Judah
late-8th Isaiah 1-39 (social injustice, political alliances; David, Zion)
Micah (idolatry, social injustice, Yahweh’s case; David, Zion)
late-7th Zephaniah (“Day of Yahweh”)
Nahum (doom for cruel Nineveh)
Babylon Habakkuk (dialogue: judgment thru and upon
the Babylonians) Jeremiah (idolatry, false trust in temple,
judgment thru Babylon; new covenant)
early-6th Ezekiel (Yahweh’s Glory departs and later returns to new temple)
587 (Exile of Judah by Babylon)
Obadiah (Edom to be ransacked because of
inhumanity to Judah)
mid-6th Isa 40-55 (Cyrus, second exodus, new Jerusalem)
​
​
Persia
538 (Return/Restoration of Judah)
​
late-6th Isa 56-66 (glorious Zion delayed because of sin)
Haggai (rebuilding the temple)
Zechariah (rebuilding the temple, messianic kingdom)
Joel (locust plague, Spirit poured out)
mid-5th Malachi (lame sacrifices, no tithes, Yahweh’s coming Day)
​
​
​
​
​
​
Inner-biblical Interpretation as a Model for Proper Interpretation
How the Bible uses the Bible is more telling than what isolated verses appear to say about the Bible.
What is the Bible and how is it meant to be used? This question has always been fundamental for Jews and Christians alike. But a deliberate answer is now all the more necessary in view of how religious devotees—whether Jewish Christian, or Muslim—have invoked their scriptures to justify all kinds of violence and exclusion. The most common point of departure has been to consider passages that appear to explicitly address the question of the Bible’s nature and authority—especially as the Word of God (e.g., 2 Tim 3:16; Matt 5:18; cf. 1:22; 4:4). But after closer examination, we discover that, while they shed light on the general character of the Bible, they do not yield many specific guidelines for interpretation. More revealing are passages that actually use earlier biblical passages. What the Bible says about itself is one thing, but what it actually does with other biblical material is quite another. Each must qualify the other, as inductive reasoning must complement deductive reasoning. How the Bible uses the Bible must qualify what the Bible says about the Bible. We will consider what the Bible explicitly claims about itself, but these claims are often stated in general terms that are often misconstrued. What is more indicative is how later portions of the Bible interpret and use earlier portions.
​
The book of Deuteronomy is a particularly instructive example of how the biblical canon is meant to work. Twice it insists we take the book as a whole:
Isolated verses may appear to suggest an unalterable text and a closed canon, but Deutero-nomy, as a second law, radically reinterprets and revises laws found in the earlier "Book of the Covenant" in Exodus 20-23.
You must neither add anything to what I command you nor take away anything from it, but keep the commandments of the Lord your God with which I am charging you.
​
(Deut 4:2, NRSV)
You must diligently observe everything that I command you; do not add to it or take anything from it.
​
(Deut 12:32, NRSV)
Taken at face value, these injunctions appear to indicate a notion of an unalterable text and a closed canon. For Christians, the book of Revelation closes with a similar admonition (Rev 22:18–19). Indeed, one can imagine using these verses as prooftexts for a doctrine about the Bible. Yet, ironically, the book of Deutero-nomy, as its name implies, is itself a second presentation of law. This “Book of the Law” (Deut 28:61; 29:20; 30:10; 31:26; Josh 1:8; 8:31, 34; 2 Kgs 22:8, 11) is a retelling—but with some significant revisions and updating—of the earlier “Book of the Covenant” (Exod 24:7; Exod 20–23).
Thus, while it might appear this repeated injunction emphatically excludes any alterations, the book of which these verses are a part presupposes that revisions and updates are a necessary part of the process of applying sacred tradition. The canon is authoritative and the basis for sacred tradition, but the very nature of the traditioning process is that it be interpreted and updated for successive generations. A closed canon should not entail closed thinking.
​
Info Box: Whose words are found in the book of Deuteronomy?
​
A close reading of Deuteronomy’s opening lines reveals the nature of its origins and authority.
​
These are the words that Moses spoke to all Israel beyond the Jordan … Moses spoke to the Israelites according to all that Yahweh had commanded him concerning them…. Beyond the Jordan in the land of Moab, Moses undertook to elucidate this instruction (torah), saying … (Deut 1:1a, 3b, 5).
​
The opening incipit identifies this book as the words of Moses. Yet prior to them there was a body of instructional material that Yahweh had earlier commanded Moses to pass on to the Israelites. The book of Deuteronomy itself is defined as Moses’ elucidation of Yahweh’s instruction. In other words, strictly speaking, the book of Deuteronomy is not equated with Yahweh’s words, but with Moses’. Strange as this might seem, this reading appears to accord with Jesus’ interpretation, where he juxtaposes what Moses “allowed” and what God ordained “from the beginning” (Mark 10:2–9 // Matt 19:3–8).
​
​
The very injunction in Deuteronomy 12:32 closes a chapter that radically redefines the passage introducing the “Book of the Covenant,” embedded in Exodus 20:22–23:33. Exodus 20:22–26 explicitly allows for multiple altars for sacrifice and worship “in each place where I cause my name to be remembered,” but Deuteronomy 12 explicitly limits Israelite worship to a single altar. When entering the land inhabited by the Canaanites, “you shall tear down their altars” (Deut 12:3). Instead, the Israelites are to offer all their sacrifices “upon the altar of Yahweh your God” (Deut 12:27). Further, “you shall surely destroy all the places” where the Canaanites worship (Deut 12:2). Indeed, “watch yourselves lest you offer burnt offerings at any place you see” (Deut 12:13). Instead, the Israelites must worship at “the place that Yahweh your God chooses” (Deut 12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21, 26).
​
Another telling example of how sacred tradition is edited and updated lies in Deuteronomy’s retelling of the Ten Words (Exod 20:2–17). Although the book of Exodus claims the Ten Words were “written with the finger of God” on “the two tablets” (Exod 31:18), the Deuteronomic version changes God’s words in subtle but significant ways. In the tenth Word, the status of women changes considerably:
​
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, his male servant, his female servant, his ox, his donkey, or anything belonging to your neighbor”
(Exod 20:17)
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. You shall not yearn for your neighbor’s house, his field, and his male servant, his female servant, his ox, his donkey, or anything belonging to your neighbor”
(Deut 5:21)
The wife is no longer listed among the man’s property. She is first, and she is separated from his possessions. The elevated status of women is corroborated by the retelling of the Hebrew slaves laws in the Book of the Covenant (Exod 21:2–11) as reinterpreted in the Book of the Law (Deut 15:12–18). In Deuteronomy female slaves are newly granted the same civil rights as male slaves. The issue of transgenerational punishment, embedded in the second Word (Exod 20:5–6), is radically reinterpreted in the book of Deuteronomy (Deut 7:9–10; 24:16; cf. Ezek 18; Jer 31:29–30). To our surprise, the very book that prohibits “adding to” and “taking from” the words of Moses reinterprets the very words of Yahweh.
Isolated verses must be read in the context of their genre. The prohibitions to edit Deuteronomy forbid the vassal from changing a nonnegotiable treaty imposed by the overlord, Yahweh.
How can we resolve this seeming contradiction? Ironically, we can gain some insight from non-Israelite, ancient Near Eastern texts. In the 1950s archaeologists discovered the Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon in ancient Nimrud (Calah in the Bible). Scholars have since noted that the book of Deuteronomy mimics this ancient Near Eastern treaty form, in order to illustrate the Israelites’ distinctive understanding of their relationship to Yahweh. In the seventh century BCE the Neo-Assyrian Empire imposed these treaties on their vassal subjects, including Israel and Judah. In response, the biblical writers imitated this literary genre to make the point that their covenant/treaty was ultimately with Yahweh as their overlord, not a foreign power. An exemplar of this treaty invokes formidable curses “if you change or let anyone change the decree of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria” (§4, ANET, p. 535) and upon anyone “who changes, neglects, transgresses, erases the words of this tablet (§35, ANET, p. 538). A Hittite treaty imposes similar threats upon “whoever … should alter a single word of this tablet” (Hittite Treaty of Tudḫaliya IV with Kurunta of Tarḫuntašša, §24, COS 2.18).
​
These expressions and those found in the book of Deuteronomy serve as generic formula that are embedded in treaties/covenant documents to underscore that these are nonnegotiable contracts. The point of these formulas is to prohibit the vassal subject from altering the contractual conditions. They are non-negotiable. But should an overlord establish a later treaty/covenant, either he or an appointed official can modify the contract’s prescriptions and conditions at his discretion—especially should circumstances change. Thus Yahweh, or one of his agents/biblical writers, can modify the earlier Book of the Covenant (= Exodus 20–23) in the later Book of the Law (= Deuteronomy) to suit developing cultural and societal changes. Thus, if 21st century readers of the Bible fail to recognize the literary genre of which these expressions are a part, they are likely to misinterpret them. They are not claims of an unalterable text and closed canon; they simply remind the vassal of their place in the relationship.
​
The Bible is not a handbook that God dropped from heaven. Rather, it reflects a journey, or pilgrimage as it were, in which God guided his people to discover his way and will. Embedded in biblical revelation is a two-way process: one in which God unfolds revelation and another in which humans simultaneously discover that revelation and refine its articulation over centuries of mutual interaction. Theologians have refered to this as “progressive revelation.”
Summary observations on the components of the Bible
​
Below are further general observations on the makeup of the Bible and on how later portions regarded and used earlier sections. They can help us construct an empirical model for understanding the Bible. In short, the Bible is a sacred library of contextual case studies set along trajectories of reinterpretation of traditions. God’s mode of inspiration is “incarnational.”
​
1. The Bible is sacred, inspired, authoritative.
​
2. The Bible was not originally a book or an anthology, but a library of sacred scrolls. As a library, this collection contains the enormous variety, spanning thousands of years and multiple social groups and perspectives.
​
3. The Bible is literature, consisting of a variety of genres, particularly narrative, poetry, legal material, and letters. Systematic theology, consisting of theological propositions, is not one of these.
​
4. The Bible embodies communication:
Speaker/Author → speech/text → audience ← context/occasion.
As the Bible is regarded to be inspired, God may be considered to be the supreme communicator within this process.
​
5. Most of the communications in the Bible are contextual (contingent). Their context is thus not merely literary, but includes cultural, social, and historical contexts. Much of the Bible is “occasional literature” (episodic), not a continuous chain of tradition. To this extent, we are reading “someone else’s mail.” The Bible is written for us, but not to us.
​